Fox Cable News reduces its competitors to Lilliputs, who in this reference to Gulliver’s Travels, have been unable to catch Fox sleeping long enough to tie it down.

Instead, Fox is the winner of my Tingle Up My Leg Award, named for MSNBC’s Chris “Tweety” Matthews. Unfortunately for Tweety, his show commands only about a third of the viewers compared to the competitors on Fox during the same time slots.

Fox Cable TV rules the news, second only to the powerhouse, USA, that mostly shows TV drama repeats and made-for-TV movies.

This week Fox again leads by a large margin its competitors. In primetime (8-11 p.m.), Fox News averaged 551,000 viewers in the target 25-54 year-old demographic, with MSNBC finishing a distant second with 271,000, and CNN third with 248,000. If you want to see this weeks cable news ratings, they are all here, but to save you time, Fox is first for every hour of every day.

Fox Cable News takes a lot of hit from critics of course. “Faux News,” as they like to call it, is as “fair and balanced” as a Las Vegas slot machine. Those of us who study the news know that almost every media outlet has its “slant” (translation= rock solid predisposition). So Fox is propably no more, and surely no less, biased than most any other news source.

But why does Fox run so far ahead of the rest of the pack?

I asked some friends, and would be interested in hearing from our readers here as well, whether they like or dislike the way Fox delivers news. Some disagreed with specific hosts and their personalities but liked that viewers get something different than what comes out of the White House spin room. Others noted that Fox is much better at touching on what people care about, like government spending.

Fox may also out-fox its competitors. For example, much of the rest of the media was deriding the anti-tax “tea party” demonstrations as a gimmick, masterminded by corporate Republicans rather than a true grassroots movement. The protesters themselves were re-labeled by smirking commentators as “teabaggers.” (See Larry Johnson’s story if you are unaware of a meaning of that term.) Keith Olbermann and Rachael Maddow of MSNBC suggested that the protestors were either political plants or nut-jobs. Fox, on the other hand, actually promoted the protests, promising beforehand to give the events full coverage and following through.

Well, I watched some of that on Fox, and I didn’t give a rat’s ass whether the demonstrations were organized by pros or not. I wanted to see lots of pissed-off people who feel ripped off like I do, to hear stories expressing their disdain for the runaway spending that seems to have trouble trickling down to those of us who paid for it. That day, Fox definitely worked for me.

It’s time to crown a new National Champion. The battle for the 2009 No Quarter Trophy is down to final round. The tournament’s top seed Barack Obama will try and keep his perfect season alive in a showdown against the little engine make that the big caboose that could, Donna Brazile.

They are holding their heads up high at CNN tonight as their contributor Brazile finished off an MSNBC two-step that will go down in the history books. The #4 seed in the At Large Bracket knocked off top seeded Chris Matthews in the regional finals and then pulled off a shocking upset of the Media Bracket #1 Seed Keith Olbermann in the National Semi-Finals. Olbermann hung in there, but at the end of the day, Brazile was the one that came out of the back room 54-46. She opened the lead early and kept it. Olbermann tried to get inside, but just couldn’t get around her as Brazile’s size, strength and determination were far too much for the soft and puffy Ivy Leaguer.

YOUR CHANCE TO VOTE IN THE FINAL IS BELOW THE FOLD.

While Big Donna has run together an impressive string of wins to reach the final, her task is formidable. Barack Obama has been destroying the competition from the opening tip of the first round. The Messiah walked on water and healed the infirm enroute to dispatching the Capitol Hill top seed Nancy Pelosi 76-24. Give Pelosi credit, that’s the closest score Obama has had all tournament long. Pelosi often does Obama’s work for him in Congress and paved the way for his presidency, but there was just no way he was going to let her have the glory of winning a National Championship. It’s the second year in a row, Pelosi was ousted in the Semi-Finals. Last year she was eliminated by the eventual winner George W. Bush.

So now, we have a grudge match. Brazile helped make Obama what he is today. Using her influence on the DNC and CNN to push his agenda at every turn. Expressing her “disappointment” in the Clintons whenever possible despite claiming to be an uncommitted Super Delegate. Yet today, she rides under the Obama bus. No cabinet position, not even head of the DNC. It turns out Barack just doesn’t need her anymore. He’s busy bowing to Saudi Kings and she is busy telling us that she never imagined a woman president until she saw Barack Obama taking the oath. What a match. What a pair of gigantic asses. How do you a pick a winner?

Just vote below

NATIONAL CHAMPIONSHIP TITLE MATCH

The polls will be open until midnight Saturday. When you wake up Sunday Morning, we will have a new National Champion. Please post your comments below as to how you reached your decision. Have fun.

Vote by midnight tonight! The Sweet 16 is in the books and we are down to just 8 contestants left vying for the No Quarter Trophy which is annually awarded to the person you decide is the Biggest Ass on the American Political Landscape. March Madness is always full of surprises and this year is no different. The Number One Seed in the At Large Bracket, MSNBC Hard Ball host Chris Matthews turned out to a softball player. He was no match for the cajones of Donna Brazile. While she appeared to be fading as the tournament started, the DNC terror upped her game and sent Tweety packing 56-44. This sets up a dream matchup in the At Large Regional Final between Brazile and the Number Two Seed Oprah Winfrey. Oprah humiliated Bill “Judas” Richardson 66-34. This bracket final redefines At Large due to the girth of the contestants who can both claim to have the biggest asses in the field.

And what a battle in the Media Bracket. The claws came out and Andrew Sullivan held off a furious charge from Maureen Dowd. The final score 52-48 (just 14 votes). Sullivan now gets to go head-to-head with top seed Keith Olbermann.

For all the Elite Eight Matchups and your chance to vote. Read BELOW.

Just pick from the matchups below. You determine who you think is the Bigger Ass in each contest. It won’t be easy.

White House Regional Final. It doesn’t get any better than this!
Note: There is a poll embedded within this post, please visit the site to participate in this post's poll.

Capitol Hill Regional Final. This one re-defines tight man to man defense.
Note: There is a poll embedded within this post, please visit the site to participate in this post's poll.

Media Bracket Regional Final. Who will be the one that comes out of the room at the end?
Note: There is a poll embedded within this post, please visit the site to participate in this post's poll.

At Large Bracket Regional Final. This one is exactly what it says it is. AT LARGE! Big Asses battling to be the Biggest Ass.
Note: There is a poll embedded within this post, please visit the site to participate in this post's poll.

Vote now. The polls close at midnight on Friday. On Saturday we will post the Final Four! And then join us on the Nocturnal Warrior show Tuesday night at 9:00 PM EDT when we do our National Championship Show and handicap the battle between our final two contestants. Feel free to post comments below as to how you arrived at your picks. Have fun with this.

The cream certainly rose to the top in the second round in the battle for the No Quarter Trophy. The second round of our March Madness tournament had few suprises and almost every match was a blowout. With the field narrowed to 16, we are down to the best of the best. To become our National Champion and wear the title of Biggest Ass on the American Political Landscape, someone will have to rise to the top over some of the most reprehensible people of our time.

BELOW, the scoop on the most suspenseful race last week (Michelle Obama vs. David Axelrod) and your virtual voting booth:

It was a surprising second round as three former National Champions were eliminated in matches that were not even close. Dick Cheney, Ann Coulter and Ted Kennedy (in a likely farewell performance) were all sent packing. The 12th seed in the Capitol Hill Bracket, Senator Claire McCaskill is the lone long shot left in the field as she easily disposed of the 4th seed John Boehner. The most exciting match occurred in the White House Bracket where number two seed Michelle Obama had her hands full with the 7th seed, David Axelrod.

Mrs. Obama pulled it out 54-46.

Your chance to vote in our Sweet 16 starts now. The polls will be open until 8:00 PM EDT on Tuesday. Here are the matchups.

White House Bracket
Note: There is a poll embedded within this post, please visit the site to participate in this post's poll.
Note: There is a poll embedded within this post, please visit the site to participate in this post's poll.

Capitol Hill Bracket
Note: There is a poll embedded within this post, please visit the site to participate in this post's poll.
Note: There is a poll embedded within this post, please visit the site to participate in this post's poll.

Media Bracket
Note: There is a poll embedded within this post, please visit the site to participate in this post's poll.
Note: There is a poll embedded within this post, please visit the site to participate in this post's poll.

At Large Bracket
Note: There is a poll embedded within this post, please visit the site to participate in this post's poll.
Note: There is a poll embedded within this post, please visit the site to participate in this post's poll.

Just vote for who you think is the biggest ass in each matchup. Feel free to post additional comments below. Have fun with this. Don’t forget to join us on the Nocturnal Warrior Show on No Quarter Radio this Tuesday night at 9:00 PM EDT for the Sweet 16 results and Elite Eight preview.

MATTHEWS: You’re a great reporter, Howard - I’m going to set you up. You are a great reporter. You are the best - the best in the business. What happened between those two?

FINEMAN: It was a lost weekend that didn’t go beyond the weekend.

MATTHEWS: He thought she was something special. He thought she was the genuine article.

FINEMAN: He had no idea. He had no idea, with all die respect to the Senator. He had no idea what he was getting. They came into the convention and I was covering it closely at the time.

MATTHEWS: What was she - a mail-order bride? What do you mean he had no idea who she was?

FINEMAN: Practically he really didn’t know. He didn’t know her. They didn’t have any other good choices. They had a boring convention they were facing in St. Paul. They wanted to liven it up. They said, hey - let’s pick this conservative young woman governor from Alaska. And he crossed his fingers and said fine. It was a great convention, it was exciting. It was fun.

Matthews seems to have no problem characterizing women in these terms. On the March 27 broadcast of his program, Matthews referred to Rep. Michele Bachman, R-Minn., as the "Mata Hari of Minnesota."

All debt is owed to Newsbusters.org.

Nowadays, the demagoguery comes from the hard leftists who aim to censor and silence all of us who dare to disagree. Only nodding heads will satisfy them. Here at NoQuarter, we prefer an eclectic mix of opinions and ideas, and most especially we like the company of all kinds of people, from all kinds of backgrounds, professions, educations, and experiences. How else does one truly learn? Sadly, being a leftist means that one obeys the rule by the elite leftists who tell them what to think and believe and, most alarmingly, what to say and write.

As you may notice, in the narrow center column, I’ve posted the dust cover jacket of the book and a link. Clearly, it would make for a great read. And every item you purchase from Amazon, or any of our other advertised companies, helps NoQuarterUSA pay for its quite expensive multiple servers! Yes, straight donations to NoQuarterUSA are ideal but, if you’re shopping online anyway, you can aid your blog (it is your blog too) at no extra cost to yourself. Amazon and the other companies bear all the cost.

Thank you for your great support.

The first round winners were determined by your votes and revealed last night on the Nocturnal Warrior Show on No Quarter Radio. You can listen to that here. We did a review of last night’s so-called press conference followed by the tournament results. The show includes the scores, a review of the next round matchups and all sorts of commentary that we just can’t fit here.

Remember, your votes determine the winners. We are asking you to look at each matchup and determine for yourself who is the bigger ass in each matchup (We are not asking who has the biggest ass, although that may have helped Oprah and Donna Brazile in round one). Without further ado here we go:

ROUND TWO

White House Bracket

6th Seed Rahm Emanuel vs. 3rd Seed Dick Cheney

Capitol Hill Bracket

Media Bracket

At-Large Bracket

There you have it. Just use the polls as set up at No Quarter to determine your votes. The Polls will be open until midnight Friday. This weekend, we will reveal the “Sweet Sixteen,” and open up the voting. The “Sweet Sixteen” winners will be announced on next Tuesday night’s Nocturnal Warrior Show where we will break down the Elite Eight.

Feel free to add your comments about the matchups below. The key is to have as much fun with this as possible!

It has become one of MSNBC host Chris Matthew’s most infamous lines of the 2008 presidential election:

“I felt this thrill going up my leg,” Matthews said the night Obama resoundingly defeated rival Hillary Clinton in the Virginia and Maryland Democratic primaries.

In case you need a little reminder, here you go:

If you feel the need to go take a shower, I understand. Blech. Apparently, Goldberg shared my sentiment:

And former CBS News Correspondent Bernard Goldberg, who has long alleged liberal bias in the media, highlighted that line as indicative of the media’s “slobbering” press coverage of candidate Obama during his campaign for the White House.

“That’s not commentary, that’s a man-crush,” Goldberg declared on CNN’s Reliable Sources Sunday.

Goldberg, the author of the new book “A Slobbering Love Affair,” credits the media coverage of the 2008 presidential election for ultimately resulting in Barack Obama’s victory.

He specifically faulted coverage of the prolonged Democratic primary campaign, during which two historic candidates contentiously squared off.

“I think in elite liberal circles, certainly inside the media, race trumps gender, and that’s why they slobbered over Barack Obama, and took Hillary Clinton to the back room and beat her with a rubber hose,” Goldberg said.

You’ll get no argument from me. There is no doubt the media was biased in his favor, running far more positive articles than negative ones. Clinton, by contrast, had more negative press than positive. Surprise!! Um, not so much.

And then, Mr. Goldberg took the media to task for their lack of, well, journalism:

Goldberg also faulted political journalists for not digging up controversial sermons of the president’s longtime pastor, the Rev. Jeremiah Wright, until Obama had already effectively captured his party’s nomination.

“These tapes were available, you didn’t have to be Woodward or Bernstein to dig them up,” Goldberg said. “If those tapes had come out six months earlier, certainly a year earlier, I don’t think Barack Obama would have been the nominee.

“I think Hillary Clinton would have been. And I think she would have been the president today,” he continued. “And in that sense, she’s the biggest loser in all of this.”

Uh, no kidding. Even Bernstein is no longer a Bernstein, having fallen into CDS (that’s Clinton Derangement Syndrome, for those who don’t know), and being a part of that negative press. Even when Clinton was beating the PANTS off Obama, you would scarcely have known it by the reporting…

I do take exception to one comment by Mr. Goldberg, and that is this: “And in that sense, she’s the biggest loser in all of this.”

No, Mr. Goldberg. WE are the biggest losers. Our trust in the democratic process is the biggest loser. Our sense of fair play and decency is the biggest loser. The United States is the biggest loser.

But thank you for speaking up. It would have been nice had it been sooner, but I guess we’ll just have to take later…

With rare and scattered exceptions, Chris “Tweety” Matthews was not kind to Hillary (or Bill) Clinton. His rude remarks were childish and reeked with suppressed envy. Meanwhile, Matthews gushed over Barack Obama like a love-sick teenager. On February 12, 2008, he made this astounding admission:

“I have to tell you, you know, it’s part of reporting this case, this election, the feeling most people get when they hear Barack Obama’s speech. My, I felt this thrill going up my leg. I mean, I don’t have that too often.”

Yeah, neither do I. At least not since I was potty trained.

So needless to say it was a surprise to see who won his fifth “Hardball Award” this week. None other than Hillary Rodham Clinton! He gleefully portrayed her as knowing the art and science of human behavior by being savvy, street smart, grace under fire, knowing what to do, and doing it. Yep, he did! No tingle, but you gotta give the guy some credit.

Barack Obama and his supporters have been relentlessly comparing the new president to Franklin Roosevelt. At least one similarity is shockingly accurate: They were both beneficiaries of an obsequious press corps.

In part because the feeling was mutual, the reporters hated FDR’s Republican predecessor, Herbert Hoover. The new Democratic president, however, left White House correspondents “jubilant,” in one historian’s words. Indeed, they were so charmed by his first news conference, reporters literally burst into applause when he was done. One grizzled newspaperman observed that “the press barely restrained its ‘whoopees.’ ”

There’ve been no standing ovations — yet — with Obama, but there’s no denying that many in the news media are clapping on the inside. Obviously, not everyone is swooning, as the news media aren’t a monolith. And, yes, President Obama deserves his honeymoon. But honeymoons suggest a respectful partnership of equals. What we’re seeing here is more like a gaggle of aging love-struck groupies following Jon Bon Jovi around.

That’s quite the image, isn’t it? Accurate, too. Come to think of it, considering Obama listens to misogynistic rappers like JayZ, maybe HE should have been the example Goldberg used. Ahem. He continues:

Though no one’s idea of an objective reporter, MSNBC’s Chris Matthews does express the euphoria nicely. On The Tonight Show, he told Jay Leno that the Obamas “are really cool. They are Jack and Jackie Kennedy when you see them together. They are cool. And they’re great looking, and they’re cool and they’re young, and they’re — everything seems to be great. I know I’m selling them now. I’m not supposed to sell, OK? … But the fact is, I wouldn’t be an honest reporter if I didn’t tell you what the spiritual experience is like of being in a Barack Obama rally.” …

On Inauguration Day, Matthews came a hair’s breadth from shrieking like a teenage girl at the Beatles’ debut on The Ed Sullivan Show. As is often the case with crushes, what Matthews seems to like best about Obama is how he makes Matthews feel about himself — and his network. “This is the network that has opened its heart to change, to change and its possibilities,” Matthews gushed.

I am providing a break here in case you need to run to the bathroom to throw up.

Okay. I’m just shaking my head at what passes for “journalism” these days, but MSNBC/NBC has demonstrated long ago that they are nothing more than a propaganda arm. No surprise. As to the bias, Goldberg writes:

One of the great tests of news media bias is when the storyline has become unfalsifiable. With George W. Bush, no matter what he did, the facts always seemed to prove he was to blame. With Obama, no matter what he does, he’s always the hero. For instance, during a trip to China in 2005, then-President Bush tried to open a locked door while leaving a news conference, and the press tittered at his buffoonery. Yet last week, when President Obama walked into an Oval Office window that he thought was a door, much of the news media looked the other way — perhaps recognizing his genius at spotting where a door should have been.

Bush’s love of exercise was analyzed as a troubling obsession of an out-of-touch president. Obama’s fixation with physical fitness gives numerous reporters hope that he will alleviate America’s obesity epidemic. In a front-page exclusive, The Washington Post revealed that on Obama’s recent vacation, the Hawaiian “sun glinted off (his) chiseled pectorals sculpted during four weightlifting sessions each week, and a body toned by regular treadmill runs and basketball games.”

Remember that? How people made fun of Bush for riding his bike all of the time, and for exchanging his drinking addiction to an addiction for exercise? Everyone made fun of him. Now, of course, it’s cool because Obama is hip, cool, and “chiseled” (cough, choke). But it isn’t only the superficial in which these differences are highlighted:

A more serious example can be found in some of the news coverage of the stimulus bill. Obama made it his top priority to get bipartisan support for his unprecedented spending bill. The president exerted enormous personal effort to sway House Republicans to his cause but failed to win a single GOP vote, and he even lost 11 Democrats. And yet the Post reported in another front-page article that the Democratic House’s passage of the bill — which was always assured — “marked a big victory for his presidency a little more than a week into his term.” Indeed, it’s hard to see how anything short of a crushing defeat would be described as anything other than a “big victory.”

He meant to do that

Oh, yeah, that’s the ticket. It was all part of his master plan!! Just like this:

Then there’s Obama’s inaugural address, which was panned as pedestrian by pretty much everyone who hasn’t drunk the Kool-Aid and was received as the greatest oration since Henry V rallied the British at Agincourt by everyone else. Leave it to New York magazine’s political reporter, John Heilemann, to square the circle. He conceded that Obama’s speech failed to deliver the goods, inspirationwise. But, don’t ya see, he meant to do that. In a piece titled, “Obama’s Spare Inaugural Rhetoric Signals Strategic Mastery,” Heilemann explained that the speech was “less than thrilling in itself, perhaps by design.”

Apparently, the press corps has decided that antonyms are the way to go in reporting these days. Well, golly gee, I guess this is their idea of “change.”

Goldberg concludes his article with the daily barrage of what Saint Obama means to do today, or what pithy little detail they can find about his personal regimen, or what he and the family eat for breakfast, which will no doubt bring about World Peace:

Since the inauguration, it seems every day brings another article about “Day 3″ or “Day 7″ or “Day 12.5″ of the Obama presidency. And each one reads like a People magazine blog about American Idol. Everything he does signals hope for peace in the Middle East or race relations or the economy or whatever.

CNN’s John King recently said “nobody disputes” that journalists are too enraptured by Obama’s historic presidency; he seems to think it will wear off when the serious work of the nation kicks in.

History is not so reassuring. “You are still the most interesting person,” newspaper editor William Allen White told FDR at the end of his second term. “For box office attraction you leave Clark Gable gasping for breath.” (Jonah Goldberg, editor at large of National Review Online, is a member of USA TODAY’s board of contributors.)

See, I think it is reassuring, because it demonstrates that the country has survived this kind of sophomoric fawning by the media before. FDR, Bush II, and now Obama. It gives me hope that at SOME point, they will realize what a grave disservice they have done this country by their lack of unbiased coverage. One can on;y hope that John King is right - maybe he’ll be one of the first journalists to get off the bandwagon. One can but hope.

Obama’s speechwriter, Jon Favreau, demonstrating who he, and so many of those associated with Obama, is: a misogynistic, juvenile pig who has disrespected the Former First Lady of Arkansas, a Top 100 Attorneys in the United States TWICE, the former First Lady of the United States, a two term US Senator, the RIGHTFUL Democratic presidential nominee, and all women. As they say, a picture speaks a thousand words, and this tells us plenty.

In case that is not enough for you, there is this:

Or how about this:

Oh, we can’t forget this one:

Heck - they don’t have to be about Hillary. Here are some of Obama’s minions sporting their new misogynist-wear. And this is the milder one they were wearing:

No doubt, you know there are more out there about Clinton and Palin.

We don’t have to rely simply on a photo, though. We have video, too. This was from Geraldine Ferraro, who listed the incidences of sexism in the primary:

Gee, Ms. Ferraro, isn’t that PRECISELY what you did?? Immediately flip-flop over to Obama? Hell to the yes, you did, going on show afte rshow touting him as the Democratic nominee. I guess that DOES make you a “typical politician.” To say the very least.

Despite it all, despite all of the sexism, the MISOGYNY, Obama used, NOW threw women under the bus and endorsed him. Planned Parenthood did the same. Then there was NARAL, who threw women under the bus by endorsing Obama, which completely pissed off the folks at Emily’s List. And what did EMILY’S LIST do? Well, it, too, threw women under the bus. Why? To get money, to get on the bandwagon, to show that NOT ONE of those organizations truly have women’s best interests at heart. Apparently, for Emily List’s Director, Ellen Moran, it was to benefit her PERSONALLY since she will now be working as the White House Communications Director. Way to fulfill your mission statements, folks. Way to stand up for women.

And the piece de resistance, the video below. While this focuses on the Primary, it easily speaks to what is happening today:

A picture speaks a thousand words. And the response of Obama to the future White House Speechwriter’s blatant sexism? To the blatant sexism and misogyny in this election? Well, from Obama, the silence is deafening.

As long as Favreau has a job in Obama’s Administration, the message remains clear. Obama’s speechwriter can insult and degrade the future Secretary of State, and other women, and that is A-Okay by Obama. Obama could have half of his entire cabinet be women, but the message to women remains clear.

Yes, Emily Yoffe, the writer, treats us to this informative study about emotions, and how Obama used them to bring in the masses. Now, many of us already knew it was rhetoric over substance, but here she lays it out for us in her Own way:

For researchers of emotions, creating them in the lab can be a problem. Dacher Keltner, a professor of psychology at the University of California-Berkeley, studies the emotions of uplift, and he has tried everything from showing subjects vistas of the Grand Canyon to reading them poetry—with little success. But just this week one of his postdocs came in with a great idea: Hook up the subjects, play Barack Obama’s victory speech, and record as their autonomic nervous systems go into a swoon.

In his forthcoming book, Born To Be Good (which is not a biography of Obama*), Keltner writes that he believes when we experience transcendence, it stimulates our vagus nerve, causing “a feeling of spreading, liquid warmth in the chest and a lump in the throat.” For the 66 million Americans who voted for Obama, that experience was shared on Election Day, producing a collective case of an emotion that has only recently gotten research attention. It’s called “elevation.”

Elevation has always existed but has just moved out of the realm of philosophy and religion and been recognized as a distinct emotional state and a subject for psychological study. Psychology has long focused on what goes wrong, but in the past decade there has been an explosion of interest in “positive psychology”—what makes us feel good and why. University of Virginia moral psychologist Jonathan Haidt, who coined the term elevation, writes, “Powerful moments of elevation sometimes seem to push a mental ‘reset button,’ wiping out feelings of cynicism and replacing them with feelings of hope, love, and optimism, and a sense of moral inspiration.”

* Oh, isn’t she witty?? And way to keep the bias out of this “scientific” piece.

Ah - so Obama has learned how to hit the reset button so that normally thinking human beings will be transported into La-la land. Everyone has now donned their rose colored glasses, and let all the bad reality just slip away. Oh, see how much happier they are than those of us still stuck in the real world!

This is just the beginning, though. Seems this idea has been around for some time:

Haidt quotes first-century Greek philosopher Longinus on great oratory: “The effect of elevated language upon an audience is not persuasion but transport.” Such feeling was once a part of our public discourse. After hearing Abraham Lincoln’s second inaugural address, former slave Frederick Douglass said it was a “sacred effort.” But uplifting rhetoric came to sound anachronistic, except as practiced by the occasional master like Martin Luther King Jr. or Ronald Reagan. And now Obama.

We come to elevation, Haidt writes, through observing others—their strength of character, virtue, or “moral beauty.” Elevation evokes in us “a desire to become a better person, or to lead a better life.” The 58 million McCain voters might say that the virtue and moral beauty displayed by Obama at his rallies was an airy promise of future virtue and moral beauty. And that the soaring feeling his voters had of having made the world a better place consisted of the act of placing their index fingers on a touch screen next to the words Barack Obama. They might be on to something. Haidt’s research shows that elevation is good at provoking a desire to make a difference but not so good at motivating real action. But he says the elevation effect is powerful nonetheless. “It does appear to change people cognitively; it opens hearts and minds to new possibilities. This will be crucial for Obama.”

Wait, say what? First we have “moral beauty,” character and virtue being exhibited by Obama in his speeches (or so it seems to his followers), written by the Bozo on the left:

Then we have an acknowledgment that people who voted for McCain are pretty much right that the extent of this “elevation” is pushing a button, concluding with the benefits to OBAMA of the mind control (well, what the hell else is it when it wipes the slate clean, making normally rational people start believing in a hope-y change-y rainbow unicorn??)? Wow - that is some massive movement, all within one paragraph: character not demonstrated but framed in “words, just words” which many did not buy into but good for Obama those who threw away their analytical, rational selves. Check.

There is so much about Obama in this regard, though:

Keltner believes certain people are “vagal superstars”—in the lab he has measured people who have high vagus nerve activity. “They respond to stress with calmness and resilience, they build networks, break up conflicts, they’re more cooperative, they handle bereavement better.” He says being around these people makes other people feel good. “I would guarantee Barack Obama is off the charts. Just bring him to my lab.”

I’m sorry, sir, but you seem to be caught up in the Rainbow Unicorn of Hope yourself. Obama has actually demonstrated he is NOT calm, but rather testy (examples here, here and here), quick to anger, and a bully. You are buying into the MSM definitions of him, not the REALITY of him. Just like when they termed George Bush’s arrogant smugness as “charm.” Despite the attempts by the MSM to paint Obama as the new Buddha, he has shown in debates and unscripted interactions who he really is. Maybe you shouldn’t be watching MSNBC while you do your “research.” Just a suggestion.

I barely know what to say about this next part, so I will just leave it to you:

It was while looking through the letters of Thomas Jefferson that Haidt first found a description of elevation. Jefferson wrote of the physical sensation that comes from witnessing goodness in others: It is to “dilate [the] breast and elevate [the] sentiments … and privately covenant to copy the fair example.” Haidt took this description as a mandate. Since it’s tricky to study the vagus nerve, he and a psychology student conceived of a way to look at it indirectly. The vagus nerve works with oxytocin, the hormone of connection. Since oxytocin is released during breast-feeding, he and the student brought in 42 lactating women and had them watch either an inspiring clip from The Oprah Winfrey Show about a gang member saved from a life of violence by a teacher or an amusing bit from a Jerry Seinfeld routine.

About half the Oprah-watching mothers either leaked milk into nursing pads or nursed their babies following the viewing; none of the Seinfeld watchers felt enough breast dilation to wet a pad, and fewer than 15 percent of them nursed. You could say elevation is Oprah’s opiate of the masses, so it’s fitting that she early on gave Obama her imprimatur. And that for his victory speech was up front in Grant Park, elevation’s moist embodiment, feeling so at one with humankind that she used a stranger as a handkerchief.

Thank heavens Haidt is such a dedicated scientist. Ahem. How else would we know why Oprah was so moved to use someone she didn’t know as her handkerchief?

Are we PAYING for this research, by the way? You know, with our tax dollars?? Just wondering.

Back to the research:

The researchers say elevation is part of a family of self-transcending emotions. Some others are awe, that sense of the vastness of the universe and smallness of self that is often invoked by nature; another is admiration, that goose-bump-making thrill that comes from seeing exceptional skill in action. Keltner says we most powerfully experience these in groups—no wonder people spontaneously ran into the street on election night, hugging strangers. “We had to evolve these emotions to devote ourselves into social collectives,” he says.

When you start thinking about mass movements, all those upturned, glowing faces of true believers—be they the followers of Jim Jones or Adolf Hitler—you don’t always get a warm feeling about mankind. Instead, knowing where some of these “social collectives” end up, the sensation is a cold chill. Haidt acknowledges that in “calling the group to greatness,” elevation can be used for murderous ends. He says: “Anything that takes us out of ourselves and makes us feel we are listening to something larger is part of morality. It’s about pressing the buttons that turn off ‘I’ and turn on ‘we.’ “

Thank heavens someone finally said it. I mean, besides those of us in the reality-based world. It is important for a scientist to be able to step outside him/herself. And with Obama, what we have is massive turning back the clock on women’s rights, race relations, transparency of our “elected” officials (a PEBO who doesn’t have to submit ANY paperwork for the greatest job in the world, but demands that and much, much more from his subordinates. I’d sure like to see this Haidt guy do some research on that. Or anyone in the freakin’ MSM.).

Your patience with this article is about to be rewarded:

Even at its most benign, elevation can seem ridiculous to outsiders. Think of how Obama’s opponents love to mock his effect on people. During the campaign, if your chest was contracting while all about you chests were dilating, you may be a Republican. If you were unmoved by Obama, watching your fellow citizen get all tingly, even fall into a faint (too much vagus stimulation, and you’re going down), was maddening. “Other people’s reverence seems unctuous and sanctimonious,” says Keltner.

Obama himself seemed aware of the dangers that too much elevation might pop his candidacy like a helium balloon hitting a power line. Conservative columnist Charles Krauthammer described Obama’s canny strategy to make his rhetoric more pedestrian for the final months of the campaign.

Or, one might still have one’s WITS about one, thus not being taken in by this charlatan, this snake oil salesman. But of course, anyone who was not moved to tears or into a faint by this lying, conniving, arrogant, bullying, race-baiting, misogynistic, homophobic unqualified first term senator was just because someone was a “Republican.” Newsflash: those of us who actually prefer qualified, intelligent, candidates who compose their own policy positions rather than steal them from others, and come up with their own words to use, not plagiarizing others, may simply be mature. I’m just sayin’. Despite the MSM’s characterizations of Hillary Clinton’s speeches, I attended two of them, and I am here to tell you she is moving, compelling, funny as hell, and brilliant. But not once did I feel faint. Nor did I ever feel faint when Obama was speaking, even as I watched his 2004 speech which seemed sufficient experience for those “elevated” people who swooned over his “borrowed” words. But that’s just me. And millions others. Whatever.

Oh, but you knew it wasn’t going to stop there. There had to be a way for the author to turn this back to Obama worship:

While there is very little lab work on the elevating emotions, there is quite a bit on its counterpart, disgust. University of Pennsylvania psychologist Paul Rozin has been a leading theorist in the uses of disgust. He says it started as a survival strategy: Early humans needed to figure out when food was spoiled by contact with bacteria or parasites. From there disgust expanded to the social realm—people became repelled by the idea of contact with the defiled or by behaviors that seemed to belong to lower people. “Disgust is probably the most powerful emotion that separates your group from other groups,” says Keltner.

Haidt says disgust is the bottom floor of a vertical continuum of emotion; hit the up button, and you arrive at elevation. This could be why so many Obama supporters complained of being sickened and nauseated by the Republican campaign. Seeing a McCain ad or Palin video clip actually felt like being plunged from their Obama-lofted heights.

Disgust carries with it the notion of contamination, which helps to explain the Republicans’ obsession with Bill Ayers, Tony Rezko, and Jeremiah Wright and their frustration that more voters didn’t have a visceral reaction that Obama had unforgivably sullied himself by association with these men. But this time, elevation won. And expect that on Inauguration Day, even if the weather’s frigid, millions will be warmed by that liquid feeling in their chests. (Emily Yoffe is the author of What the Dog Did: Tales From a Formerly Reluctant Dog Owner. You can send your Human Guinea Pig suggestions or comments to emilyyoffe@hotmail.com)

Oh, yes - it was the REPUBLICANS’ problem that they, and all others not in the tank for Obama, were concerned about a CONFIRMED DOMESTIC TERRORIST, a convicted felon, and a racist in whose church Obama sat for over TWENTY years. And of course, it had nothing to do with the MSM downplaying those connections, even dismissing them )like Obama’s speechwriter groping a cut-out of the incoming Secretary of State of the United States), because those inconvenient people/facts did not fit their preconceived narrative of who Obama is. It wasn’t so much Republicans who wanted to highlight the nefarious associations of the PEBO, but AMERICANS who care about the sanctity of the Constitution, who care about with whom the PEBO chooses to associate himself. Unrepentant domestic terrorists, convicted felons (don’t forget Kwame Kilpatrick!), and anti-American racist ministers are not the kinds of people with whom a potential president should surround himself. In my humble opinion, of course.

In conclusion, what this “research” highlights is that Obama followers really did drink the Kool Aide. Vindication for those of us who did not, and managed to keep ourselves in emotional balance. Now we can say, “Told you so!” But, they’ll probably be too busy polishing their rose-colored glasses and looking for the rainbow unicorn to notice…

If Matthews is serious about running, some within the network hope he commits to the Pennsylvania Senate race sooner rather than later. Otherwise, his nightly presence on “Hardball” provides easy fodder to critics fueling the narrative that MSNBC is in the tank for the Democratic party. After NBC News was stung by criticism during the presidential campaign — charged with bias resulting from the antics of more outspoken personalities on MSNBC — staffers worry the situation will be repeated over the next six months.

Read the rest ->

To those speaking to him, all signs point to a candidate who is gearing up to run for the Senate seat held by Republican Arlen Specter. Either that or the MSNBC host is doing an awfully good job making people think he’s running — perhaps, some say, for use as a bargaining chip in his upcoming contract negotiations.

———————–

Matthews also drew the ire of feminist groups during the presidential primary when he said Hillary Rodham Clinton got where she was because “her husband messed around.” He later apologized for his remarks, but they could cost him among female voters in a Democratic primary.

“Treating Hillary Clinton badly during the primary is going to come back and haunt him,” said one Democratic operative aligned with a potential rival of Matthews. Noting the comparisons between Matthews and Al Franken, another celebrity Senate candidate, the operative noted: “At least the liberal base of the party liked him. The liberal base really dislikes Matthews.”

The liberals dislike Matthews? Why? He beat up on Hillary Clinton often enough. I thought all the ‘bots LOVED Matthews? No? Well, who loves him then? Seriously, who is his adoring audience? What has this guy contributed beyond a long list of sexist remarks and an anti-Chris website (sadly now long out of date - it may be time to revive this).

Speaking of Matthews, Jon Stewart calls MSNBC the new Fox:

And the Daily Show on the Mumbai Tragedy: “John Oliver explains that when you’re a bankrupt ideology pursuing a bankrupt strategy, the only move you’ve got is the dick one. ”

Wish I’d written that.

The President-elect’s brilliance was the number one reason we were supposed to overlook the thin resume, ignore the lack of any true leadership positions in his past and not question his long term associations with an assortment of very questionable characters.

As he constructs his team, President-elect Obama seems to be showing some sound judgement and shrewd political skill. Larry Johnson offered up a great post last night praising the expected selection of General Jim Jones as National Security Advisor.

However, the media cheerleading apparatus just can’t help themselves when it comes to Hillary Clinton.

The Senator is so powerful that she weakens the MSM immune system. When the immune system is compromised the body is open to a host of infections and viruses. It is in this weakened state that long dormant viruses like herpes or Clinton Derangement Syndrome can burst to the surface. The ugly sores can last for weeks and are very contagious.

How else to explain the plethora of columns questioning the great Obama’s judgement for potentially tapping her as Secretary of State. Every one of these columns follows the same pattern. About six to seven paragraphs admitting why she is so qualified to be Secretary of State and a concluding set of two to three paragraphs painting Hillary Clinton and former President Clinton as so self obsessed as to be completely incapable of serving the Obama administration and working on behalf of the greater good of American citizens.

For the most recent example, you can read this column from Paul Richter. His closing is fairly typical for these columns.

In matters of state, it is the duty of the secretary, like other aides, to step forward and take responsibility for any failure of the administration, so the president is not blamed. If she cherishes her own ambitions, she be reluctant to do so.

And even if she’s willing to subjugate her own interests, will her husband do the same? Bill Clinton may be tempted to call a journalist, as he sometimes has done in the past, to put out a storyline that makes his wife look good.

The former president has been working with Obama’s team on a deal under which he would seek clearance from the new administration before making any speech that could affect U.S. foreign policy. But controlling those speeches may be difficult. The former president himself has joked about the fact that he usually makes up a large part of his speeches as he goes along.

The former Clinton foreign-policy official said that while Obama has said he would relish having a team of political rivals in his Cabinet, as Abraham Lincoln did, Hillary Clinton may be different.

“Lincoln never had to deal with the special dynamic presented by having this secretary and this spouse,” the former official said. “[Bill Clinton] loves politics and diplomacy, and it’s going to be very tough for him to sit back and not get into it.”

There it is, the sores burst out on the lips (or more personal places) in all their glory. No way to cover it up or hide it. They’ll sit there and fester for awhile until they scab over and heal, just waiting for an opportunity to burst out again.

Here are the questions I have for those suffering from this diabolical and ugly virus. Since becoming a US Senator and carving out her own political career independent from that of her husband, has Senator Clinton shown herself to be anything but a consummate team player? What defeated presidential contender not named as a running mate ever worked harder to help secure his/her rival’s November victory? When has she acted on anything in the U.S. Senate to benefit the activities of former President Clinton? When has former President Clinton’s influence interfered with her service to the people of New York and the United States?

The things is that the writers, reporters and pundits all know the answers to the questions above. Those answers are the reasons why President-elect Obama apparently feels comfortable enough to ask Senator Clinton to serve in his administration. The MSM hacks all know this too. It’s just they can’t help themselves. They are infected with an incurable virus. Occasionally, you can buy a balm or gel for some temporary relief, but if you have been exposed to Clinton Derangement Complex you know that there are times you will feel that tingle (much like the one in Chris Matthew’s leg) and the sores will come bursting out.

Let’s put it this way, one should never watch Hardball while eating.

A little background, for those who may have tuned in late. Chris Matthews was recently ridiculed by his far more sane and sober compadre at MSNBC, Joe Scarborough, when Chris said he felt it was his job to try to “help the Obama administration succeed.” Funny, I thought he fancied himself a journalist, even a pundit – not a cheerleader.

But I have to hand it to Matthews, it was the first honest comment I have heard out of him in a very long time. He is indeed a cheerleader who has practically – forgive me – been sucking Obama toes on national television this entire year. His behavior has been nothing short of a disgrace.

Even more shameful than his fawning, sycophantic treatment of Barack Obama has been his misogyny and jealousy of Hillary Clinton. But his bravado in trashing her is only in evidence behind her back. Whenever he interviews her, he is totally flustered and out of his league. I guess we don’t need to wonder why he feels it necessary to constantly try to “cut her down to his small size.” He started on this path by saying the only reason she had been elected Senator of NY was that “people felt sorry for her because of her husband.” It went downhill from there.

Oddly, she was re-elected handily and has done an incredible job for her constituency and has many other accomplishments to boast of in the Senate, as first lady of the United States, and earlier, as first lady of Arkansas. Significantly, this is also a lady who has religiously stood up for the rights of women, LGBT, and children, education, first responders and veterans. I don’t think anyone needs to feel sorry for Hillary Clinton in order to vote for her.

Rather, let us take a moment to feel sorry for Chris Matthews, so intimidated by this woman’s intestinal fortitude, preparedness, and drive that he cannot live with himself unless he diminishes her at every turn.

Fast forward to this evening where he posed the question to both Hitchens and the far more reasonable and civilized Beinart of why Barack, a man of great “candle power” as Matthews put it – whatever that means, would want the “drama” of having Hillary Clinton as Secretary of State. By reputation, deservedly, Senator Clinton is known as one of the hardest working Senators out there. She has built a reputation these past eight years for keeping her head down, being collegial and getting the job done. Even conservatives like Henry Kissinger and Senator Kyl are praising the idea of her appointment.

What ‘drama’?

Well, gee, Chris, not that I want Hillary to be subordinate to Barack Obama in any way, or give up her elected position and tie her fate to his, but here’s a little scenario for you:

It is more than likely that when Obama and Biden had their National Security briefing with President Bush just before the election, Senator Obama had a come to Jesus moment and realized just how much hot water we are in. Perhaps it stopped being a game to him. He realized the mess that is this country’s current foreign policy is all going to rest on his shoulders – and his name – so he figured he’d better hire a few adults to mind the mint.

Perhaps that is why three quarters of Obama’s hires thus far are Clintonistas.

Why would he want the drama, indeed, Chris? Perhaps he would rather have the ‘drama’ of competence and excellence versus the lunacy represented by people like Susan Rice, Samantha Powers or Zbignieu Brezinski – but that’s only my opinion.

Then Chris Hitchens chimed in with his rabid Clinton hatred. For those who may not be familiar with Hitchens, but as you can see for yourself when watching him, he basically vomits lie after lie, but because he recites them in a firm voice, drooling over his own pretentious, slightly slurred British accent, we are expected to take his idiotic pronouncements as the ‘sermon on the mount.’

He first accused Hillary Clinton of playing the race card on Barack Obama.

I. Will. Repeat. That. Slowly.

He first accused Hillary Clinton of playing the race card on Barack Obama.

This slug of a man has the nerve to say this on national television? Obama’s campaign, with the able help of Axelrod, Jesse Jackson, Jr. and countless other surrogates, played the race card with impunity every day since the end of January to mow down all comers. They used it as a defense against any and all legitimate criticism and created a whisper campaign against President Bill Clinton out of whole cloth, declaring him a racist, in order to render the ever popular and accomplished Clintons poisonous to the African American community.

I will never forgive this or forget it.

The inexcusable Hitchens goes on to declare the prospect of appointing Hillary Clinton to Secretary of State as a “ludicrous embarrassment.” Well, no, Mr. Hitchens, the only ludicrous embarrassment here is you, sir.

He further accuses Hillary of stopping Bill Clinton from dealing with the crisis in Bosnia because she wanted him to solely focus on her health plan. This accusation is so ridiculous that thankfully Mr. Beinart took him to school on that one. The crisis in Bosnia and Kosovo, as you may remember, was a victory accomplished under the leadership of Gen. Wesley Clark, without one allied casualty.

Hitchens and Matthews then go on a feverish bashing of Bill Clinton’s world travels for his foundation as a possible conflict of interest, complaining and worrying about foreign donors. I suppose the irony is totally lost of them that Obama’s highly questionable internet contributions have never been – and most likely – will never be reviewed. But as Mr. Matthews will not hesitate to inform you, Barack Obama is as close to perfection as one can hope to be and is beyond reproach, surely.

Thankfully, Peter Beinart correctly points out what President-elect Obama surely knows: Hillary is a very hard working, gifted, savvy politician, specializing in foreign affairs and defense and has a great reputation and respect around the world.

Obama may have attempted to belittle these very facts during the campaign to suit his own ends, but her being the frontrunner for Secretary of State has, in one fell swoop, validated every single concern held by those of us originally against his candidacy:

She is far more qualified on every front. And as much as Obama tried to diminish the accomplishments of her husband’s administration, his naming Rahm Emanuel Chief of Staff along with so many other former Clinton Administration operatives makes clear that what Lou Dobbs of CNN said was true : “The Clinton administration in the 90’s was as close to Camelot as we’ve ever had” – Republicans out gunning for them daily notwithstanding.

As Hillary put it: “what didn’t they like – the peace or the prosperity.”

Matthews continued his same rant on Page Six of the NY Post:

Matthews, who once opined that men who supported Clinton were “castratos in the eunuch chorus,” forgot the cardinal rule for those who are often mentioned on Page Six - he didn’t take a good look around on the Acela train from Philadelphia to Washington Saturday before he started bad-mouthing the New York senator.

“I don’t understand it,” Matthews bellowed. “Why would he pick her? I thought we were done with the Clintons. She’ll just use it to build her power base. It’s Machiavellian. And then we’ll have Bill Clinton, too. I thought Obama didn’t want drama. He’s already got [chief of staff Rahm] Emanuel and [transition team leader John] Podesta. He’ll have even more drama with her.

“She’s just a soap opera. If he doesn’t pick her, everyone will say she’s been dissed again, we’ll have to live through that again.”

Matthews seems to be playing both sides of the fence. The host, who apologized to Clinton last year for claiming she got where she was because “her husband messed around,” said on-air last Friday: “Look, I think that since she lost the fight for the nomination, [Clinton] has been not just a good soldier, she has sang the tune of [Obama]. She’s been illustrious, she’s been admirable . . . her spirit seems to be with him.”

It is clear, Chris Matthews is only able to be kind to Hillary when she is servile. But stand up tall and she must be beaten down. Oh, Chris, you are sad, sad, sad. What private fantasy does her humiliation fulfill for you, Mr. Matthews?

I do not know the advisability of Senator Clinton actually accepting this position. Beinart thinks she would be great, but in his article, Don’t Do It Hillary!, he advised her against taking it – fearing her likely Senator-for-life position would be preferable to the risk of being blamed for Obama’s mistakes and then terminated – left out in the cold politically. We certainly need her help and expertise, and as much as I selfishly want her out front and center, I am inclined to agree with Beinart, and do not trust Obama to treat her fairly, hand in hand with the interests of his administration as a whole.

We shall see.

More important at this moment is the fact that the disgusting sexism which reared its ugly head in this campaign against Senator Clinton, and then later, against Governor Palin, is not yet done. These ladies have exhibited great courage in the face of attacks no male politician would ever have been subjected to.

That Hillary is able to hold her head high and continue to do her job in the face of these petty tyrants nipping at her heels says plenty.

Significantly, back in the Spring, after the debacle of Obama’s 20 year attendance at Rev. Wright’s divisive and racist church was revealed, both Matthews and Hitchens floated the idea that his presence there was Michelle’s fault. So while Obama must remain exalted in their eyes, his wife is not so lucky. These misogynists really tried to tell the American people that a 47 year old millionaire, best selling author, US Senator and father, front-runner for the Presidency of the United States, did not have the courage or presence of mind to pick his behind up out of a church that didn’t suit him and leave – regardless of what his wife was doing.

I posit to you, if that is the case, perhaps these two men are projecting their own weakness onto Barack Obama, excusing him for lacking a courage they themselves do not possess. If indeed Obama could not be held responsible for his own actions, he has no business running for – or holding – the highest and most difficult office in the land. While I have no feelings for Michelle Obama one way or the other, at that moment, I felt sympathy for her, knowing that, in order to excuse the man, more blame will undoubtedly be coming her way.

Perhaps this is endemic in our society. If so, it is as sickening as it is unfair.

As ye sow, so shall ye reap. If it is true, as rumored, that Chris Matthews is seeking a Senate seat in the next election, I wager that if he had one tenth the vitriol leveled at him as Senator Clinton, he would be curled up in the fetal position, crying like a baby.

Hitchens, likewise, a bully, declared a while back that water boarding was not torture – that is until he experienced it himself – for all of one and one-half seconds – when he stopped the test by throwing a “safety switch”. I wonder if he were subjected to the kind of verbal ridicule and torture he bestows upon others, would he likewise be running for the “safety switch.”

I didn’t know that outright lying and name calling substituted for an actual discussion of the issues where women politicians are concerned. Truly I am sad that Messrs. Matthews and Hitchens have chosen to place themselves at the bottom of the food chain with this type of behavior.

Thankfully, in this interview, anyway, Mr. Beinart stood erect and left the Neanderthals in the dust. Here’s to all those who have evolved enough to address the issues and judge each candidate and prospective appointment on the merits, and leave the schoolboy insecurity out of it.

The headline on the MSN homepage (via MSNBC) declares, “Dem sources: Clinton to help wife get State job.”

This headline refers to the fact that President Clinton is disclosing his financial records and those of his charitable work. But the sexist opportunity was too good for MSNBC to pass up. President Clinton is not helping his wife “get a job,” he’s merely presenting financial documents to Obama’s transition team. Ostensibly, all potential cabinet members and their spouses are also going through this process now. The big difference, however, is that the Obama team made Clinton’s financial records a campaign issue.

Can you imagine the headline turned the other way? I don’t recall seeing, “Liddy Dole to help husband get job” or “Mary Matalin to help James Carville get job.”

There are major problems with the MSNBC headline. First, of course, it presupposes that Senator Clinton wants the job. There’s a report today in the New York Times that she’s “hesitant” to give up the independence of her senate seat. But of course independence is what it’s all about.

A key element of Obama Sexism in this recent campaign was the constantly pushed narrative that Hillary was dependent on President Clinton for her senate seat and her presidential campaign. Chris Matthews infamously said “on ‘Morning Joe’ [that] the reason Hillary Clinton won her New York Senate seat and is a front-runner in the presidential race is because Bill Clinton ‘messed around.’”

And who can forget Greg Craig of the Obama campaign? A former Clinton classmate and friend, when discussing Hillary’s important role in bringing peace to Northern Ireland, claimed that Hillary Clinton was an appendage to her husband and only met with “the women”:

She traveled to Ireland with her husband and met with the women, and the women, of course, were heroic in their work for peace. But she can’t take credit for bringing the women together. They were the courageous ones that did it themselves. What she said was, “It’s a good thing you’re doing it. We’re all for you. I hope you’re successful.” That’s not instrumental. That’s not bringing peace to Ireland.

Of course Hillary never claimed to have brought peace to Northern Ireland. The Obama Sexism trope from Craig is even more glaring when you ask, What foreign policy credentials did Obama have? Hillary was President Clinton’s closest adviser and she was assigned many important tasks in his administration. But Craig, like MSNBC now, perpetuates Obama Sexism in order to diminish Hillary Clinton.

But there are others who disagree with me, which is peachy keen-o by me. That’s the beauty of a democracy (such as it is at this stage). I was asked highlight the excellent comments for WHY Clinton should accept the position if offered to her, which I have done here. The comments came from one of my great readers, who also has an awesome blog of her own, BlueLyon. My comments are interspersed as well. BlueLyon had this to say (and I reprint this with her permission):

I think she’d make a super SoS and Barry would be a fool not to offer it to her. Of course, if he does offer it and she declines, we’ll never know.

I think her time in the Senate, if she stays there will be ruled by the archaic seniority rules and she’ll never get a major chairmanship. After all, she didn’t start in the Senate when she was in her 30’s (ala Biden).

Any hoo, I’d like to see her get it for one reason: I’d like to see Kerry and Richardson’s heads explode and their man-parts fall off when they get bested by “the girl.”

Okay, I gotta admit, seeing Kerry and Richardson’s “heads explode and their man-parts” falling off may well be worth it just for that. There was some back and forth with some other smart folks (including InsightAnalytical), and I finished up with, “

And BlueLyon makes some good points abt her time in the Senate…I dunno - obviously, she’ll do what she thinks is best…

To which BlueLyon said:

That’s just it. She’ll do what she thinks best. What is best for the country that is. Her political ambitions have always been about moving her agenda forward, not moving herself forward. When I think of what force she could be on the international scene, rather than having to bide her time in the Senate and waiting around for crumbs from the Big Boys’ table, I get chills.

Well, BlueLyon has a point there. I know exactly what that feels like - waiting for the crumbs that drop from the table. As a woman, as a lesbian, as a woman in ministry. One of the main reasons I left the Episcopal Church while in seminary (besides my changing theology) was the church’s reaffirmation that GLB people were allowed to come to the church, but not be ordained in it. I would have had to lie to get ordained, and that was just wrong on so many levels, it was not a real choice. Anyway, that felt a whole lot like being grateful for the crumbs that were dropped from the table. So, I totally get that.

I asked my buddy if she had seen American Girl in Italy’s excellent post, “So, Does She Have Foreign Policy Experience, or Not?“. She had, and if you haven’t, I recommend it. Naturally, she had. And she said:

…Aside from Kerry and Richardson’s reaction, would be also to see the Obots’ heads explode from the cognitive dissonance.

I have one friend in particular whose face I’d like to rub in it, if HRC is named SoS.

Yes, I’m leery of the way Obama operates. And really, this whole conversation we are all having is just tea leaf reading…

She does have a point. I like the idea of the exploding heads as a result of the cognitive dissonance after the way Obama treated Clinton, and gave tacit approval to his minions to act likewise. Then here he is, after labeling her a racist, inexperienced (compared to HIS foreign policy experience of living in Indonesia from ages 6 - 10, and traveling in Pakistan for 3 whole weeks!), or belittling her accomplishments (Annie Oakley anyone?), etc., etc., to considering her for a major position in his Administration. Wowie zowie - can’t wait to see the machinations they go through to justify THAT one!! So, there is some poetic justice there, I have to admit.

I have to say, this whole “vetting” thing is really getting to me. Now the media is saying if she doesn’t get it, it is all Bill’s fault for his international work post-presidency:

As always, Greta was the most balanced in her coverage of this issue. Generally, from what I have seen, it just looks like another opportunity for people to pile onto the Clintons, to ream them anew. Like the video in LisaB’s excellent article, “The Media Tells Stories THEY Want To Tell People They Don’t Respect,” which has these two HORRIBLE women on “Hardball,” Jennifer Donohue and Michelle Bernard who are just insane in their descriptions of Clinton, and their adoration fr Obama. When CHRIS MATTHEWS comes off as looking neutral, you KNOW you are in trouble.

If only they had ever, ever cared about vetting Obama as much as they do the husband of a potential cabinet member.

All of that is to say, yes, at this point, it is tea leaf reading, though the time is ever-drawing near. I still cannot bear the concept of Hillary Clinton carrying this guy’s water, but she will do what she thinks is right. Right for her, and right for the country, because unlike Obama, for Senator Clinton, those two are one in the same…

Promise me you’ve restrained your hands in some way. Okay? Now click the arrow.

I know, I know … it’s disgusting and reprehensible.

UPDATE about Secretary of State HILLARY RODHAM CLINTON! This news makes those losers you just saw above nearly irrelevant, sinking in the ash heap of history! Ha! (Oh, how I loved adding that Secretary of State … Category to our blog!) From The Guardian (UK): “Hillary Clinton to accept Barack Obama’s offer of secretary of state job,” via Memeorandum.com — at the end of this post is more, including my EXPRESSION OF HEARTY APPROVAL of Hillary’s decision (and before you judge, please read why I’m so thrilled for her and for the United States and the entire world) …

So, if you can soothe your nerves, and slow down your beating heart, tell me what else is going on in the world.

::::::::::

UPDATE OPINION COMING … I wanted to be sure to get the UPDATE story link published for you first. Then I’ll reopen the story and write my thoughts - Susan (Okay, I’ve finished writing my thoughts below the screenshot of Memeorandum’s coverage, and I invite you to read what I wrote, below.)

From The Guardian (UK): “Hillary Clinton to accept Barack Obama’s offer of secretary of state job,” via Memeorandum.com -

Here’s my two cents on why Hillary is correct to take this job that carries with it such prominence, such power, such esteem, and such massive opportunities to do so very much good for both the United States and the entire world:

1) Hillary is over 21 and can do whatever she wants;

2) Hillary knows the “operators” in the White House and the Obama team like few others — and she knows the games they play far better than ALL OF US, combined!

3) Given this knowledge and extensive experience with Barack Obama and “crew,” Hillary knows what to expect and has an arsenal of tools that she has picked up over her two-plus decades of intense, non-stop experience in political arenas of all types, including EIGHT years in the White House as a true political partner with her husband.

4) Hillary has not only flown to 80+ countries, she has spent TIME in remote parts of Africa and Asia, in tiny villages, where she was a longtime advocate for impoverished WOMEN.

5) I have no doubt that Hillary will make sexism and misogyny part of her agenda as Secretary of State.

6) For a very long time, Hillary has understood the most COMPLEX international issues. I vividly recall one night — gosh, was it 2001 (something like that) — on PBS’s Charlie Rose show when she demonstrated that she has in-depth knowledge of EVERY international issue and potential crisis that the United States might face. I particularly recall how much she knew about North Korea.

7) I hate admitting this but I used to be one of the throngs who “hated” Hillary Clinton. And I watched that Charlie Rose show while “hating” Hillary Clinton, but noting how brilliant and knowledgeable she is.

Then it dawned on me one day in 2007 that I’d been duped into “hating” Hillary Clinton because of the years and years and years of attacks on her from the rightwing media, including Rush Limbaugh — who will no doubt be VERY entertaining to listen to tomorrow! He’ll be frothing at the mouth, I expect.

So what happened to me and to many “lefties” was this: Without consciously realizing it, we all were taught to “hate” Hillary Clinton by the far right.

That’s why the Daily Kos crowd went nuts every time one of us wrote diaries in favor of Hillary Clinton.

Yet, the Daily Kossacks NEVER conducted any rigorous self-examination of why they “hated” her. If they had, they would have realized that that hatred had its roots in what Rush Limbaugh et al. said about her. And they would have been as embarrassed and horrified as I was when it hit me.

I’d been kind of supporting Bill Richardson (yeah, well …) and then I saw him on TV a couple times, and he sounded like an idiot and he embarrassed me.

Then I listened to Hillary, and I liked what she was saying and I found myself — woah! — liking her too.

But I was afraid to tell anybody.

I finally told my closest female relative. She shocked me by saying that she too had been looking hard at Hillary as the candidate to support.

Then Larry Johnson called me one day, and I somewhat haltingly told him that I was looking at Hillary Clinton. He then told me his story of briefing her in her Senate office and how she’d knocked his socks off.

So we decided to express our support for Hillary on No Quarter.

Well, lord almighty, did we get creamed for that. But we persisted. I was somewhat shy about it because I didn’t like the angry comments. Larry was reserved about expressing his support and took his time to carefully state his reasons for supporting her. Then he wrote a great, great post about meeting her and how much she impressed him.

Slowly but surely, more and more people at No Quarter and new to No Quarter began gathering at No Quarter to talk about Hillary.

One of the attributes that Hillary Clinton has that drew us to her, and which we witnessed throughout the grossly unfair media coverage of her primary run, was her ability to stay on course and to keep fighting and to never give up.

Hillary Clinton has all the requisite moxie to handle her detractors who’ll plot against her in the Obama White House.

Hillary Clinton has all the needed resolve to keep fighting and to never let her detractors or the media get her down.

And, best of all, she’ll NEVER let any detractor keep her from doing a brilliant job as our Secretary of State.

She will be the best damn Secretary of State we could ever hope for.

We will have so much to be proud of as we watch her, from afar, perform her job so brilliantly.

Can you begin to imagine how she will begin to restore our relationships with nations around the world?

Oh, it will be glorious.

For now, if I may suggest how your mind should be focused: Please put a halt to your fretting about what the Obama cohorts might do to her, and IMAGINE ALL THE GOOD SHE WILL DO.

Just IMAGINE those poor women in those remote African villages she visited as First Lady, and how she will now be able to get back to helping them.

Hillary Clinton has NEVER forgotten those impoverished, mistreated African women. They surely have never forgotten her. And now they know she will return to them, and once again help them, as she did before when she set up economic plans to aid them in creating their own businesses with child care and good medical facilities.

IMAGINE the joy in those women’s hearts when they find out that Hillary Clinton will return and do more for them.

IMAGINE.

Rupert Murdoch says big media has only itself to blame for the situation it is in.

With newspapers cutting back and predictions of even worse times ahead, Rupert Murdoch said the profession may still have a bright future if it can shake free of reporters and editors who he said have forfeited the trust and loyalty of their readers.

“My summary of the way some of the established media has responded to the internet is this: it’s not newspapers that might become obsolete. It’s some of the editors, reporters, and proprietors who are forgetting a newspaper’s most precious asset: the bond with its readers,” said Murdoch. . .

Read the rest ->
——————-

Murdoch, whose company’s holdings also include MySpace and the Wall Street Journal, criticized what he described as a culture of “complacency and condescension” in some newsrooms.

“The complacency stems from having enjoyed a monopoly–and now finding they have to compete for an audience they once took for granted. The condescension that many show their readers is an even bigger problem. It takes no special genius to point out that if you are contemptuous of your customers, you are going to have a hard time getting them to buy your product. Newspapers are no exception.”
——————–

“A recent American study reported that many editors and reporters simply do not trust their readers to make good decisions. Let’s be clear about what this means. This is a polite way of saying that these editors and reporters think their readers are too stupid to think for themselves.”

Of course we’re too stupid. Think not? Well, watch any media person defend “journalism” and you’ll see some version of “we’re really good, but the people, they just don’t understand: our job, how we do our job, what’s really going on, how smart we have to be”, etc. etc. etc. Whenever you have to defend your intelligence because it’s not readily apparent, you’re in trouble.

Then, WaPo notes that many news outlets are offering BO commemorative news products. Is this a problem or just a way to make money?

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.

Seems to me WaPo doesn’t like this too much but just sees it as a tacky way to make a buck. I think it’s a bigger sell-out than that. After all, how do you offer a commemorative package if it has lots of real criticism and real vetting? Commemorative products don’t do that.

Kurtz goes on to list some of the more nauseating media Obama-worship, but unfortunately doesn’t offer much criticism.

Jennifer Rubin, though, has a comment.

The MSM championed Barack Obama throughout the primaries, clubbed his opponent, lauded him during the general election, and is now marveling at his transition. There’s no reason to stop now. If the mainstream media cared about unbiased reporting and exacting investigation, they would have made some effort earlier to balance the coverage. And now that the election of Obama has fulfilled their dreams and aspirations, why should they return to the humdrum tasks of quibbling with the press secretary, investing inter-agency squabbles, and questioning the lack of progress or the outright repudiation of campaign pledges? That might scuff up the President’s image. And it might put them on the outs with their hero.

Really, I think it’s too much to expect that the lapdog media will turn into attack-dogs or watchdogs anytime soon. After all, they have a President to help succeed.

Of course, Rubin is referring to Tweety’s assertion that it is his JOB to help out the Obama administration. Either Tweety is completely revising the definition of journalist or trying to get a running start on a potential Senate/lapdog seat, as has been rumored. If you haven’t already seen this example of high objective journalism in action, I suggest you watch.

Mediamatters has a piece on how the media is covering the rumors of HRC as SOS. Apparently, MSNBC is still bashing HRC whenever it can.

Discussing the possibility of Sen. Hillary Clinton becoming the secretary of state in President-elect Barack Obama’s administration on the November 14 edition of MSNBC’s Hardball, MSNBC political analyst Michelle Bernard asserted: “If she’s secretary of state, she will run a parallel government. It will be a huge problem.” Additionally, Jennifer Donahue, political director of the New Hampshire Institute of Politics, asked: “Will she [Clinton] be laying out the groundwork should Obama have only one term? Will she be, in fact, trying to create only one term for Barack Obama?”

During the program, Bernard also said Clinton “could give him [Obama] some cover, and she could also walk — go around the world acting as if she is not the secretary of state but the United States — the president of the United States. That’s a huge danger for him. It’s a very, very high-level job.” Host Chris Matthews then asked Donahue, “[W]ould you trust her to be a loyal subordinate, or believe she would be a bit too aggressive as a colleague?”

Here’s some wisdom from Tweety and guest “journalists.”

Matthews sounds as if he is defending HRC, but that’s a deliberate ploy to keep the conversation going in the direction he wants. He later accuses HRC of looking at Biden as a roadblock as she tries to accumulate power. The theme of this “story?” How HRC is a power hungry steamroller trying to flatten everyone as she grasps for whatever she can find. Ugh. Journalism? No. Speculation and bad thinking. Standard fare with Tweety.

Mediamatters also has a VERY interesting page noting all the negative HRC statements and media stories saying that she is “out to get” or somehow destroy the Obama wagon. This is worth looking at. MM groups media “stories” into 3 categories, below which are specific examples from tv and print “journalists.”

Examples of media figures suggesting that Clinton would pursue her own agenda as secretary of state and not Obama’s

Examples of media figures referring to Clinton as Obama’s “enem[y]

Examples of media figures suggesting that Clinton might cause trouble for Obama if he does not include her in the administration

Here’s a video compilation of some “news” professionals.

The media obsession with the Clintons continues unabated and they make HRC or BC the story whenever possible.

What’s the takeaway here? Well, Murdoch, I feel, accurately diagnosed the major problem with the MSM. It’s lost the trust of viewers/readers. While journalists try to figure out why this has happened and continue to claim THEY are doing THEIR jobs well, others continue to point, fruitlessly, to video and print where journalists spout “received wisdom” rather than challenge assumptions.

For example, it’s long been the narrative that HRC is a grasping, power-mad, mutant woman who is intrinsically unfit for any trust. “Journalists” start out by faintly praising her experience and quickly move to their BUTS. But she’s a harpy, BUT she’s trying to take over, BUT she’s not a real woman, BUT, BUT, BUT. Then after playing the BUT card in some way, they move on to BC as a reason to distrust Hillary.

WTH? The very fact that the same narrative with respect to HRC plays again and again and again and again makes it sound very much like the “research” for the “story” consists of reading MooDoo or reviewing Chris Matthews’ video. Do ANY of these people challenge their own assumptions? Apparently not.

Given that, am I really surprised that NBC will be peddling a “Yes We Can” DVD? No. The “fourth estate” died from dehydration a while ago. If all they offer is slobbering praise on the one hand, out of control vitriol on the other and still manifest arrogance and condescension, I’m surprised they’ve lasted this long. Because of all their assertions that America will somehow be lessened if big media isn’t accorded respect by those they cover and those who “consume” their “product,” I hope they die out sooner rather than later. It certainly won’t be the end of news or of investigative research and reporting.

Despite being in the business of exposing other people, the media is myopic about itself. The continuing pushback by media personnel to those criticizing their performance certainly suggests they don’t get it at all. Somewhere during the “professionalizing” of journalism, journalists came to believe that they were not only specialists in news gathering but in news understanding. That part was always supposed to be left to the reader/viewer. Not anymore.

Any chance this economic downturn will result in fewer “professional news” outlets?

One of the highlights of this whole miserable election was watching Just Say No Deal’s Diane Mantouvalos tell Chris Matthews that his sexism towards Hillary was one reason she started JSND (at 4:15). She left him stuttering:

By the way, there’s a blog tracking Chris Matthews’ leg, called Chris Matthews’ Leg. Their motto is: “If his lower extremities feel something, you’ll hear it here first.”

Chris Matthews’ Leg already has the inside scoop from election night:

Barack Obama’s victory speech overstimulated the sensitive neuro-receptors in Chris Matthews’ lower left extremity and caused it to hum like a tuning fork.

The Leg couldn’t help feeling it had played a small role in making this historic night possible.

Yes, Chris, MSNBC and pretty much the entire broadcast news industry traded the last bits of their journalistic credibility in the bacchanal of fawning coverage. Sure, Matthews’ and Olbermann’s Bush-Derangement and over-the-top Obama water-carrying during the election made them a national punchline.

But as the nation’s union bosses, trial lawyers, grievance mongers, Israel haters, and global warming hysterics uncorked the champagne and prepared their legislative agendas–The Leg could be heard to whisper:

“Totally, worth it, man . . . totally worth it.”

Here’s the original Chris Matthews’ confession: