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

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

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

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

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

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

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

– Cross Post from: The Pakistan Update

At the 2010 Oscar ceremony, David again triumphed over Goliath with a stone called “The Hurt Locker.” The flood of awards moved viewers around the world. Underdog stories are always good for a tear or two, much like the joy many felt when the scrappy, almost-straight-to-DVD “Slumdog Millionaire” ate the field’s lunch last year.

You may be wondering why a column traditionally devoted to American politics is focusing on Hollywood. The answer is simple. Apart from the battles over legislation and election season, no event in the US is more political than the Oscars. This year was no exception.

It’s likely that Cameron’s epic “Avatar,” the highest-grossing movie of all time and the end result of over a decade of work, lost for the simple reason that Hollywood doesn’t much like James Cameron. Jealousy always comes into play. Stephen Spielberg was not nominated for Best Director for “The Color Purple”, which, like “Avatar” and “The Hurt Locker”, was also nominated for 11 Oscars. It wasn’t until “Schindler’s List” that Spielberg received an award — because it was impossible not to give him the Oscar for creating a modern day masterpiece. Spielberg was a victim of his own success — too much, too soon, too much money, without waiting his turn like a good boy. Cameron is not only rich, but he’s also something of a pushy jerk.

So despite all the hoopla over Avatar’s box office gross and stories about (weirdo) viewers visiting shrinks because they didn’t live on Pandora or their frustrated desires to be reincarnated as Na’vi, the fact remained that Avatar was a glossed up “Ferngully” crossed with “Dances with Wolves” with special effects out of “The Lord of the Rings.” The script was a crude, cliche-ridden howler. It’s the CGI that kept people coming back for more, not the bio-babble plot featuring an intergallactic botanist.

It was apparent in the days leading up to the Oscars that “The Hurt Locker” was a serious contender and not just a flash in the pan. Conveniently timed hit pieces began popping up in the media, featuring interviews with Iraq war vets disputing the the realism of Jeremy Renner’s bomb squad officer. The campaign was similar to the 2002 unsuccessful hit job against “A Beautiful Mind,” a smear campaign so nasty that it drove the film’s real-life protagonist John Nash back into isolation.

2002 featured another smear campaign, this time aimed at Senator Max Cleland of Georgia. Cleland, a Vietnam veteran who lost two legs and an arm after a grenade explosion, was defeated by Congressman Saxby Chambliss, a multiple draft dodger whose ad attacking Cleland intimating that he was a Saddam/bin Laden fellow traveler. Naturally the campaign was the brainchild of the master of dirty tricks Karl Rove. Like John Nash, Cleland spiraled into depression and disappeared from view until 2004, when he energetically campaigned for John Kerry.

Some may think that “The Hurt Locker’s” win is a political act, marking a turning point in recognition of Iraq films, all of which have done poorly at the box office. Nonsense. “The Hurt Locker” could have taken place in any war zone at any time in history. The drama of an adrenaline junkie who misses his family when he’s away from them and disarming bombs when he’s at home is a psychological drama, not a political one. If the Academy had wanted to send a political message, members could have awarded the superb “Redacted” or “In the Valley of Elah,” a movie featuring one of the most shockingly brave endings in the history of war films.

So Kathryn Bigelow becomes the first woman ever to win a “Best Director” Oscar for making an apolitical set in Iraq. For those who are bound to be disappointed that Bigelow didn’t do the Jane Fonda raised fist salute, don’t worry. Her powerful and subtle depiction of the horror of war and the PTSD that results from daily exposure to heat, desolation, danger and horror is profoundly moving. Had it been political the Academy would have been too craven and frightened to back it.

And you can take that to Price Waterhouse.

–
Crosspost from: The Pakistan Update

The packaging of a fantasy is an art in and of itself cleverly crafted by publicists, ambitious stage parents and cynical editors. The formula is fairly simple. The performer must always be portrayed as single and wholesome. Marriage, homosexuality, bizarre personality quirks, poor grooming, violent tendencies, psychological issues, consumption of alcohol and/or drugs and smoking must be concealed at all costs lest the fantasy, and possibly a career, go up in smoke. Chastity rings a la Jonas Brothers are a big plus. The star has to be accessible but always slightly out of reach, cute but never sexual, perfectly behaved….and rather bland. Attracting and keeping the attention of young female fans, who tend to be fickle when it comes to the cuties they admire, is easier said than done.

But it’s impossible to put off the inevitable. The girls realize they’re at a puppet show when they see the strings. The star turns out to be a regular guy. After shedding a few tears and pouting a bit, the heartbroken and disappointed girls move on to the next object of their undying love.

During Campaign 2008, the American press corps hit a double by acting as both the editors of fluffy teenage magazines AND their audience: Weepy, starstruck young girls. The campaign coverage was breathless in its uncritical hero worship of candidate Obama while treating Hillary Clinton like the evil woman who comes between the adoring fan and the object of his/her adoration. The Yoko Ono of politics, if you will. The McCain camp spoofed this silly dynamic by putting out an ad drawing attention to the American Idol-like press coverage of the Obama campaign (the ad was removed from YouTube for copyright violations). And imagine how the press corps would have reacted if Bill Clinton had given his acceptance speech at the Democratic convention standing in front of a set bearing a distinct likeness to a Grecian temple.

Over a year has passed since Obama was sworn into office. Only now are the media beginning to ask whether the man they lost their heads over is the same guy from 2008. The jury’s still out with many in the press corps who continue to keep hope alive. For those who refuse to face the reality that Barack Obama is not the political Donny Osmond, the latest craze is blaming advisors for the Obama administration’s lack of legislative accomplishments. Never mind that Rahm Emanuel was not elected President and that it really doesn’t matter whether Valerie Jarrett chooses to hold court at a restaurant in Georgetown instead of pressing the flesh at an event (and you know things are getting dire when anyone in Obama’s circle is compared unfavorably to Bill Clinton, a man still reviled by the Washington press establishment). These people were appointed by the President to carry out his wishes. If Obama thought they were doing him a disservice they would be fired. The new narrative casting aspersions on the aides is a cop out. It advances the idea that these advisors fell out of the sky, formed a cabal and are now freelancing instead of following the orders of the First Boss. Nonsense.

Obama spent his first year holding a series of town halls, public meetings, press conferences and television interviews. But the bottom line is that legislatively the party has ground to a halt. The foolish narratives advanced by the media aren’t helping much. So the Republicans won an addition seat in Massachusetts? Yes, it’s a significant and important political story, but in a world populated by grown-ups going from a 60-40 supermajority in the Senate to 59-41 does not give the Democrats an out to fold their tents and go home. The Republicans haven’t achieved a supermajority in living memory but were still able to advance a controversial agenda during the tenure of George W. Bush. The fear and defeatism emanating from the Democratic caucus demonstrates an inability, or unwillingness, to lead. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid’s performance has been particularly timid. What ever happened to the Harry Reid who served as chairman of the Nevada Gaming Commission:

A man named Jack Gordon, who later married LaToya Jackson, tried to give Reid a $12,000 bribe. Reid let the FBI videotape Gordon offering him the bribe, and then, according to aLas Vegas Review-Journal account, he “put his hands around Gordon’s neck and said, ‘You son of a bitch, you tried to bribe me.’” That’s right, Senate Democrats are being led by a man who once tried to strangle LaToya Jackson’s future husband-manager.

The media have reached a crossroads. They can either do a group hug and cry over a dream deferred, an illusion they helped create, or they can stop searching for scapegoats and covering Obama as they would any other politician.

Will this happen? It’s hard to tell. It appears that the press have moved on to swoon over their next fascination: American Idol, er, Campaign 2012.

–
Cross Post from: ThePakistanUpdate.com

Congressman – Senator – Vice President – 37th President of the United States Lyndon Baines Johnson was a crude, tactless man. Bobby Kennedy loathed him. The photograph of Johnson taking the oath of office on Air Force One standing next to a shocked, blood-spattered Jacqueline Kennedy is one of the most tragic and iconic images of the 1960s. Conspiracy theorists driven by hatred of Johnson’s Vietnam policies – including filmmaker Oliver Stone – believe Johnson had a hand in Kennedy’s death, a theory that despite lack of proof is stubbornly resilient.

Mystery shrouds Johnson’s election to the Senate in 1948, which many believe Johnson stole with a little help from his friends. In one infamous precinct, 202 ballots were cast alphabetically – all by “voters” who were dead at the time the election was held.

Johnson was a flagrant womanizer. He was ill-mannered, foulmouthed, crooked, stubborn and dead wrong on Vietnam. His tactic for getting his way, known as “the Johnson Treatment,” consisted of a little carrot and, when necessary, abundant stick. When charm didn’t work blackmail and brute force did the trick.

He didn’t like to lose and threw more than a few elbows to win. The “Daisy Girl” ad, which ran only once during his campaign for President against Barry Goldwater in 1964, is still considered one of the most effective attack ads ever made. Accusing your opponent of being a lunatic may not adhere to the Marquess of Queensbery rules but it wins elections.

So why remember this bully and lout?

Because when it came to doing the right thing for the little guy, Lyndon Johnson was a Democrat with a capital “D,” a politician who defied all expectations by being far ahead of his time. As President, he was responsible for designing the “Great Society” legislation that included laws that upheld civil rights, Public Broadcasting, Medicare, Medicaid, environmental protection, aid to education, and helping the disadvantaged in his “War on Poverty.” All while fighting dyed-in-the-wool racist Congressmen, Senators and Governors and a public that had not yet reached a higher state of enlightenment on race relations. And all this without a White House Chief of Staff.

Does Lyndon Johnson sound like the sort of President who would have allowed members of his party to defy him and not feel the sharp end of the stick? Would Senators like Joe Lieberman and Ben Nelson have been able grind the legislative process to a halt with no repercussions? Punishment would have been swift and severe. Committee assignments – gone. Funding for re-election – gone. You want to be a maverick? Political Siberia awaits.

Consider the new President’s conversation with Martin Luther King three days into Johnson’s term following the Kennedy assassination (and consider that he regarded civil rights an important enough issue that he spoke to MLK while the country was still in mourning). Consider his record on civil rights. Going after the Ku Klux Klan. Appointing the first black Supreme Court justice.

LBJ was no fool. He knew the risks of pushing a progressive agenda. “We have lost the South for a generation” Johnson said about the fate of the Democratic party after signing the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

But sign it he did.

His presidency has largely been defined by the debacle of Vietnam, by anti-war protesters chanting “hey hey LBJ, how many kids did you kill today?” He was not a well-loved man when he left office.

But his amazing legacy of social reform brought about by sheer grit and determination remains.

When can the U.S. expect Obama to learn from his predecessor? When will he understand that allowing Congress to squabble like spoiled children and set the President’s agenda is allowing the tail to wag to the dog and makes the party – particularly the President – appear weak and indecisive? Or that the seating of one more Republican Senator doesn’t nullify the results of the 2008 election? That voters want a president who backs up his oratorical skills with action? That “change” wasn’t a focus group-approved slogan for voters, but an actual promise? That just because you inherit a mess of a war from your predecessor doesn’t mean you continue along the same path into quagmire – a dilemma that dogged Johnson’s presidency?

Obama is not Lyndon Johnson. He does not possess Johnson’s remarkable political skills or experience or his cutthroat approach to getting his way. Obama is an outstanding orator. But is he capable of gutsy leadership? Can he get his party in line?

The jury’s still out. During an ABC News interview following Scott Brown’s victory in Massacusetts, Obama warned Democrats in Congress not to “jam” a health care reform bill through now that they’ve lost their commanding majority in the Senate, and said they must wait for newly elected Massachusetts Republican Scott Brown to be sworn into office.

Lyndon Johnson is rolling in his grave.

–
This piece was first published at: ThePakistanUpdate.com

I love John Kass of the Chicago Tribune. He is one of the very, very few columnists who tried to warn us about Obama, Obama’s record (or lack thereof), how he came to be a Senator, and all about Chicago Politics. Simply put, he was a voice crying out in the wilderness.

And now, he has turned his pen (or keyboard, as the case may be) to the rumor that Rahm Emanuel, Obama’s Chief Thug And Chicago-Style politician, may be running for mayor of Chicago in this article,

Rahm In The Mayor’s Race Would Be Quite A Fish Tale. Indeed. Here is Kass on this possibility:

On my first day back at work after vacation, the political news from Washington hit me like a cold dead fish in the face:

Rahm Emanuel, mayor of Chicago?

That’s enough to freeze the bowels of every voter in the land.

“Emanuel, the most political animal in this town … is said to have told people that the ( White House) chief of staff role is an 18-month job and that he is considering a run for mayor of Chicago,” wrote columnist Sally Quinn in the Washington Post on Tuesday. (Tribune photo by Jose M. Osorio / December 18, 2008)

With Hollywood continuing to suck up to the Obama administration, imagine the benefits of a Rahmsian mayoral campaign. HBO’s “Entourage” could film here. The lead character, a charismatic Hollywood agent named Ari, is based on Rahm’s brother, Ari.

Just think of the scenes at Cafe Bionda and Tavern on Rush, and the parts for Rahm’s Chicago buddies, the entourage he’ll need to run things if he’s mayor. State Sen. Jimmy DeLeo (D-How You Doin?) could play Turtle and handle the parties. Corrupt former city water boss Donald Tomczak, who’ll be released from federal prison this year, would thrill “Entourage” fans in the role of Donny Drama.

The White House could have thrown cold water on the idea. Instead, a White House source told the Tribune that “Rahm is 100 percent focused on the job at hand — serving President Obama as his chief of staff.”

From such non-denial denials, a demonic campaign may yet be hatched. If so, I might get down on my hands and knees and beg Mayor Richard Daley to stay. This would frighten the mayor and quite possibly unhinge him — permanently.

Now THAT should give you an idea of what it would be like for Rahm to take the helm of Chicago from someone who lives in Chicago. Kass, undeterred, did something too few journalists seem capable of these days. He picked up the phone to seek answers as opposed to relying on whatever rumor mill put this out:

So I called a mayoral source. “It’s news to us,” said the source. “The mayor has no intention of not being mayor.”

Whew. If the prospect of a Rahm mayoral campaign is frightening, just think if Daley retired and played the geezer, an old man with trousers high, bragging about how he did everything he pleased and nobody could do anything about it.

Of course, he’d want to show up at his old haunts. That’s when every politician he terrified over the years would line up to insult him. Don’t even mention the cops and firefighters. Daley couldn’t handle that kind of retirement.

So if Daley’s not the mayor, it means either he’s passed on or he’s taking a long vacation on some exotic beach, drinking gin and tonics, watching “Entourage” DVDs.

The Washington Post is an esteemed newspaper. But the editors eat in Washington. They don’t eat in Chicago. Yes, papers from Washington and New York periodically dispatch their foreign correspondents to our gritty Midwestern precincts to chronicle our quaint, earthy ways. But they never quite get it.

Don’t you just love this guy? “Quaint, earthy ways” – too funny. Oh, if a presidency hadn’t hinged on that kind of thinking:

Just one year ago, Obama was in his first miracle phase, feeding the multitudes with two fish sandwiches and five hot dog buns. He was applauded as a reformer, even while putting Chicago City Hall guys in charge of the world.

Later, a few journalists were annoyed at Obama’s penchant for meekly bowing down before measly foreign kings and emperors. But bowing meekly is what every young Illinois state senator does when summoned to the mayor’s office in Chicago.

When the president installed Rahm as his chief of staff, the Washington media were turgid with respect, praising Rahm as a shrewd political alley fighter, a maestro of profanity, a former ballet dancer tough enough to send a dead fish to an enemy, just like a Hollywood gangster.

Naturally, the national media marveled that Obama selected a Clinton guy, Emanuel, to run things.

That is because the National Media didn’t bother to do their jobs, as we know all too well:

But Rahm is no Clinton guy. He’s a Daley guy.

And if folks in Washington weren’t so besotted with all that primo Hopium they’ve been smoking, they’d have understood this.

Preach it, brother, preach it!

There’s more:

And, legend has it that Rahm sprouted fully formed from the navel of mayoral brother Billy Daley. Rich even assisted at the birth, and according to the dusty hieroglyphs, is said to have shrieked:

“Push, Billy! Push! Billy, I can see the head! Don’t give up! Push!”

The Washington establishment also ignores how Rahm got elected to Congress in 2002 from Illinois’ 5th District. The district’s Democratic state central committeeman, DeLeo, had something to do with it. So did all those illegal City Hall patronage workers swarming the precincts, led by Donny Drama, currently in federal stir for the nasty habit of taking bribes.

Exactly the same way they ignored how OBAMA got elected to office, or that the one time he couldn’t get everyone OFF the ballot, he LOST. Oh, yeah. Betcha didn’t know that. And he only won his US Senate seat because they managed to unseal sealed divorce records, thus forcing the Republican, Jack Ryan, to drop out right before the election. (You may NOT have heard that there was another Democrat, Blair Hull, who also had his sealed divorce records unsealed. Voila, he was out of the race, too. There is reason to believe that it was David Axelrove and Obama who forced that to happen, too, according to the link above. Who knew, right?) So, Obama ran against Alan Keyes. One of my cats could beat Alan Keyes in an election. That was no big feat. But, no. They didn’t bother:

Yet as if by tacit agreement, Rahm’s Chicago back story doesn’t make national news. But neither did the mayor’s reaction when Rahm was made chief of staff of the Chicago Way.

“It’s a gain,” Daley said last year. “It’s a real gain, gain, gain.”

Unless it’s a fish. A real fish, fish, fish.

And it’s really cold. (jskass@tribune.com)

A “gain” indeed. And we have seen just what kind of “gain” – Chicago Politics Writ Large.

I guess that is one thing about which Obama told the truth. He isn’t a Washington politician – he is something worse – a Chicago politician. And we are seeing exactly how that is playing out across the country now…

I agree that the debasing attacks on the former Governor are ridiculous. Hannity just conducted an interview with Palin which brought him huge ratings. He was respectful to her and I’m sure the principles she trumpets are similar to his own. That is fine. What is not fine is the nonsense he spewed with his panel as they all got fired up defending Sarah Palin. Hannity made the remark that you can bash a conservative woman all you want – but no one would touch a liberal woman. He basically said if you’re Hillary Clinton, you’re safe from this kind of treatment.

Well, Sean, if you’re reading this – here is a little refresher course on what the left did to Hillary in 2008. And by the way, you and your right wing cronies taught them well with the fifteen years of Hillary bashing she and we have had to put up with. Here are a few examples…

“A Super Delegate needs to take her into a room and only he comes out, that kind of scenario.” ( Keith Olbermann, MSNBC)

“The only reason she was elected to the Senate is that people felt sorry for her because of her husband.” (Chris Matthews, MSNBC)

“When she is on camera, I involuntarily cross my legs. She’s castrating, overbearing and scary.” (Tucker Carlson, MSNBC)

“Doesn’t it seem like the Clinton’s are pimping their daughter Chelsea out in some weird way?” (David Shuster, MSNBC)

“They fined CBS a million dollars for Janet Jackson’s nipple. Just think what they could get for Hillary Clinton’s cunt.” (Bill Maher, HBO, Real Time with Bill Maher)

“If she had any dignity, she’d just bow out.” (Jonathan Alter, Newsweek)

“Some women deserve to be called bitches.” (Castellanos, CNN)

“She’s never going to get out of our faces. … She’s like some hellish housewife who has seen something that she really, really wants and won’t stop nagging you about it until finally you say, fine, take it, be the damn president, just leave me alone.” (Leon Wieseltier, literary editor, The New Republic)

“She’s an aging, resentful female.” “She’s a ludicrous embarrassment.” (Christopher Hitchens, Slate, MSNBC)

“Some find that she makes their skin crawl. Some run screaming from the room. And some want to drink a gallon of rat poison while lying across a railroad track.” (columnist Steve Chapman, Chicago Tribune)

“She’s the most secretive politician in America today.” (David Plouffe, Obama campaign)

“We don’t want to have to watch a woman grow old in the White House….She’s got a testicle lockbox.” (Rush Limbaugh)

“Someone needs to go there and take her out behind the barn.” (Pete Snyder, FOX)

“It cries.” (Glenn Beck, FOX)

“When Barack Obama speaks, men hear “Take off for the future.” And when Hillary Clinton speaks men hear, “Take out the garbage.” She does register with married men, like a small worm boring through the brain.” (Marc Rudov, FOX News)

“She is a stranger to consistency, sincerity and (at a guess) oral sex…” (Bob Ellis, ABC Unleashed)

“Without nepotism, Hillary would be running for the president of Vassar.” (Maureen Dowd, NY Times)

“…when I see her again, all my — all the cootie vibes sort of resurrect themselves…I’m sorry. I must represent a lot of people… I actually find her positions appealing in many ways. I just can’t stand her.” (Andrew Sullivan, Chris Matthews Show)

Readers, please feel free to add your own.

You see, Mr. Hannity, there are several big reasons why Sarah Palin said she would love to sit down with Hillary Clinton for a cup of coffee. Those two ladies have a lot to commiserate about. They were both trashed by the left.

The majority of the comments above came from the liberal media. This was but a mere fraction of the daily filth spewed by the likes of these arrogant cowards. Never mind the shameful General T. McPeak who said “Hillary is not fit to lay a wreath at the tomb of the unknown soldier,” or some of the horrid, betraying comments made by the backstabbing elite in her own party. Further, the daily commentary from the likes of The Huffington Post, Daily Kos and so many lefty blogs who bashed Hillary, the more qualified candidate, in favor of a brand name with no experience seems to have escaped Mr. Hannity’s attention as well.

I’m sure Sarah Palin has a great deal of admiration for Hillary – her toughness, her resilience and her body of knowledge. What a shame, Mr. Hannity, that you cannot see fit to extend the same courtesy to a woman clearly deserving of your respect – even if your political philosophies differ.

This is the big problem with punditry from either side. I appreciate that Mr. Hannity has been brave enough to cover topics others news stations will not. I also appreciate that FOX News is the only network daring to hold President Obama’s feet to the fire on policy, rather than cheerleading. While I may not agree with the conservative bent of the network, I do at least get some news rather than pillow fluffing. Hannity’s show clearly is more opinion than anything else, but when he ignores the experience of Hillary Clinton and the insults her supporters had to put up with in the campaign last year – his credibility takes a nosedive.

It was interesting that just before he mentioned her name, he paused for a moment – he knew he was lying about her, saying liberals gave Hillary a pass – but he just couldn’t help himself. Integrity is not selective.

It is said that character is what you do when nobody’s looking. Perhaps Mr. Hannity thought no one would be paying attention. Well, I was looking and his character last night was found wanting.

Turns out I am not the only one who wonders why Obama continues to get a free pass for actions that, had Bush done them, would be front page news (and again, I have NO love lost for Bush – absolutely zero, but fair is fair). Josh Gerstein of Politico had these same questions, about which he wrote in this article, What If Bush Had Done That?. Indeed:

A four-hour stop in New Orleans, on his way to a $3 million fundraiser.

Snubbing the Dalai Lama.

Signing off on a secret deal with drug makers.

Freezing out a TV network.

Doing more fundraisers than the last president. More golf, too.

President Barack Obama has done all of those things — and more.

What’s remarkable is what hasn’t happened. These episodes haven’t become metaphors for Obama’s personal and political character — or consuming controversies that sidetracked the rest of his agenda.

It’s a sign that the media’s echo chamber can be a funny thing, prone to the vagaries of news judgment, and an illustration that, in politics, context is everything.

Conservatives look on with a mix of indignation and amazement and ask: Imagine the fuss if George W. Bush had done these things?

The media’s “echo chamber”? That is a kind reference for what they are really doing, or rather aren’t doing: their jobs. Conservatives aren’t the only ones questioning why this is happening. Anyone who truly cares about the our democracy and the state of journalism in this country are asking, too. But they do ask a good question:

And quickly add, with a hint of jealousy: How does Obama get away with it?

“We have a joke about it. We’re going to start a website: IfBushHadDoneThat.com,” former Bush counselor Ed Gillespie said. “The watchdogs are curled up around his feet, sleeping soundly. … There are countless examples: some silly, some serious.”

Indeed, Bush got grief for secret meetings with the oil industry, politicizing the White House and spending too much time on his beloved bike. But it’s not just Republicans who notice. Media observers note that the president often gets kid-glove treatment from the press, fellow Democrats and, particularly, interest groups on the left — Bush’s loudest critics, Obama’s biggest backers.

But others say there’s a larger phenomenon at work — in the story line the media wrote about Obama’s presidency. For Bush, the theme was that of a Big Business Republican who rode the family name to the White House, so stories about secret energy meetings and a certain laziness, intellectual and otherwise, fit neatly into the theme, to be replayed over and over again.

Obama’s story line was more positive from the start: historic newcomer coming to shake up Washington. So the negatives that sprung up around Obama — like a sense that he was more flash than substance — track what negative coverage he’s received, captured in a recent “Saturday Night Live” skit that made fun of his lack of accomplishments in office.

“There may well be almost an unconscious effort on the part of the media to give Obama a bit more slack because he is more likable, because he is the first African-American president. That plays into it,” said Sherry Bebitch Jeffe, a political analyst at the University of Southern California.

Democrats find the complaints of Obama “getting a pass” hard to stomach in light of the way the press treated Bush — particularly on the single biggest mistake of his presidency, relying on the faulty intelligence leading up to the war in Iraq. Now, Obama’s aides say, the positive coverage simply reflects the fact that their efforts are succeeding.

“As our administration makes progress on the agenda that Washington has ignored for too long, we expect we’ll get some news coverage of that progress that we like and some tough coverage that we don’t,” White House spokesman Josh Earnest said. “It’s not unlike the New Orleans Saints, who are getting lots of good coverage of their perfect record so far — certainly better coverage than the [2-5] Redskins — but it doesn’t mean the Saints have liked every story that’s been written about them since training camp. It goes with the territory.”

There are signs the friendly tone toward Obama is ebbing. Case in point: a front-page story in The New York Times noting that Obama’s all-male basketball games drew fire from the head of the National Organization for Women, who called the games “troubling.”

I agree that Bush seemed to be treated with kit gloves, way, way too much for my liking. The media does seem to enjoy determining who our next president will be. But even Bush’s treatment pales in comparison to the lovefest the MSM has had for Obama.

So yes, they are now asking why Obama excludes women (though he has now tried to rectify that by asking ONE woman, Melody Barnes, to play golf with him) in his games? We have known for ages that often, it is on the golf course or basketball court that favors are curried or power is amassed, hence the desire for women to achieve membership in numerous country clubs across the country. Oh, and Obama’s response to the NY Time’s articles highlighting that women were excluded? “Bunk, ” he said. Uh, yeah, no. It isn’t, President Obama.

There are too many examples of just how Obama has been allowed to skate free:

But here are other stories in which Obama seems to have gotten a pass:

New Orleans

As a candidate, Obama railed against the Bush administration for abandoning and then neglecting the people of New Orleans during Hurricane Katrina. He made five campaign trips to the city.

But as president, Obama waited almost nine months before visiting the Big Easy, spent less than four hours on the ground there and then jetted to San Francisco for a $3 million Democratic fundraiser.

“Don’t judge anybody on the amount of time that they’ve spent there. Judge only what this administration promised that they would do, what they’ve done every day and what they’re continuing to work on,” press secretary Robert Gibbs said, pointing to positive reviews of the federal government’s efforts under Obama.

For their part, Democrats can’t see how Bush officials can muster much umbrage over anything related to New Orleans, given how the Republican administration handled the initial response to Katrina.

Forget “Bush Officials.” How about us plain ol’ Americans? We’re pretty pissed off about it, too. Just saying. A biggie is this:

Managing The Press

When the Obama administration moved in recent weeks to isolate and disparage Fox News as a wing of the Republican Party, there were few immediate howls of outrage — even from Fox’s fellow journalists in the media.

Press defenders and First Amendment advocates who jumped on the Bush administration for using military analysts to shape war coverage reacted with a yawn to the White House’s announcement that it had deemed Fox to be not a “legitimate news organization.”

“Had I said about MSNBC what the Obama White House said about Fox, the media uproar would still be going on,” said Ari Fleischer, who served as Bush’s press secretary until 2003. “I instinctively would have known … the media would have leapt to their feet to defend them. I’m shocked it’s not happening now.”

One press veteran agreed. “If George Bush had taken on MSNBC, what would have happened?” said Phil Bronstein, editor-at-large of the San Francisco Chronicle. “That’s one place you can point to a real difference in how I’d imagine Bush would be treated.”

No freakin’ kidding. People would be screaming their fool heads off about free speech. But the Obamam crowd? They just jump on the Fox bashing bandwagon. Nice.

And this is a big one, too:

Politicizing the White House

Throughout the Bush administration, liberal critics warned that the hand of Bush political adviser Karl Rove was spreading politics into all corners of government. Reporters were on alert for any sign that politics was infecting the work of federal agencies. One top appointee got in hot water for allegedly asking agency officials to work to “help our candidates” across the country.

So some Bush aides went nearly apoplectic earlier this month when they spotted Gibbs and Obama’s political guru, David Axelrod, in photos of a Situation Room meeting on Afghanistan policy.

“Oh, the howling and screaming that would have happened if Karl Rove was sitting in on even a deputies-level meeting where strategy was being hammered out. People would have just gone ballistic,” said Peter Feaver, a former White House aide for both Bush and Bill Clinton.

Also, in about nine months, Obama has already attended more than two dozen fundraising events, while Bush did only six in his first year in office, according to a tally by CBS’s Mark Knoller.

Gibbs said Obama had to do more to raise a similar amount of money, since the kinds of soft-money fundraisers Bush did early on were banned. “This president … doesn’t accept money from PACs or lobbyists and doesn’t allow lobbyists to give at fundraisers that he’s at, as well,” Gibbs added.

Uh, yeah, sure, okay, Mr. Mealy Mouth Man. We all buy that one, right? Uh, yeah, no.

Then there is this one:

Dealing With Business, In Secret

Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney endured years of criticism and lawsuits that stretched all the way to the Supreme Court over secret meetings Cheney’s Energy Task Force held with oil and gas companies. When the policy emerged, critics said Cheney was carrying water for the industry.

Obama pledged to hash out health care reform live on C-SPAN and excoriated Bush for kowtowing to the drug industry. But aides signed off on the drug industry’s agreement to find $80 billion in savings to support reform. However, Obama aides didn’t disclose that the agreement involved the White House promising that current health legislation wouldn’t include further cuts or give the government the right to negotiate over drug prices.

I admit, this did actually get a rise from a few folks, like Greg Palast. But that moment seems to have passed now. Now, people rarely mention it. Big surprise…

And another issue near and dear to many of us:

Toning Down Human Rights

During the campaign, Obama talked tough on China. While candidate Obama pushed Bush to take a hard line, President Obama hasn’t. Hoping to win China’s help on Iran and North Korea, Obama skipped a meeting with the Dalai Lama and said little when China undertook a violent crackdown in its largely Muslim Xinjiang region. The White House has pledged to meet with the Dalai Lama later.

And while candidate Obama warned Bush against a “reckless and cynical initiative [that] would reward a regime in Khartoum that has a record of failing to live up to its commitments,” President Obama’s envoy to Sudan, Scott Gration, seemed to lay out a similar incentive-driven approach.

“We’ve got to think about giving out cookies,” said Gration. “Kids, countries — they react to gold stars, smiley faces, handshakes, agreements, talk, engagement.” The White House backed away from Gration’s characterization of the strategy but did recently lay out a strategy of engaging with the Sudanese regime.

Obama snubbed the DALAI LAMA. C’mon already – THAT’S not going to get an outcry? He’s the DALAI LAMA, for pete’s sake! No? *Crickets*

Just for, um, fun:

Traveling And Recreating

In his campaign and as president, Bush was mocked for a lack of interest in all things foreign — seven minutes touring the Kremlin, 25 minutes at the Great Wall of China, before declaring, “Let’s go home.”

During a trip to Europe in June, Obama chastised German and French reporters for suggesting that he was snubbing those countries by making only brief stops in each. “There are only 24 hours in the day. And so there’s nothing to any of that speculation beyond us just trying to fit in what we could do on such a short trip,” he told reporters in Germany.

But after taking his wife out for an attention-grabbing date night, Obama promptly jetted back to Washington. Within about 90 minutes of arriving at the White House, the tightly scheduled president was on the move again — headed to Andrews Air Force Base to play nine holes of golf.

How quickly people change. If Bush had done ANY of these things, the HuffPo and Daily Kos crowds would have been going ballistic about it. But now that it’s THEIR guy, it’s peachy keen. Where is the sense of fair play? Where is the concept of right is right? No, all of that gets completely thrown out of the window if it is someone they actually LIKE.

That is just sad. While ethics can be situational, the similarities between Bush and Obama are glaring, as many of us said they were all along. To completely disregard any sense of decency because it’s their guy weakens their arguments about choosing him in the first place. It makes it crystal clear that this is about winning at all costs, and choosing someone with little more than a teleprompter to do so.

It weakens their arguments against Bush, too, though they will most likely never admit that. But it’s true. In this case, what’s god for the gander, is, well, good for the gander.

Maybe if the media actually starts to do its job (for instance, where are all of the photos of Obama playing golf all of the time? Or basketball? They never failed to show Bush playing or riding his bike.), maybe they will start to open their eyes. One can hope, anyway. In the meantime, it continues to be our job to hold Obama’s feet to the fire for decisions he makes, and doesn’t make. It is our job to hold up the glaring similarities between Bush and Obama. And do so we will…

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Q&A continued:

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

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

Gibbs: ABC -

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

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

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

Gibbs: That’s our opinion. -jpt

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

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

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

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

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

Thomas Jefferson said it best:

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

And, when he said this:

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

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

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

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

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

Here is the expanded version of the video O’Keefe mentioned:

Why is it people don’t understand the concept of videotape?? Unlike the introductions to “Mission Impossible,” it does NOT self-destruct after being played just once! So when someone goes on camera to make a claim, they might want to make sure there isn’t a recording somewhere refuting their claims. I’m just sayin’.

You may recall that these videos raised the issues of funding for ACORN and investigations into their practices. Rep. John Conyers decided to, once again, investigate this organization. As a result of this expose, both the House and the Senate voted to cut their funding. Rightly so, I might add.

But not so fast – it is possible that funding will be restored once the FY 2010 Budget is passed, thus cutting ACORN’s funding for TWO months. Clearly, this is something we will have to watch, but that this is even possible is absurd. Apparently, our elected representatives think we’re a bunch of idiots. Let’s make sure they know we aren’t.

Until then, ACORN’s continued fall couldn’t happen to a more deserving group, don’t you think?

Whatever one may think of Rush Limbaugh, the controversy surrounding his attempts to participate in a consortium buying the Rams has made for some strange bedfellows. Apparently Limbaugh was falsely accused of making racist statements he did not make. Juan Williams of FOX News stood up for the truth and was told he should “get back on the porch.” Understandably, Mr. Williams was furious. While he has at times been critical of President Obama, it is not his habit. Imagine his horror when he realized that if he dares for once to tell a truth that is not “politically correct,” he too will be thrown under the bus by race baiters.

Mr. Williams interviews commentator Tammy Bruce and the Rev. Ken Hutcherson, PhD, a former NFL player, conservative pastor and African American who is close friends with Mr. Limbaugh. This 7:45 video is well worth your time…*

This segment speaks truth to power. What do you think?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Uh huh. Sounds like a lot of backpedaling.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

* * * * *
UPDATE:

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

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

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

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