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.

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

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?

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.

ALSO: I’ve received more recommendations for feminist books, and will be adding those in the story or in the ad column this afternoon. Thanks to all for your suggestions!)

Damn straight we will NOT forget, all you sexist and misogynistic scions of the MANstream Obamedia with your self-aggrandizing, “land of the blind” ignorance of what women endure, to this day, with stereotypes, slights, direct insults, demoralizing putdowns, and outright hostility (and that means you, Mr. “take her in a room” Keith Olbermann who, I bet, hasn’t a clue just how misogynistic he really is).

I’m not flogging that book on the historic writings of feminism that I discovered at Amazon yesterday while looking for good books on feminism, but I found this part of an editorial review of the book to be important to share with you all:

Enlightened males (John Stuart Mill, Frederick Douglass, Henrik Ibsen) are permitted a few heartening words, but mainly the women yell for themselves: “All I ask of our brethren is, that they take their feet from off our necks.” The piecemeal collection supports the editor’s assertion that “feminism has not developed a viable theoretical foundation.”

Such theory as there is seems to be an incidental byproduct of socialist doctrines and it is impotently outdated. [Susan's Note: I cannot convey just how important I find this sentence. We need a whole new 21st-century way for making women and men aware of the ongoing sexism and misogyny, and we obviously can NOT rely, any longer, on the outdated and shamefully irrelevant vehicles such as the now-discredited Ms. Magazine.]

Despite this, or perhaps because of it, the sometimes plaintive, sometimes shrill complaints of the women on their dreary, circumscribed lives are frequently articulate and the rejection of their submissive, decorative status is fervent.

All agree: Eve was framed; the doll’s house is a prison.

Eve was framed.

Hillary was framed.

We will not stand for it any longer.

::::::::::::::::::::::::::

P.S. I’m open to suggestions for great books on feminism to advertise. Please send your recommendations to me at susanunpc at gmail dot com.

::::::::::::::::::::::::::

And now it’s your turn.

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.

The modern media’s 24 hour news cycle has changed the way the news is delivered and has pretty much destroyed the tenets of journalism. In order to get information out first and constantly refresh the news product, old rules about double and triple checking information provided by sources and investigating the integrity of those sources no longer fit the game.

Shortly after election day, Fox News ran a story quoting an unnamed McCain source as saying that Sarah Palin was not aware that Africa was a continent. Just a few minutes later, the story popped up on MSNBC after someone who saw the Fox piece e-mailed the tip to a friend in the MSNBC newsroom.

Instantly, e-mails and blogs started buzzing and those suffering from extreme “Palin Derangement Syndrome” were ecstatic over having more “proof” that she wouldn’t make it past the first round on “Are you Smarter than a 5th Grader”.

Heres the problem, the entire story was a hoax perpetrated by a couple of guys trying to drum up interest in a television show based on a fictional character they have created.

Believe it or not, the NY Times actually has the story. Read about it here

If you are waiting for prime time retractions, don’t hold your breath.

Who would say such a thing? On Monday the answer popped up on a blog and popped out of the mouth of David Shuster, an MSNBC anchor. “Turns out it was Martin Eisenstadt, a McCain policy adviser, who has come forward today to identify himself as the source of the leaks,” Mr. Shuster said.

Trouble is, Martin Eisenstadt doesn’t exist. His blog does, but it’s a put-on. The think tank where he is a senior fellow — the Harding Institute for Freedom and Democracy — is just a Web site. The TV clips of him on YouTube are fakes.

And the claim of credit for the Africa anecdote is just the latest ruse by Eisenstadt, who turns out to be a very elaborate hoax that has been going on for months. MSNBC, which quickly corrected the mistake, has plenty of company in being taken in by an Eisenstadt hoax, including The New Republic and The Los Angeles Times.

Now a pair of obscure filmmakers say they created Martin Eisenstadt to help them pitch a TV show based on the character.

The creators of this hoax, know just how easy it is to take advantage of today’s media.

They say the blame lies not with them but with shoddiness in the traditional news media and especially the blogosphere.

“With the 24-hour news cycle they rush into anything they can find,” said Mr. Mirvish, 40.

Mr. Gorlin, 39, argued that Eisenstadt was no more of a joke than half the bloggers or political commentators on the Internet or television.

Even MSNBC admits to the mistake

An MSNBC spokesman, Jeremy Gaines, explained the network’s misstep by saying someone in the newsroom received the Palin item in an e-mail message from a colleague and assumed it had been checked out. “It had not been vetted,” he said. “It should not have made air.”

And while the MSM is easily fooled, bloggers are even bigger victims of information hoaxes.

But most of Eisenstadt’s victims have been bloggers, a reflection of the sloppy speed at which any tidbit, no matter how specious, can bounce around the Internet. And they fell for the fake material despite ample warnings online about Eisenstadt, including the work of one blogger who spent months chasing the illusion around cyberspace, trying to debunk it.

As for Sarah Palin, the damage is already done for now. No amount of retractions will make up for the hits her image has taken. Jay Leno, David Letterman, Bill Maher and Jon Stewart will not be telling jokes about how stupid they were in repeating this nonsense. Maybe they should have written a few more jokes about the guy running for President of the 57 United States.

On the media level, there are no solutions coming. News organizations will not invest more time and money into vetting stories. Reporters and bloggers will not take more time to carefully check their facts in fear of losing out to competitors. The only solution has to come from us, the consumers. We just have to accept that every news story that comes down the road, is just a story and we can not rush to judgement.

I remember a time when, if a woman was brutally raped, the cops would ask her,

“What were you wearing?”.

Those were the days, not so long past, when it was the woman’s fault if her husband kicked the crap out of her. She asked for it. It was also her fault if she got raped because she asked for it.

I thought we had improved since then. But we haven’t. Well, actually we had made progress, but there is a certain man who is now the elected President of the United States, who set back gender relations by a minimum of 50 years. But nobody is blaming him. It can’t possibly be his fault as a maliciously gleeful Enabler. Why blame him when there is a woman or two around to blame? And why not? When men aren’t busy blaming us women, we are busy blaming each other.

This morning I tuned into FOX. It was the first time I had bothered with a news channel since the election. FOX was my only choice, as MSNBC and CNN are forever dead to me. There, I watched the classy Lady Lynn Forester De Rothschild sitting there on a panel designed to discuss What’s Wrong With Sarah.

Yes, “regressive progressive” boys, I know that Lady R is married to a rich man, so that cancels her out in some of your little minds.

The fact that Lady De Rothschild was a successful businesswoman and a millionaire in her own right before she married isn’t really relevant is it? I recall my immigrant grandmother, who had no education to speak of all, telling me that it’s not wise to hang around with a guy who has less than you do.

So Lady R was smart enough to marry somebody who wasn’t going to suck down her assets. Too bad some other women I have known in my life didn’t take that same advice. Sorry Lynn’s good sense disappoints you, regressives fellas.

So there I was, watching Lady R sitting on an “esteemed” FOX panel discussing Sarah Palin and how we can pin John McCain’s loss on her. So, who was on this “panel” with her?: None other than the morally bankrupt Jerry I love prostitutes so that makes me a real politician, but I got caught so now I encourage white trash to throw pies at each other in order to earn a living Springer.

But they weren’t alone. Nope. Nick DePaolo was there offering his ‘wisdom’ as well. Being Italian, I recognize a dago greaseball when I see one. This is why I was not surprised when ole Nick said in his best hairy macho, “Some female in the campaign had a problem with her” to describe why she is enduring smears at the moment.

I thought, Wow! Double-Dipping Woman-Blaming, Nick! Brilliant! You’re experienced at this! Your mother enabled you well! It’s a woman’s fault but we’ve got the wrong woman in our sights! It’s not Sarah at all! It’s some other woman who had a problem with Sarah who started all these rumors!

Yeah, that’s it, It’s a woman’s fault that it’s a woman’s fault. Nicky! Paisano! You didn’t let me down!

I’m not sure, but I think I saw Lady R nearly roll her eyes at that point. But, being a disciplined, well-educated person with a solid three-digit IQ unmatched by the two goons next to her, she was very gracious to these two knuckle dragging beasts she was forced to talk to. I really admired her at that moment. Here she was on a panel with two accurate remnant-samplings of Pithecanthropus Erectus and she didn’t haul off and tell them both just how stupid and useless they both really are. I suspect that Lady R understands the concept that you can’t make a silk purse out of a sow’s ear.

So just to recap. John McCain’s loss was Sarah’s problem. This is an important point to make because, behind the scenes, there are several cowardly unnamed members of McCain’s staff who are trying to save their own incompetent asses in hopes that somebody will hire them again to work on another horribly run campaign.

Flailing, because they all look like idiots for managing a campaign that was suitable for a council candidate in a town of 10,000, they needed someone to blame. Fortunately for them, there was a woman there, else whatEVER would they have done?

So, because several seriously inept and embarrassing staffers in the McCain campaign are wondering whether they will ever work again, it worked for them to just say “It’s Sarah’s fault that we are stupid, inept and really should be working here instead of ever being allowed to run another high-powered campaign”.

And the main stream Unmedia was more than willing to jump on that wagon. After all, they were experienced at trashing a woman, having gotten plenty of practice on Hillary. ironically just as it was a few decades ago when women got raped, they even had the audacity to use “What were you wearing?” on Sarah.

And by the way, exactly where is John McCain during this current Sarah Palin trash session?

::::Crickets::::

Ok, so now we have it analyzed. In true, “Blame the victim not the perpetrator” fashion, we can only conclude that it’s all Sarah’s fault that we are about to install America’s first Marxist-Leninist President.

But wait! No!!!!!

It’s not Sarah’s fault at all!

It’s Hillary’s fault!

As I cruised the former We Love Hillary blogs and websites yesterday, I found myself reading all about how all of this is Hillary’s fault. There, in front of my eyes, respected people, people I truly admire, were blaming Hillary. Hillary didn’t push back. Hillary didn’t abandon the Party, Hillary didn’t expose Barack Obama, Hillary stumped for the candidate. Hillary sent us a message to go back to our abuser. Hillary put up with the sexism. Hillary didn’t spend every dime she had for principle! Hillary didn’t run as an Independent!

Let me ask you something, folks: Can you name me ONE President of the United States who won a race as an Independent? Go ahead, take your time. I’ll wait…..

The fact is, folks, Hillary did EVERYTHING she could, and YES she was a victim of an Enabler, and there wasn’t a single thing she could do about it without winding up NOWHERE! Anybody who imagines it would have been different is a fool and has certainly never run for office at any level.

But apparently, Hillary didn’t get skewered enough for The Cause, so now we all need to join in.

I mean, she wasn’t the victim or anything right!? The hypocritical biggoted DNC shouldn’t bear the brunt of our resentment, right? Barack Obama and his vibrating cell phone shouldn’t bear the brunt of our resentment, right? CNN and MSNBC shouldn’t bear the brunt of our resentment, right?. That would be far too difficult. Let’s make it easy on ourselves and blame her! And let’s get other women to join in! That always works well!

What was she wearing?

.

So Ok, I’ll play along: It’s Hillary’s fault!

But wait! No!!!!

It’s not just Sarah’s fault or Hillary’s fault, it’s the fault of all women !!!!

Yeah that’s it! Why stop with just two of you when we can blame all of you?

Below is a comment I received right here from a guy on this blog::

I am a long-time lurker here, and a first-time poster. My depression over BO’s victory is compounded by the apparent lack of impact from the millions of Clinton supporters who could have/should have been the difference in this election. What happened?

Here is my answer.

We women are pretty much accustomed to being blamed for every goddamned thing that you guys feel like laying on us, but this time I gotta push back.You need to ask the same question of those whiney far right republicans who sulked because some Far right whackjob wasn’t nominated instead of a centrist. I’ll bet more PUMAs voted for McCain than far right, social conservatives. Boy I guess they showed everybody huh?

You need to ask the same question of the evangelicals who, by last count, gave thirty percent of their votes to a communist who belongs to a religion tied to marxism and the middle east. And then ask them what size burka they would like because they are all fools.

You need to ask the same question of Catholics who went for Barack Obama on one issue only: Abortion.

We PUMAs aren’t going to take your own party’s rap. Sorry but no cigar.

This commenter didn’t even realize what he was trying to do. He was blaming The Women en masse for McCain’s horrendous campaign and loss, not because the commenter is malicious, but because he is programmed. So don’t hold it against him. He is programmed and we women helped to program him.

In addition, we women help enable this kind of thought process daily–by trashing each other. In a “man’s world” this is the oldest trick in the world–and probably the single most powerful device known to Man to ensure that women help them to keep other women down. It works well in Corporate America and it works well in politics. I’m here to tell you, I am NOT playing along. And if you, my sisters, had any brains, you wouldn’t play along either. We need to stop allowing other women who are victimized to be blamed by the perpetrators.

Back when Feminism actually meant something other than Roe v. Wade, back when feminists weren’t politically correct and would never have tolerated the abuses of women around the world, knowing that as we speak, a woman is being set aflame in the middle east for “shaming” the family after being raped, back when feminists actually DID circle each others’ wagons, I listened to a speaker whose name I no longer remember. But I remember her message well, if only in paraphrase:

Humans are the only species that has the female actually give birth to her own oppressors. Then the female teaches them the art of oppression.

I admittedly felt the need to join in with the “blame Hillary” movement at one point. It was the quote above that reminded me that this is wrong on so many levels.

I hope I have given at least one of my sisters food for thought today. Lady R clearly understands that when a woman enables her oppressors by joining in on the man’s game of trashing another woman, all women lose. And when one woman loses, the game continues– and one day you will be the victim of the very same game (if you haven’t already!).

We need to stop being so hard on each other, sisters! Lady R understands this!

Did Sarah say some dumb things? Yup. But let me ask you: HOW STUPID WAS JOE BIDEN during this campaign? Do we hear ONE thing about this moron who is a heartbeat away from the Presidency? Of course not! Do you know why? Because men circle each other’s wagons, ladies. And that’s our problem. We haven’t learned to do the same for our sisters. And as long as we continue being used by the Oldest Trick Known, we will always be the victims who are blamed by the perpetrators. It is the single biggest reason why we women, who comprise MORE THAN HALF of the electorate, are sitting in mud at this very moment.

Did Hillary fight like we have never seen another woman fight before? You bet she did! Then why have we forgotten this? What do we remember? We remember that she gave up. Well damn her for giving up in the face of an ENTIRE media assault, an Enabling Lying, Cheating Sexist Pig opponent she couldn’t vet without being called a racist, and an ENTIRE political party working against her! Shame on her for giving up, when she could have instead had the pleasure of losing her job, her life, her career, and the ability to do anything good for humanity in the future.

Oh I just know you would have done it differently, right? Right? Me too! Right!

In closing, I would like to ask all of my sisters out there one question: Do you think these women succeeded by joining in with men and bashing each other in public?

Like many of you before this election cycle, I never watched Fox News. In my naivete, I believed they were the bad guys and MoveOn were the good guys. Boy have things changed.

I now go to Fox before any of the other MSM, and while there are several excellent reporters there, my favorite is Greta Van Susteren. Greta Wire has the real dope, the antidote to the sexism and misogyny of the others talking heads, men and women alike.

In response to Obama’s Infomercial, Greta points out that Obama is not taking questions and that there are questions that women in particular need answered:

Tomorrow night [TODAY, October 29] Senator Obama has purchased 30 minutes on television on multiple television statIons. It is disappointing that he is NOT TAKING QUESTIONS – that means he is going to miss talking about issues that might matter to YOU. Until now, I have had a question that he has not answered but he won’t do an interview with me to get the answer….but now I have another question….a new one…and I think he needs to answer this BEFORE WOMEN VOTE FOR HIM on November 4 ..and here is the question (with a few follow ups):

She asks questions that Obama has ignored through the primary and then general election.

IS IT TRUE THAT WOMEN IN YOUR SENATE OFFICE GET PAID LESS THAN THE MEN???? PLEASE ANSWER THIS IMPORTANT ISSUE TO WOMEN IN YOUR 30 minutes tomorrow night! IF THIS IS FALSE, MAKE SURE WE KNOW AS IT WOULD BE UNFAIR TO YOU.

SusanUNPC addressed this in a post in September; in addition, Obama’s inequality to women has been raised here and here and here. Greta makes her case to Obama for answers before election day in terms that all women can understand:

I have read that the women get paid 83 cents to the men’s $1.00 in your Senate office…true? or false? ….I was suspicious of the unequal pay allegations and suspected the allegation was wrong and/or politically motivated. So what did I do? I had someone on my staff crunch the numbers and it is, per our calculations 84 cents on the dollar! I am still uneasy about our number crunching. We are not accountants and this is a very important issue. What is the truth? Tell us!

As an aside, we did a similar analysis of Senator McCain’s Senate office and women get 97 cents to the men’s $1.00.

Let me tell you what I was also told by my number cruncher – which might be disturbing to women (if true.) The reason for this unequal pay for women analysis is due in part because men hold the better jobs (the important high paying jobs) in your Senate Office. This also needs to be explained. Women in other Senate Offices are the chief of staff etc and hold all sorts of important higher paying jobs than entry ones. Why don’t women hold the high paying jobs in your Senate Office? Women I know don’t accept it anymore that we can’t have important jobs. Many women not only are the breadwinners in many families but also assume extra responsibilities at home…yes, multitask..so we demand equal pay for equal work and equal opportunity…not extra..and not less.

There are many reasons I refuse to vote for Obama, but the sexism coming out of the Democratic Party is the reason I have quit the party after almost 40 years of loyalty. And the liberal women who felt justified in attacking Hillary turned their rabidity onto Palin with a bloodlust previously unimaginable.

Sarah Palin appeals to women who work hard for a living, especially women who work hard while raising a family. But as we’ve seen, the Democratic Party, as evidenced by Randy Rhodes’ comments about older white Hillary supporters, Donna Brazile’s comments about the Democratic Party not needing the white-working class, Obama calling blue-collar Pennsylvania Democrats “bitter,” and Rep. Murtha calling huge swaths of Pennsylvanians “racists,” it’s clear that the new Democratic Party, with Obama as their leader, HATES THE WHITE WORKING CLASS! Obama will not deign to answer Greta’s question because if you have to quibble over the difference between .83 and .97, you are of no interest to him. To quote Victor David Hanson again, as Reverend Amy did in her fine post:

Feminism, it turns out, is no longer about equal opportunity and equal compensation, but, in fact, little more than a strain of contemporary elitist identity politics, and support for unquestioned abortion. Had Gov. Sarah Palin just been a mother of a single child at Vassar rather than of five in Alaska, married to a novelist rather than a snow-machiner, an advocate of pro-choice, who shot pictures of Alaskan ferns rather than shot moose — feminists would have hailed her as a principled kindred soul, and trumpeted her struggles against Alaskan male grandees.

This is not the Democratic Party I used to know.

I commend the readers and commentators at No Quarter for helping make this piece possible. So here goes.

First up, surprise of surprises, Keith Olberman’s interview of Barack Obama. I haven’t seen that much man on man love action since I watched Brokeback Mountain. Critical difference–nobody dies in Keith’s version (Hat tip, OhVoter). Check this out:

OLBERMANN: This is more about campaign tactics to start with rather than issues. But it seems sometimes like tactics have replaced issues altogether. “He fights pork barrel spending,” said this new McCain/Palin ad, “she stopped the ‘Bridge to Nowhere.’”
I mean, it sounds a little like “Remington Steele,” but I’m confused otherwise. As late as October of 2006, Mrs. Palin insisted to voters in Alaska that not only would she defend that infamous bridge, but she also said — and here’s the quote — “She would not allow the spinmeisters to turn this project or any other into something that’s so negative.” What are Sen. McCain and Governor Palin doing in this new commercial, do you think?

OLBERMANN: And Governor Palin hired a lobbyist to get earmarks to the tune of $27 million for a 6,000-person town which is — in its own scope, is kind of a neat trick, but it does seem to counterbalance the basic platform of the Republican Party. You said that they’re not telling the truth here, but when the stuff is a gross distortion, whether it’s about their own positions or yours, or facts in your history or whatever, what can you do about it? And why do people hesitate to use the word “lie” about these things? And Governor Palin hired a lobbyist to get earmarks to the tune of $27 million for a 6,000-person town which is — in its own scope, is kind of a neat trick, but it does seem to counterbalance the basic platform of the Republican Party. You said that they’re not telling the truth here, but when the stuff is a gross distortion, whether it’s about their own positions or yours, or facts in your history or whatever, what can you do about it? And why do people hesitate to use the word “lie” about these things?

OLBERMANN: To something from your own convention, maybe the most compelling moment of your acceptance speech in Denver was that one strongly voiced word, “enough.” A lot of people who have felt angry about what has been done to this country in the last seven or eight years have that same sense of urgency and simplicity to it. Have you thought of using on the campaign trail and in your speaking engagements, more exclamation points? Have you thought of getting angrier?

OLBERMANN: But clearly it must not be fully on their minds because the race is as close as it is. And nobody’s burst into laughter at the latest Republican ad, at least not many Republicans have. Have the Republicans succeeded in muddying up this election in kind of overcomplicating it so the point is not as simple as you just made it. Sixty years ago Harry Truman went out and campaigned very simply, looked out at people in trouble because of a Republican Congress at that point and the impact it had on their lives and he said, “How many more times do you have to be hit over the head till you figure out who’s hitting you?” I mean, has your campaign in some way not kept it that simple?

OLBERMANN: You pointed out last week how little time at their convention Republicans spent talking about the economy. I think the time might have been zero, zero, zero. I’m not sure. We weren’t running a clock. But if the election does, in fact, hinge on the economy, on how Americans are doing, has there been thought given to breaking this down to its simplest element, in much the way one of the Republican icons, Mr. Reagan did during the 1980 campaign, and ask the voters if today, are you better off now than you were eight years ago?

OLBERMANN: In terms of getting that and other messages out, Rachel Maddow wanted me to ask this question, so I’m doing this on her behalf, because her new show is starting tonight. Given — given the tone that the campaign has taken, I mean, this Georgia congressman last week, Mr. Westmoreland, who called you and your wife, quote, “Uppity.” In that context, do you regret putting the brakes on the 527 groups who would have produced or could have produced hard-hitting ads that would have been sharing your sympathies?

OLBERMANN: One more campaign question. It pertains to not knowing someone or something. This is a question I have not really heard asked directly of anybody in a position perhaps to answer it, let alone answered. In your opinion, is Governor Palin experienced enough and qualified enough to become president of the United States in the relatively short-term future?

Unfortunately, Keith is not alone. How about Katie Couric, ankle biter extraordinaire? Thanks to Mimi and McHope we have the record of Katie teeing off on Sarah Palin while giving Joe Biden everything but a Thailand “Happy Ending.”

COURIC V OBAMA (July 23, 2008) After more than a year campaigning – ALL FOREIGN POLICY

1) Sen. Obama, first of all, you have not been to Iraq since 2006. What did you learn on your recent visit that surprised you? Or what was new?

2) You and Prime Minister Maliki (are) on the same page when it comes to a troop withdrawal by 2010. Why do you believe that the Iraqi security forces, which have taken so long to get up to speed, will be equipped to protect the country at that point?

3) You talk about a residual force remaining in Iraq, but you’ve been hesitant to really give a number to people. You haven’t been specific, though some of your advisors have said it could be tens of thousands of troops. Why can’t you be more specific as to what you envision?

4) Having said that, if General Petraeus or the chairman of the joint chiefs, Admiral Mullen, say to you, “Hey, President Obama …” if that comes to pass, “you cannot take out the final complement of combat troops. You need them in theater,” you would say?

5) And base your decision still on conditions on the ground as well?

6) Before the surge, as you know, Senator, there were 80 to 100 U.S. casualties a month, the country was rife with sectarian violence, and you raised a lot of eyebrows on this trip saying even knowing what you know now, you still would not have supported the surge. People may be scratching their heads and saying, “Why?”

7) All that may be true. But do you not give the surge any credit for reducing violence in Iraq?

But talking microcosmically, did the surge, the addition of 30,000 additional troops … help the situation in Iraq?

9)(more of a comment) But yet you’re saying … given what you know now, you still wouldn’t support it … so I’m just trying to understand this.

10) And I really don’t mean to belabor this, Senator, because I’m really, I’m trying … to figure out your position. Do you think the level of security in Iraq …would exist today without the surge?

11) If you believe, Senator, Afghanistan is, in fact, the central front in the war on terror, why was this your first trip there? And why didn’t you hold a single hearing as chairman of the subcommittee that oversees the fighting force there?

12) You reportedly chaff when your foreign policy expertise is questioned. If foreign policy is not your weakest area of expertise, what is? (Obama said disorganization)

13) But what area do you feel least comfortable with?

14) We have a lot more ground to cover. You’re heading to Israel after Jordan. And according to a recent poll out of Jerusalem, Israeli Jews favor John McCain for President 43 to 20 percent, with one-third undecided. Why do you think that’s the case?

15) There is some speculation, there is skepticism there because they’re concerned about your previously stated notion of having talks with Iranian leaders, that somehow that signals to them that you won’t be tough enough to Iran. What’s your response to that?

16) If they reject negotiations, how likely do you think a preemptive military strike by Israel against Iran may be?

17) Two more questions. You said not too long ago that Jerusalem should remain undivided. And then you backtracked on that statement. Does that play into the argument that some believe that someone more experienced would not have made that kind of mistake?

18) Finally, you’ll be going to Germany and to France and Great Britain. And according to German press reports, as many as a million people may be gathering to hear your speech in Berlin. Do you worry at all, Sen. Obama, that this kind of crowd in Berlin may be slightly off-putting to the guy in Columbus, Ohio, who’s just lost his job?

http://www.electionspeeches.com/barack_obama_katie_couric.htm

SUBJECTS covered: Iraq trip, surge, Afghanistan why he did not hold a committee hearing, What is Obama’s weakest area, Israeli Jews support for McCain, negotiations with Iran, divided versus undivided Israel, what people in Ohio will think of his trip to Europe

COURIC V. PALIN Sept. 24, 2008 (3 weeks after receiving the VP nomination)

PART 1 – Domestic issue

1)(Couric Asked Palin about Rick Davis’ firm having received money from Fannie Mae)

2)But he still has a stake in the company so isn’t that a conflict of interest?

3)Why do you say that? Why are they waiting for John McCain and not Barack Obama?

4)(more of a comment)But polls have shown that Sen. Obama has actually gotten a boost as a result of this latest crisis, with more people feeling that he can handle the situation better than John McCain.

5)If this doesn’t pass, do you think there’s a risk of another Great Depression?

6)Would you support a moratorium on foreclosures to help average Americans keep their homes?

7)So you haven’t decided whether you’ll support it or not?

8)What are the pros and cons of it do you think?

9)You’ve said, quote, “John McCain will reform the way Wall Street does business.” Other than supporting stricter regulations of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac two years ago, can you give us any more example of his leading the charge for more oversight?

10)(more of a comment) But he’s been in Congress for 26 years. He’s been chairman of the powerful Commerce Committee. And he has almost always sided with less regulation, not more.

11)But can you give me any other concrete examples? Because I know you’ve said Barack Obama is a lot of talk and no action. Can you give me any other examples in his 26 years of John McCain truly taking a stand on this?

12) I’m just going to ask you one more time – not to belabor the point. Specific examples in his 26 years of pushing for more regulation.

PART 2: FOREIGN AFFAIRS

13) As we stand before this august building and institution, what do you see as the role of the United States in the world?

14) In preparing for this conversation, a lot of our viewers … and Internet users wanted to know why you did not get a passport until last year. And they wondered if that indicated a lack of interest and curiosity in the world.

15) Gov. Palin, you’ve had a very busy week. And you’re meeting with many world leaders. You met with President Karzai of Afghanistan. I know the McCain campaign has called for a surge in Afghanistan. But that country is, as you know, dramatically different than Iraq. Why do you believe additional troops, U.S. troops, will solve the problem there?

16) The United States is deeply unpopular in Pakistan. Do you think the Pakistani government is protecting al Qaeda within its borders?

17) You’ve cited Alaska’s proximity to Russia as part of your foreign policy experience. What did you mean by that?

18) Have you ever been involved in any negotiations, for example, with the Russians?

19) When President Bush ran for office, he opposed nation-building. But he has spent, as you know, much of his presidency promoting democracy around the world. What lessons have you learned from Iraq? And how specifically will you try to spread democracy throughout the world?

20) You met yesterday with former Secretary of State Henry Kissinger, who is for direct diplomacy with both Iran and Syria. Do you believe the U.S. should negotiate with leaders like President Assad and Ahmadinejad?

21) You recently said three times that you would never, quote, “second guess” Israel if that country decided to attack Iran. Why not?

SUBJECTS covered in Part 1: Rick Davis’ firm and Fannie Mae, Economic crisis, will there be a Depression without the bailout, does she support the bailout, what are the pros and cons of the bailout, moratorium on foreclosures, McCain’s record on regulation as it relates to mortgage crisis

SUBJECTS covered in Part 2: US role in the world, why she did not have a passport until last year, a surge strategy (additional troops) in Afghanistan, whether or not Pakistan is harboring al Qaeda in its borders, why she said Alaska’s proximity to Russia gives her foreign affairs experience, has she ever negotiated with Russia, Bush and nation-building and whether or not she will spread democracy in the world, does she agree with Kissinger that there should be direct negotiations with Iran and Syria, why she wouldn’t second-guess Israel, if it decided to attack Iran

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/09/24/eveningnews/main4476173.shtml

COURIC V BIDEN – September 22, 2008

1) Polls show that Sen. McCain and Sarah Palin are making inroads among white female voters who are less educated…

2) How is it preparing for the debates?

3) Are you worried that you’re going to have to pull your punches a bit because of her gender and you don’t want to seem like you’re bullying her? It’s a different dynamic when it’s a male/female thing, isn’t it?

4) Are you disappointed with the tone of the campaign? The ‘lipstick on the pig’ stuff, and some of the ads – you guys haven’t been completely guilt-free making fun of John McCain’s inability to use a computer.

5) Why did you do it then?

6) Did Obama approve that ad?

SUBJECTS covered: whether or not McCain was making inroads with women voters, how are preparations for the debate, will he have to adjust how he debates because his opponent is a woman, negative campaigning, did Obama approve of the ad about McCain’s inability to use a computer

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/09/22/eveningnews/main4470063.shtml

Oh wait! Dammit!! Katie forgot to ask Biden whether he preferred puppies or kittens.

The double dealing of CBS was not limited to Sarah Palin, check out VinceP1974’s contribution–the CBS interviews of Michelle Obama and Cindy McCain respectively:

CBS interviewing potential First Lady Michelle Obama

MS. RODRIGUEZ: Finish this sentence.

MS. RODRIGUEZ: “I wish I was more” —

MS. RODRIGUEZ: “I wish Barack” — “I wish Barack wasn’t so” —

MS. RODRIGUEZ: I knew you’d say that. Who cooks at home?

MS. RODRIGUEZ: Yeah.

MS. RODRIGUEZ: Are you a good cook?

MS. RODRIGUEZ: If he’s had a long day and he just wants to come home and have Michelle’s what — what’s the best meal you make that he loves?

MS. RODRIGUEZ: Is there ever a time, at the end of the day, when you and Senator Obama are home and you just think, “What have we gotten ourselves into?”

MS. RODRIGUEZ: (Laughs.) Which doesn’t happen?

MS. RODRIGUEZ: What do your girls say they want to be when they grow up?

MS. RODRIGUEZ: Favorite romantic movie. And can you recite a line from it?

MS. RODRIGUEZ: Best spontaneous romantic gesture from your husband.

MS. RODRIGUEZ: How many years?

MS. RODRIGUEZ: Wow.

MS. RODRIGUEZ: Where do you see yourself in 16 years?

=================================

CBS interviewing potential First Lady Cindy McCain [Questions only]

(CBS) CBS News anchor Katie Couric talked one-on-one with Cindy McCain about her husband’s selection of Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin to be his running mate. They also discussed social issues, such as abortion. Couric began by asking McCain if the governor has been rattled by the intense media scrutiny

Katie Couric: When did you and your husband first discuss her as a possibility?

Couric: Do you feel confident, Mrs. McCain, that the vetting process which is getting a lot of attention was as thorough as it needed to be and that Sen. McCain knew everything he needed to know?

Couric: The scuttlebutt, if you will, behind the scenes is that Sen. McCain really wanted Joe Lieberman to be his running mate, but social conservatives would have found him unacceptable because of his position on abortion.

Couric: Some, even Republicans, seemed surprised that Sen. McCain picked a running mate who opposes abortion even in the cases of rape and incest, and believes creationism should be taught in schools. And I’m just curious, do you agree with that?

Couric: Where do you stand on abortion?

Couric: So do you oppose it even in cases of rape and incest?

Couric: So that’s where you two differ in terms of your position on that.

Couric: And do you believe Roe V. Wade should be overturned?

Couric: No. Why not? Your husband does.

Couric: He believes it should be overturned. That’s what he told me, and that it should go to the states.

Couric: So, you believe it should be overturned or shouldn’t be overturned.

Couric: How do you feel about creationism? Do you think it should be taught in schools?

We could keep this up all night but I think you get the picture. There is a media bias and they are out to destroy McCain and Palin. Pure and simple.

I would like you to think about some numbers:

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

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

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

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

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

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

So much for a "stunt."

John McCain got involved in the bailout negotiations after Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson told Sen. Lindsey Graham yesterday that the bailout plan would fail unless McCain came in and brought balky Republicans aboard. That’s what Bob Schieffer reported on this morning’s Early Show. Schieffer’s account stands in stark contrast with the allegation by Dems like Barney Frank and their MSM cohorts that McCain’s moves of yesterday were nothing more than a political "stunt."

Here was Schieffer speaking with the Early Show’s Maggie Rodriguez at 7:05 AM EDT today:

BOB SCHIEFFER: I am told, Maggie, that the way McCain got involved in this in the first place, the Treasury Secretary was briefing Republicans in the House yesterday, the Republican conference, asked how many were ready to support the bailout plan. Only four of them held up their hands. Paulson then called, according to my sources, Senator Lindsey Graham, who is very close to John McCain, and told him: you’ve got to get the people in the McCain campaign, you’ve got to convince John McCain to give these Republicans some political cover. If you don’t do that, this whole bailout plan is going to fail. So that’s how, McCain, apparently, became involved.

Continued Schieffer . . .

SCHIEFFER: He has gotten what he wants, he’s going to have this meeting, kind of a summit today with the president and Barack Obama. …

Read all.

Hillary broke Barack Obama’s magic wand, tis true. She took his mojo away. And now, Sarah is drinking his milkshake.

But Why? Why is this woman who came out of nowhere (just like Barack Obama did!) such a threat to The One, Barack Obama? I’ll give you a hint: this is not about Roe v Wade. Roe v Wade is going nowhere and we all know it. We are deaf to the same old threat the Democratic Party has literally used to keep us in line for decades–along with “Equal Rights,” “Equal Pay,” and other lies the party never really intended to correct succeeded in correcting once and for all. Nope. This isn’t about those things. Instead, this is is about regular people being sick and tired of elite asses like Barack Obama, who are out of touch with reality, running for President.

[SusanUnPC's Note: You've got to see the video at the end! Awesome!]

Up until this moment, Mr. Obama, you and the DNC used and insulted what a woman doesn’t have that you have, namely a paltry penis. So then, exactly what is it that she has that you don’t have, Barack?

Plenty!

Here’s your answer. Regular people see themselves in her. She’ just as smart as you are. More experienced than you are. She doesn’t have 300 advisors like you do, yet you look the fool.

What’s she got, you ask? She’s got “genuine”. She attracts regular people, who incidentally are the majority of this country. They see themselves in her. Finally! they are saying, A Middle American candidate!

No fanfare. No Temple.

No podium with a perfectly placed crowd. No insulting rap “music”. No perfectly timed chants.

No fake fainters.

No home made signs that aren’t really home made. No big shot attitude. No three thousand dollar suit.

No slowly tossing her haughty head back, chin in the air, eyes at half-mast toward the other gods, ear turned to the crowd, sucking in the Worship. (See left for how you look to others)

No sir. None of that. That’s YOUR way.

Instead, she is One of Them. One of those regular working people who don’t come from your elitist academic background. While you people sit at your desks with your noses in the air analyzing the Real World and what it needs, you don’t live in that world and never have. I spent enough time in your world before I entered the Real World to know the difference between theory and reality.

Who are these many many MANY people who relate to Sarah Palin instead of Barack Obama?

These are people who wouldn’t agree that hanging out with a domestic terrorist who wants to infiltrate America’s schools with Communist and Socialist ideas is an Okay thing to do—even if he did do it all 40 years ago. These are people who would not invite Bill Ayers to dinner.

These are people who struggle daily. The ones you ‘refer’ to all the time but can’t relate to. you can’t relate to them because you not only aren’t one of them, you never were one of them–in spite of your fictional novel that masquerades as an autobiography. When these people think, “Times are hard,” they aren’t thinking the way you and Michelle think. They aren’t thinking “Gee it’s getting rougher to come up with $20k for piano lessons for the kids“. And they didn’t, as Michelle suggested, buy some nice earrings with their tax stimulation rebate.

These are people who can smell bullshit four blocks away, Barack. They are people who make their own way in America because they know they Can. When they fall down, they get up. They don’t ask other people for freebees. Most of them rarely have time to go to a rock concert like the Democratic convention. Their kids might go though. That’s because when all your living bills are paid for you by somebody else, you have time to do the Hopey Changey act, because you aren’t living in the real world where you take responsibility for your own life. Yet. These are the people who pay for their kids’ education through struggling, sacrificing, savings from the money they have earned. and loans. These are the people who would rather swallow a broom than have the government take care of them. Some of them even hunt for their own food, prefering to gather for themselves than take food stamps for life. They would shovel shit for a living if they had to, something nobody recalls you ever doing. They give a whole lot more than they take and they don’t brag about it like you do.

These are people who would be horrified if they knew that Communists, Marxists, Leninists and Socialists in America are heavily re-energized and endorsing their candidate.

These are people would would be horrifed if they knew that their candidate received campaign contributions from Hamas. They understand that this is a threat to Democracy.

These are people who would never hang out with an Iraqi prison escapee. They would be shocked if their candidate’s career was overseen by a finally-convicted scumball who bilked taxpayers out of scores of millions of dollars with your help.

They wouldn’t ever attend a church where the pastor says, GODDAMN AMERIKKA, not even once much less for twenty years. They are people who revere American Democracy and do not want it to go away in deference to Middle Eastern jihad radicals. They revere Democracy wherever it resides as well, even outside of their country, because they are smart enough to comprehend that a threat to one democracy is a threat to all democracies. Israel comes to mind. So does Georgia. Some of these folks are a bit overly religious for my tastes, but what they don’t do is worship a human who acts like a god, namely they don’t worship You. Maybe they “Cling To God” because it beats clinging to other people’s wallets via the government, Barack.

Let me tell you more about who these people are. These are people who don’t need the likes of you telling them to heed a call to Service. They not only already understand what that means, but they didn’t heed The Call as a stepping stone to political advancement as you have done. They not only Serve, but many of them do it for Life. They are the people who take care of arrogant you daily. They are the people who grow that arugula you find at Whole Foods. They are the servants who know Service in a way you never have. They are the First Responders to disaster, while guys like you are still flapping your lips on TV. And they are the people who even go to war for their country without being forced.

These are people who don’t care at all what Chris Matthews or Keith Olbermann have to say. In fact, they support Sarah Palin even more when she is attacked by you and the Press. Why? Because they empathize. That’s why. They know what it is to be derided for making their own way. They know what it is to be snorted at by arrogant elitist Presidential candidates who aren’t going to do squat for them after their votes are cast. None of them ever got Affirmative Actioned into anything, much less Harvard. Yet, they are exponentially more loving toward America and Democracy than you and your wife are.

These are people who have never been to Daily Kos or Moveon’s websites. They don’t read Huffington Post. They are people who are not like You, Barack Obama. They are like Sarah Palin.

And they are in the majority in the USA, Barack.

Toss in all the millions of people, Democrats and Republicans, you have angered and horrifed by your shameful treatment of a superior woman so that your arrogant mediocre self could prevail. Then toss in all the people who voted for you in a primary before they figured out what you really are—-and you’ve got the reason why you are not The One any longer.

The facade has ended. We all know you are not The Emperor and you truly don’t have clothes. The overused Race Card is now a major annoyance instead of a guilt inducer. Your fake concern and lack of empathy and compassion in everything you say is so apparent that it’s raw, and your self-serving agenda is without excuse.

Take a look at The People, Barack. Compare some notes with your “rallies”. And understand why the Real World, the world of Democracy, rejects you handily. You can raise money from your dubious sources and not stop till Pigs Fly, pun intended, and it won’t attract one of these people.

Witness Spontaneity and a candidate who takes nothing for granted as you have. Maybe then you will Get It.

Copyright © 2008 Uppity Woman. All Rights Reserved.

Fineman lists Obama’s numerous campaign problems — failing to take up John McCain’s offer for a series of town hall debates, wasting money in red states, remaining “trapped in professor-observer speak,” among others. Fineman’s essay isn’t quite as incisive as Mark Cunningham’s “Why Bam’s Flailing” — which Medusa is dissecting in a new story to be published here on Sunday morning. However, Fineman’s decision to end his article with this section is very telling about the prominent D.C. insider’s opinion of Obama:

[H]is mistakes have a common thread – pride.

Obama seems to want to do things on his own, and on his own terms. It’s understandable. Obama has his own crowd – from Chicago, from Harvard, and from a new cadre of wealthy, Ivy-educated movers and shakers.

“He’s an arrogant S.O.B.,” one of the latter told me today. “He wants to do it his way, and his way alone.” But politics doesn’t work that way. And has Obama should know, or is about to find out, that everyone needs a little help.

Wasn’t Howard Fineman a frequent guest on Keith Olbermann’s “news” program? Will he meet the same fate as Dana Milbank, who also dared to write an article that was critical of “The One”?

Regardless, it is vital that some of the top insider members of the MSM dare to speak out now about Obama’s serious narcissism issues.

Should Obama lose in November, the groundwork will have been laid for how to assess his failures as a candidate in a realistic manner, not in a fantastical “meme” blaming the nation’s ongoing racism and/or the Clintons for not doing enough or putting Obama through an exhausting primary battle.