When the tournament started, there were 64 entries. In the end, did it really matter how many teams were in the field? No one was up to the task of challenging Barack Obama for the No Quarter Trophy. He easily won his first National Championship as the Biggest Ass on The American Politcal Landscape with a textbook dismantling of Donna Brazile in the finals 69-31. The match was never close and give “The Little EngineThat Could” The Big Caboose credit, this was Obama’s closest match of the entire tournament.

It was the end of a Cinderella run for Brazile. The fourth seed in the At Large Bracket knocked off two top seeds, Chris Matthews and Keith Olbermann to reach the finals. The slick moves and persistent play of Obama was just too much for her inside power game. She tried to use her size and strength to her advantage, but Obama was just too quick to pin down and he easily glided around her gigantic frame.

Whether brushing off his shoulder, flipping the bird, ignoring the blatant misogyny emanating from his supporters and never once disavowing false claims of racism aimed at his critics, Barack Obama has proven to be an ass of historic proportions for an entire season. Since becoming President, he has not let his game slip a bit. Insulting the mentally challenged, bowing to Saudi Kings and spending our nation into oblivion, he has proven to have the staying power of a great champion. It is easy to see him potentially challenging Richard Nixon’s record of five straight titles.

Looking at this years challengers, who really has the game to step up and challenge him next year? This was Brazile’s best shot. Expect her to fade away. Pelosi, Reid, Olbermann, Michelle Obama, Timothy Geithner? It’s hard to imagine anyone challenging the one next season.

Then again, few of us imagined at the begining of the season, that Barack Obama would emerge and dust the field. So there is always hope for the others. For now, it is undisputed. President Barack Obama is the National Champion. Congratulations on your first No Quarter Trophy. You sir are undoubtedly the Biggest Ass on the American Political Landscape!

Thanks to everyone who voted and played along. Feel free to comment below.

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

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

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

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

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

Just vote below

NATIONAL CHAMPIONSHIP TITLE MATCH

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

March Madness turned into April Fools in the battle for the No Quarter Trophy. The Trophy is awarded annually to the person you decide is the Biggest Ass on The American Political Landscape. While exciting play and buzzer beaters are usually the norm this time of the year, the Elite Eight was blow-out city (which is also the name of one of Barney Frank’s favorite watering holes.) Not only were none of the national quarterfinal match-ups close, but the winners had these contests wrapped up moments after the opening tap. VOTE BELOW!.

It certainly seemed like the tournament selection committee knew their business as three number one seeds have made it to the semi-finals. The only non-number 1 to crash the party is the red hot Donna Brazile. The number four seed in the At Large Bracket humiliated the second seeded Oprah Winfrey 75-25. That was the closest of the Regional Finals.

Oprah’s size and weight advantage were just no match for the feisty Brazile who showed during the primary season that she knows how to play and win dirty. Donna now gets a crack at Keith Olbermann who had his way with Andrew Sullivan (and Andrew loved it) in the Media Bracket final. Olbermann was the leading vote getter in the entire round and racked up an 85-15 win. Keith was a huge favorite to make it into the championship game when this tournament started, but no one should be betting against Brazile at this point.

Over on the side of the brackets. Barack Obama easily disposed of the First Lady in the White House Regional Final. The Messiah was an 80-20 winner. It was a disappointing performance for Michelle, whose makeover as “Mom in Chief” seems to be softening the hard as nails image that propelled her through the election season to a number two seed. Barack showed his sharp elbows, when despite the fact he was winning this one going away, he bowed to a Saudi Prince just to run the score up and remind everyone why he was the overall top seed in the tournament. Barry has yet to be tested in this tournament, but may have his hands full with Nancy Pelosi. The number one seed in the Capitol Hill bracket destroyed number three seed Barney Frank 85-15. After the game, Frank immediately made himself eligible for federal bailout funds. Pelosi has faced the stiffest competition so far, already beating Christopher Dodd, Claire McCaskill and Barney. If anyone can take a piece out of the Community Organizer in Chief, it’s Madam Speaker.

So without, further ado. Lets get to the voting. Just pick the person you think is the Bigger Ass in each match.

NATIONAL SEMI FINAL NUMBER 1
Note: There is a poll embedded within this post, please visit the site to participate in this post's poll.

NATIONAL SEMI FINAL NUMBER 2
Note: There is a poll embedded within this post, please visit the site to participate in this post's poll.

The Polls are open until Tuesday Night at 8:00 PM EDT. Join us live on No Quarter Radio, Tuesday night at 9:00 PM for the Nocturnal Warrior Show. We will review the Final Four contests and handicap the National Championship game. Feel free to post your comments as to why you voted as you did below. Have fun!!!!!

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

One can debate the pros and cons of the ‘do as I say, not as I do’ attitude of having a veteran Democratic political operative speak at a non-partisan event, but when that event regards Women’s History Month – how can Donna Brazile of all people show her face? She will forever be infamous for her Obama Derangement Syndrome. Let me offer up my own definition of someone suffering from this ailment: a person who will trumpet an unqualified candidate over a more qualified one beyond all reason, to the point of selling any and all opposition down the river to do so.

Perez reports that “already some of the same “politicization” charges are being flung at the Justice Department” and…

A flyer sent to Justice Department employees advising of the March 31 Brazile appearance, says “Supervisors are encouraged to grant official time to employees to attend this event.”

In an effort to allay such concerns, Ms. Brazile made the following outrageous statement:

“During my remarks, I will pay tribute to women who dare, women of courage and the many milestones we have achieved and the path ahead,” Brazile said in an e-mail. “I am going in my capacity as an Adjunct Professor in the Women and Gender Studies at Georgetown University — not as a CNN contributor, ABC news consultant or Vice Chair of the DNC [Democratic National Committee]. Perhaps, I am going as a woman of valor — a woman of courage to pay tribute to women who work at the DOJ and elsewhere.”

Women who DARE? I am apoplectic reading this. I am less concerned with the fact that she is a Democratic operative going to speak at the DOJ, than I am with the fact that this woman has no right speaking at an event touting Women’s History Month – or “women who dare” when she spent the entirety of last year trampling on a truly worthy “Woman Who Dared” in Hillary Clinton.

“A woman of valor?” She calls herself a woman of valor? Perhaps Donna Brazile once had valor. But now? She used her position both as a CNN commentator, a frequent guest on This Week with George W. and her senior status within the DNC to influence the outcome of the primary in Barack Obama’s favor at every turn. She was downright insulting to Secretary Clinton and at the RBC on May 31st, Ms. Brazile went completely over the top to help arrange the absolute theft of rightfully earned Clinton delegates, thereby gifting them to Obama.

Perhaps Ms. Brazile is trying to rescue her reputation by speaking on behalf of women — it is far too little far too late. I wager this is her effort to calm the raging correspondence she has received from many women for selling out the most qualified one to come down the pike in 30 years.

I had a back and forth email correspondence with Ms. Brazile the morning of March 4th just preceding the Texas and Ohio primaries. I asked her very respectfully to be unbiased on the news and to give Hillary Clinton a chance. I also made my argument that she endorse then Senator Clinton as the more qualified candidate who offered better policy solutions and who had the gravitas and know-how to be President.

I expressed my fear that Barack Obama had not yet been vetted in the press and made my case for the necessity of doing so. While I will not share her exact words, suffice it to say Ms. Brazile felt that vetting was a useless endeavor that only led to lies and distortion. Oh really? You see where that’s gotten us now. She also, on many occasions called Hillary Clinton out on the carpet for running an arrogant campaign. Really? Barack Obama, the American Idol candidate, has run the most arrogant campaign in history. Six million dollars spent on faux Grecian columns ring a bell?

Matthew Miller, a Justice spokesman, said “Donna Brazile was selected as a speaker by a committee of career employees who believed she would offer an informative perspective on Women’s History Month.”

An informative perspective, indeed. If she stands there and dares to talk about Hillary Clinton putting 18,000,000 cracks in the glass ceiling, then truly there is no justice on earth. As Perez reports further below, I find it interesting that there is outrage from the Republicans that a Democratic political operative would speak at the DOJ, but no outrage – so far—that someone would claim to speak on behalf of women when she sat on top of that glass ceiling with every ounce of her power and influence to make sure Hillary couldn’t break through:

At about the same time as the prosecutor firings scandal was raging, the Bush Administration acknowledged that political operatives, including Karl Rove, held partisan briefings at more than a dozen government agencies. At the briefings in 2006 and 2007, employees were told of House Democrats who Republicans were targeting for defeat, as well as the prospects for some Republicans. The White House at the time defended the briefings as appropriate.

Hans von Spakovsky, a former Justice Department lawyer who worked in the civil rights division during the Bush administration, first wrote about the Brazile event for National Review. Von Spakovsky himself was drawn into some Bush-era Justice controversy over accusations that he made politically tainted decisions in the civil rights division.

Von Spakovsky had this to say:

“What I find amazing about it is if DOJ had invited a Republican campaign consultant to come speak to employees when John Ashcroft or one of the other prior Bush Attorney Generals were there, there would have been a tremendous outcry about it”.

Yes, there probably would have been an outcry. But this is the “do as I say, not as I do” administration. We don’t hire lobbyists, until we do (and write a special dispensation exception letter allowing us to do so). We don’t make personal attacks, until we do (Joe the plumber, anyone? Gov. Palin, anyone?)

I can’t waste any more copy over this except to note that Donna Brazile is atop of the list of women who broke my heart last year. She knows all too well the great qualifications and smarts Hillary Clinton would bring to the job of President. For Ms. Brazile to irrationally betray her own knowledge and good sense in order to tout a man for the job who is clearly not ready to handle it is not indicative of a woman of valor.

Rather these are the actions of a “woman who dared” to turn her back on her own principles. These are the actions of a woman who dared turn her back on other women by trumpeting a less qualified man – once again telling women to go to the back of the line. Forgive me, but I truly believed Donna Brazile, with whatever struggles she has had to face in her own life, would be the last person to do such a thing.

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

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

ROUND TWO

White House Bracket

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

Capitol Hill Bracket

Media Bracket

At-Large Bracket

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

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

ANSWER: Brazile, 49 - who became the first African-American woman to manage a major Presidential campaign when she ran Al Gore’s 2000 race - is a professor, columnist, and political adviser.

“While I was on the platform watching Barack Obama take the oath of office, for the first time in my life I visualized a woman there,” Brazile tells us.

“I want to help chart that course.”

– From Parade magazine, a Sunday magazine that comes with newspapers across the country. (h/t Ginger)

I can’t think of anything to say. I’m truly speechless.

Please, say something.

UPDATE: While we can have a good time, we can make fun of some of the media, and we can express our feelings, as so many of us did today, it is notable that everyone who participated in this thread was mature and rational. Thank you all. You are FREE HERE to criticize and express your real feelings, as all of you did today. That’s because you’re grown-ups and you find racism, sexism, homophobia and other wholesale attacks on groups of people to be repugnant. We encountered a couple people today, in other threads, who used hideous language, and they’ve been banned. If you see ANY such comments, please report them immediately to susanunpc at gmail dot com and/or larry_johnson at earthlink dot net . We will take care of those comments immediately, or as soon as we can. Thank you. And I hope you’re all having a great Saturday night. - Susan

Some people are wearing pajamas. And one lady is going to hold up the train! I hope the Secret Service knows before the train arrives. (From CNN.) I wouldn’t walk across the street, but if these people think it’s sensible to be out there freezing in 22-degrees-and-dropping weather, who am I to tell them to get some C.S., as my mama would have said.

The update is at the end — It’s from a clearly cranky and cold Candy Crowley.
…………..

Holy cow!

I do hope you’re watching CNN. The train is approaching! Wolf Blitzer AND Anderson Cooper AND Donna Brazile are ALL ON! This is a big deal! They’re describing the train route! it’s thrilling.

OH MY GOD!!!! I just turned to look at the TV, because when i wrote the paragraph above, I was only listening since the TV is behind my desk (which is a good thing).

These fools are all sitting outside swathed in huge layers of clothing that makes them all look like fat giants.

OMG. I just checked Yahoo Weather. It’s 22 degrees out there, and falling. These people are nuts! And all that sniffling does NOT sound good on live TV.

Donna has gigantic earmuffs on and a big hat, and her coat collar is turned up. I think she may turn into an icicle.

Now, that wasn’t a very nice thing of you to think. Honestly. You are bad.

Despite all that clothing, I still hear a lot of sniffling, especially by Donna, and they all look MISERABLE.

But they’re blathering on about the relevance of Colin Powell to Barack Obama, and the dinner in honor of John McCain. Etc., etc. Blah blah blah.

Heh.

I’m bad.

Chris Matthews is anchoring on MSNBC. I knew you’d want to know that.

Now MSNBC is airing earlier footage of the two popsicles PEBO and VPEJB speaking about “new beginnings.” (God, can someone tell these people that that is a ridiculously redundant phrase, and that their high school English teacher would box them about the ears?)

It appears that Fox News has taken the common sense route: THEY ARE INDOORS! And Bret Baier is interviewing Dana Perino.

And — que pasa?

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

UPDATE: Whilst Anderson Cooper is opining on that unlike OTHER White House couples, there is a “lack of artifice in the relationship between Michelle and Barack Obama” — I swear on my cat’s life that that is what he just said — I take note of this live blog post by cranky and cold Candy Crowley:

Crowley: A Secret Service No-No

WILMINGTON, Delaware (CNN) — Our first minor glitch happens as we detrain in Wilmington. Seems we — the media — broke free without “handlers.” This tends to upset the Obama people.

As Obama talks, a line of Secret Service walks by me really quickly. I, of course, follow. Turns out people whose line of sight to Obama is blocked by other people have climbed into the leafless trees. That’s a secret service no-no.

These bystanders are now back on the ground.

I published this satire script about a month ago here at No Quarter.  It hit the front page the same day as Governor-Gate hit and right after Cardboard-Cutout-Gate was all over the place.

You remember back in mid-December, right after the infamous picture of Obama’s speech writer copping a faux feel-up of a cardboard-cutout full-size replica of Secretary of State (to be) Hillary Clinton.  And immediately after that outrageous fiasco, the news hit about Governor Blagojevich trying to sell Obama’s Senate seat to the highest bidder.

Right between those two major events, that’s when this little skit got published.  It may as well not have been published at all, for all the attention it got.  (pout)

And, taking some of the blame on myself (mark your calendars), I didn’t really set it up properly.  I just published it as a script, with no intro, except to belabor the obvious point that it was satire and not an actual transcript of a real recording.

So let me do a little set-up now:

All through 2008, we’d been wondering how in the hell it came to pass that the Democratic National Committee decided to throw its weight behind Obama, and to deliberately sabotage Hillary’s campaign for the nomination.

It had to be a conspiracy of some kind!  You know it’s true!  People were talking about Hillary being the next president even before 2004!  So what happened?

Well, believe what you want, but this is how it might have happened, IMHO.  I was thinking, “Oh, to be a fly on the wall in that conversation!”  And this script was the result of my daydreaming about what that fly might have heard.

———————————————————————————————-

“Fly on the Wall (do-over)”

In an office meeting room are The Fetid Four: Howard Dean, Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid, and Donna Brazile. They are stewing over the Democratic loss in the election of 2004, and starting to think ahead to 2008.

HOWARD: (both hands pressed to his temples in anguish) I can’t believe Kerry lost!  Bush is so awful!

NANCY:  He’s a war criminal.  He should be impeached!

DONNA:  Yes!  And Cheney, too!  And you know what that means… (nudges Nancy) …Madam President!

(room erupts in nervous laughter)

HARRY:  Even if you had the votes to impeach in the House, you know that in the Senate we only have a one-vote majority…

NANCY: (cutting him off) That is so not gonna happen, so let’s just play the cards we’re dealt.

(general murmur of agreement)

HOWARD: (peering over his glasses) Well, one thing is for certain, we’ll win the next one, no matter who we run!

NANCY:  Absolutely!

DONNA:  Hell, even I could win it!

HARRY: (shaking head) Let’s not get carried away.

DONNA: (indignantly) Oh, thanks!

NANCY:  But I get your point.  Doesn’t matter anyway, because Her Nibs, Queen Hillary, is the heiress-apparent.

HARRY:  It’s an abomination!  What has she got, like two years in Congress?

DONNA:  Hillary… (makes gagging noises)

HOWARD: (laughing cautiously as he loosens his tie) I don’t think we can stop her… unless…

NANCY:  Unless what, Doc?  You planning on running again?

HOWARD: (wistfully) No, no, no… unless you think I should…

HARRY:  Oh, for the love of…

DONNA:  I don’t think so!

HARRY:  OK, so who can beat her?  She’s got all the momentum right now.  And the money.  She’s a walking ATM!

NANCY:  Let’s worry about the money later.  Even assuming she has the most cash, money’s not everything.

DONNA:  True.  If it was,  Soros would be running!

(Big laughter all around)

HOWARD:  Problem is, he’s not Natural Born.

HARRY:  You mean… he was born Caesarian?

HOWARD: (laughing) Good one!

HARRY:  Huh?

NANCY:  Natural born citizen!  Have you ever actually read the Constitution?  Article II?

HARRY: (blushing and flustered) Yes, I’ve read it!  Twice!  What do you think I am, an idiot?

(uncomfortable silence for several seconds)

HARRY: (struggling to recompose and assume an air of authority) Look, you know what I meant!  It was a joke!

NANCY:  Of course.

DONNA:  Sure it was.

HOWARD:  Well, I thought it was funny!

DONNA:  You would!

NANCY:  Medical humor, doc?

HOWARD:  Sure!  I mean, from an obstetrician’s point of view.

HARRY: (snorts and snickers)

DONNA:  Let’s not go there!

NANCY:  Come on, children! Let’s focus!

DONNA:  Well, anyway, like I was TRYING to say before… I think anyone we nominate is a shoo-in!

HARRY:  I thought it was “shoe-in.”

NANCY:  What?

HOWARD:  That makes no sense at all!  You mean like a boot?

NANCY:  No, it’s “shoo!” Like in “shoo fly!”  Or you “shoo” the horse into the barn.

DONNA:  What are you talking about?

HOWARD:  Horse shoes?

DONNA: (shaking her head in bewilderment, pronounces words studiously) Shoo.  Shoe.  Sorry, I don’t hear any difference!

NANCY:  Well, it’s “shoo.”

HARRY:  Are you sure?  Because I always thought it was like “shoe in,” like … (pushes with foot)

NANCY:  What, you’re going to kick the candidate into office against his will?

HOWARD:  I agree.  It’s “shoo.”  Like you’re just shooing them through without effort, because there’s no resistance.

HARRY:  I still think it’s “shoe.”

DONNA: (getting visibly agitated) Look! It doesn’t matter!  Our guy is going to win, that’s my point!

NANCY:  Or girl… woman I mean.

(all eyes turn to Nancy warily)

NANCY:  Well, not me, obviously…

HARRY:  Obviously…

DONNA:  Although it would be great to have a woman president… I just don’t want it to be Hillary!

NANCY:  No shit!

HOWARD:  Well, I agree to an extent.  I mean, as liberals, and as leaders of the Democratic Party, I do think it’s our duty to use this once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to make some history.  “The first female president!”

NANCY:  Yes! But not that female!

DONNA:  We agree on that, sis! (high-fives Nancy)

HARRY:  Then who?  Kathy Sebelius?

(general mumbling of discontent)

HOWARD:  Claire McCaskill?

NANCY:  Oh, please!  She’s… (shakes her head) No. Not her!

DONNA:  What if it’s not a woman?

HARRY:  Claire McCaskill’s not a woman?

(others ignore him)

HOWARD:  What do you have in mind, Donna?

DONNA:  What if…?  What if it’s a man, but a man of color?

HARRY: (does double take) You mean Bill Richardson?

HOWARD:  Oh, good lord…

DONNA:  No, I was just thinking about our keynote speaker at the convention.

NANCY: (smirks, knowingly) You still carrying a torch for him?

DONNA: (elbows Nancy sharply, glaring) No!

HOWARD:  Something I should know about?

HARRY:  I think she’s talking about Senator Obama, but we can’t run him.  He’s totally green behind the ears!

HOWARD:  Green behind the ears?  What the hell does that mean?

NANCY:  Well, Donna thinks he’s hot!

DONNA: (pouts and kicks Nancy under the table) Shut up!

HOWARD:  OK, so we know he’s hot and green behind the ears.  What else do we know about him?

HARRY:  Well, I hear he’s pretty much broke.  Had to do some financial flim-flam just to buy a house.

HOWARD:  Anything illegal?

HARRY: (clears throat) I don’t know all the details, but I heard some rules were bent at the bank.  Some third party, a shyster lawyer or mob guy or something…

HOWARD:  O-keeeeeeeeeeeeeee!  “Next!” Who else we got?

DONNA:  Now wait a minute!  Let’s not rule him out yet.  Look, you know a lot of women are still mad at Hillary for staying with Bill after he had sex, or whatever he had, with Miss Fatty Blue Dress.

NANCY:  True.  She should have at least done a Bobbitt on him. (makes scissors gesture)

HOWARD:  Ouch! For a BJ?

HARRY:  Don’t forget the cigar.

NANCY:  Oh gaaaaaaaawd… I’ve been trying to forget it!

DONNA:  My point is that just because she’s a female, doesn’t mean most women will vote for her.  She’s not a shoo… I mean it’s not written in stone.

HARRY:  “Etched in stone.”

HOWARD:   I agree. It’s “etched.”

DONNA: (slams both palms on the table) Whatever!  I’m just saying “forget Hillary!” The next election is ours!  We can’t lose!  Let’s make some real history!  Now, while we can!  It’s a chance of a lifetime!  Let’s elect a black man!

NANCY:  Agreed.  We can do the woman later.

HOWARD:  Woohoo!  Sounds like a party!

HARRY:  Are you sure he’s black?  I heard he was Indonesian or something?

HOWARD: (enunciates the name slowly) O-bah-ma… I don’t know, that sounds pretty African to me!

DONNA: (frowning) He’s half white, half African.  In fact, you can’t get much more African than him.  He says in his book that his daddy was from Kenya.

HARRY:  He’s written a book?

NANCY:  An autobiography.

HOWARD:  How many pages?  Three? (laughs loudly)

DONNA:  Look, he’s an excellent speaker!  He’s handsome, he’s got charisma, he’s a cool guy, and he’s… good-looking.

NANCY:  I think you’ve established that you think he’s attractive.

DONNA:  Well?  Isn’t he?

NANCY:  Not to me.

DONNA:  Why?

NANCY:  Oh, I don’t know, he’s just not my type, I guess.

DONNA:  You mean black?

HOWARD: (gasps) Uh-oh!

HARRY:  You’re a racist?

NANCY:  No!  That’s not what I meant!

DONNA:  Uh-huh.  Then what do you find not attractive about him?

NANCY:  He’s just, I don’t know, too skinny, for one thing.  And those ears!

DONNA:  That sounds pretty racist to me!

NANCY:  What?  Are you kidding me?

HOWARD:  Wait a minute, I think we’re onto something here!

HARRY:  America isn’t ready for a black president.  Let’s face it.

DONNA:  You too?

NANCY:  See?  I’m not the racist, he’s the racist!

HARRY:  I am not a racist!

NANCY:  Well, neither am I!  I’d vote for him!

HARRY:  Well, so would I!  But will the teamsters?

HOWARD: (cynically) The teamsters will do whatever we tell them to, as usual.

NANCY:  OK, so let’s be serious a minute…

DONNA:  I am serious!  Think about it.  If the four of us get behind one candidate, we can stop Hillary.  I know we can!  We just need to get my friends at Acorn to get the vote out in the first couple of primaries and take the momentum away from her!

HOWARD:  Acorn?  In Iowa?  Have you ever been to Iowa?  I have!

NANCY:  Yeah, so we’ve heard.

HARRY:  How could we not hear?  As loud as you yelled… Yahoooooo!

NANCY:  No, it was more like Yeehaaaaaaaaaaaaw!

DONNA:  If we can try to stay on topic… I really think we can pull this off!  Seriously!  Just let me spell it out for you.  First, it’s our turn, the Democrats I mean, and after Bush and Cheney, it doesn’t really matter who we nominate.  We will win!  That’s why everyone thinks Hillary has it made.  But it doesn’t have to be her.  We can take her down if we play it right.  We’ve got Acorn on our side!

HOWARD:  Not in Iowa, we don’t!  In Iowa, it’s about corn, not Acorn.  Hell, it’s more white-bread than New Hampshire.  And do you think Acorn can even find enough voters in Iowa to win?  You’ve got the Clinton Machine, you’ve got pretty-boy Edwards…

DONNA: (quickly draws a crude map) Lookie here.  You’ve got Iowa here, and right next door, Illinois.  That’s Barack’s state.

NANCY:  Oh, I see!  Illinois is close enough to Iowa, you think voters will identify with the guy from the next-door state!  That might help.

DONNA:  Well, that’s part of it, but think about this.  These are caucuses, not elections.  And we can run a shitload of buses from Chicago, Detroit, Minneapolis, St. Louis, Kansas City… all full of brand new Iowa voters.  They swamp the caucuses, because even in Iowa hardly anyone goes to those things.  It would only take about one or two busloads per precinct.  Our guys swarm in, make a lot of noise, a little intimidation, and before the Clintons know what hit them, Hillary’s toast!

NANCY:  I think you’ve got something here!  But are you sure we can sell America on voting for an African-American man with a name that rhymes with Osama?

HARRY:  There you go being racist again!

NANCY:  I am not a racist!

DONNA:  I can’t believe you’re so racist!  Stop the hate!

HOWARD: (slaps table hard) That’s it! That’s how we sell it!  If anyone questions his name, his character, his background, anything… we play the race card!  And good old white liberal guilt will shame them into voting for him!

HARRY:  Brilliant!

NANCY:  I love it!  It gives me hope! Maybe we canchange candidates!

DONNA: Yes, we can!

HOWARD: (scribbling notes furiously) This is the best idea we’ve had in a loooooooooong time!

DONNA:  Too long!

NANCY:  Much too long!

HARRY:  That’s what she said!

The image above was posted on Post Secret on November 8, 2008. I have no doubt that the dominate narrative of this campaign — the forceful suppression of women — is responsible for the author’s “secret.” In the Obama-realm, feminism isn’t just bad, it’ll ruin your life. One only need to look to Hillary and Sarah Palin as examples.

Dr. Violet Socks writes:

A few days ago I was asking you all to think about why there is still so much deeply-felt resistance to women’s equality. This is the lesson of radical feminism: that the gender revolution requires just that — a revolution.

Why does there need to be a revolution for equality? Because this year misogyny was used a political tool. As many of us witnessed, this election was so poisoned with hate speech against women that it’s not an exaggeration to say that the FBI would have been investigating the perpetrators if it had been against any other oppressed group.

Let’s be clear: Hillary Clinton was the choice of most Democrats this year. The Democratic establishment, consisting of Donna Brazile, Howard Dean, Ted Kennedy, John Kerry, and many others, worked furiously to keep Hillary Clinton from receiving the Democratic nomination. Their left-wing allies and the media worked to sabotage her campaign at every turn.

It’s not entirely clear why there was such intense animous towards Hillary by such a large and diverse group. We do know, however, that the most vile tactics were used to suppress Hillary’s campaign; caucus fraud, race-baiting, and outright misogyny comes to mind. As examples, the Obama campaign initiated a not-so-secret whisper campaign that President Clinton was a racist when Clinton called Obama’s Iraq War position a “fairy tale,” Hillary was accused of waiting for the unthinkable to happen to Obama when she mentioned the length of the 1968 campaign and Bobby Kennedy and, from January on, there was a constant drumbeat that she must leave the race.

Running below the murky currents of this campaign, however, was a sexism so deep and so pervasive that it can be said that sexism defined this campaign. Indeed, I believe the subtext and central narrative of Obama’s campaign was sexism. Because two women were the biggest political threat to his campaign, Obama needed to unleash sexism.

Dr. Socks continues:

Narratives: think about narratives. Anthropologists of gender, like Peggy Reeves Sandy, talk about “scripts”: the stories that a society tells itself to explain the world. How men are. How women are. How they should be.

The Obama campaign, with the help of the media and “progressives” blogs, pushed a narrative against Hillary and later Sarah Palin, that invalidated them as public servants because on their gender. Misogyny, wrapped in the protective shell of race-baiting, was the central narrative of the Obama campaign.

I subscribe to the bumper sticker view that “feminism is the radical notion that women are people.” My wife and I are expecting a girl in January. I want this girl to live the full and free life our son enjoys, without gender being an obstacle in her path. I don’t want my daughter to be called a “bitch,” or for someone to wear a t-shirt calling her a “cunt.” Put in those terms, the Obama movement unleashed something very ugly into the culture. The Obama campaign, in its subterranean narrative, encouraged the hatred of women. It is little wonder then that the author of the Post Secret card blames feminism for her unhappiness; she’s witnessed that women who expect equal treatment will be beat down.

Wow - I love his description of Father Pfleger as a “whacko” - perfect! His advice is solid, I think - and I agree that McCain SHOULD have been hammering away about Wright and Ayers long ago. Frankly, the MSM should have been as well, but I have given up expecting them to actually do their jobs anymore.

And with the debate coming up, one can expect questions about the economy. Needless to say, it has been BIG in the news of late. For some reason, the majority of people polled believe Obama will do better. Why, I don’t know - he has absolutely no track record on anything anywhere in the neighborhood of dealing with an issue of this magnitude. I think we can chalk that up to the MSM shilling for him shamelessly. But, many of this country’s CEOs do not think so. Out of 751 CEOs polled, 80% think McCain is better for the long term health of the economy, according to Chief Executive Magazine. This assertion was affirmed by the former CEO of Godfather’s Pizza, Herman Cain this morning. He said, in no uncertain terms, that John McCain is CLEARLY better for the economy. Oh, and since everyone is keeping score these days (thanks so much for that, Barack), Mr. Cain is African American.

Mr. Cain isn’t the only one who thinks McCain would be better. The following is basically a combination of Krauthammer and Cain in one Rudy Guiliani (I know - I cannot believe I am including him either, but I think he is right on this issue):

And while we are talking Economics, last night, a bunch of former Hillary Clinton supporters, led by Lady Lynn Forester de Rothchild, held a major fundraiser for John McCain and Sarah Palin. They raised $10,000,000 in that fundraiser. As to why these people decided to hold this fundraiser, the article contained the answer:

While Mrs. Clinton has implored her former supporters to back Senator Barack Obama, some still harbor ill will towards him, organizers said.

“These people want to give their vote of disapproval,” said Mr. Lausell. “This is a way they’re doing it.”

Well, yeah, that’s sure one way of voicing one’s disapproval - raising a cool $10 mil. Wowie zowie.

Gee willikers, who could not want to support someone as humble, warm, and supportive as these folks (h/t to Paul Villareal)??

Oh, yeah. Add in the “Bros Before Hos” t-shirts, and the more despicable ones Obamabots are wearing these days, and I simply cannot imagine how people like Lady Lynn and others aren’t supporting this guy? Sheesh - what sore losers. (That is major snark, just in case you were confused.)

Hmmm - I wonder if McCain will bring up those t-shirts tonight? That would sure be an interesting debate, wouldn’t it?? Can’t you just SEE Obama trying to WORM his way out of that one??

Anywho, those Hillary-Now-McCain supporters are not the only ones who are resistant to Obama as president. Not by a long shot. There was an interesting comment by Desgans - in French - overnight at No Quarter’s post, “Barack Obama- First President of the World“:

Bonjour je suis Française et je viens de penser à un feuilleton que j’adorai ici en France, les acteurs : Jane Badler, Marc Singer, Faye Grant pour le film Vqui me fait penser à ce qui se passe aux US, PUMA sont les résistants et BHO partisants les lézards !!

Mon Dieu! Basically (according to PA goes Red),those of us who will not support this Selected nominee, the one who espouses the ideologies of William Ayers and Jeremiah Wright, whose arrogance, hubris, and just plain condescension, coupled with a dearth of experience, are Freedom Fighters like in the movie, “V.” Or like John Connors and company from “The Terminator,” I’m thinking. Yep, I can buy that. I do feel like I am fighting for my country to not be overtaken by those who do not have her best interests at heart, or at the least, have primarily THEIR interests at heart. The way in which the Obama campaign treats citizens of this country, especially women (and don’t forget Donna Brazile’s concept of the New Democratic Party - none of you bitter, clingy, religious, rural, elderly, and Hispanics need apply) makes that pretty clear. At the very least, our presidents should have the nation’s best interest as their bottom line. Obama is not only unqualified for this position, he does not fulfill that qualification. So, yeah - resistance here I come!

Ya think McCain can work THAT into the debate?!

A sharply divided Connecticut Supreme Court struck down the state’s civil union law on Friday and ruled that same-sex couples have a constitutional right to marry. Connecticut thus joins Massachusetts and California as the only states to have legalized gay marriages.

The ruling, which cannot be appealed and is to take effect on Oct. 28, held that a state law limiting marriage to heterosexual couples, and a civil union law intended to provide all the rights and privileges of marriage to same-sex couples, violated the constitutional guarantees of equal protection under the law.

Striking at the heart of discriminatory traditions in America, the court — in language that often rose above the legal landscape into realms of social justice for a new century — recalled that laws in the not-so-distant past barred interracial marriages, excluded women from occupations and official duties, and relegated blacks to separate but supposedly equal public facilities.

“Like these once prevalent views, our conventional understanding of marriage must yield to a more contemporary appreciation of the rights entitled to constitutional protection,” Justice Richard N. Palmer wrote for the majority in a 4-to-3 decision that explored the nature of homosexual identity, the history of societal views toward homosexuality and the limits of gay political power compared with that of blacks and women.

“Interpreting our state constitutional provisions in accordance with firmly established equal protection principles leads inevitably to the conclusion that gay persons are entitled to marry the otherwise qualified same-sex partner of their choice,” Justice Palmer declared. “To decide otherwise would require us to apply one set of constitutional principles to gay persons and another to all others.”

Oh dear - I sure hope Donna Brazile doesn’t get word of this. We all know how she feels about equating GLBT rights with Civil Rights - she doesn’t (remember that? How she didn’t want to allow any of the Civil Rights slots to the Convention to be used for LGBT people? Because Gay Rights are not Civil Rights, she claimed, and it “was an affront to the whole Civil Rights Movement.” Yeah. She said it. Charming.). But hey - people smarter than her (is that hard to be?) can see that Civil Rights are Human Rights, and not relegated to one group of people. Oh, wait - that sounds like something Senator Clinton would say. Ahem.

The article continues:

The ruling was groundbreaking in various respects. In addition to establishing Connecticut as the third state to sanction same-sex marriage, it was the first state high court ruling to hold that civil union statutes specifically violated the equal protection clause of a state constitution. The Massachusetts high court held in 2004 that same-sex marriages were legal, while California’s court decision in May related to domestic partnerships and not the more broadly defined civil unions.

The Connecticut decision, which elicited strong dissenting opinions from three justices, also opened the door to marriage a bit wider for gay couples in New York, where state laws do not provide for same-sex marriages or civil unions, although Gov. David A. Paterson recently issued an executive order requiring government agencies to recognize same-sex marriages performed in other states.

The opinion in Connecticut was hailed by jubilant gay couples and their advocates as a fulfillment of years of hopes and dreams. Hugs, kisses and cheers greeted eight same-sex couples as they entered the ballroom at the Hartford Hilton, where four years ago they had announced they would file a lawsuit seeking marriage licenses.

Naturally, this decision does not affect just Connecticut:

The case was watched far beyond Hartford. Vermont, New Hampshire and New Jersey all have civil union statutes, while Maine, Washington, Oregon and Hawaii have domestic partnership laws that allow same-sex couples many of the same rights granted to those in civil unions. Advocates for same-sex couples have long argued that civil unions and domestic partnerships denied them the financial, social and emotional benefits accorded in a marriage.

The legal underpinnings for gay marriages, civil unions and statutory partnerships have all come in legislative actions and decisions in lawsuits. Next month, however, voters in California will decide whether the state Constitution should permit same-sex marriage. (More on California below.)

So what were the issues in this case? According to the article, it was this:

Arguments in the case centered on whether civil unions and marriages conferred equal rights, and on whether same-sex couples should be treated as what the court called a “suspect class” or “quasi-suspect class” — a group, like blacks or women, that has experienced a history of discrimination and was thus entitled to increased scrutiny and protection by the state in the promulgation of its laws.

Among the criteria for inclusion as a suspect class, the court said, were whether gay people could “control” their sexual orientation, whether they were “politically powerless” and whether being gay had a bearing on one’s ability to contribute to society.

Huh. I sure would have liked to be a fly on the wall when they discussed whether or not gay people “contributed to society,” wouldn’t you? I wonder how they came to that decision? Did their hairdressers come testify? Their interior designers? (And yes - I am being intentionally snarky.) Evidently, decide they did in the affirmative (ah, gee, thanks! I appreciate that you think GLBT people actually might contribute to society! If nothing else, we pay TAXES, never mind the numerous contributions we make on a daily basis. But hey - thanks for noticing!). And they went on to clarify why they decided as they did:

“Although marriage and civil unions do embody the same legal rights under our law, they are by no means equal,” Justice Palmer wrote in the majority opinion, joined by Justices Flemming L. Norcott Jr., Joette Katz and Lubbie Harper. “The former is an institution of transcendent historical, cultural and social significance, whereas the latter is not.”

The court said it was aware that many people held deep-seated religious, moral and ethical convictions about marriage and homosexuality, and that others believed gays should be treated no differently than heterosexuals. But it said such views did not bear on the questions before the court.

“There is no doubt that civil unions enjoy a lesser status in our society than marriage,” the court said. “Ultimately, the message of the civil unions law is that what same-sex couples have is not as important or as significant as real marriage.”

But all was not happy among the justices:

In one dissenting opinion, Justice David M. Bordon contended that there was no conclusive evidence that civil unions are inferior to marriages, and he argued that gay people have “unique and extraordinary” political power that does not warrant heightened constitutional protections.

Justice Peter T. Zarella, in another dissent, argued that the state marriage laws dealt with procreation, which was not a factor in gay relationships. “The ancient definition of marriage as the union of one man and one woman has its basis in biology, not bigotry,” he wrote.

Um, is he really not aware that lesbian and gay couples often have children? Heck, lesbian (or bisexual) couples can have twice as many kids at the same time as heterosexual couples if you think about it! Probably not what this guy was thinking, though, I’m betting. Anywho…

There are some other folks who aren’t all that happy besides these three justices, as this article opponents to this ruling highlights:

Still, local opponents of same-sex marriage blasted the ruling, saying their only chance to stop it would be to push for passage of a ballot question next month that asks voters if they want the state to convene the first constitutional convention in 40 years, potentially launching a years-long process of weighing a ban on same-sex marriage and sending it to voters for ratification.

“The decision is an outrage,” said Peter J. Wolfgang, executive director of the Family Institute of Connecticut, which opposes same-sex marriage. “It is essentially a handful of judges acting as if they were rogue masters usurping the democratic process in Connecticut and radically redefining marriage by judicial fiat.”

Leaders of the Connecticut Catholic Conference, which represents the state’s Catholic bishops, issued a statement saying they were “extremely disappointed” by the ruling, which they called, “a terribly regrettable exercise in judicial activism.”

“The real battle in this court case was not about rights, since civil unions provide a vast number of legal rights to same-sex couples, but about conferring and enforcing social acceptance of a particular lifestyle, a lifestyle many people of faith and advocates of the natural law refuse to accept,” the statement said.

There appeared, however, to be little appetite in the capitol to oppose the ruling. Governor M. Jodi Rell, an opponent of same-sex marriage, said she would abide by the decision even though she disagrees with it.

“The Supreme Court has spoken,” Rell said. “I do not believe their voice reflects the majority of the people of Connecticut. However, I am also firmly convinced that attempts to reverse this decision - either legislatively or by amending the state Constitution - will not meet with success.”

Along with opponents in CT, opponents of Same Sex Marriage in California seem to be making strides (as I mentioned above), unfortunately (IMHO, that is). In the following article, New Poll Suggests Support for Proposition 8 in Wake of Ad Campaign, things are not looking good for defeating the ballot initiative. I guess Obama’s good buddy, Doug Kmiec, is making some strides in convincing people to not support equality. And since he is Obama’s choice for his Faith Tour, I am sure he is dancing a little dance, and yelling “halle-damn-lujah!” There are three weeks left to go before Election Day. I wonder if Ellen and Portia will still be married AFTER Election Day is past? I surely do hope so. I mean, they already got the toaster and all…

Meanwhile, Matthew Shepard’s mother is in the news as the tenth anniversary of Matthew Shepard’s brutal death is upon us. Wow - that was ten years ago. Hard to believe, I have to say. My heart goes out to the Shepard Family as they deal with the anniversary of the death of their beloved son…

And even as they deal with this sad reminder of how far we have yet to come, they are not just focusing on themselves - not at all. They are speaking out for the entire community. In this article, Mrs. Shepard is decrying the lack of progress in passing hate crimes legislation, and lack of decline in anti-gay violence:

“Ten years have gone by and not that much has changed, and I think that’s just really disappointing,” said Shepard, who with her husband formed the Matthew Shepard Foundation to promote equality for the gay community.

“We passed up a golden opportunity to set things in motion and make a change and set an example and let it go,” she said.

In a case that outraged gay activists and their advocates around the country, Matthew Shepard died October 12, 1998, five days after he was kidnapped, robbed and pistol-whipped by two men he met in a bar. Both men are serving life in prison for the murder, which police said was partly motivated by the fact that Matthew was gay.

Matthew’s death after he was left in the cold — bloodied with severe head injuries — for 18 hours has produced an outpouring of films, books and plays, but it hasn’t seemed to budge the rate of anti-gay violence.

FBI statistics show hate crimes motivated by anti-gay bias have remained at a stable level since Matthew’s death. Both in 1998 and in 2006, the latest year for which data is available, roughly 1,200 such crimes were reported — about 16 percent of all reported hate crimes.

She is also disappointed in the lack of progress across the country for same sex marriage. I’m right there with her. It seems like it is one step forward, one step backward. Things look good for a minute, then vanish, or have the very real potential to do so. Other countries keep moving forward - the entire country, not one little area at a time, which may or may not stay that way, and here we are with our fits and starts. Dear goddess, when will there be real, SUSTAINED forward movement on this?

I have to say it, even though I am painfully aware of the reality, had Hillary Clinton been the Nominee, and gotten into the White House, I would have had much more faith that something POSITIVE would be in store for the GLBT community. With either McCain or Obama, I do not have that kind of HOPE (ahem). Neither one of them has the kind of commitment to the community that Senator Clinton does, thus when we can achieve full equality seems further off still. Dammit.

But for the moment, for THIS moment, I rejoice in the decision of the four justices in Connecticut. I hope, and pray, that the people of California will be as level headed come November 4th.

I leave you with this tribute to Matthew Shepard (don’t let the typos at the end diminish this piece). Again, my heart goes out to his family and friends. To his parents, thank you for your continued work for, and continued dedication to, our community.

There are reasons the LGBT community supported Clinton over Obama: Obama refused to be photographed with Gavin Newsom in 2004, when the San Francisco Mayor was the center of a national uproar for his support of gay marriage; Obama participated in a gay bashing “Gospel Tour” in South Carolina with Donnie McClurkin, an African-American minister who views homosexuality as a disease Jesus Christ can cure; Obama cites his Christianity when he mentions his opposition to gay marriage in his text entitled The Audacity of Hope; Obama stigmatizes and minoritizes gay marriage when he refers to it as such in his political speeches and texts; Obama admits to seeking spiritual counsel from a certain Rev. James T. Meeks, a homophobic minister in inner city Chicago who was named by the Southern Poverty Law Center as one of the “10 leading black religious voices in the anti-gay movement;” Obama refuses to march in gay pride parades; and Obama will not allow himself to be interviewed by the LGBT press. Because Obama has a record of homophobic speech, actions and affiliations, the LGBT community rallied behind Hillary Clinton. And they may rally behind McCain-Palin, for Obama’s continued disrespect for this constituency will compel many LGBT voters to reconsider their support for the homophobic Democrat.

Obama, according to The Advocate, will launch a gay bashing “Faith, Values and Family” tour with homophobic Catholic legal scholar Douglas Kmiec. I quote with added emphasis:

The Christian Broadcasting Network is reporting that the Obama campaign next week will kick off “Barack Obama: Faith, Family, and Values Tour,” designed to woo the votes of left-leaning Catholics, progressive Evangelicals, and some conservative mainline Protestants. If LGBT people find the tour eerily reminiscent of the South Carolina gospel tour the campaign arranged last year with antigay “ex-gay” gospel singer Donnie McClurkin, their instincts may not be far off.

CBN names Catholic legal scholar Douglas Kmiec as one of the religious surrogates who will hit the road stumping for Obama. Kmiec wrote a June 13 op-ed for the San Francisco Chronicle supporting California’s Proposition 8, the ballot measure to ban same-sex marriage, titled “On Same-Sex Marriage: Should California Amend Its Constitution? Say ‘No’ to the Brave New World.” Kmiec’s first two sentences in the piece read, “The California ballot initiative intended to set aside the state supreme court’s judicial invention of same-sex marriage deserves public support. Maybe it is enough to say, as many do in conversation, that it merely re-secures a millennia of tradition and common sense.”

Obama, in other words, will campaign with a legal scholar who believes “a millennia” of “tradition,” “common sense” and homophobia should be preserved. Kmiec, by the way, is the former constitutional legal counsel to Presidents Ronald Reagan and George H. W. Bush. Republican jurisprudence is the change in which the LGBT community can believe, I guess.

But it gets worse, for Kmiec writes the following in his 13 JUN op-ed for the San Francisco Chronicle. I quote with emphasis added again:

Separating marriage from procreation may also have other remote, but frightening, ill consequences. Society should be skeptical of wider use of asexual procreation. An earlier dark moment in U.S. history employed eugenics to forcibly sterilize the mentally disabled. The push for artificial wombs and the genetic manipulation of intelligence already peppers scientific literature - a push that would no doubt grow, accommodating even the minimal same-sex desire for simulating natural child birth - claimed to be of interest for 20-30 percent of same-sex couples. When carefully assessed, the acquisition of unnatural reproductive means often advances the interests of the very affluent through a libertarian exercise that would threaten all hope of democratic equality.

According to Kmiec, gay marriage is a harbinger for a social eugenics that manipulates the human genome in the name of maintaining social hierarchies. A threat to democracy, the LGBT community in Kmiec’s warped mind is attempting to eliminate the heterosexual population. Raising specters gleaned from science fiction novels, Kmiec stokes the fires of a fear of a queer planet.

For some reason Barack Obama finds this entirely acceptable. Indeed, Barack Obama desires to use the campaign funds he has collected from Democrats and from members of the LGBT community to give this Catholic legal scholar of the lunatic, Republican fringe a platform in Colorado, Indiana, North Carolina, Georgia, Michigan, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Missouri, Florida, New Mexico, Virginia and Wisconsin. If we witness a spike in hate crimes against the LGBT community in any of these states before votes are cast in November, we will only have Barack Obama and Douglas Kmiec to blame.

We also know who to blame if Barack Obama loses the general election. For the LGBT community does not take too kindly to gay bashing in the name of garnering votes from Evangelicals and other conservative Christians. Barack Obama never had our votes, and he certainly will not gain them if he continues to terrorize devout Christians with the specter of a queer planet.

Obama, by the way, refuses to attend LGBT Democratic events: Michelle Obama was the one who addressed the Gay & Lesbian Leadership Council of the Democratic National Committee in New York City in June, and she was the one who headlined the lunch for LGBT delegates in Denver during the August convention. Barack Obama was nowhere to be found. But then again, the man who has received spiritual guidance from homophobic ministers probably fears that the audience would try to genetically clone him into a gay man.

How odd it is that the Democratic Presidential candidate is a gay basher and the Republican Vice Presidential candidate is a woman who vetoed anti-gay legislation. While Obama is routinely criticized in the LGBT press for his homophobia, Sarah Palin receives accolades from Gay.com for joining the cause of the ACLU and nine homosexual couples employed by the state of Alaska and by the city of Anchorage. Perhaps the LGBT community is one of those constituencies Barack Obama and Donna Brazile believe they can shed as so much toxic waste from the Democratic Party’s past. If this is the case, then I guess the LGBT community should consider supporting the McCain-Palin ticket. After all, Palin supported the community while Obama was bashing it with Donnie McClurkin and Reverend James T. Meeks.

And now Obama will bash the community with the former legal counsel to the Bush and Reagan administrations in 12 states. While this may yield one or two Evangelical votes for Barack Obama, Obama’s continued and unrestrained gay bashing will also result in tens if not hundreds of thousands of LGBT votes for John McCain and Sarah Palin. For similar to the Evangelicals and conservative Christians Obama and Kmiec will court, the LGBT community votes “ALL our values.”

Also see Reverend Amy’s essay on Barack Obama’s second gay bashing tour.

Don’t believe me. Take a look at this sarcastic woman talk about her New Party. And who “Split us into groups” again?

Here’s Donna telling us all about her “New Party”. Check out her snide face and hear her snide voice. Good luck with that Donna. Paul Begala also warns arrogant Donna that she is going to need all the people she is insulting to win this election. Nobody can deny it. We were told to go to hell. Well we don’t plan on doing that, instead we plan to vote.

So now there’s a recent study discussing the very warning given to arrogant ass Donna Brazile, the one who was going to”Change the Demographics of her “New” Democratic Party. Now she needs us. We’ll be back when people like Donna are no longer in charge, for starters. We are going to take back our party. Again. This is not the first time elite socialist fringe snobs tried to hijack our party. It seems the one thing our party learns from history is how to repeat their mistakes over and over and over again.

The majority of this party is not interested in busting their butts at work and then “sharing” their gains with people who don’t. The majority of this party is not interested in sexism and misogyny. The majority of this party does not belong to MoveOn. The majority of this party is not interested in allowing dependent children, off-the-cliff radicals, old hippies stilll on the bong, left over cranks from the failed AmeriKKKan Socialist, Communist, Marxist and Stalinist parties pick presidents.

And the majority of the Democratic Party will NOT be staying home on November 4, Donna. Get that idea out of your head.

A study surprise! reveals that Barack Obama needs us now. Of course, the Race Card has to be played with respect to the “White Vote”. Once more, my party wants to ignore the impact of PUMA at their own peril. So be it.

But it’s pretty safe to say that playing the Race Card every five minutes hasn’t exactly endeared white people to the Obama candidacy. Threatening people and calling them racist has backfired. Refusing to recognize that there are plenty of reasons why people will never vote for Barack Obama that have little to do with his color. Like sexest piggism and socialism, for starters. His rude, threatening and savage followers would be right up there on the list too. People don’t like to feel threatened. And people don’t like to have real issues ignored and twisted into a “Race Card” discussion. It not only ticks them off, but it’s been done and overdone so much by Obama and his surrogates, that the effect is now just a lot of Eye Rolling when it’s heard again. And again. And again.

There are plenty of reasons why many Democrats aren’t interested in Barack Obama. The report mentions the “White working class”. Those are those Bitter Hicks With Guns. Does anybody really expect them to forgive Barack Obama for his tasteless, snobby, downright ignorant remark about them at a fundraiser at Billionaire’s Row in San Francisco? Really?

Does anyone really expect all Hillary Clinton supporters to forgive Barack Obama for his attempt to destroy her and his coordinated attacks on her because she is a woman? Really? Really? How arrogant can you get?

Does anyone really expect all Jews in America to rush to the polls for Obama when every Jidadist in the Middle East has endorsed him? Really?

Does anyone really expect all of us well-educated Hillary supporters to forget being constantly referred to as “Downscale” and “Low Information”? Really?

Does anyone really expect women to give him their undying support after his disgusting behaviors toward women in this campaign? Really? Really?

Does anyone really expect everyone in America to forget Reverend Wright’s disgusting remarks? Does anyone really expect every Italian-American to vote for a guy whose 20-year pastor calls them Garlic-Noses? Really? Really?

Does anyone really expect that Seniors, who have lived long enough to recognize BS when they see it, are endeared en masse by Barack Obama, whose followers have consistently insulted them as “old people”?

Has anyone heard Barack Obama say one helpful thing to Native Americans?

Does anyone really expect all Latinos in Florida to worship a man who wants to talk to Castro with no pre-conditions? Really?

Does anyone really expect all gays and lesbians to be in love with Barack Obama when he refused to have his photo taken with the Mayor of San Francisco? Really?

If all of these people happen to be white, then the real thing the report reveals is that Barack Obama, his surrogates and his followers have insulted plenty of white people in this election season. In droves. The Democrats might like to continue the “Race Card” with their studies, but the truth is, their loss among Democrats consist of the people they insulted and decided they didn’t need any longer. And that’s not going to go away.

Here’s Politico’s take on the report:

In an election year where Barack Obama pledged to change the electorate, the centrist Democratic Leadership Council has weighed into the debate with a detailed report arguing it will be difficult for Obama to earn enough African American and youth support to compensate for enduring Democratic failures with white voters.

The report, titled “Who are the swing voters,” finds that the party must make historic inroads with working class whites in order to create a sustainable presidential majority.

It’s hardly news that the Democratic Party has struggled with white voters. Democrats have not won a majority of whites since 1964. Since 1980 though, Democrats have struggled to even remain competitive among whites, particularly men, and that has allowed Republicans to dominate the last quarter century of presidential politics.

The DLC set out in its analysis, an early draft of which was provided to Politico, to investigate the most influential swing blocs for Democrats. It concluded that slight but significant gains with working class whites— who constitute four in ten voters and were defined by the DLC as white high school graduates without a four-year college degree—is the best means to enlarge the Democratic coalition.

“There has been so much emphasis on new entrants in the electorate, and this report is historic and not predictive, but history tells us it would be an unusual circumstance if we witnessed a massive shift in the electorate,” the DLC analysis reads.

The report calculates that a 10 percent increase in black voter turnout amounts to a 1-percentage point uptick in the overall electorate, assuming all other groups remain constant.

That means that if the black voting rate rises from 60 percent to 67.2, the level of whites as measured by the Census Bureau, it amounts to 1.7 million votes— less than George W. Bush’s margin of victory in 2004.

“None of this means that the 2008 election could not be decided because of a radical shift in the electorate—by a dramatically increased turnout among critical constituencies or by a sharp shift in party identification, for example,” the report reads, “But historical voting patterns say that would be an unusual occurrence.”

The DLC study looked at the exit polls of the last five presidential elections as well as the 2006 midterm election.

The report, authored by Al From and Victoria Lynch, described black voters, self-identified liberals, and “strongly pro-choice” voters as the most influential legs of the Democratic coalition.

The DLC calculated that about four in ten voters in presidential elections are part of this Democratic base. John Kerry won 80 percent of these voters, meaning Democrats only amounted to about a third of the electorate. That number will likely be higher in 2008 as Democrats enjoy a newfound party identification advantage, though one that multiple polls show lessened in late summer.

The report strongly suggests, however, that it will be difficult for the Obama campaign to win if he does not improve Democrats’ appeal to the white working class.

The report also paints two blocs of working class whites:

“A typical male voter in that category will likely be between 30 and 59 years old, live in a suburb or small town in the South or Midwest, and be married with no children living at home. He’s likely to be a Republican or independent, moderate or conservative, not a member of a labor union, pro-life, and in favor smaller government. Finally, he’s most likely to be Protestant but not a weekly churchgoer.”

The convention was a total fraud. The roll call vote was rigged, and every Democratic rule and procedure was violated in order to do it and they did it in broad daylight right in front of the watchful eyes of the news media who have the powers of observation of a drunken sailor on a Saturday night. They just let the corruption happen without comment. Some of the more egregiously blind were Mike Barnicle, Chris Matthews and of course that Olbermann guy who still thinks this is sports.

I then asked Marc what he would want to explain about the roll call vote or outcome for those not as intimately involved in the situation who still thought Obama won the nomination “fair and square”:

Well there is no accounting for people’s ignorance and refusal to think for themselves, but according to Democratic Party rules it was totally rigged. Rule 6, I believe, states clearly that pledged delegates have an obligation to vote according to the voters who elected them based on the primaries.

Just as one example, Clinton ‘landslided’ Obama in the New Jersey primary winning many more elected pledged delegates than Obama. As you saw during the roll call vote all 130 pledged delegates “voted” for Obama. And no one blinked an eye. And as everyone knows super delegates were going to decide this because Obama didn’t have the 2/3 needed in pledged delegates. They never were given a chance to vote. The last unofficial count according to Politico.com prior to the roll call vote showed among super delegates, 271 for Obama, 268 for Clinton and 160 undecided. If the roll call vote was honest, Obama would have most likely lost.

Ah, now to those “unbelievers.” Not that we wish to give oxygen to foolishness, but we actually had responders saying we had ‘no proof’ of Marc’s allegations. Sigh. Exhausting, isn’t it? Were they watching the same Convention we were watching? So here, for everyone’s edification is some proof.

For sane persons who have no intention of denying the obvious, we include raw data for you to show those who, as Marc eloquently put it, refuse to believe their own “lying eyes”.

Here first are The Green Papers’ results of the Democratic Primary:

WARNING – THESE TALLIES WILL SEND ALL HILLARY SUPPORTERS THROUGH THE ROOF WONDERING HOW IN THE HELL ANYONE IN THEIR RIGHT MIND NOMINATED
THE ENDLESSLY FLIP-FLOPPING AND UNQUALIFIED BARACK OBAMA:

The Final Tally On The Popular Vote:
Hillary Clinton 17,857,446 — 48.04%
Barack Obama 17,584,649 — 47.31%

The Final Pledged Delegate Count
Hillary Clinton 1,730.5 — 39.17%
Barack Obama 1,747.5 — 39.55%

So basically she won the popular vote and was behind him by 17 pledged delegates. Wow. What a slam dunk!! Uh, who did they nominate again?

And let me reiterate for the one-thousandth time:

1. Hillary won all the big states, save Obama’s home state of Illinois.

2. She won all the battleground states that usually decide the elections in November, like Ohio, Pennsylvania, Florida, Michigan, West Virginia to name a few…

3. She had the electoral map in her pocket.

4. She won the popular vote.

5. She won the majority of the Democratic base – not the “Republicans for a Day” – but voters who actually intended to vote for the Democratic Nominee in November – as opposed to people voting for Obama from the Republican side who were just trying to get the stronger candidate (uh, that would be Hillary) out of the race. [This is noted with all due respect to those Republicans who actually wished to vote for a Democrat in the Fall.]

6. No matter what shenanigans the DNC tried to pull by denying Florida and Michigan their votes in the primary – last time I looked, their votes do count in November. Hillary won those votes resoundingly. So it sort of would have been a good idea not to poop on them when we need them to vote for us in the General Election. Just a thought…

Who did Nancy Pelosi, Howard Dean, Harry Reid and Donna Brazile push to nominate again?

Delegates were strong armed not to vote for the candidate they were actually elected to support on the first ballot, based on the votes of millions of Americans. The final delegate tally from the first ballot was 3,188.5 for Obama; 1,010.5 for Clinton. Take another look at the REAL numbers above and see if that seems legal to you???

What was the primary for anyway? Why did we make all those phone calls, send in all that money to both candidates, canvass, rally, vote? Why did we vote? If over 700 delegates could be taken away from her on the first ballot with no one blinking an eye?

Why didn’t Donna Brazile just send everybody the memo ahead of time?

“Look, no matter how much she wins or where she wins, we are going to gift this to him. So get over it.”

I would have appreciated the honesty, if nothing else.

Since this race was essentially a tie, except that Hillary’s votes were won in states Democrats can actually win in November – not states like Idaho, Wyoming, Kansas and Mississippi – and she didn’t use any caucus fraud to win either, unlike someone else we could name – it sort of doesn’t make any sense that Hillary would not be our Presidential nominee.

Yes, Marc is correct. The DNC turned the nominating process into a crooked joke.

Perhaps that is why the media, Obama’s surrogates and the DNC are falling all over themselves to declare that it must be racism that is keeping him getting out in front in this contest. Does the expression CYA (uh, cover your ass) ring a bell??? Uh, is that really why we don’t want to support the DNC’s crooked contest pushing for a most unqualified, dissembling candidate: Racism?

Oh yeah, that must be it…I’m so proud all my time on the internet has taught me this expression. ROFLMAO. For the laymen out there: rolling on floor, laughing my ass off. (Emphasis mine.)

I cannot tell anyone else what to do, but today, I am donating some dough to Democrats for Principles Before Party because I’d like to see the DNC’s feet get held to the fire.

And the fire can’t be hot enough to suit me.

If you wish to help or find out more, here is their information: The Denver Group / Democrats for Principle Before Party

Please also tune in to Bud White’s excellent original interview with Heidi Li Feldman and Marc Rubin of The Denver Group on NoQ Radio.

The media’s pillow-fluffing rhapsodic musings about the Obama ‘movement’ made them abandon their objectivity faster than a child abandoning a broken toy. The DNC gambled on an unvetted, unqualified, well-sculpted concoction of New Age-y hyped up post-partisan platitudes that really don’t make much sense to Americans struggling to keep afloat. Their gamble has resulted in a split of the Democratic Party. No matter what Obama does, his numbers won’t go above 50%. No amount of money, media favoritism, or caucus fraud can change that fact.

What to do now? When in doubt, play: j’accuse!! The media and Dem party leadership have started pointing fingers. Racism!! They cry. Nonsense, I say.

The racism charges have been put out by Senator Obama personally and many in the DNC/Obama wing of the Party. This is a scenario that both they and the media can hide behind to avoid questions and blowback if Obama loses. It’s a way to be insulated from failure so they can still claim to be relevant if the election results in a loss for Obama in this “no lose year for Democrats.” How we got to this place of throwing the far more qualified candidate under the bus will be discussed for some time to come.

What we are seeing is a battle for the Democratic Party itself. Clearly the ‘Howards’, ‘Nancys’ and ‘Donnas’ in the DNC chose to kick the Clinton wing to the curb by forcing delegates to make a selection before it was time to vote and staging an end run around the legitimate nominating process. They did their best to pretend that Hillary’s 18,000,000 voters and her 1912 delegates did not exist.

To that end, Marc Rubin and Prof. Heidi Li Feldman, co-founders of The Denver Group, through the use of grass roots fundraising, both on and off the internet, did a tremendous job of creating and placing effective targeted advertising that added pressure to the decision to put Hillary’s name into nomination and get a roll call vote at the Democratic Convention.

Unfortunately, we all know what happened as a result of the thuggish tactics of the DNC leadership. The only good news is that the reputations and favorability ratings of Nancy Pelosi, Howard Dean, Donna Brazile, Harry Reid seem at an all time low. Apparently, someone out there is paying attention.

Marc Rubin shared his thoughts with me about the Convention, its aftermath and how The Denver Group is evolving in an effort to apply pressure for change in the fractured Democratic Party and hold the current party leadership’s feet to the fire.

Marc, looking back, what is your feeling about how the Convention played out?

The convention was a total fraud. The roll call vote was rigged, and every Democratic rule and procedure was violated in order to do it and they did it in broad daylight right in front of the watchful eyes of the news media who have the powers of observation of a drunken sailor on a Saturday night. They just let the corruption happen without comment. Some of the more egregiously blind were Mike Barnicle, Chris Matthews and of course that Olbermann guy who still thinks this is sports.

What would you want to explain about the roll call vote or outcome for those not as intimately involved in the situation? There are still those who think Senator Obama won the nomination “fair and square.” What is your response to that?

Well there is no accounting for people’s ignorance and refusal to think for themselves, but according to Democratic Party rules it was totally rigged. Rule 6, I believe, states clearly that pledged delegates have an obligation to vote according to the voters who elected them based on the primaries.

Just as one example, Clinton ‘landslided’ Obama in the New Jersey primary winning many more elected pledged delegates than Obama. As you saw during the roll call vote all 130 pledged delegates “voted” for Obama. And no one blinked an eye. And as everyone knows super delegates were going to decide this because Obama didn’t have the 2/3 needed in pledged delegates. They never were given a chance to vote. The last unofficial count according to Politico.com prior to the roll call vote showed among super delegates, 271 for Obama, 268 for Clinton and 160 undecided. If the roll call vote was honest, Obama would have most likely lost.

Had you ever been so involved in a campaign? What motivated you to go the extra mile?

What motivated me was unfairness. The incredible deceit of Pelosi outright lying during the primary season, saying that super delegates had an obligation to vote according to the pledged delegate count, the slanted playing field, the deceit and dishonesty of the news media and people like Jonathan Alter, MSNBC and others calling for Clinton to get out, and of course the Florida and Michigan fiasco when Obama and the DNC and the media colluded to deny both states their rightful voices. The last straw was after the last primary when Pelosi forced super delegates to declare 6 weeks before their votes would count so they could short circuit the process and declare Obama the winner when he wasn’t.

As Governor Rendell of Pennsylvania pointed out, the DNC insisted on nominating the weaker candidate. Aside from the obvious consequence of making the election harder to win, what do you think are some of the short and long term consequences of such an action to the Democratic Party going forward?

Harder to win? Try impossible to win. One candidate ‘landslided’ the other in 13 of the biggest states in the country, not just won, but won by landslide margins and they sent out the loser. They deserve to lose and lose big. The short term consequences are short term pain for long term gain because a massive Obama defeat will get rid of Dean, Pelosi, Brazile and the Obama wing of the party and get it on the right track again.

The DNC is using various scare tactics to get everyone to fall in line. What is your response to their favorite ploys?

a) McCain as neocon?

As rated by conservative groups, McCain has the worst conservative voting record of any Republican member of Congress which is one reason Rush Limbaugh hates him. I’m going to write a post specifically addressing all of this because it’s so ludicrous.

b) Threats to reverse Roe v. Wade?

As for Roe v. Wade, it’s designed to scare people who are ignorant of the law, the limits on the power of the executive [branch] and how the legal system works. It’s virtually a done deal that Roe v. Wade will never get reversed in a McCain presidency and if you want proof, no Presidents were more opposed to Roe v. Wade than Bush and Reagan and nothing happened in 16 years of both administrations and for logical reasons. It won’t happen under a McCain administration either.

c) Conservative SCOTUS appointments?

Appointing judges is a crap shoot. Look at David Souter. Besides, even conservative judges respect court precedent and only in extreme and compelling circumstances are willing to overturn long-standing decisions and it hardly ever happens and it wouldn’t with Roe v. Wade. There is a big difference between conservatives WANTING it to be overturned and a court doing just that, assuming you could even find a case where someone with the standing to bring a law suit would do it.

d) What about the DNC and media pushing that if one does not vote for Senator Obama, one must be racist? How effective is this tactic?

Martin Luther King said he dreamed of a day when a person would be judged by the content of their character and not the color of their skin. That day has obviously not arrived for Obama, his campaign and those in the DNC, who think making an issue of race and using it to try and intimidate weak minded people is the way to win the election.

Any objective person would come to the conclusion, based on everything known, that Obama doesn’t have the character, courage or the conviction even to be an effective Senator much less President. Using accusations of racism to try and intimidate people into voting for an unqualified candidate will backfire among everyone who sees through it and resents it.

That doesn’t include patronizing knee-jerk liberals such as Keith Olbermann and others like him; the kind of patronizing pseudo-liberals that Lenny Bruce made fun of in the early 60’s, who want to show how un-racist they are by drumming up support for someone with the ethics of a dishonest used car salesman.

But it’s a good reason the polls can’t be trusted. When Obama and his minions try and use the race card to intimidate people, those who do feel intimidated will say one thing but will do another. The more they do it, the more they alienate the people they are trying to win over, so the tactic of trying to get people to prove they are not racists by voting for him, like taking some kind of loyalty oath, smacks of racial McCarthyism, and while it might be successful with some, most people will reject it.

Aside from the obvious wish to scare up voters, why do you feel they are using such a risky tactic?

It is a sign of desperation and reinforces the truth that Senator Obama has nothing to say and nothing to offer.

We have many, many African Americans who have been elected to public office — mayors, governors, members of Congress, members of state legislatures, and none of them had to use race as a tactic to get elected. All were elected on their merits and won re-election or were defeated based on their performances. In the end the more Obama uses race the more he is telling people he has no game.

I understand The Denver Group has a new offshoot — Democrats for Principle Before Party — what are your new goals going forward?

A massive defeat for Obama and the resignations of everyone in the DNC who produced him and the elimination of the Obama wing of the party which is obviously corrupt and putting the DNC back into the hands of people who understand the word “democracy”.

It wasn’t Clinton’s supporters who stooped to the level of the Obama wing and corrupted and mishandled everything, so to start with, Clinton and her supporters would obviously do a better job getting a Democrat back in the White House and getting the entire party back on track after all the “I told you so’s” are over. This also means replacing Pelosi, Reid, Dean and everyone else. If the Democrats retain control of Congress, I can’t see any member of the House with 2 cents for a brain re-electing Pelosi Speaker of the House. Once this is over, we should see a big power shift back to sanity.

When you see how the DNC has so skewed the process this time, what can be done to effect change on a grass roots level? What would be your advice to those feeling completely disenfranchised by the primary season – how can they bring pressure to bear to make sure this sort of thing never happens again?

Vote for an Obama defeat, whether than means voting for another candidate or leaving the Presidential line blank. No money to the DNC, and donating money to The Denver Group to help finance Democrats For Principle Before Party.

Finally, what can you say to those who don’t understand why you are not just “lining up” the way most Dems usually do in support of any candidate? If you could correct any misconception about how they view your actions, what would you say to them?

I’d say they should look at themselves and whether they have decided to believe what Obama and the news media tells them or their own “lying eyes”. Understand that Democrats don’t “fall in line” like Republicans do, that Dean and Pelosi’s “fall in line” strategy has backfired and showed a distinct lack of understanding of who Democrats are, and the last thing I would tell people is do themselves a favor and try thinking for themselves and not believe something is true just because someone tells them so.

But if people can’t see the rank dishonesty and hypocrisy in everything Obama has said and done by now: his lying about [Rev.] Wright and the fact he was never offended enough by what Wright was saying to leave and never go back, his lying about FISA, NAFTA, his reneging on his promises and pledges, and if they don’t mind being led around by the nose I don’t know there is anything more anyone can say.

Thank you for taking the time to do this interview, Marc. I honestly feel watchdog organization like yours are critical, particularly now, when the media is working so diligently to manhandle the truth. As you and Heidi Li point out on your website, it is crucial to stop all the errant finger pointing and lay the blame squarely at the feet of those to whom it belongs.

I’m not advocating anyone vote one way or the other, but John McCain said something apropos during his convention speech, in re vetoing ‘pork projects’ that come across his desk: “They will be famous. You will know their names.”

A good prescription for the current Democratic Party leadership. Don’t you think?

* * *
*Marc Rubin is an award winning art director and writer in the advertising business, was a contributing editor for National Lampoon in its heyday, the head writer on a number of prime time network TV series and is currently developing several movie and TV projects.

To learn more about: The Denver Group / Democrats For Principle Before Party.

Between Donna Brazile’s bizarre declaration earlier this year that Democrats no longer need to rely on older people (among others) who make up the party’s traditional base, and the Obama campaign’s near-exclusive focus on the youth vote, the DNC and the Obama camp may well have made another gargantuan misstep.

Maybe some seniors were unable to get out in the near-freezing night weather to participate in the Iowa caucus. Maybe other seniors were unable stand until midnight in the Texas caucus. But seniors vote in higher numbers in general elections than do younger voters. In 2004, the voting rate for those over 65 was 66% compared to 52% in the 18-25 age group. In 2006, the voting rate for seniors (over 65) was 61% compared to a pathetic 20% for the 18-25 voters. As for registered voters, seniors over 65 have the highest rate of any age group. (Voting rates here.)

Today’s seniors are more active and involved in their communities than at any time in history, and recent research disputes any stereotype that advanced age has to manifest signs of cognitive impairment. And yet if the DNC thinks it is attracting seniors to vote Democratic by denigrating the age of the Republican opponent, well that’s about as sharp as a marble.

Many now-senior women were active in the second wave of feminism in the late 1960s and early 70s. Back then, “You can be whatever you want to be” was not an option for girls to even fantasize about. Thick doors were either slammed shut or cleverly blocked with glass (e.g., irrelevant employment criteria that most women could not meet due to their physical size or strength). Those now-senior feminists toiled hard to open doors for women, and they made progress on a number of fronts.

Soccer Mom to Mayor to Governor to Vice Presidential Candidate. We may not agree with her on all of the issues, but Sarah Palin was able to achieve what yesterday’s active feminists had hoped any little girl who worked hard enough and believed enough in herself could become. Hillary was a great hope—and sexism again raised its ugly head to dog her throughout her campaign. Yet Sarah Palin is being hit with uber-ugly slurs that have nothing to do with disagreements on issues, often enough perpetrated by other women (including, ironically, some from the second wave). This is not going down well with more senior women than the DNC and today’s younger feminists may realize.

In short, we are witnessing elderblunder. Dumb!

In an interview posted on the political Web site Politico, Chairwoman Carol Fowler said Republican John McCain picked a running mate “whose primary qualification seems to be that she hasn’t had an abortion.”

Fowler later apologized, saying she made the statement during an interview about single-issue voters.

Don’t apologize, “Sweetie”!!111!!!! You helped shave a few more points off of Barky’s White Woman polls. Do more! Please!

“I personally admire and respect the difficult choices that women make everyday, and I apologize to anyone who finds my comment offensive,” Fowler said in a statement.

“I clumsily was making a point about people in South Carolina who may vote based on a single issue. Whether it’s the environment, the economy, the war or a woman’s right to choose, there are people who will cast their vote based on a single issue,” she continued. “That was the only point I was attempting to make.”

You see, that’s the problem. It’s not about you or Donna or Howard or Nancy “being clumsy”. It’s about the confusion we women are causing you. We are confusing you and the rest of The Party, right? Why are so many of us Democratic women confusing our Beloved Democratic Party???? The answer lies in a little story:

A farmer was talking to his neighbor about how expensive it is to feed his horse. His neighbor suggested that he mix sawdust in the horse’s feed for filler.

The neighbor didn’t see the farmer till a month later and he asked how his suggestion worked out. The farmer was very sullen. He said, ” I don’t understand it. I mixed some sawdust in my horse’s feed and he seemed to like it. So I added a little more the next day. And a little more the next day. He seemed to like it so I just increased his sawdust every day. But you won’t believe what happened! Soon as I got that damned horse eating all sawdust, the damned thing died!”

It’s kind of like that Carol. (and Donna, Howard, Nancy-The-Exception)

You entrenched party people have been feeding us that Abortion story for decades. Every four years we had to listen to the same shit from you. We are YOUR party, ladies. We care! If you don’t vote for us they will overturn Roe v Wade. We will protect you!

Funny, really. For one thing, if you CARED, you would have legislated this problem years ago. But then, where’s the profit in that? What would you use to keep us scared enough to vote for all of you again, and again and again. In the meantime, so many of us have grown up listening to your tripe –and you know what? We don’t give a shit!. You’ve been feeding us sawdust! We all know Roe v Wade isn’t going anywhere, so cut the craaaaaaaaap.

There was more sawdust you kept feeding us too. That “Equal pay for women” sawdust. Do you DNC jerks have any idea how long we have been listening to that horseshit? I mean if you can’t fix this problem in decades, don’t you think you all need to move on? We aren’t eating that sawdust any longer either.

How about the Champion for The Poor sawdust? In my not so short life, I haven’t seen you guys help the poor at all, unless you count keeping them poor! You know…wink …wink…just give them enough to keep them voting for you, but God forbid you should give them the incentive to actually get out of poverty and off the government’s programs. That’s not a good idea, right? I mean if you keep them all just poor enough, they will need you for-evah!

The best sawdust story is the one about Equal Rights for Women. Boy you had us eating that slop for so long I can’t even remember when it all started. But the first chance you got to be a bunch of sexist slobs, you grabbed that ring as fast as you could.

Let me be frank. I have NEVER seen so much sexism and misogyny in a primary, or pretty much anywhere for that matter, in my entire life. And I hung out in Corporate America a lot! If you pigs were in Corporate America you would have all been shown to the lobby for your filth.

The DNC stood right by and watched Barack Obama, his filthy TV surrogates, his online pigs-in-training in their parents’ basements and his PR team on MSNBC and CNN harass, torture, insult, embarrass, humiliate and rip the far superior candidate apart–because she was a woman!. Then we watched you drag a mediocre man’s sorry inept ass over the nomination line against the will of superdelegates’ constituents. Talk about “Putting lipstick on a pig”!! You people are sick! You bludgeoned us because we are women and now you want us to eat more of your sawdust over an “issue” you’ve been using on us for decades????? Are you kidding or what????Do you have any idea at all what a wake-up call that was for us women with brains and some life experience? Anybody? Anybody?

The Democratic Party’s behavior toward Hillary Clinton this year was beyond revolting. We understand exactly what that means. It means you have all been hypocrites for as long as women have been your captives. We understand now that hanging out with you is akin to living in an abusive relationship. So don’t be bringing us flowers after you broke our jaws. You might fool younger women who haven’t been around too many blocks. They are complacent because they didn’t have to fight for their rights, and you know it—so the DNC and Barack Obama take advantage of them. If they can’t see what’s in front of their own faces, well then let them eat vibrating cell phones! As for the rest of us, we aren’t buying. We know exactly what is going on here. You are killing us with the sawdust in our feed. We choose to survive instead.

Frankly, I find it downright stupid that, after all we have been forced to stand by and watch, you all wonder why we defend Sarah Palin. Do you really think we don’t comprende that under Barack Obama, women would have a whole lot more to worry about than Roe v Wade? Do you not think that we understand that crap rolls downhill and the attitude of a President permeates the workplace and the home? Do you think we’ve eaten so much of your sawdust that we don’t understand completely what is going on here?

My party! The Party that kept so many women carrying your water for you for years, when all you gave us in the end was more sawdust in our feed. The only Sharia thing you didn’t do to Hillary Clinton was set her on fire! And that’s probably only because here in America that’s against the law. So far……

…..and now you all simply cannot understand why we women aren’t “one-issue” voters. Well let me explain, then: It isn’t about “one issue” with us. It’s about all of them. All of those issues you dangled over our heads for too long, when it is now abundantly clear the Democratic Party never gave a shit about us at all except to use “issues” as a means to keep us in line on Election Day.

You could have had a winner. But you now have a loser. We aren’t eating the sawdust any longer. On November 4, you and the rest of the Democratic Party hypocrites can eat your own sawdust for a change. Maybe then you all will Get It. Forget Party loyalty from now on. We women aren’t going to suck up to any party any longer. You are going to have to show us your chops instead of flapping your lips if you want our votes. We are the new Independents. When you start looking out for us, we’ll give you a try as a swing block. And that goes for both parties, and right now, your forced choice is not our choice. You had best think about that next time because we have NO intention of ever putting up with what we saw done to the dignity of women this year again. Donna said you didn’t need us, dandy. You can’t have us. But make no mistake, we are watching. We are watching what you do to Sarah Palin.

And one more thing: Every time you idiots trot out Hillary to clean up that inept Pig Barack Obama’s mess, you open the wounds you created and we get even more pissed off.

Copyright © 2008 Uppity Woman. All rights reserved.

Too late! We already know what you are.

But then, like Donna Brazile said, you don’t need us.
Remember when you made another Obama Fantasy Remark about how you were SURE you could get all the Hillary Clinton voters to vote for you? Bzzzzzzzz! Wrong!

Remember telling her she’s “likeable enough”?

Remember your sicko comment about her having ‘Periodic moments”? Remember Annie Oakley?

Remember when you called that reporter Sweetie? Remember when you offered a female pharmacist a kiss to wear your button? And offered to get down on your knees?

We do!

“99 Problems And A Bitch Isn’t One of Them“? Oooooooooops! Guess again! Lotsa bitches are your problem now. See how Ludacris that is? Chuckle….chuckle….

Remember when your online sycophants ran us out of forums, and called us all kinds of filthy despicable names that can’t be written here without embarrassment? Remember? We do!

See how well that’s working out for you, woman-hater. But please tell them to keep it up! It’s growing our numbers! All of you are trapped in your own irony! Thanks!

We got slammed with the Race Card day and night, Barack. By your supporters, by your surrogates, and by YOU.

The S word is the new R word. Or as Tina Fey warned, Bitch is the new Black. How’s it feel? Irony, Barack. Irony.

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Republican presidential candidate John McCain has gained huge support and now leads Democrat Barack Obama among white women voters since naming Sarah Palin as his running mate, according to a survey published on Tuesday.

The Washington Post/ABC News poll found that much of McCain’s surge in the polls since the Republican National Convention is attributable to the shift in support among white women.

How about you, Howard? How ya feeling, guy? I can’t tell you how much we appreciated your revoltingly smug silence during the figurative Sharia burning of Hillary. It spoke volumes about you, fella. If you have to go back to being a doctor in January, please do us one big favor: Don’t practice on women again. Thanks!

Yo, Donna! How ya doing, girl? How’s that plan to tell us to all go to hell coming along? You know, all those unnecessary Democrats from the base who were in your way? People over 50? Seniors? Bitter hicks with guns? White Women? How’s that working out for you now, Donna? In a sense, we should all be grateful for your mouth.

Nancy, Nancy, Nancy!

Any one of us who has spent plenty of quality time in Corporate America recognizes you.

You’re the woman who kneecaps her way to just below the top and then kicks the ladder out from under you so that you don’t have any of the Girly competition nipping at your heels while you finger your pearls. Most of us were usually waiting for women like you to stand near a corporate hole. One mistake and we all threw you in your own hole and then went out to lunch and celebrated. You are our Clarence Thomas, aren’t you, girl?

CNN’s Mr. Magoo, Bill Schneider: Remember when you kept giving us “four weeks” to move onto the next “Phase of grief”? Or how you kept saying we would all fall in line? How about your constant Magoo cracks about how there just aren’t that many of us? How ya doing? We aren’t grieving or “Sulking,” you half-assed fool. We are pissed off. And we Do. Not. Want. Barack. Obama. There’s a huge difference. Just so you know. Let me help refresh your ignorant memory. Back In early July, you, Mr. Magoo, said:

These things always take time to heal,” said Bill Schneider, CNN senior political analyst. “I think Clinton’s supporters are waiting to see if Sen. Obama will pick her as vice president. That would certainly be very healing to them.

…and then you said….

If he doesn’t pick her, a later stage of grief is depression and then acceptance,” Schneider said. “In the end I expect Clinton supporters will accept Obama, because they will listen to Sen. Clinton, who has said the stakes are too high for Democrats to sulk.”

Do yourself a favor, Mr. Magoo. Go do something else for a living. You are looking like a fool here. And as I said back then, we never wanted Hillary to be Barky’s Bridesmaid. Many of us have seen enough of the mediocre man hiring on the superior woman to make him look good while he prances around and takes credit.

If Cable News networks like yours hadn’t buried some very unsavory details about Barack Obama, his affiliations, his Plans, the caucus fraud, and the odd redistribution of delegate numbers in certain districts, the Democratic Party would have a winning ticket today.

Maybe if you and your network had reminded people that plenty of superdelegates voted against the will of their districts, we would have a winning ticket today.

Maybe if you and your network hadn’t continually tried to force Hillary Clinton to get out of a race that was none of your damned business as “reporters,” we would have a winning ticket today. I hold you responsible. Maybe next time, your network will stick to your real job of reporting instead of tying to fake out America into picking Presidents you want. MSNBC got the point recently, albeit too late. You will too.

The interesting ( and fun!) thing here is all of these Hillary bashing pigs are now crippled with the pick of Sarah Palin as John McCain’s VP. It’s all just too close to the media murder of Hillary Clinton’s campaign, and the Republicans have learned well. Let’s face it: As a party, they have always been smarter than us. They know now that these bashers all have to be careful of looking obvious. Not that they didn’t already look obvious to us women who watched things unfold. So keep it up CNN, MSNBC! We appreciate you trying to derail Sarah. We appreciate your questioning whether being a VP is “right” for a woman with kids–especially considering Barack Obama is only home on weekends and is therefore one heck of a lousy father. Imagine him sacrificing his family for his political career!!! Awful! Just awful! We appreciate your worrying about “vetting” Sarah. You should talk! Caught in your own irony, once again.

Barack! Keep in touch with your vibrating cell phone, Sweetie! We’re brushing you right off our shoulders, man!

……

© Uppity Woman. All Rights Reserved

My oldest brother sent me the piece Gloria Steinem wrote on Gov. Palin, an elitist, patronizing piece in which she diminishes people who hunt (not understanding, I guess, that many people hunt to put FOOD on the table, especially in these difficult economic times), among other smears. So, I felt compelled to write him back. A lot of this is information those who have been paying attention already know:

I am not an apologist for Sarah Palin, but I find the argument that SHE is inexperienced as Steinem said to be laughable. The DNC selected the least experienced candidate ever, one who refuses to make available ANY paper trail at all - no college or law school transcripts, no medical records, no passports, no birth certificates, and claims he had NOT ONE PAPER or DATE BOOK available from his time in the IL Senate (which is part-time service, btw). One who has no legislative accomplishments of note to his name. Never mind the LONG list of his sordid associates which throw his whole “good judgment” stance out the window.

Or his lack of chairing ONE meeting of the European Affairs Subcommittee, which oversees Afghanistan, and now claims that we need to do more abt Afghanistan,and who wants to return to the foreign policy of DONALD RUMSFELD…If this was BUSH, the Progressives would be going batshit crazy screaming our fool heads off.


But for some reason, this is all fine and dandy. Never mind all of the university professors who are now shrugging off his constant plagiarizing (and his picking a running mate who is also a plagiarizer), an act that can get students thrown OUT of universities. Why? I really don’t get this infatuation with this man! Without a teleprompter, he can barely even talk!! But he is “eloquent,” and has “good judgm ent.” Um, no. And he is sexist as all hell, to boot.

And for some reason, Obama is constantly comparing himself to the VP pick, not the presidential nominee. Much easier for him to pick on a woman than a man, as he demonstrated time and again during this campaign. Flipping Hillary off, brushing her off his shoulder and his shoe, having “99 Problems BUt a Bitch Ain’t One” playing when he won Iowa. Class act this guy. Oh, and for what it’s worth - he lives 1 1/2 blocks away from Bill Ayers, who lives right down the street from the Farrakhan Compound. What a coincidence.

Oh - is now when I tell you that my brother has a PhD., and developed some major software, whose clients include NASA? Yeah. He’s supposed to be smart (my younger brother and his wife - both PhDs - also are big Obama supporters, at least my brother is. My sis-in-law is a “Vote Democrat” no matter what more than anything.). Just goes to show that there is a difference between being educated and having common sense. I can say that because I have BOTH!!! Ahem.

Here’s what he wrote back:

These are interesting accusations. Do you know these things for a fact? What is your source of information? Is there some doubt about the fact that Obama was elected president of the Harvard Law Review? You don’t get to that place by being a flaky biscuit. Is there any doubt about the fact that McCain was at the bottom of his class at the Naval Academy?

I don’t follow you with the Donald Rumsfield foreign policy thing. What do you mean?

One thing I can say for sure. I have seen Obama in many interviews and town hall type conversations, besides the podium speeches. He has always impressed me with his speaking ability in off the cuff situations. This is a sharp dude.

I also like Joe Biden very much. He is a solid, decent, knowledgeable person.

At the end of the day, this is about policies, not personalities. Who do you think is going to best implement the objectives of Hillary Clinton? If you say McCain-Palin, then I don’t see how you get there.

Oh, boy. Evidently, he does not have the same desire for sources when others are “accused,” but whatever. And yes, he DID go there about the personalities. Here’s my response:

Yes, I know these things for a fact. This is what I do every day, all day long.

I don’t know if I will even vote this year, so don’t assume I am voting for McCain/Palin. I can say that McCain is an honorable man, and has given his entire life i n service to this country. That means something. He is also moderate, and a reformer, something Obama will NEVER be (oh - today’s BIG report is about Obama raging on Palin, particularly about the Bridge to Nowhere, which she did get rid of afterall - and which HE VOTED FOR TWICE!!! He claimed, “Palin Can’t Just Make Stuff Up!” No, that purview belongs to Obama alone.). But Obama will never get my vote. He should never have assumed he would.

So that’s how my morning started - not at ALL about what I was going to write today. But you never know what is going to come up, I reckon. And I know there is evern more about Obama, but I figured I was pushing my luck with him actually reading it this far.

Ah, families…