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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Uh huh. Sounds like a lot of backpedaling.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

* * * * *
UPDATE:

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

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

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

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

The American populace knows that the primary architects in the formulation of the Stimulus Plan working its way through Congress are Rahm Emanuel, Nancy Pelosi, and Harry Reid. This contingent, along with President Obama, have not been bashful in stating they view the November election results as effectively a mandate to change policies emanating from Washington.

Against that backdrop, the initially proposed Stimulus Plan was so loaded with pork that the Republicans and the American population at large slammed it as more a promotion of the

Martin Feldstein

I will give President Obama credit for formulating a Panel to Advise Obama on Economy.

This panel will be known as the White House Economic Recovery Advisory Board. The Board will be headed by former Fed chair Paul Volcker. He will be joined by Jeff Immelt of GE, James Owens of Caterpillar, William Donaldson, former SEC chair, Roger Ferguson Jr. of TIAA-CREF, Richard Trumka of AFL-CIO, Anna Burger of SEIU, and Martin Feldstein, renowned Harvard economist. The group will be guided by Austan Goolsbee, an economic adviser to the White House.

Do you think President Obama and his economic team would listen to Mr. Feldstein or is that a “mere courtesy” having him on the board? Let’s review what Mr. Feldstein said about the Stimulus Plan just last week.

Regarding the proposed Stimulus Plan, Martin Feldstein offered that it is far better to go back to work and do it right versus merely doing it fast:

An $800 Billion Mistake

By Martin Feldstein
The Washington Post
Thursday, January 29, 2009

As a conservative economist, I might be expected to oppose a stimulus plan. In fact, on
this page in October, I declared my support for a stimulus. But the fiscal package now
before Congress needs to be thoroughly revised. In its current form, it does too little to
raise national spending and employment. It would be better for the Senate to delay
legislation for a month, or even two, if that’s what it takes to produce a much better bill.
We cannot afford an $800 billion mistake.

Start with the tax side. The plan is to give a tax cut of $500 a year for two years to each
employed person. That’s not a good way to increase consumer spending. Experience
shows that the money from such temporary, lump-sum tax cuts is largely saved or used
to pay down debt. Only about 15 percent of last year’s tax rebates led to additional
spending.

The proposed business tax cuts are also likely to do little to increase business investment
and employment. The extended loss “carrybacks” are primarily lump-sum payments to
selected companies. The bonus depreciation plan would do little to raise capital spending
in the current environment of weak demand because the tax benefits in the early years
would be recaptured later.

Instead, the tax changes should focus on providing incentives to households and
businesses to increase current spending. Why not a temporary refundable tax credit to
households that purchase cars or other major consumer durables, analogous to the
investment tax credit for businesses? Or a temporary tax credit for home improvements?
In that way, the same total tax reduction could produce much more spending and
employment.

Postponing the scheduled increase in the tax on dividends and capital gains would raise
share prices, leading to increased consumer spending and, by lowering the cost of capital,
more business investment.

On the spending side, the stimulus package is full of well-intended items that,
unfortunately, are not likely to do much for employment. Computerizing the medical
records of every American over the next five years is desirable, but it is not a cost-
effective way to create jobs. Has anyone gone through the (long) list of proposed
appropriations and asked how many jobs each would create per dollar of increased
national debt?

The largest proposed outlays amount to just writing unrestricted checks to state
governments. Nearly $100 billion would result from increasing the “Medicaid matching
rate,” a technique for reducing states’ Medicaid costs to free up state money for spending
on anything governors and state legislators want. An additional $80 billion would be given
out for “state fiscal relief.” Will these vast sums actually lead to additional spending, or will
they merely finance state transfer payments or relieve state governments of the need for
temporary tax hikes or bond issues?

The plan to finance health insurance premiums for the unemployed would actually
increase unemployment by giving employers an incentive to lay off workers rather than
pay health premiums during a time of weak demand. And this supposedly two-year
program would create a precedent that could be hard to reverse.

A large fraction of the stimulus proposal is devoted to infrastructure projects that will
spend out very slowly, not with the speed needed to help the economy in 2009 and 2010.
The Congressional Budget Office estimates that less than one-fifth of the $50 billion of
proposed spending on energy and water would occur by the end of 2010.

If rapid spending on things that need to be done is a criterion of choice, the plan should
include higher defense outlays, including replacing and repairing supplies and equipment,
needed after five years of fighting. The military can increase its level of procurement very
rapidly. Yet the proposed spending plan includes less than $5 billion for defense, only
about one-half of 1 percent of the total package.

Infrastructure spending on domestic military bases can also proceed more rapidly than
infrastructure spending in the civilian economy. And military procurement overwhelmingly
involves American-made products. Since much of this military spending will have to be
done eventually, it makes sense to do it now, when there is substantial excess capacity in
the manufacturing sector. In addition, a temporary increase in military recruiting and
training would reduce unemployment directly, create a more skilled civilian workforce and
expand the military reserves.

All new spending and tax changes should have explicit time limits that prevent ever-
increasing additions to the national debt. Similarly, spending programs should not create
political dynamics that will make them hard to end.

The problem with the current stimulus plan is not that it is too big but that it delivers too
little extra employment and income for such a large fiscal deficit. It is worth taking the
time to get it right.

The writer, an economics professor at Harvard University, is president emeritus of the
National Bureau of Economic Research.

Barack, how about you and Martin go for a little walk. Take your time!!

LD

Senator Clinton Calls for New Stimulus to Boost Economy and Help Those Hardest Hit by Recession, Calls for Investments in Infrastructure, Green Jobs, Mortgage Relief, Aid to Cities and States, and Extending Unemployment Insurance

Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton today called for a comprehensive new stimulus package to jump start the ailing economy. In a letter to President Bush and Senate leaders, Senator Clinton outlined a series of measures that would protect those Americans hit hardest by the recession and put the nation on the road to recovery.

The text of her letter to the President follows:

November 11, 2008

The Honorable George W. Bush
The White House
Washington, D.C. 20500

Dear Mr. President:

Our economy has lost more than one million jobs this year alone. The scope and scale of the economic challenges facing the American people are vast. Businesses, large and small, are struggling to secure financing to survive. Families cannot find affordable mortgages and consumer loans. The housing crisis, which has already wiped out hundreds of billions of dollars in home equity and even more in investment losses, grows deeper every day, with another wave of foreclosures looming.

The State of New York is the epicenter of this crisis. New York projects that more than 160,000 New Yorkers will lose their jobs as a result of the economic downturn. A recent analysis estimates that New York City will lose almost 30,000 construction jobs by 2010, in addition to the tens of thousands of jobs already lost to turmoil on Wall Street.

We are in a recession which demands decisive action. I believe that in order to stimulate this economy, we need to get people working, earning, and building – not just spending. We have borrowed hundreds of billions that have gone to banks and financial institutions and borrowed tens of billions more to energize the economy, yet the economic downturn has continued and the financial turmoil has worsened. What is clear is that any action we take – especially as we borrow more money to do so – must pay off in the near and long term. That is what America does best: we can address this crisis while preparing for our future.

However, we do have immediate needs that cannot wait between now and when the next Congress and the next President takes office. And although your Administration has voiced skepticism about the need for a stimulus bill, I believe that the current conditions call for a coordinated response now.

The most recent jobs report, indicating another 240,000 jobs lost last month and the worst unemployment rate in 14 years, shows that steps need to be taken to shore up the safety net as millions of Americans continue the search for work. Expanding Unemployment Insurance and the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) would not only provide relief to those hit hardest by our economic downturn, it would also spur economic activity as this money is immediately spent. New York alone has hundreds of thousands of people who will face the unemployment line and the loss of their food assistance during this economic downturn.

In the midst of one of the greatest fiscal crises to hit our states, an increase in the Medicaid FMAP rate would help prevent further and deeper cuts to health care and other essential services like education, child care and public safety. Rising demand for health insurance coverage through Medicaid due to increasing job loss is straining state budgets, and the federal government should act to help ease this growing burden on our states.

It is also increasingly clear that we need to take steps now that not only mitigate the fallout, but also begin putting the nation on the path towards recovery. That is why I believe the stimulus we pursue should focus on rebuilding our infrastructure and building a new, clean energy economy. Stimulus should focus on putting people back to work by investing in infrastructure and green jobs. That is how we can restore our prosperity today and ensure it in the future.

So I am proposing, among other steps, that we speed investments in infrastructure, including $410 million in New York roads, bridges, and transit systems, as well as training for new jobs in the clean energy economy, or “green collar jobs.” A federal investment in our infrastructure serves the dual purpose of modernizing our country’s deteriorating roads, bridges, and transit systems while stimulating the economy. Investing in these projects will create tens of thousands of good paying jobs. More than 40 highway, transit and rail projects are “shovel-ready” in New York alone.

I am also proposing an investment in training programs to prepare a new green workforce for the clean energy jobs of the future. I believe we can create at least five million green collar jobs – and we can speed the creation of those jobs while also training displaced workers to fill them in the very short term.

The next wave of foreclosures looms, and we should address it immediately. It is critical that we modify unworkable mortgages into clear and stable terms if we are to prevent the bottom of the housing market from falling even further. I have proposed HOME, the Home Owners Mortgage Enterprise, based on the successful program enacted during the New Deal which not only saved one million homes but also turned a profit for the Treasury. We should continue focusing on initiatives large and bold enough to meet the scale of the challenges presented by the faltering housing market.

The road to recovery will be difficult. But it is imperative that we take these urgent and important steps to kick-start the economy and hasten a return to prosperity that is shared and strengthens the middle class. I ask that you work with congressional leaders in developing a comprehensive stimulus package that the Congress can pass next week to reach your desk immediately thereafter.

Sincerely,

Hillary Rodham Clinton

cc: Majority Leader Harry Reid
Senator Robert C. Byrd
Senator Daniel Inouye

Take a good look. That’s leadership: the difference between a work horse and a show horse. Not for glory. No headlines. For the American people. It is still heartbreaking that we are being deprived of someone so caring and capable at the helm.

I know some are angry that Senator Clinton went out and campaigned for Barack Obama. But before anyone starts any Hillary bashing, this woman has been fighting on behalf of the Democratic Party for over 35 years. Severely outspent, in debt, with the press lynching her daily and her own party actively pushing and rigging it for the other guy, she did what she had to do to live to fight another day. Furthermore, she kept her word to the American people to fight for the Democratic nominee and a Democratic agenda.

I know that President-elect Obama has reversed himself on his policies and associations at lightning fast speed, so giving his word may not mean anything. But I do know to her, it means everything. It may seem an irritating quality at times. If I give my word, I don’t break it. Ever. My word is my bond.

Furthermore, had Hillary behaved any differently and shunned the Party, rest assured her crucifixion would have followed. Just witness the disgraceful treatment Governor Palin is receiving as we speak if you doubt this.

I will not second guess her. I just observe that Hillary is still out there “putting her shoes on” and doing her job. And while I may wish she had acted differently these last couple of months, I am certainly glad to have her earnest and dedicated voice in the Senate, still working on our behalf.

Notice, too, Senator Clinton is asking for action to be taken immediately, unlike Obama who is basically saying ‘it’s Bush’s mess ’til I get here in a couple of months.’ Where are his immediate solutions? Suggestions? He is not even planning on attending the emergency economic summit later in the week, but sending surrogates in his stead. If I were set to take over in a couple of months — I’d want to show up and keep my ears open and learn something.

People are hurting right now. It doesn’t matter which administration gets the credit. Help is required for the American people. Scorekeeping is not the issue. Hillary gets that.

Thank you so much Speaker Pelosi, Chairman Dean, Senator Reid, Senators Byrd, Kerry, Kennedy, McCaskill, Rockefeller and the rest of the backstabbers for throwing this good lady under the bus and instead, leaving us with Mr. Hopey Changey who seems to think it’s more important he choose a puppy for his daughters right now.

How’s that working out for ya’?

ABC News’ Matthew Jaffe Reports:

As Election Day looms just over two weeks away, Sen. Joe Biden, D-Del., said Saturday that with Republicans firing “vicious” and “dangerous” attacks at Sen. Barack Obama, D-Ill., voters are “having a difficult time” opting for the man who would become the nation’s first African American president.

Vicious and dangerous attacks? McCain/Palin are asking Obama to answer legitimate policy questions in re his revealing statement to Joe the Plumber that he wants to “spread the wealth around” and what that really means for Joe and Jane taxpayer.

They want Obama to explain to the American people why he launched his political career in the living room of unrepentant terrorist Bill Ayers. They want him to acknowledge his role in our economic mess as he was one of the people who “voted present” on stronger regulations re Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. They want to know the extent of Obama’s ties with ACORN – and it has already been proven that there are many.

What is vicious and dangerous about that? Sounds perfectly reasonable to me. These are questions any other candidate would have to answer. But, in another effort to change the subject, here is Joe-the-Senator at his finest:

“Undecided people are having a difficult time just culturally making the change, making the move for the first African American president in the history of the United States of America,” the Democratic vice-presidential nominee said at a San Francisco fundraiser Saturday evening. “So we need to respond. We need to respond at the moment, immediately, not wait, not hang around, not assume any of this won’t stick.”

Culturally? What is Biden trying to say here? Perhaps he is playing the race card just like Senator Obama did a couple of months ago when he said ‘I know I don’t look like the face of most of the guys you see on the dollar bill.’

Culturally? Is Biden implying that those who haven’t yet bowed before the messiah are racist? Oh, no he didn’t! Ironic he made these comments at – you guessed it – another San Francisco fundraiser. Oh, this is too good to be true. Say it ain’t so, Joe!

Did he really open his big fat yaw before the hoi polloi in San Francisco at a fund raiser – the same way Obama did when he made his infamous ‘bitter voter’ comments back in April? Did Vice Presidential nominee Joe Biden really infer that undecided voters are having trouble voting for Obama because they are having trouble ‘seeing’ a bi-racial man in the White House?

Yep. Joe played the race card yet again. Tell me Senator Biden, did you have an indoctrination session at Camp Obama and did they use the Alinsky method in training you how to employ the race card as an argument to buffer any and all legitimate questions about your unqualified and dissembling candidate?

“You see these vicious attacks on Barack’s character,” Biden told supporters. “I mean, this is dangerous stuff these guys are doing. This stuff is on the edge. It’s on the edge. You know, there’s some folks out there in the community nationwide that aren’t as stable as others. It’s a very small minority. But having these rallies where people are showing up saying, you know, the things they’re saying – I don’t even want to repeat them — it’s not a healthy thing.”

Biden cited automated GOP calls describing Obama as having “worked closely” with “domestic terrorist Bill Ayers”.

He did work closely with Ayers. This is the truth. They have known each other for years. They have served on boards together. Obama profited by his association with Ayers, repeatedly. Hello. These are legitimate concerns.

He doesn’t want to repeat the “things they are saying?” Repeat what? Senator Biden, I am calling you out on the carpet and I dare you to look me in the eye and say this same crap. The FBI already debunked the nonsense that anyone called Obama a terrorist – they were calling Ayers a terrorist – which admittedly, he is – and an unrepentant one at that.

But Joe doesn’t have a problem with people walking around threatening violence against Sarah Palin or wearing T-shirts that say “Sarah Palin is a c*nt.” Nor does the Obama campaign have problem with their supporters in Florida calling a twelve year old child a racist for wearing a Sarah Palin T-Shirt.

Is that not dangerous, Joe? I guess you “don’t want to repeat” those comments either huh, Joe? Is that not a healthy thing?

Let’s pretend for the sake of argument, I am an undecided voter. Here is a sampling of a few of my concerns:

• His voting record – 130 present votes and 6 ‘wrong’ votes in the IL State Senate. His lack of moral courage and skipping out on or capitulating on important votes in the U.S. Senate. FISA chief among them.
• His daily playing of the race card to advantage himself.
• His 20 years of nefarious, crooked, and divisive business and personal associations with Rezko, Wright, Ayers, Auchi, Khalidi, Al Mansour, Pritzker, Jarrett, Pfleger, Meeks and more.
• His major policy reversals on critical issues, i.e., FISA, Israel, don’t ask don’t tell, public financing, NAFTA, Iraq, women’s rights, gun control; touting Bush’s faith based initiatives, and wanting to keep Blackwater going.
• His desire to spread the wealth around with economic policies that do not work.
• His illegal activities to win the primary, including over 2,000 documented instances of caucus fraud and blocking re-votes in MI and FL.
• His receiving huge contributions from Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, the organizations at the center of our current economic mess.
• His lack of any governing, or executive experience and his lack of knowledge on critical issues of domestic and foreign policy – as he has demonstrated repeatedly on the campaign trail. Russia’s recent aggression on Georgia comes to mind.
• The fact that you can never get a straight answer from him on any of his policies or associations – just more double talk and distraction.

These are just a few questions that might be giving people pause at the voting booth. Please tell me – someone, anyone – what does that have to do with “cultural” predisposition; or more accurately, race bias?

Biden hit the Bay Area for three fundraisers Saturday, helping rake in an estimated $2.2 million for the campaign. At his second event of the day, in Piedmont, Biden predicted that the ticket will experience a drop in polls this week.

“Mark my words, you’re going to see these polls drop this week,” Biden forecasted. “We got a bump. We’re going to be in good shape. You’re going to see them drop. There’s nothing automatic about this at all.”

Obviously, Biden knows that Obama’s gaffe with Joe the plumber hurt them; rightfully so. And by gaffe I mean, Obama had a rare unscripted moment without his teleprompter and he told the truth for once about his policies and his attitudes. And for that he is now going to pay a legitimate price. So, once again, they are trying to distract the voters.

Joe the Plumber is certainly paying a price – Obama showed up on Joe’s front lawn at a campaign stop. Joe asked a simple question and for that his entire life has been invaded and turned up side down. Not only has Obama belittled Joe the Plumber, but the media is out for blood. And Joe-everyman-working-guy-coal-miner-six-term-Senator-elitist-Biden has derided him as well. Shame on him. Shame on them all.

Make no mistake – these attacks on Joe everyman are also costing the elitists Obama/Biden in the polls. To reassure their rich donors, Biden said:

“It costs tens of millions of dollars to do this. And that’s our secret weapon. That is our equalizer to when anybody talks about the Bradley effect. This is the ultimate equalizer.”

That is very much in evidence – in this no lose year for Democrats, Obama is spending obscene amounts of money saturating the TV market to “counteract the Bradley effect.” He does not dare to tell the truth to their rich donors. It is not the Bradley effect people are having a problem with – it is the Obama effect – the effect of a dishonest, secretive, inexperienced man taking office at one of the most difficult junctures in our recent history. But Biden boasted that Obama has the capacity to withstand GOP attacks and win the White House.

“Barack Obama communicates an absolute sense and certainty that is the most typical American instinct that there is,” Biden said. …”That’s why he touched those people helping feed us tonight.”

Elitist! Is Biden referring to the folks serving him his expensive 5-course dinner? How nice of Biden to refer to the people waiting tables at this expensive fundraiser. How does he know Obama has touched them – did he ever ask?? I doubt it. Elitists of all stripes have a bad habit of being encapsulated in their rarified air, so sure they know what is best for everyone else.

And here is the icing on the cake from Biden:

“I never thought I could be part of it – a part of seeing to it that we for the first and significant, fundamentally significant way, put a lot of that past behind us and began to unite the nation.”

Imagine trying to ‘guilt’ the American people into electing someone who is completely unqualified and unreliable as Commander in Chief. Obama has never stood up to his party. He has never expended any political capital on a tough vote. He has never done anything but move with the prevailing wind.

How can we rely on him when our backs are to the wall? Isn’t it possible that we are worried about whether this man can and will protect us and have our best interests at heart? He has shown no need thus far to come clean and answer the questions burning in the minds of many Americans. Why should we trust him if he clearly does not trust us?

If this is the way that Obama/Biden and the svengali race-baiting David Axelrod are uniting the nation, by inferring that anyone not voting for Obama is a racist, then I will pass on their kind of unity.

Senator Biden is indeed the gift that keeps on giving. I am sure John McCain hopes that both he and Obama will keep showing their true nature to the American people. It’s a winning strategy – for the Republicans.

Once again, in closing, I must say, shame on you, Senator Biden.

Shame on you.

In the midst of all of this came an article by wcbstv.com, “Sources: Intense Pressure Led TO Palin UN Snub.” I am SO surprised to hear that, especially given the above-board manner (hahahaha) by which the Democrats have been acting this year – surely they would not force the Jewish groups holding this rally to rescind their invitation! Oh, but yes they would.

Below is the text of the article, but if you want to see a very good video on it, click the link above and there is one in the story:

Hillary Clinton won’t be speaking at Monday’s anti-Iran rally at the United Nations — and neither will Republican Sarah Palin or any other politicians for that matter.

The reason? A heated behind the scenes tug-of-war.

Sources tell CBS 2 HD that a decision to disinvite Palin from the high profile rally after Clinton pulled out in a huff came as the result of intense pressure from Democrats.

“This is insulting. This is embarrassing, especially to Gov. Palin, to me and I think it should be to every single New Yorker,” Assemblyman Dov Hikind, D-Brooklyn, told CBS 2 HD.

Sources say the axes were out for Palin as soon as Sen. Clinton pulled out because she did not want to attend the same event as the Republican vice presidential candidate.

“I have never seen such raw emotion — on both sides,” said someone close to the situation.

The groups sponsoring the rally against Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad speaking at the UN were reportedly told, “it could jeopardize their tax exempt status” if they had Palin and not Clinton or Democratic VP candidate Joe Biden on hand.

So all politicians were disinvited, most prominently, Palin.

“It’s an absolute shame that this has happened,” Hikind said. “To threaten organizations … to threaten the Conference of Presidents that if you don’t withdraw the invitation to Gov. Palin we’re going to look into your tax exempt status … that’s McCarthyism.”

Another Jewish group tried to step into the breach by inviting Palin to a different protest a day earlier.

“I’m absolutely appalled at the behavior of the Democrats,” said Bob Kunst of Defenders.net. “I’m a Democrat and for the first time in my life I’m going to vote Republican. I can’t take it anymore.”

As for Sen. Clinton, she brushed right past CBS 2 HD’s Lou Young when he tried to ask her about the issue on Thursday night.

Lou Young: “Were the organizers of Monday’s rally right to depoliticize it?”

Clinton walked past Young, said “Thank you all very much” and started hugging people.

Clinton’s people tell CBS 2 HD she intends to make some statement of support for the protestors. She is also expected to attack Ahmadinejad’s pro-nuke, anti-Israel stance.

Since Gov. Palin was uninvited, she made her remarks available to the New York Sun, if you care to read her remarks.

Here is the LINK to Senator Clinton’s letter to the organizers of the Anti-Iran Rally (damn, I miss hearing this woman, and how I wish she had spoken at this event regardless of Gov. Palin being there. That is just SO Un-Hillary-like. Gee, what are the chances that SHE got the hard-sell, too? I’m gonna bet 100%. Any takers?)

I don’t know when this became the DNC. I really don’t. This, along with all of the other immoral, unethical actions by the DNC this campaign season(previously listed about a gazillion times), along with the news about the source of the Palin rumors, now documented to be an orchestrated event (and covered by Easten McNeal at No Quarter), and one well connected to Obama and the DNC, just boggles the mind. Now, I realize I may have been very naive about the DNC and how it REALLY operates – I know I was shocked to learn that two people in Chuck Schumer’s office created a false credit report as a way to discredit Michael Steele (former Lt. Gov. of MD) just two years ago. But how could it get to this place?

Well, here we are, and where we are is a political party that strong-arms private groups to do its bidding. Great. Never mind that it was a GOOD CAUSE, one about which both Senator Clinton and Governor Palin feel strongly. Never mind that it would have given more POSITIVE coverage to those groups and their issue – the potential problems with Iran in terms of Israel. Now, the “disinvite” is being seen for what it is – and what it is ain’t pretty. Way to go, DNC – winning the hearts and minds of anyone who thinks bullying is the answer. And who is threatened by having two powerful women anywhere in the same vicinity of each other (oh my gosh – a CATfight could break out!! Or, NOT – and that would be WORSE, right?!?). Or is it that the DNC knows people will look at these two women, and know that HILLARY should be on the top of the ticket and not Obama? That SHE is the one who would have made the selection of Gov. Palin a non-starter? Yeah, that sounds about right to me. How about you?

I saw this clip last night on the news, and was flabbergasted. Is it any wonder — with Democrats talking like this — that McCain is holding steady in the daily Gallup tracking numbers, 48% to 44%?

Rep. Steve Cohen, D-Tenn., has an extreme case of foot-inserted-in-mouth syndrome. He was last seen, reports Tapper, “in election 2008 comparing Sen. Hillary Clinton, D-N.Y., to the villain played by Glenn Close in "Fatal Attraction".

Tapper notes, with irony, that Rep. Cohen “survived an anti-Semitic primary challenge.”

Perhaps Rep. Cohen needs to read the part of the Bible about “do unto others. …”