Ironic that yesterday, NY Times columnist Charles Blow, certainly an Obama cheerleader from way back, penned a column entitled Obama’s to Fix, in which he cautions the President to stop blaming George Bush for the “mess” he inherited. Clearly, our President, far from undoing such a mess, is daily making a bigger one of his own. Mr. Blow begins with this ominous phrase:

What a difference a year makes.

In October 2008, the candidate Barack Obama delivered a major economic speech in Toledo, Ohio. In it he said: “Right now, we face an immediate economic emergency, and that requires urgent action. We can’t wait to help workers and families and communities who are struggling right now — who don’t know if their job or their retirement will be there tomorrow; who don’t know if next week’s paycheck will cover this month’s bills. … We need to pass an economic rescue plan for the middle-class, and we need to do it not five years from now, not next year, we need to do it right now.

“So today I’m proposing a number of steps that we should take immediately to stabilize our financial system, provide relief to families and communities and help struggling homeowners. It’s a plan that begins with one word that’s on everybody’s mind, and it’s easy to spell: J-O-B-S.”

“Right now,” “immediate economic emergency,” “requires urgent action,” “can’t wait.” Wow! He gave the impression that job creation would be his top priority, that action would be swift and effective, that his solutions would not only stanch the hemorrhaging, but reverse the trend.

He has not made jobs his top priority. This health care debacle, bailing out Wall Street, getting into the car business and generally putting money into the pockets of everyone except those who need it have all taken priority over putting Americans back to work. And, no, putting an extra $13 a week into people’s paychecks is not going to do the trick when as Mr. Blow points out the new official labor statistics have us at 10.2 unemployment, which is an increase of “more than 50 percent from the time Obama gave that speech.”

“(By the way, the underemployment rate, which includes part-time workers who want to work full time and those who’ve given up searching, is a staggering 17.5 percent.)”

I am still at a loss to understand why there was such a great urgency to pass health care legislation that is not supposed to go into effect for more than three years. Someone on another blog made the observation that Obama and Pelosi et al are using the economic crisis and joblessness as a weapon to pass their agenda. As people are panicked at losing their jobs and their healthcare, they are more likely to look to government to bail them out – and more amenable. As Rahm Emanuel said, “never waste a good crisis.” What better time to ram this through. Mr. Blow continues:

Job creation has dropped from top priority to one of many, and President Obama has been remanded to pandering for patience and offering excuses. On the one hand, he argues the tortured rationale that there is good news in the awful numbers: Things are still getting worse but at a slower pace. On the other, he incessantly reminds us that he inherited the crisis. The implication: Don’t blame me, blame Bush.

But this president can’t keep deflecting to the last one. Pain is presently felt. The crisis that took form on Bush’s watch is being experienced on Obama’s. Fair or not, finger-pointing is not effective policy.

This is now Obama’s crisis, and it carries political consequences. During Tuesday’s gubernatorial races in New Jersey and Virginia, nearly 9 in 10 voters said that they were worried about the direction of the nation’s economy in the next year. And the majority of those who held that view voted for the Republican candidates. This could portend a flashback to 1994.

It isn’t President Obama’s fault that he inherited this mess, but it is his to fix, and he must make haste. To paraphrase his Toledo prelection: you need to do it not five years from now, not next year, you need to do it right now. J-O-B-S.

There were many options to put people back to work this year if that was really the priority. Clearly it was not. This President spent almost a billion dollars to get his job. I don’t want to hear complaints now. Obviously, he inherited a mess, which he has made worse with reckless spending. No one expects him to fix everything in the space of a year, but I thought his “good judgment” meant he knew how to prioritize. We need leadership and part of that involves sacrificing one’s ego to help those who need it most. That is far more important than pushing legislation just for the purpose of putting a check mark next to one’s name. You don’t not spend billions, even trillions, you don’t have at a time like this. Since this bunch so miscalculated on their $787 billion stimulus package, I am not inclined to trust them now by handing over 1/6 of the economy to their stewardship.

It is interesting that Mr. Blow, who played the race card on Mr. Obama’s behalf last year, is now joining the ever increasing number of his pundit supporters who are having problems with his endless campaigning, blaming and wrongheaded focus.

As to the health care debate, I called my Congressman’s office Friday morning to complain about the bill and his assistant debated the merits with me. At least she took the time to do so. It was a shame she was wrong on the facts. I told her to go back and read the thing. Now we have a 2,000 page beast that the Senate must contend with and we are told it will never pass in its current form. So why the rush? Why wouldn’t this Administration be in the same kind of rush to help get people back to work?

There are 237 millionaires in Congress. Perhaps that explains why they have difficulty relating to the urgent need to put millions of Americans back of work, instead manufacturing an urgent need to pass labrynthian legislation for the mere purpose of saying “Mission Accomplished.”

Hmm. Where have we heard that phrase before?

And now, to the interview:

Sigh. So, yeah, Secretary Clinton says she won’t run for President again. Sure, there was this (funny to me) quote in there:

“Maybe there is some misunderstanding which needs to be clarified,” she said. “I believe in delegating power … I am not one of those people who feel I have to have my face in front of the newspaper and TV every day … It’s just the way I am.”

Clearly a little dig at He Who Must Be On TV Every Day, which was enjoyable, I must confess. Okay, it was downright funny.

And then there was the part where even Andrea Mitchell, of all people, is commenting on how surprising it is hat President CLINTON has not received the Nobel Peace Prize despite raising BILLIONS of dollars for the Clinton Initiative which does great work all over the world. Never mind all of the work President Clinton did with President Bush (I) in terms of the Indian Ocean Tsunami and Hurricane Katrina. So, yeah, sure, it makes perfect sense that Mr. Talker No Walker Man would be the one who gets it. Pathetic.

Back to Hillary Clinton. I was hoping that maybe, just maybe she was trying to shift the focus off of her, and was trying not to steal the limelight from her boss (and her water carrying for him is a bitter pill to swallow). But, no, she has repeated that claim again in this article, the title of which is also bitter, Clinton: I’d Have Hired Obama. Yeah, she said it after the claim indicated in the title. I’ll let the article set the stage:

Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said Wednesday that if she had won presidential election, Barack Obama would “absolutely” have served in her Cabinet.

Recalling the conversation she had with then-president-elect Obama about her joining the administration during an interview on ABC’s “Good Morning America,” Clinton said that she was at first surprised when the president offered her the secretary of state post.

“It was, you know, about … five, six days after the election. And my husband and I were out for a walk, actually, in a, sort of, preserve near where we live in New York. And he had his cell phone in his pocket. It started ringing in the middle of this, you know, big nature preserve,” Clinton said. “Instead of turning it off, he answered it. And it was President-elect Obama wanting to talk to him about some people he was considering for positions.”

Clinton said she then picked up the phone thinking Obama wanted to talk generally about Cabinet picks when he surprised her by asking the former New York senator and Democratic rival to become his chief diplomat.

“He said I want you to be my secretary of state. And I said, ‘Oh, no, you don’t,’” Clinton recalled. “I said, ‘Oh, please, there’s so many other people who could do this.’

“But, you know, we kept talking. I finally began thinking, look, if I had won and I had called him, I would have wanted him to say yes,” Clinton continued. “And, you know, I’m pretty old-fashioned, and it’s just who I am. So at the end of the day, when your president asks you to serve, you say yes, if you can.”

Asked if she would have made the same call to Obama if she had been elected president, Clinton responded: “Absolutely. Absolutely. Oh, of course.”

Well, I can see that she would have to do so, but SHE would have been the boss, and SHOULD have been, as many of us think given te votes she received in the Primary.

And that brings me to this:

Additionally, Clinton backed up her statement from earlier in the week that she will not run for president a second time.

“I have absolutely no interest in running for president again. None. None,” she said. “I mean, I know that’s hard for some people to believe, but, you know, I just don’t.”

“I feel like I have had the most amazing life in my public service,” the secretary of state continued. “And for the last 17 years, ever since my husband started running for president, I have been, you know, in the spotlight, working hard. And this job is incredibly all-encompassing. So I think I’m looking forward to maybe taking some time off.”

She HAS had an amazing life, no doubt about it. She is an amazing woman – no one would expect anything less from someone of her stature. But I have to say, the thought of NEVER having a President Hillary Clinton is demoralizing. I feel like the DNC Elite have won (again), getting the Clintons out once and for all, despite the tremendous successes they have had independent of each other, and for the good of the country. It just burns me up that they might actually succeed. Dammit it to hell.

That despite the fact that k, Secretary Clinton has higher approval ratings than President Obama does now. I’m not kidding – hot off the Gullup wires, her ratings are 62%, and Obama’s are 56%. Maybe it’s because people are seeing that SHE is out there working her ass off on our behalf, on behalf of the country, and for the greater good of the world. They see Obama hemming and hawing, incapable of making hard decisions, or fulfilling campaign promises, yet showing up on YouTube doing the salsa (more or less) the other night while Clinton has been to the following countries between 10/9 – 15: Zurich, London, Dublin, Belfast, Moscow and Kazan. Holy smokes – makes me tired just reading the list.

She is just a remarkable woman, isn’t she?? Incredible energy, devotion, good humor, intelligence, and compassion, all in one person who SHOULD be the boss.

So I have been in denial, not wanting to believe my ears and eyes when she says she won’t be running again. Someone wake me when she changes her mind. Or Obama’s out of office. Whichever comes first…

(And a grudging thanks to Bronwyn’s Harbor for sending me the video. Thanks, BH – kinda!)

So, you can just guess how this went over when Obama and Paterson met on Monday up in New York. Can you say, AWK-WARD? I think this photo says it all:

I’m just thinking out loud here, but wouldn’t you think that the person whose job it was to get this, um, “hint” out there, that person, or someone else in the employ of the president, knew he was going to be SEEING that person like a day or two later?

Yes, “awkward” would be the word to describe it, as this article highlights,

Obama Arrives to an Awkward Hug From Paterson. Seriously – you’d think someone knew about this:

So what did he say?

President Obama walked down from Air Force One after his plane landed shortly before 11 a.m. Monday. He and Gov. David A. Paterson exchanged a brief greeting. They shook hands. Mr. Obama gave Mr. Paterson a half-embrace, then whispered into his ear for a few seconds. It was impossible for anyone nearby to hear over the roar of the engines.

The meeting, on the tarmac at Albany International Airport, was the first time the two men crossed paths since the news broke that Mr. Obama had told Mr. Paterson that the White House had lost confidence in the governor’s ability to win election next year and that he should abandon his campaign for the good of the Democratic Party.

Also on Monday, for the first time, the White House publicly addressed the issue of the president’s involvement in New York politics and did not deny that Mr. Obama counseled Mr. Paterson to pull the plug on his election plans.

“Well, look, I think everybody understands the tough job that every elected official has right now in addressing many of the problems that we have,” Robert Gibbs, the president’s press secretary, told reporters aboard Air Force One. “I think people are aware of the tough situation that the governor of New York is in. I wouldn’t add a lot to what you’ve read, except this is a decision that he’s going to make. The president understands the tough job that everyone has and the pressure that they are under.”

I am just so sure he does. And how nice of him to add to that pressure for Gov. Paterson. He’s a giver, that Obama, he surely is. That probably explains this:

The awkwardness of the moment was perhaps reflected in Obama’s body movements on the tarmac. When he went in for the quick hug of Mr. Paterson, he turned his back to the television news cameras, almost as if to avoid the taking of images that would show the two men in a warm embrace. The news crews said that Mr. Obama did not appear to be smiling when he turned around.

Mr. Obama moved on to greet others, but stepped next to Mr. Paterson to say a few things to the group of five or six people assembled around him. There were a couple of more pats on the back — Mr. Paterson on Mr. Obama and Mr. Obama on Mr. Paterson — and then it was over. Mr. Obama got into one car. Mr. Paterson got into another car. Plenty of New York media were on hand to visually catch the exchange.

The president was in town to deliver an economic address at Hudson Valley Community College in Troy. Mr. Paterson arrived at an industrial lab at the college around 11:30 a.m., before the president, and walked to his seat in the front row, just to the left of the stage where Mr. Obama spoke.

Mr. Paterson received light applause from the audience members once they realized he had arrived. At one point he was left standing by himself for about 20 seconds, while others around him greeted each other, his hands clasped in front of him.

Again, you’d think someone in the White House Staff might have known this trip was upcoming, especially since Andrew Cuomo was going to be there. That’s important to know:

A few minutes later, the state attorney general, Andrew M. Cuomo, and his entourage arrived. Mr. Cuomo is the Democrat many party leaders prefer as their gubernatorial candidate next year, believing he would stand a better chance of winning should Rudolph W. Giuliani, the former New York City mayor, decide to make a run for the office.

Mr. Cuomo was accompanied at the college by Senator John L. Sampson, the Democratic leader. After spotting Mr. Paterson, Mr. Cuomo gave him a hug, and the two chatted briefly and smiled.

Mr. Cuomo took his seat and socialized with local, state and party officials — at one point laughing so loudly that his laugh could be heard through loudspeakers set in the lab. He even waved at one point to the throng of reporters who were gathered around a set of bleachers next to where Mr. Paterson and all the other officials were awaiting the president.

Mr. Paterson, seated a few seats away, looked far more subdued.

The president began his economic address a few minutes before noon, after an introduction by Jill Biden, the wife of Vice President Joseph R. Biden Jr.

Mr. Paterson was seen playing with his mustache while the president spoke.

Mr. Obama had warm words for both Mr. Paterson and Mr. Cuomo.

“We have special guests here,” the president said. “I want to acknowledge, first of all, a wonderful man, the governor of the great state of New York, David Paterson. Next, your shy and retiring attorney general, Andrew Cuomo, is in the house. Andy is doing great work that has to be done.”

Mr. Obama left the college at 12:35 p.m and had one final brief exchange with Mr. Paterson along the rope line before leaving for the Albany airport. Mr. Paterson gripped the president’s hand with both of his. After leaving Albany, Mr. Obama was bound for New York City. (Nicholas Confessore reported from Albany, and Helene Cooper and Jeremy W. Peters reported from Troy.)

Oh, yes – I am sooooo sure Obama kissing up to Paterson, after basically telling him to get out of the way, is really going to do the trick. Yep – Paterson is probably all aflutter now that The One kinda sorta gave him a half hug, back pat combo something.

Did I forget something? I apologize, I sure did – when the White House tried to push Paterson out, you know what he did? He said he was running anyway. All I can say to Gov. Paterson is, Holla! A little shout-out for standing up to the pressure to get out of the way. Personally, I’m hoping Hillary Clinton will run for that seat, and no longer have to answer to Obama, but I applaud your tenacity. Well done, sir! You’re a brave man…

The question is asked, and answered. The answer is a resounding YES. Yes, Obama has sold out. Long before he ever ran for US Senate, too, I might add. But why quibble, right? At least it is finally starting to let a little light of truth filter through the Obama’s followers Kool Aide induced haze. Though attacking Republicans and blaming them for ALL of our woes is still fair game for TYT, with only peripheral acknowledgment that the Democrats are right there with the Republicans. Never mind that the Democrats have been in power for over two years now. Pesky details – who needs them?

I was like that, too, about the Republicans not so long ago, so I reckon I shouldn’t be too judgmental. Perhaps TYT will realize at some point in the near future that the Democrats are acting pretty much like everything many of us said we hated about the Republicans as we listened to Air America. For instance, remember how ballistic we all went when the Republicans threatened the “Nuclear Option”? We were livid that they would dare do something like that. And now look who, in just 6 short months of having a Super Majority, is threatening the very same thing, even if it means running over some of their own members with reckless abandon? Yep. That would be the Democrats. Oh, but only for the most expensive part of the health care plan – nothing to worry about there! Lalalalalala…

You know, it’s a shame these blowhards out there didn’t bother to do their JOBS and vet this guy, maybe taking a little look-see into who his donors were, for instance. Maybe if TYT had BOTHERED to do that, he would have seen that Obama got close to $1.5 MILLION dollars from the HMOs and Health Services. Surely TYT didn’t expect they gave him all that money for nothing, did he?

Nothing, actually, worse than nothing, is what WE will be getting as a result of these faux journalists and commentators not bothering to actually look behind the curtain of Obama’s rhetoric to see if there was any reason on this Green Earth to BELIEVE HIM!!!!!! For cryin’ out loud, already! Sheesh!

Heck, even investigative journalist Greg Palast, whose article I reported on the other day regarding the whopping 2% the Big Pharma MIGHT give up, as TYT reported above, threw all of his training away for Obama. Glad he’s regained some of it, but it is way too late for us/US now. We’re stuck with Obama for 3 1/2 more years, thank you all so very much for that. (That is sarcasm, in case anyone missed it.)

By the way, did you notice that TYT guy above still cannot quite get out the words that HE has been had? That he didn’t bother to look under the surface? Nope. Not one bit – he bought that stupid “Hope!” and “CHANGE!” crap all the way to Obama being in the White House. Thanks shitloads. Sure would have been nice if you had maybe asked some pertinent questions like, “Why does Obama have NO records available from his time in the IL Senate? How can that be?” Or, “Why DOES Obama have close ties to Tony Rezko/Bill Ayers/Jeremiah Wright/Khalid Rashidi (pick one)?” Or how about this one, “Why does everyone say he has made so much of himself from his “humble” beginnings when he went to the most prestigious school in all of Hawaii and his grandmother was the VP of the biggest bank in Hawaii?” Or maybe, “Isn’t it pretty sexist of Obama to say that Hillary Clinton was only going to tea parties whenever she went abroad as First Lady? Especially since we know she helped to foster some amazing programs?” Obviously, I could go on and on and on. Feel free to add your own.

The problem is, people like TYT and Greg Palast and just about EVERYONE at Huffington Post (since TYT mentioned it) DIDN’T ask questions like that. No, their questions were more like, “Gosh, isn’t it hard to tear yourself away from the mirror when you are SO good looking??” Blech. Or, “Just how much time do you spend practicing your three-pointer?” Or any number of insipid questions like the ones Charlie Gibson asked Obama (while hammering Sarah Palin, even using made-up concepts to try and make her look bad). Pathetic for alleged professionals to act that way, if you ask me.

As I mentioned to Kathleen (Wynne, of HCPBNow.org, who was kind enough to send me this video), most of our elected officials, by the time they are bought by special interests have been there a while. Obama was hardly in there for any time at all, which makes me think he CAME this way. Huh – maybe THAT was the “Change!” to which he was referring?

In any event, if TYT is right, and this is already a done deal, it doesn’t just speak to how badly Obama screwed over his followers, and the rest of us, but how screwed DEMOCRACY is. And that is the biggest problem of all…So, yeah, I would be up for a revolution, TYT, since you mentioned it. Anyone else?

No, this latest attempt was more of the same kind of response Obama had when the GLBT community was up in arms over his choice of Pastor Rick Warren to give his Inauguration Prayer. After days and days of people complaining to the high heavens, he decided to have Bishop Gene Robinson, the openly gay Episcopal bishop, give the invocation at the Sunday Inaugural Concert event preceding the Inauguration. Except get this – he had HBO take Robinson OUT of the piece they aired on tv. I am not making this up. They couldn’t believe it, either. Eventually, it was agreed he would appear in later broadcasts, but not the one aired at the time.

So, after his backtrack on DADT, despite his campaign assurances; after his backstabbing on DOMA, in which it was made QUITE clear by Obama just who is worthy to be married (and it ain’t me); we get this half hearted attempt on his part to make it up to us. So, he will give SOME benefits to the partners of GLB employees except – wait for it – HEALTH CARE (and a H/T to alert NQ Reader, Mary, for this). You know, the big huge issue he’s going to be pushing on the All Barack Company propaganda channel “forum” coming up, the one he thinks should be for ALL people – except the partners of GLB Federal employees. As one friend (who’s heterosexual, by the way) said, it looks to her like all he’s willing to give in terms of Federal Benefits is moving expenses, to which she responded, “whoopee.”

Here’s a panel discussion on this very topic on Anderson Cooper 360 (H/T to American Girl in Italy for this):

C’mon, you gotta admit the absurdity of that is just laughable. Except that, once again, we are talking about real people and real lives, and one group still getting the short end of the stick.

Once, just ONCE, wouldn’t it be nice if Obama actually walked the walk without being FORCED to do something to cover his backside after he screwed up? To do the just act, the right act, the honorable act without all of the drama? Without trashing someone first, like in the DOMA brief? Or the brief to the Supreme Court over DADT? I’m just sayin’ – it would be nice if he were that kind of person. But he isn’t. And once again, we are talking about Obama’s lame attempts to placate us, to try and keep a voting bloc together. That may work for some (Kool-Aide drinking) people, but not for most of us.

All his false promises, and half hearted attempts, won’t change that.

Oh, boy. Well, Obama recently showed his true colors on “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell,” (see this, this, and this) and he has REALLY shown them on “DOMA” (Defense of Marriage Act). I’m sorry to keep harping on this, but hey – it IS Pride month, after all, and what better time to stab a community in the back than the month you proclaim for them? At least that seems to be Obama’s Opposite World logic.

Before I go any further, let me just say, for the gazillionith time: I TOLD YOU THIS WAS GOING TO HAPPEN. All of us who didn’t just blow off his anti-gay associates, those of us who saw his saying one thing and doing another, without making excuses (”well, yes, I am disappointed, but…” Those of us who paid attention to his close associates KNEW this was coming. Once again, for all of you groups who supported Obama, who just KNEW he was going to bring Hope! and Change! on his little Rainbow Unicorn Pony, thus throwing the rest of us to the curb, I freakin’ told you so.

John Aravosis, lays it all out in this article, “Obama Defends DOMA In Federal Court.” Here’s a little taste of it:

We just got the brief from reader Lavi Soloway. It’s pretty despicable, and gratuitously homophobic. It reads as if it were written by one of George Bush’s top political appointees. I cannot state strongly enough how damaging this brief is to us. Obama didn’t just argue a technicality about the case, he argued that DOMA is reasonable. That DOMA is constitutional. That DOMA wasn’t motivated by any anti-gay animus. He argued why our Supreme Court victories in Roemer and Lawrence shouldn’t be interpreted to give us rights in any other area (which hurts us in countless other cases and battles). He argued that DOMA doesn’t discriminate against us because it also discriminates about straight unmarried couples (ignoring the fact that they can get married and we can’t).

He actually argued that the courts shouldn’t consider Loving v. Virginia, the miscegenation case in which the Supreme Court ruled that it is unconstitutional to ban interracial marriages, when looking at gay civil rights cases. He told the court, in essence, that blacks deserve more civil rights than gays, that our civil rights are not on the same level.

Yep. Pretty much. But we already knew that, didn’t we? When the military will gladly take people, check that – heterosexual people – with criminal records over keeping West Point grads, I think the message is clear.

I am disgusted beyond belief. Not surprised, mind you, just disgusted. And angry.

There’s more, as this article highlights, “Gay Rights Groups Irate After Obama Administration Lauds Defense Of Marriage Act.” Make sure you check out the powerful photo in this one:

As a presidential candidate, Barack Obama claimed “we need to fully repeal the Defense of Marriage Act,” which says states are not required to recognize other states’ same-sex marriages.

That was then. This week, the Obama administration is facing the ire of gay rights groups after it filed a brief in California federal court defending the Defense of Marriage Act and calling it a “valid exercise of Congress’ power” that is saving taxpayers money.

The Defense of Marriage Act, or DOMA, was signed into law by President Clinton in 1996. It doesn’t prohibit same-sex marriages; instead, it says that no state “shall be required” to honor same-sex marriages taking place elsewhere or any “right or claim arising from such relationship.”

“Liar, Liar, Pants On Fire” would be appropriate here, IF we weren’t talking about people’s LIVES. And that’s what makes this so egregious. Still disgusted beyond belief, but this time, not only with Obama, but these groups who jumped on his little American Idol bandwagon, lapping up his Teleprompter “Words, just words.” And that’s JUST what they were – words. The actions are telling the tale, and it ain’t good.

And in a related case, the DOJ weighs in on a related case, “DOJ Moves To Dismiss First Fed Gay Marriage Case“:

The government said Smelt and Hammer seek a ruling on “whether by virtue of their marital status they are constitutionally entitled to acknowledgment of their union by states that do not recognize same-sex marriage, and whether they are similarly entitled to certain federal benefits.

“Under the law binding on this Court, the answer to these questions must be no,” the motion states.

Oh, yes – he is SUCH a friend to the LGBT community – in Opposite World, that is. And this kind of backtracking, bamboozling, bullshit from Obama is precisely why I told the HRC guy who called me the other day to get me to reinstate my membership that there was no way in hell I would do that after the HRC supported Obama, and not HRC (you know, as in Hillary). He kept telling me that Obama SAID he was going to this, and Obama SAID he was going to do that. I told him Obama could say whatever he WANTED, but the fact remained he had done NOTHING yet, and his history led me to believe he wouldn’t. I just didn’t realize that in one week – within a couple of days of each other – that Obama would prove me right. And not just that he wasn’t going to do anything, but he did WORSE than that, screwing us six ways to Sunday. What I told this man at HRC as I got off the phone was, “Obama is no friend to the GLBT community.” Talk about an understatement.

Once again, I say that anyone who thought for one skinny second that Obama was going to do anything at all positive for the GLBT community was deluding themselves so they could vote for the one everyone said was the cool kid, the popular guy, the one whose razor thin resume would have been laughed at except for his marketing team who billed no experience, and no qualifications, as the Change We NEED!! Well, this is change alright, but I sure as hell don’t need it, and frankly, I resent all of those people who mindlessly voted for this man, who attacked all of us who didn’t buy his hooey from the get-go, all those people who called (and still call) us racists, and on and on and on because we didn’t swallow the Kool Aide.

So, during this Pride Month, let me just say, thanks shitloads for giving us this guy who is taking us back, no, legislating us back into the closet (a little poetic license – you know what I mean). Yep – thanks a whole lot for a whole lot of grief.

Now – what are you gonna DO about it???

When President Obama returned from his first European trip, I observed that while over there he had been “acting the philosopher-king who hovers above the fray mediating” between America and the world. Now that Obama has returned from his “Muslim world” pilgrimage, even the left agrees. “Obama’s standing above the country, above — above the world. He’s sort of God,” Newsweek’s Evan Thomas said to a concurring Chris Matthews, reflecting on Obama’s lofty perception of himself as the great transcender.

Not that Obama considers himself divine. (He sees himself as merely messianic, or, at worst, apostolic.) But he does position himself as hovering above mere mortals, mere country, to gaze benignly upon the darkling plain beneath him where ignorant armies clash by night, blind to the common humanity that only he can see. Traveling the world, he brings the gospel of understanding and godly forbearance. We have all sinned against each other. We must now look beyond that and walk together to the sunny uplands of comity and understanding. He shall guide you.

Poetry in motion, Mr. K. Here is one of many examples he offers of President Obama’s dangerous moral equivalencies:

(C) Obama offered Muslims a careful admonition about women’s rights, noting how denying women education impoverishes a country — balanced, of course, with this: “Issues of women’s equality are by no means simply an issue for Islam.” Example? “The struggle for women’s equality continues in many aspects of American life.”

Well, yes. On the one hand, there certainly is some American university where the women’s softball team has received insufficient Title IX funds — while, on the other hand, Saudi women showing ankle are beaten in the street, Afghan school girls have acid thrown in their faces, and Iranian women are publicly stoned to death for adultery. (Gays, as well — but then again we have Prop 8.) We all have our shortcomings, our national foibles. Who’s to judge?

That’s the problem with Obama’s transcultural evenhandedness. It gives the veneer of professorial sophistication to the most simple-minded observation: Of course there are rights and wrongs in all human affairs. Our species is a fallen one. But that doesn’t mean that these rights and wrongs are of equal weight.

A CIA rent-a-mob in a coup 56 years ago does not balance the hostage-takings, throat-slittings, terror bombings and wanton slaughters perpetrated for 30 years by a thug regime in Tehran (and its surrogates) that our own State Department calls the world’s “most active state sponsor of terrorism.”
(snip)
Even on freedom of religion, Obama could not resist the compulsion to find fault with his own country: “For instance, in the United States, rules on charitable giving have made it harder for Muslims to fulfill their religious obligation” — disgracefully giving the impression to a foreign audience not versed in our laws that there is active discrimination against Muslims, when the only restriction, applied to all donors regardless of religion, is on funding charities that serve as fronts for terror.

And here Mr. Krauthammer sums it up perfectly:

For all of his philosophy, the philosopher-king protests too much. Obama undoubtedly thinks he is demonstrating historical magnanimity with all these moral equivalencies and self-flagellating apologetics. On the contrary. He’s showing cheap condescension, an unseemly hunger for applause and a willingness to distort history for political effect.

But this is not the first time President Obama has engaged in this dangerous revisionism, or given a foreign country a pass on their behavior so as to appear warm and fuzzy.

Last summer, I wrote an article, The Panderer Forgets The Panzers, commenting on then-nominee Barack Obama’s speech before the German people in front of the Victory Column (the Siegessäule) in Berlin:

“The Siegessäule in Berlin was moved to where it is now by Adolf Hitler. [Hitler] saw it as a symbol of German superiority…in wartime.
(snip)
Let us put location aside for the moment. His speech, which contains positive and positively vague concepts for how we must work to tear all walls down as part of the global community, is the usual pabulum; fine as far as it goes. No specifics are offered, just a photo op for Obama to enjoy adulation and applause of thousands for clearing his throat.

What is not fine is this statement:

People of the world – look at Berlin!

Look at Berlin, where Germans and Americans learned to work together and trust each other less than three years after facing each other on the field of battle.

“On the field of battle?” That sounds so honorable! Like two worthy adversaries fighting over a plot of land or a political principle. Look at Berlin, indeed.

His feel good moment designed to pander to his current audience, just as he seeks to pander to any audience for whom he performs, conveniently omits the harsh reality that we were not battling an honorable adversary. We were battling Nazi Germany. You remember: the people responsible for exterminating millions of Jews.

How nice of Senator Obama to leave out any mention of the Holocaust so he wouldn’t make the German people gathered for “Obamafest” feel bad, while vendors were busy selling souvenir buttons depicting him in lederhosen holding a bunch of beer steins.
Instead he chooses to dwell on the Berlin Wall and raised the specter of the Cold War. He makes the Russian people the bad guys in this equation for splitting up Berlin and making half of it communist – suddenly the ‘Wall’ is the culprit. Yes, but surely, there were other culprits.

He fails to mention in his speech that the Russians were allied with the United States against the Germans – the true enemy in World War II.

Obviously, as the child of a Holocaust survivor it is important to me that this fact not be forgotten. Although my father could never forgive the German people, even at the time of his death, I vowed I would never live a life carrying old hatred with me. I would not make his legacy mine. So let me be clear, it is certainly not hatred for the German people living today that prompts my statements; quite the contrary.

The present world will never be able to apologize for the past one.

Nevertheless, I will not excuse revisionist history for the convenience of Obama crafting a sound bite around the concept of “walls coming down.” He cannot omit the fact that the Soviets did fight by our side in this cause. The Soviet tanks he complains of in his speech were also used against the Nazis.

Senator Obama also conveniently forgets how many concentration camps were liberated by the Soviets, including the largest concentration camp of all, Auschwitz – the one that Obama falsely claimed his uncle helped to liberate when he was, again, pandering to a Jewish audience a couple of months ago.

Whatever Russia’s motives, the fact remains that they were very instrumental in breaking Hitler’s back and bringing a faster end to the war – a fact it is most inappropriate for Obama to forget simply because it does not coincide with the narrative of his pretty platitudes.

Once again, Obama works to make his current audience feel comfortable, forgiving them any past transgressions…

On June 4, 2009, when visiting Buchenwald concentration camp, Barack Obama, by his remarks, rebuked Iran and its leader, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, for his repeated insistence that the Holocaust did not happen. President Obama, at that moment, was able to muster all sorts of sorrow and horror over the Holocaust – which was ironically missing from all or any part of his speech before the German people the year before. Most unfortunately, what this says to me is that he is willing to re-craft sound bites and emotions for a political purpose that suits him best at the moment. Obviously, standing at Buchenwald, what suited the purpose is to try to isolate surrounding countries from Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and make the man as unpopular as possible. Great idea. However, The horrors Mr. Obama discussed that day were no less horrible the year before when, for political purposes, he completely chose to omit them from his speech.

It is most disturbing that President Obama is continuing this pattern in Cairo and elsewhere, redrafting history to suit his immediate political purpose.

As Mr. Krauthammer correctly concludes:

Distorting history is not truth-telling but the telling of soft lies. Creating false equivalencies is not moral leadership but moral abdication. And hovering above it all, above country and history, is a sign not of transcendence but of a disturbing ambivalence toward one’s own country.

Oh, yay! Obama said he might, maybe, could possibly do something about DADT!! Thank you, Rachel, for your ongoing, breathless support of the One, who surely will keep his promise and change this disastrous law. But just not for these people:

One can certainly see why THIS man had to go – I mean, really – educated at West Point?? An officer? Harrumph – clearly unprepared to serve in the duty of our nation! Good thing they got HIM removed from the service. Cough. Choke.

Oh, and I misspoke – Obama did do something. He wrote a letter. A letter! Saying that if only he could do something, he would. You know, if only he had some power, or position, or something that would enable him to end this absurd policy, one that has destroyed thousands of careers. Oh, if ONLY he could DO something … Ahem. Just more words, words, words, from Obama with no action to back them up.

There have been a number of Arabic Linguists kicked out, while we are in the midst of a war in an Arabic speaking nation (and no, Obama, not Afghanistan):

And another:

Here, Jason Jones from “The Daily Show” highlights just how absurd this act is in his usual “serious” way:

Now, if Bleu can ignore THAT, I think he can manage to do the work he was trained to do, don’t you??

What a waste of talent, time, and money. What a disrespectful way to treat people who are willing to put their lives on the line for our country. What a horrible way for a nation to treat its citizens. Enough words, Obama.

And speaking of words, Pat Racimora tipped me off to this story at Alternet,
Broken Promise? White House Backs Off Obama’s Pledge to Repeal Defense Of Marriage Act. Oh, goodie – more freakin’ words out of the mouth of Obama backed up by no action, or worse, by a reversal. See, this is exactly the kind of thing I kept telling people he was going to do, that his record did NOT back up these promises of his, but would they listen?? No. And now look where we are:

After ThinkProgress and other outlets noted last week’s changes to the Civil Rights page on whitehouse.gov, watering down language on the repeal of “don’t ask, don’t tell,” Tips-Q noted that the website also has completely eliminated the portion objecting to the Defense of Marriage Act. As late as April 28, the website highlighted President Obama’s commitment to “repealing” DOMA, as a cached image shows:

Today, the website states only that Obama supports full “federal rights for LGBT couples”:

He supports full civil unions and federal rights for LGBT couples and opposes a constitutional ban on same-sex marriage.

According to ProPublica’s Change Tracker, the changes to the DOMA language were made on April 30. During his campaign, Obama repeatedly pledged to seek to overturn the Defense of Marriage Act, telling The Advocate, “I for a very long time have been interested in repeal of DOMA.” During the primary campaign, he touted his longtime opposition to DOMA, in a strongly-worded “open letter” to the LGBT community:

Unlike Senator Clinton, I support the complete repeal of the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) -– a position I have held since before arriving in the U.S. Senate. While some say we should repeal only part of the law, I believe we should get rid of that statute altogether. Federal law should not discriminate in any way against gay and lesbian couples, which is precisely what DOMA does.

Oh, freakin’ spare me already. Hillary Clinton has, for YEARS now, worked tirelessly on behalf of the LGBT community. As I have said before, the woman has marched in more Pride Parades than I have. Obama? Zero. NONE. Just to remind everyone of just how much she has done, here is a YouTube link to Joe Salmonese of the Human Rights Campaign singing her praises before stabbing her in the back by supporting Obama.

Oh, but don’t you worry. Obama was quick to return to his “words, just words”:

Last week, after bloggers pointed out Obama’s seeming hypocrisy on “don’t ask, don’t tell,” the White House quickly revised the language to once again pledge to “repeal” the policy, rather than just change it. Will the White House similarly fix this mistake, and reinstate Obama’s campaign promise to grant gay couples their full federal rights? (Ali Frick is a Research Associate for The Progress Report and ThinkProgress.org at the Center for American Progress Action Fund.)

Just spare me already. Arabic linguists and other military personnel are still being kicked out of the military. Obama backtracks left and right on DADT, and DOMA. Just changing things back because someone actually noticed doesn’t CHANGE anything. DADT still exists, and so does DOMA. If, and when, Obama actually puts some REAL action behind his words, then I’ll believe him. Until then, he has continued to make clear that he will say and do whatever to appease whichever group he’s talking to at the time to get their praises, accolades, and votes. Once that’s accomplished, he could give a shit about the real people involved. If you don’t believe me, go ask Dan Choi.

Obama on Spot Over a Benefit to Gay Couples

Just seven weeks into office, President Obama is being forced to confront one of the most sensitive social and political issues of the day: whether the government must provide health insurance benefits to same-sex partners of federal employees.

In separate, strongly worded orders, two judges of the federal appeals court in California said that employees of their court were entitled to health benefits for their same-sex partners under the program that insures millions of federal workers.

But the federal Office of Personnel Management has instructed insurers not to provide the benefits ordered by the judges, citing a 1996 law, the Defense of Marriage Act.

As a presidential candidate, Mr. Obama said he would “fight hard” for the rights of gay couples. As a senator, he sponsored legislation that would have provided health benefits to same-sex partners of federal employees.

Now, Mr. Obama is in a tough spot. If he supports the personnel office on denying benefits to the San Francisco court employees, he risks agitating liberal groups that helped him win election. If he supports the judges and challenges the marriage act, he risks alienating Republicans with whom he is seeking to work on economic, health care and numerous other matters.

Already, some gay rights groups remain upset over Mr. Obama’s choice of the Rev. Rick Warren, an opponent of same-sex marriage, to give the invocation at his inauguration. Liberal groups also believe that Mr. Obama has not moved fast enough to reverse the policies of his predecessor on issues like detention and interrogation of terrorism suspects.

Here’s a question I have. WHY are these groups continuing to focus on his choice of The Rev. Rick Warren, admittedly, a HORRIBLE choice, but it was for a one time event, rather than being WICKED upset over his choice of Gov. Tim Kaine, a man who is anti-gay AND anti-choice (to name just TWO things), as the new face of the DNC? I mean, really – it just seems to be that they are missing the forest for the trees with this one. Tim Kaine as the DNC Chair is an even BIGGER slap in the face than The Rev. Rick Warren doing a prayer at his inauguration. Tim Kaine will be the “git that keeps on giving,” if you get my point.

Back to the article:

In a letter on Feb. 20 to the Administrative Office of the United States Courts, an arm of the federal judiciary, Lorraine E. Dettman, assistant director of the personnel office, said, “Plans in the Federal Employees Health Benefits Program may not provide coverage for domestic partners, or legally married partners of the same sex, even though recognized by state law.”

Benefits are available to the spouse of a federal employee, Ms. Dettman said, but the 1996 law stipulates that “the word ‘spouse’ refers only to a person of the opposite sex who is a husband or a wife.”

Federal officials said they had to follow the laws on the books. But Richard Socarides, a New York lawyer who was an adviser to President Bill Clinton on gay issues, said he believed that Mr. Obama “has broad discretionary authority to find ways to ameliorate some of the more blatant examples of discrimination.”

The orders were issued by the chief judge of the appeals court, Alex Kozinski, and another member of the court, Judge Stephen Reinhardt.

Judge Kozinski, often described as a libertarian or an independent conservative, and Judge Reinhardt, a liberal, ruled not as part of a lawsuit, but in their role as employers resolving employee grievances.

Similar issues were raised in a lawsuit filed against the federal government last week in Boston by eight same-sex couples. The administration is weighing how to respond.

Gay federal employees said they were denied equal compensation when their partners were denied health benefits.

Administration officials declined to say what they planned to do in the California cases if the judges tried to enforce their orders.

Ben LaBolt, a White House spokesman, said: “While the president opposes gay marriage, he supports legislative repeal of the Defense of Marriage Act. He believes this country must realize its founding promise of equality by treating all its citizens with dignity and respect.”

Mr. Obama and his choice for director of the personnel office, M. John Berry, have endorsed the idea of providing health benefits to same-sex partners of federal employees.

The Office of Personnel Management estimates the cost at $670 million over 10 years.

Huh – well, that’s interesting, considering the people with whom Obama continues to surround himself (do I REALLY need to go through the litany again? Meeks, Kmiec, Kaine, Warren, McClurkin, and that is off the top of my head.).

To return to the article again:

Mr. Berry, who is gay, has been director of the National Zoological Park since 2005. As an Interior Department official in the Clinton administration, he developed procedures to deal with complaints of discrimination based on sexual orientation. They became a model for other agencies.

The pending cases involve Karen Golinski, 46, a lawyer who works for the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, and Brad D. Levenson, 49, a lawyer who works for the federal public defender in Los Angeles.

Ms. Golinski’s insurance plan, offered by Blue Cross and Blue Shield, rejected her effort to obtain health benefits for her spouse, Amy Cunninghis. Mr. Levenson’s insurer, a Kaiser Foundation health plan, turned down his application for his spouse, Tony Sears, based on instructions from the Office of Personnel Management.

In Ms. Golinski’s case, Judge Kozinski said that federal law authorized the Office of Personnel Management to arrange health benefits for federal employees and their family members. The law, he said, defines the “minimum requirements” for health insurance, but the government can provide more.

Judge Reinhardt confronted the question differently, and concluded that the Defense of Marriage Act, as applied to Mr. Levenson’s request, was unconstitutional because it violated the Fifth Amendment guarantee of “due process of law.”

“A bare desire to harm a politically unpopular group cannot provide a rational basis for governmental discrimination,” Judge Reinhardt wrote.

In adopting the Defense of Marriage Act, Congress said the government had a legitimate interest in “defending and nurturing the institution of traditional heterosexual marriage.”

But Judge Reinhardt said the denial of benefits to same-sex spouses would not encourage gay men and lesbians to marry members of the opposite sex or discourage same-sex marriages.

“So the denial cannot be said to nurture or defend the institution of heterosexual marriage,” the judge wrote.

Gary L. Bauer, president of American Values, a conservative advocacy group, said that if Mr. Obama extended benefits to same-sex partners of federal workers, he would “provoke a furious grass-roots reaction, reinvigorate the conservative coalition and undermine his efforts to portray himself as a moderate on social issues.”

Ms. Golinski has asked for a new hearing, where she will urge Judge Kozinski to enforce his order granting benefits to her partner. Mr. Levenson said he would soon ask Judge Reinhardt for a similar hearing.

In addition, Congress may soon weigh in.

Senator Joseph I. Lieberman, independent of Connecticut, and Representative Tammy Baldwin, Democrat of Wisconsin, plan to introduce bills that would provide benefits to same-sex partners of federal employees.

Similar bills died in the past. But “the new administration will have a new view,” Ms. Baldwin said. (Sheryl Gay Stolberg contributed reporting.)

So what do I think about all this? I think Obama will continue to say one thing, do another, promise one group one thing, and the exact opposite to some other group. I guess I could have said, I don’t believe a damn thing that comes out of his mouth. How can you trust what someone says when he tries to be all things to all people? It is impossible. I am sure, if the outcome is against benefits for same-sex couples, he will find a way to take no responsibility for it. It was an aide’s fault. It was the way the judges went. It was out of his hands.

DO I WANT same-sex couples to be able to get federal benefits? Hell YES! Why shouldn’t they? They have been supplementing heterosexual people’s marriage benefits for, well, ever, and there are more of them than there are same-sex couples. It is way past time for us, all of us, whether we work for the federal government or not, to be treated equally, not in the disparate, unequal manner in which we have had to live despite us paying our taxes, contributing to society, and on and on.

Here’s the bottom line about what I think about Obama’s position here: no matter WHAT Obama says, what matters is what he DOES. When he chooses someone who holds so many diametrically opposed opinions to most Democrats like Kaine does to be the head of the DNC, THAT speaks volumes. As do the people with whom he surounds himself. So, let’s not lose focus on the forest for the trees.

Thanks, CG, for asking!

Perhaps you have now heard that a 1996 questionnaire for Barack Obama has mysteriously reappeared AFTER he was elected (which of course he could not have done without the DNC’s new take on voting, i.e., it doesn’t really matter for whom you cast your vote – they will give it to whomever they damn well please). Yes, it is a questionnaire that Obama filled out, and signed himself (though he’ll probably blame it on some staffer pretty soon here) in which he says he SUPPORTS same-sex marriage!

Say, WHAAA??? Yes, indeedy! Ben Smith of Politico.com has this article, “Obama Backed Same Sex Marriage in 1996“:

A document has emerged suggesting that Obama had taken more public, liberal stands in the past than had been revealed in the digging of reporters and opposition researchers over two years of campaigning, the latest of several pointing to a rightward shift as he moved into national politics.

In a 1996 questionnaire filled out for a Chicago gay and lesbian newspaper, then called Outlines, Obama came out clearly in favor of same-sex marriage, which he has opposed on the public record throughout his short career in national politics.

“I favor legalizing same-sex marriages,and would fight efforts to prohibit such marriages,” Obama wrote in the typed, signed, statement.

There was no use of “civil unions,” and “no compromise whatsoever,” the Windy City Times story today notes.

On another questionnaire the same year, Obama said he would support a resolution in support of same-sex marriage.

The editor of the Windy City Times, a successor of Outlines, Tracy Baim, said she hadn’t deliberately held onto the news until after Obama’s election. Baim, who had been the editor of Outlines at the time, said that just before the election, she ran across the old Outline story saying Obama backed same-sex marriage, but only dug his forgotten questionnaire out of an old box this week, having assumed that she’d lost it.

Obama now says he opposes same-sex marriage, though he backs giving gays and lesbians a parallel package of marriage-like rights, and opposes a federal ban on same-sex marriage.

Here is a copy of the document:

Okay, now why does ANYONE believe Obama on ANYTHING he says? He changes like the wind. You never know which way he will turn.

Oh – and did you notice his response on #10? He has dialed down that rhetoric a bit now, too. Here is but one take on his position. A quick search will provide many more.

Next on the list is Obama’s choice of dining companions last night. Marc Ambinder has a report in this article, Obama Dines With Conservative Opinion Leaders“:

It’s true.

He motorcaded to a house in Maryland this evening, and if the press pool report is accurate, he is breaking bread with William Kristol and David Brooks. (If Brooks and Kristol seem to be unusually briefed about Obama’s thinking, you’ll know why.)

CBS News’s Dan Raviv tells the pool that the house, on Grafton Street in Chevy Chase, belongs to George Will. (Unless he’s moved.)

Tomorrow, I hear Obama has another private meeting with non-Republican opinion columnists.

Ellen Moran, the incoming White House communications director, set these meetings up.

Again — establishment opinion matters to the Obama communications team.

Oh, I just can’t wait to see what’s next with Mr. Slippery. But I won’t have to wait for long, thanks to Comcast. Oh, yes — Comcast has decided to run an All-Obama-All-The-Time Channel. No, I am NOT making this up. Seriously — it’s for real.

I know I have said before that some Obama supporters (oh, all right – many) are just delusional, not accepting the reality of who this man is and for what he stands (if you can figure it out, that is – except we do know he is at least anti-gay, so there’s that). But this has morphed into flat out insanity. I honestly thought we had reached the zenith of nut-job-iness (yes, that’s a technical term!) with the Bush supporters, but Obama’s supporters are making them look like the most well-balanced, intelligent, grounded folks around. Except for those of us in the reality-based community, that is.

This is just crazy. Crazy!! Can you IMAGINE what all of these exact same people would have said if Comcast has an All-Bush channel?? You know that everyone would be screaming BLOODY murder about that! But now, our nation has collectively crossed the line, and this has become acceptable. Holy crap.

There are two bright lights in the news this week, though. One is that Caroline Kennedy is being edged out in her Camelot quest for Senator Clinton’s Empire State seat. Yes, the people of NY, you know, the ones who really SHOULD have a say in all of this since it is their representation at state, are backing Andrew Cuomo. Assuming their governor is paying attention, it will be nice to see that at least one person doesn’t sell out to the highest bidder and actually listens to their constituents (oh, you know about what I am talking – all of those senators and representatives who didn’t give a WHIT who their constituents wanted for the Democratic nominee – I know, I know, not that it would have mattered since the DNC didn’t care, either, but still…It would have been, um, nice if SOMEONE had a backbone. Maybe Paterson does!).

And the other bright light – well, bittersweet, really – is seeing Senator Clinton display her brilliance and command of the issues during her confirmation hearing (if only C-Span would STOP tossing it from channel to channel to online back to channel).

Watching her, though, is just a reminder of who we SHOULD Have had, this brilliant woman who knows policy. Who makes it CLEAR where she stands, e.g., with women and girls who are being abused as she did yesterday, when she said this:

“They want to maintain an attitude,” she charged, “that keeps women unhealthy, unfed, uneducated, and this is something that results all too often in violence against these young women.” (NYTimes Live Blog)

“This is not culture, this is not custom, this is criminal,” she said.

She’s got that right.

And to all of those women who supported Mr. Misogynist, you blew it. BLEW it. He is not the one who will ensure that women’s rights are human rights. Hillary Clinton will. Obama is a perpetrator of sexism. Clinton is on the side of equality. But I digress.

Back to the hearings: She has a mastery of issues and policies that should be the envy of Obama. Yes, she looks tired. Unlike Bush, I mean, Obama, she has not had a vacation (Obama has had two since the DNC gave him the nomination, in case you are keeping score – TWO). Clinton has continued her tireless work. So, yes, she looks pretty tired, but she can still talk circles around Mr. “Uh, Um, Uh, Well, Look.”

Bittersweet, indeed. Watching Senator Clinton talk is just an ugly reminder of how the DNC and Obama screwed the majority of Democrats in this country. Seeing her is a reminder of who we COULD have had, who we really needed to get us out of this mess we are in. Because Mr. First Term Senator With No Record On Which To Stand is not going to be the one to fix it.

The one saving grace is the comfort of knowing Secretary of State Clinton will be handling some major issues facing us, at home and abroad. (I still cannot get over the way Obama LIED about her extensive Foreign Policy experience, with his minions buying it. No sooner had the last state reported, for all intents and purposes, he announces Clinton for this very important foreign policy post, citing her experience!! Oh, but the Obots will excuse that, too, just like every other damn thing they refuse to acknowledge.)

So that’s the quick round-up. Feel free to add other goings-on of the day!

Throughout this campaign season, any attempts to discern the “content of (Obama’s) character” have been thwarted by the Propaganda Machine, formerly known as the Fourth Estate, his handlers, the DNC, and his followers who claim, irrationally, I might add, the “Obama will heal us!” as Cher did on The Ellen Degeneres Show Nov. 3rd, as if he truly IS the Obamessiah, ignoring the tremendous splitting of the country, of the Democratic Party itself.

For the first time in memory, a candidate was NOT “known by the company he keeps,” “the birds of a feather which flocked together.” Rather, any mention of Bill Ayers was met, even by university professors with the illogical justification that Obama was only 8 when Bill Ayers and his compatriot, Bernadine Dorhn, were bombing the US Capitol, Pentagon, and other US buildings.

That may be so, but the ideology which drove Ayers and Dorhn is the ideology to which they still adhere. Obama has chosen to have them in his life, to live near them, work with them, and seek them out, as we recently learned for sure (as many of us suspected, and confirmed in this article by Steve Diamond at No Quarter, “Ayers and Obama In Regular Contact Says Source Close to Obama Candidacy“).

The list of his close associates in addition to Ayers and Dorhn are troubling: Rezko, Wright, Khalidi, Kilpatrick, Farakkhan, Blogajevich, et al, a list that contains convicted felons and one under investigation. I have said before, and will say again, any ONE of these people would have sunk any other candidacy, yet in the case of Obama, they were brushed aside as irrelevant. As was the glaring reality that Obama took the majority of his policy positions, often lock, stock, and barrel, from Hillary Clinton. But the Propaganda arm flipped it around, and his minions, again, many university professors, brushed aside his plagiarism as inconsequential. What a great lesson they are teaching their students, and their children.

Along those lines, I am in disbelief that adults, people who would not hire Obama at their own universities or businesses with his refusal to provide ANY documentation of his academic life, or allow friends, families, or fellow students to discuss him to ANYONE trying to get information on this first term senator running for the highest office in the land, would gladly give this man their votes.

I despair that adults, and their children, believe that the means justify the ends, that hundreds of thousands of fraudulent voter registrations, over 200,000 in Ohio, and 212,000 discovered in Georgia, in which voters were registered in GA, as well as OH or FL, are dismissed because as one neighbor, a retired university professor said, “ACORN does great work.” The level of voter registration fraud was through the ceiling, as the 16 investigations into ACORN indicate, yet the Propagandists say NOTHING about this as Obama “wins” contests in states where voter registration fraud was rampant. Even duplicate voting is brushed aside, as this video demonstrates (and h/t to a listener of Truthteller’s Election Night Radio Show mentioned):

Um, no – it is NOT okay for anyone to vote more than once in an election. It is FRAUD, and it is ILLEGAL!! But we already know there were instances of this in OH and FL. Heck, in VA, felons were allowed, no, RECRUITED, to vote for Obama, but absentee ballots to our military serving abroad went out late, sparking a lawsuit to make sure THEIR votes were counted. And on and on it goes.

As I said, I despair that adults are teaching our young people that you cheat, lie, and steal to get what you want. While you are at it, make sure you are a sore loser, hammering away at the vanquished in a juvenile, mean-spirited manner, never having learned the concept of gracious winning (especially when the “winning” is suspect). These are the same people who said NOTHING, or were SUPPORTIVE, of the Democratic Party forever smearing its very name by stealing votes from one candidate to give to another. The ends justify the means, and if that means we tarnish, tear down, belittle, smear, and steal from a candidate to win, so be it. Oh – and blame them for it, too, while we are at it as the NY Times did in an incredibly offensive editorial it had up last night celebrating Obama’s defeat of Clinton (I won’t link to it – go find it yourself if you want to read that dribble). We have now taught our young people that you can register as many times as you want, and vote as often as you want – just like on “American Idol”! – to make sure YOUR candidate wins. Fair and square is old school. Now it is win at all and any costs, and belittle your opponent while you are at it.

Then there are the issues of misogyny and race-baiting that sustained this campaign, with the willing participation of the Propaganda Arm, Obama, and the DNC. The treatment of women during this campaign was a low I have not seen in DECADES, yet many women were willing participants to this abuse, claiming even as Obama contradicted them, that he was going to be great for women. Ask Hillary. Ask Sarah. Ask those folks wearing, “Sarah Palin Is a C–t” t-shirts, or the organization that used the “C-word” as its acronym regarding Hillary. Women were treated as not just objects, but as sexual anatomy period, in a most vulgar and derogatory way. Still, since it was the DNC, too many women accepted this treatment from the very party of which they are the majority. How they can celebrate the future presidency of a man who treats women in such a hostile manner is beyond me. That goes for the GLBT community, too. But hey – they got their “Bro Before Ho,” so I know they are happy.

The race baiting that was used to tear down our only two term Democratic president in decades was horrendous to watch, especially as members serving in Congress, people whom President Clinton had helped personally, went out of their way to paint him with the stigma of being racist. Hillary, too. Two people who have worked TIRELESSLY to end discrimination in this people were called racists, and it stuck. Then anyone who would not, could not, imagine voting for the most inexperienced, unqualified candidate who was taking Chicago-style politics national, with his thugs attacking people around the country, were labeled, no, BRANDED racists if they did not support Obama. As women’s rights have been set back decades after this election season, so have been race relations. All in the service of getting this man elected because of the color of his skin, not the content of his character, which is still largely ignored or unexplored by the electorate and the Propagandists.

I do not think this is what Dr. King had in mind. I do not think this is what our founders had in mind, either. This election, with its win at all costs, even if it means cheating, lying, and stealing, is not democracy. It surely isn’t decent. And it is not the American Way. At the moment, I can’t see how this will change – how we will regain any semblance of justice, of knowing right from wrong, of being ethical, moral, good. Yes, we made history last night, but I ask you, at what cost to us, to our country? I weep for us today, at what we have become. I have to hope, and pray, that we will regain what we have lost, but for today, grief overwhelms me.

Dear Amy:

Emergency Situation

No On 8 Obama

Proponents of Prop 8 sent a deceptive mailer insinuating that Barack Obama and Joe Biden support their effort. Both have denounced this tactic and reminded voters that they oppose Prop 8.

We cannot let this go unanswered.

We need to respond quickly and effectively through new flyers, paid phone banks and get out the vote efforts countering this lie.

Give Today Green No On 8

Ask you friends and family to donate.

There are times in a political campaign when you think you know what you need to do to win.

We said we needed $3 million in 3 days to win this campaign. And over 24,000 of you helped us meet that goal.

And then the other side does something so insidious you must react.

Proponents of Prop 8 sent a deceptive mailer insinuating that Barack Obama and Joe Biden support their effort to eliminate the right of same-sex couples to marry.

They are using this and other shameful tactics to try to mislead undecided voters throughout California.

They have forced us into an emergency situation.

We cannot let this go unanswered. We need to respond quickly and effectively through new flyers, paid phone banks and get out the vote efforts countering this lie.

We are running out of time.

Donate now so we can counter this appalling tactic.

In solidarity,

Kate Kendell
Executive Committee Member
No On Prop 8

Guess who we won’t be supporting anymore?? You got it! Just more money to send to other organizations who don’t try to manipulate their members!

Whaddya they mean they “cannot let this go unanswered”? Obama and Biden DO oppose same-sex marriage! Obama has made this clear time and time and time again, in his debates, in his statements, in his choice of associates:- McClurkin, Meeks, and ESPECIALLY Doug Kmiec, the former Reagan/Bush attorney who is an ACTIVE PROPONENT OF PROPOSITION 8. Kmiec was Obama’s choice to lead his “Faith Tour” – an attorney. He chose an attorney to lead his evangelical faith tour around the country (as if there weren’t enough problems with the whole concept from the get-go! Heck, I even worked as a paralegal when I lived up North, but I surely don’t go around billing myself as an authority on the law. Anywho – I digress again.) Now, I admit that Obama has said that they shouldn’t change the law now that it is in place, but to imply, as NCLR does, that he SUPPORTS same-sex marriage is a flat out lie. I have written about this a gazillion times already:

“Two-fer: Faith Train and Same Sex Marriage”

“So What”, with the bonus of Joe Biden saying emphatically that he and Obama are opposed to same-sex marriage.

“Going to the Chapel and We’re Gonna Get Married”, also a two-fer since it deals mainly with CT, BUT it also deal’s with Doug Kmiec, Obama’s F(aith) buddy.

“Saddle Up”

“It Was Only A Matter Of Time”

And one from my blog on Same Sex Marriage, link HERE.

I might add, my friend, Truthteller, had an outstanding post on Obama and the GLBT community, at No Quarter: “Barack Obama’s Compulsively Repeated Gay Bashing Risks the Loss of A Key Voting Bloc”. This is an EXCELLENT overview of all the ways in which Obama has screwed (ahem) the LGBT community.

All of that is to say, Obama did send a letter of support to opponents of Proposition 8, but as this article clearly points out, he opposes same-sex marriage. He and John McCain have the SAME position on this issue. Only McCain, as I have written before, does not shy away from his gay friends when they need him. He supports and embraces them, unlike Obama. This article demonstrates, in one place, how Obama panders to whichever side he thinks will get him elected, all in ONE ARTICLE! It is staggering – he opposes Same-Sex marriage everywhere else but CA, apparently. At least until the voting is done. That’s his MO, and if any GLBT people think he will truly stand on their side, they are sadly mistaken. Just ask his formerly gay buddy, Donnie McClurkin. Or his actively anti-gay BFF James Meeks. Or Doug Kmiec, hater of equal rights for GLBT people. Oh – and ask Gavin Newsome how he felt about Obama dissing him over a photo shoot just because he SUPPORTS same sex marriage. Oh, yeah – what a guy.

The information is there, people – don’t be hoodwinked or bamboozled on this issue, I ask you. Don’t let Obama get over on this – he doesn’t deserve the pass.