And just who are these Democratic pollsters, one might ask? Well, Patrick Caddell, for one, and Douglas Schoen for another. Now, I admit right up front that I am a bit partial to Patrick Caddell. Not only is he from a city in SC, close to the NC border, but he tells it like it is whether it is beneficial to his party or not, a rare find in today’s political exceedingly partisan world. Schoen is no slouch in that department, either, and I respect him as well.

And now to their headline-grabbing claim:

[snip] “He should abandon his candidacy for re-election in favor of a clear alternative, one capable not only of saving the Democratic Party, but more important, of governing effectively and in a way that preserves the most important of the president’s accomplishments. He should step aside for the one candidate who would become, by acclamation, the nominee of the Democratic Party: Secretary of State Hillary Clinton,”Caddell and Schoen wrote.

[...]

“One year ago in these pages, we warned that if President Obama continued down his overly partisan road, the nation would be ‘guaranteed two years of political gridlock at a time when we can ill afford it.’ The result has been exactly as we predicted: stalemate in Washington, fights over the debt ceiling, an inability to tackle the debt and deficit, and paralysis exacerbating market turmoil and economic decline,” they write.

Caddell and Schoen say they write as “patriots and Democrats” who are concerned for their country, and they do not expect to play a direct role in any possible Clinton campaign. (Click here to read the rest.)

Holy moley – see what I mean? Telling it like it is. I happen to think they are 100% correct in their conclusion. Obama is the most partisan president I have ever seen, and his use of the Super Committee as a campaign talking point makes the case. As I have stated previously, this is NOT the time to play party politics. This is the time to work to save the nation, and we all have to work together toward that end. Yet, Obama refuses to accept any recommendations of the very committee he put together (Simpson Bowles), and the Democrats refuse to hear plans based on those recommendations because they come from – the horror – a Republican (Toomey). Sheer insanity.

One interesting twist to this drumbeat for Obama to step down from a re-election campaign is who the pollsters mentioned above think should take his place: Hillary Rodham Clinton. From their piece in the Wall Street Journal:

[snip] He should abandon his candidacy for re-election in favor of a clear alternative, one capable not only of saving the Democratic Party, but more important, of governing effectively and in a way that preserves the most important of the president’s accomplishments. He should step aside for the one candidate who would become, by acclamation, the nominee of the Democratic Party: Secretary of State Hillary Clinton.

Never before has there been such an obvious potential successor—one who has been a loyal and effective member of the president’s administration, who has the stature to take on the office, and who is the only leader capable of uniting the country around a bipartisan economic and foreign policy.[snip] (Click here to read the rest.)

Interesting, no? But in the same breath as why she should be the nominee, is why many of us would have problems with this successor: Clinton is a loyal member of the Obama Administration. Uh, yeah…

Now, most of us also know that Clinton should have been, and would have been, the 2008 Nominee had the DNC and Obama Campaign not engaged in a tremendous amount of well-documented shenanigans, some illegal, and others unethical and immoral. Not only did the DNC violate the law in 13 states (see jbjd’s excellent report on this), but their machinations 5/31/08 to steal lawfully cast votes from Clinton to give to Obama was the last straw for many dyed in the wool, yellow dog Democrats, like myself.

But that was then, and this is now. Though I have to say, I do like the idea of not having to hear Obama continue his Us/Them attacks for another freakin’ year. I would be MORE than happy for him to just throw in the towel now. And he can take Michelle “I Pay $15,000 A Day For Makeup” Obama with him. Oh, wait – SHE doesn’t pay it. WE pay it. And that is a helluva lotta coin for MAKEUP. IMHO, that is.

So, yeah – I agree with Caddell and Schoen that it’s time for them to take their leave from DC. How about you?

And it is pissing me off. Seriously. I don’t know if it is the off-the-chart pain levels I am enduring, or what, but it is pissing me off that – all of a sudden – the people who were in a position to make clear how inept Obama was, is, and would be, failed to convey that message adequately. No, not Cheney – I mean the media and Democratic political pundits who should have known, and most likely did know, better, but went-along-to-get-along so they could keep blathering on CNN, MSNBC, or whatever channel would have them. They rode this wave of a created back story of who Obama was, one that did not match the REALITY of who he was, by his handlers and string pullers rather than DOING THEIR JOBS, and now, NOW, they are coming out saying, “oh, yeah – Hillary would have been SO much better” after calling her, her husband, and her supporters a bunch of racist gun and Bible toters who could barely get dressed in the morning. All I can say is, BITE ME.

Ahem. Sorry. I have no patience or tolerance for this crap right now. Clinton would have been the best, they knew it then, but sexism trumps all any day of the week, and they sure as hell were not going to support any old (!) woman over a biracial freshman senator. Nosirree bob. Even as I write that one sentence – a freshman senator beating out a woman who had a vastly superior resume was treated like crap by these people in her own party AND in the media. And now they come crying saying it should have been her? Please. They CHOSE him over her. (Photo credit: blackagendareport.com)

It is not like the information wasn’t out there for all the world to see. They chose to ignore it, they chose to cover it up (thank you, JournoListers and the LA Times to name just two more), they failed to vet, they failed to fact check, they failed to keep their emotions in check, they failed, failed, failed at their jobs, and now we are all paying the price. For instance, the NY Times, and other outlets, repeatedly have pushed the meme that Obama is even keeled, even tempered, and unshakeable. It is a pile of horse manure. They have just ignored his snippyness, arrogance, and short fuse because it did not fit the image they – the media – were crafting for him (no doubt at the insistance of the Davids, Plouffe and Axelrod).

The truth was out there, though. Consider the opening paragraphs of this story from a reporter who liked Obama, but was professional enough to be honest about him in his extensive piece, “Barack Obama And Me“:

It’s not quite eight in the morning and Barack Obama is on the phone screaming at me. He liked the story I wrote about him a couple weeks ago, but not this garbage.

Months earlier, a reporter friend told me she overheard Obama call me an asshole at a political fund-raiser. Now here he is blasting me from hundreds of miles away for a story that just went online but hasn’t yet hit local newsstands.

It’s the first time I ever heard him yell, and I’m trembling as I set down the phone. I sit frozen at my desk for several minutes, stunned.

This is an extensive, in-depth piece, which goes into Emil Jones, Obama’s “kingmaker,” and so, so much more. But one other piece I cannot resist putting in since I have mentioned is his fake Southern accent (grrrrr):

My view of Obama then wasn’t all that different from the image he projects now. He was smart, confident, charismatic and liberal. One thing I can say is, I never heard him launch into the preacher-man voice he now employs during speeches. He sounded vanilla, and activists in his mostly black district often chided him for it.

My point, and as Ellen Degeneres would say, I do have one, is that the information was there, from this author, to John Kass, Lynn Sweet, and others in the Chicago area, but the MSM refused to upset the apple cart, supporting the myth of Obama, not the fact of Obama. All I can say is, thanks shitloads for that, you worthless hacks. Look where your complete and utter lack of professionalism got us. Told you I have no patience for this right now.

And for the love of all that is holy, stop pushing Hillary NOW. The time is long past,t he damage done. She is not going to run. She has made that abundantly clear. Party before country, she will not go up against her boss, and even if she did, it is too late. She has already been touting his policies all over the globe. If she now claimed she didn’t support any of them, but hawked them anyway, well, do I really need to finish that thought for you? I didn’t think so.

So, yeah – I have had it with the handwringing, coulda, woulda, shoulda crapola the MSM, and some political pundits, are now peddling. They should have done their homework before the last election instead of crying about it now that the damage is done. They have no one to blame but themselves, and believe you me, they deserve all the blame they get.

Here’s a thought – maybe it isn’t just those in DC who deserve to be liberated from their political positions, but the vast majority of “journalists,” too. I am sure there are a whole bunch of real journalists out there looking for jobs. Wouldn’t that be a refreshing change? Journalists who did the groundwork, did their HOMEwork, and didn’t insert their opinion into their stories? Oh, yes – now THAT is some “change” for which we can “hope.”

Until then, just spare me the current MSM/pundit outrage at what should have been. Clinton was the best choice, bar none, and you backed the wrong horse in that race for the most superficial of reasons. Admit that, acknowledge that, and for heaven’s sake, DO YOUR JOBS already. And stop pissing me off.

How about you?

Before I go on with the duties of the position, I have to ask: media sites filed FOIAs for Palin’s email back in 2008? Yes, indeed they did. From the very beginning, they set out to dig up anything they could possibly find on the very popular Governor of Alaska. Apparently, because Palin is just a girl, think that the First Dude was the one doing all of the work. Sexist pigs, the lot of them.

Oh, if only they had bothered to do the same with the man sitting in the White House (unless he is out on the golf course), making a wreck of the country but no – it is much more fun to try and destroy someone for no other reason than sheer derangement syndrome, which overcame these sites very quickly, I must say. (Isn’t there some kind of vaccination for that kind of lunacy? Just wondering.)

Okay, back to the NY Times job description:

[snip] We’re asking readers to help us identify interesting and newsworthy e-mails, people and events that we may want to highlight. Interested users can fill out a simple form to describe the nature of the e-mail, and provide a name and e-mail address so we’ll know who should get the credit. Join us here on Friday afternoon and into the weekend to participate.

What you will see when you click on the link is that the title REALLY is, “Help Us INVESTIGATE the Sarah Palin Email Records.”

Not to be outdone is the Washington Post:

[snip] Over 24,000 e-mail messages to and from former Alaska governorSarah Palin during her tenure as Alaska’s governor will be released Friday. That’s a lot of e-mail for us to review so we’re looking for some help from Fix readers to analyze, contextualize, and research those e-mails right alongside Post reporters over the days following the release.

We are limiting this to just 100 spots for people who will work collaboratively in small teams to surface the most important information from the e-mails. Participants can join from anywhere with a computer and an Internet connection.

If you need inspiration before getting started, take a look at what to expect from the e-mail drop. For micro-updates as tomorrow unfolds, check out our new Twitter feed. [snip] (Click here to read the rest.)

Here we are, with a shitty economy, people losing jobs, REAL scandals in people like Weiner (a little more on that in a minute), high gas prices, high food prices, illicit war being waged in Libya, Obama inviting the likes of Ali Bongo from Gabon to the WHITE HOUSE (hint: Bongo’s family’s theft of money from the nation of Gabon makes Mubarrak look like Mother Teresa), and two of the biggest papers in the country are still going after PALIN?? They are seriously screwed up.

You might like to take a look at the comments at both papers. A number of people are calling them out on their sexism toward Palin, and their inability to do their own damn jobs. Rightly so, too. What a bunch of jackwagons.

And in a major Screw You to at least two of the Big Ten (that would be Commandments), the people in Weiner’s district don’t give a damn that he is an adulterer, liar, predator, sick, twisted, misogynist. Yep, 56% of those polled think he should stay in his position. Wow. That is amazing. And incredibly disturbing. It isn’t like he is even all that great at his job. He is considered more of a show horse than work horse, so WHY would the people in his district support a man who has demonstrated such horrible judgment, such misogyny, such twisted sexual proclivities, and who is a downright liar? I’d love to know.

Blech. Okay, that’s enough crapola for one day. Time for a metaphorical shower:

TGIF…

But that is not the point of this post, believe it or not. No, rather it is this: at the very same site, there is this article, “PROFESSOR: Sarah Palin Probably Staged A Gigantic Hoax About Being Trig’s Mother.”

I am not kidding, and it is not a tongue-in-cheek article, either. Oh, Andrew Sullivan must be SO happy that some professor at Northern Kentucky University is taking his assertion to heart. (And I am sure the parents who send their kids to school there are so happy to learn that one of the professors seems to be spending time “proving” that Sarah is not Trig’s real mother.) From what I can tell, the conclusion reached by Scharlotte was mere conjecture, but hey, that’s better than nothing, right? Ahem.

It does make me wonder one thing: just what is it this professor teaches exactly? I mean, with all this time on his hands to delve into such ground-breaking research, and all, it’s gotta be something important, no doubt. (That is snark, by the way.) Actually, he teaches journalism. Yes, journalism. Now you have a glimpse into why our media is in such bad shape, presuming this is representative of the professors in this field (he is also very upset that some “Palin Flack” is trying to squelch discussion on this critical issue facing us today. Again, not kidding.) Uh, yeah. THIS is what he is so concerned about the media not covering now, during this tumultuous time. Wow.

Oh, you’re probably wondering who IS Trig’s real mother according to Scharlotte (and Sullivan). Well, it’s Bristol, of course. C’mon, that’s as clear as the nose on your face, people!

What is really hilarious to me, though, are the comments at this article. The exact same people who demean, belittle, and attack those who would like to see Obama’s birth certificate act like this is a matter of National Security. You know, because Palin ran as the Vice Presidential candidate, so who her baby mama is matters a LOT. Hey, say what you will about Birthers, at least the desire to see an actual birth certificate is to fulfill a Constitutional requirement. And it is a requirement other presidential candidates have fulfilled, I might add.

But this has zero to do with the Constitution. This has to do with Palin Hatred veiled as outrage at a lackluster media, one that hasn’t done its job in reporting this “earth shattering” story:

[snip] He (Professor Scharlotte) concludes two things:

* First, that the “conspiracy theory” is likely true–Sarah Palin staged a huge hoax, and, second,

* The American media is pathetic for not pursuing the story more aggressively
[snip] (Click here to read the rest.)

Oh, yes – where has the media been? You know, the one that aggressively pursued Obama’s connections to Tony Rezko, or Bill Ayers, or Jeremiah Wright, or James Meeks, or his college/grad school records, or why there were ZERO paper recrods from the entire time Obama was in the IL Senate, or how he got everyone thrown off the ballot the first time he ran, or how he got the sealed divorce records of the two front-runner US Senate candidates unsealed right before the election, or any NUMBER of red flags about Barack Obama.

Oh, wait – they didn’t. But this man thinks what they SHOULD have been doing was going after Palin even more. Because the boatload of reporters who descended on Wasilla to turn over every rock they could, or the 11 reporters the AP assigned to check her book, is not the least bit aggressive in its efforts. Kinda makes you wonder how many they have assigned to “fact check” Obama’s books, huh? Yeah. I’m not holding my breath for that to happen, either.

It is just comical the complete and utter hypocrisy contained within this one site on such a related issue. And the utter lack of recognition of the hypocrisy, too, is a bit comical.

Yes, by all means, let us spend lots of time and media resources on whether or not Trig is Sarah Palin’s son, because that is of the utmost importance. Never mind Obama’s real back-story – he’s only the President after all. Hey, we have to have our priorities with our media, right? Right. Budget crisis? What “budget crisis”? I need to know who is really the mother of that kid, don’t you?

If you’ll excuse me, I have to go read “People” magazine now to get the REAL news…

Of course, anyone who has followed Clinton’s career knows this is an issue that is near and dear to her heart. Clinton has long worked for the empowerment of women and girls. She has highlighted the economic benefits of women and girls receiving a good education, and the impact of women-owned businesses on local economies.

In short, this is an issue about which Hillary Clinton cares passionately and deeply. She has for many, many years. That she showed up at the TED Women Conference should really be no surprise to anyone (though it does make me wonder why she wasn’t invited in the first place). Below are Clinton’s remarks:

If you would like to read some of Secretary Clinton’s remarks, click here.

Doesn’t it just warm your heart to hear Hillary Clinton speak on this issue? I know it does mine. Heaven knows, I’d far prefer listening to her on a regular basis than Obama (and honestly, I cannot stand listening to him). But on this issue, one that affects over HALF of the world’s population, her dedication to improving the lives of women and girls, thus the men and boys with whom they live, is heartening.

There was one presenter there, though, that was a bit of a surprise for me. Eve Ensler was an invited speaker to the TED Women Conference. Now, I know she wrote the “Vagina Monologues” and all, but she also supported Barack Obama over the far more qualified and experienced woman in the field. And did she ever engage in some major machinations to justify why it was a “feminist” choice to do so. Yeah. Right. The unqualified, inexperienced man with no record upon which to stand over the woman who had spent her entire adult life fighting and working for women and girls, and who actually had a vast amount of experience from her working life, and in the Senate before running. By all means, choose the man whose colleagues at the law school said was lazy, unqualified, and tardy over the woman named as one of the top 100 attorneys in the country – TWICE. Or whose speech on women’s rights being human rights was rated as one of the top 100 speeches of the 20th century (and I could go on). Sure, Eve – it was a total “feminist” choice to support Barack over Hillary – NOT.

In any event, Hillary Clinton did what she always does – rise above, and keep her eye on the prize. Her work on behalf of women is what matters to her, and she will continue to fight that fight on our behalf. Thank the goddess for her, and her work. She is the one I want in my corner, and I imagine that is the case for women and girls around the world.

And speaking of work, here is a Spoiler Alert in case you DVR “The Amazing Race” and haven’t watched it yet…Since this is about the empowerment of women, I am happy to report that, for the first time in 17 seasons of the race, two women, Nat and Kat, who are medical doctors, won!! And Nat did it with Diabetes, too. Yippee!!!! And, the second team were also women, Brook and Claire, home shopping network hosts. Wow! It’s about time. What a race!

Oopsie daisy – sounds like another faction unhappy with Dear Leader. The African American community has been one of the most stalwart groups in supporting Obama in the polls, so this could be a troubling change for Obama. Those days may be coming to an end, at least for some in the community, and with good reason:

[snip]Since Obama has taken office African Americans have faced a number of disproportionate “highs,” few of them good, such as an exceptionally high unemployment rate, a high foreclosure rate, and a high number of African-American political figures deprived of the president’s support or dismissed from his administration (such as former White House social secretary Desiree Rogers, former Department of Agriculture official Shirley Sherrod, South Carolina Democratic U.S. Senate candidate Alvin Greene, former green energy czar Van Jones, Democratic Illinois Sen. Roland Burris, Democratic New York Gov. David Patterson, would-be Democratic New York Senate candidate Harold Ford Jr., and Democratic Reps. Charlie Rangel of New York, Maxine Waters of California and Kendrick Meek of Florida).

Dr. Cornel West, professor of African American Studies at Princeton University, is one African-American leader who has been far from pleased with Obama’s neglect of African-American issues. West told The Daily Caller that he has been extremely frustrated with the president’s relative disinterest in civil rights
issues.

“He can take the black base for granted because he assumes we have nowhere else to go,” West said. “But we just won’t put up with it. He has got to respect us.”

West is not the only black leader who feels this way. Behind the scenes, West says, many African-American leaders are not happy with Obama’s failure to address issues important to the black community, especially considering the support the community gave the president during the 2008 election. But, according to West, many of those dissatisfied leaders are hesitant to step forward.

“There hasn’t been a lot of talk about it because I think most black spokespeople, at the moment, are scared of the Obama machine,” West said. “A lot of us are trying to put the pressure on him without aiding and abetting the right wing.” [snip]

I just have to say, as someone living in SC, surely no one really expects Obama or ANY Democrat, for that matter, to support Alvin Greene. For heavens sake, the man was just indicted on two counts of showing pornography a couple of weeks ago. He was kicked out of a SC restaurant on Tuesday. Originally, it was a campaign stop – until those pesky little indictments came down. The organizers canceled the meeting, but Greene came anyway. He, and a companion, were, um, ushered out of the establishment. Heck, even I don’t blame Obama, or ANYONE, for steering clear of this guy. Just saying.

As for my former professor, Cornell West, it is a bit surprising that he, and others, like Dr. Leon, are speaking out already. Now, West was a Hillary supporter, just to be clear, prior to Obama’s being given the nomination by the rule-breaking DNC. But that does not mean he wouldn’t have some real expectations about what Obama might do for the African American community in this country.

Shelby Steele from the Hoover Institute, has some thoughts on the matter, as well:

[snip] Steele pointed out that Obama does not owe the black community as much as they believe he does due to the fact that whites were the ones who elected him — specifically by throwing their support to him during the Iowa caucus. Initially, the African-American community was significantly supporting Hillary Clinton’s candidacy.

“Once blacks began to see that whites were with Obama they didn’t want to be left standing at the station so they jumped on board,” he said. “They were not his base anyway. So he is not confused about that. That said, blacks will continue to vote for him. They vote for every Democratic candidate at a rate of 90% so Obama can absolutely take them for granted and will.” [snip] (Click HERE to read the rest.)

This raises a couple of points for me. One, not only are whites the ones who elected Obama, they are also the ones who REARED Obama. It is remarkable to me how completely and fully both Obama’s mother and grandmother have been wiped from history. They are the ones responsible for rearing him. That is to say, he was not raised in a traditional African American community. To pretend otherwise has been one of the most glaring manipulations of the entire election.

Two, yes, many in the African American community were breaking for Hillary Clinton. My first rally in Charleston was easily, easily 1/2 African American, if not more. But, when Obama and his campaign played the race card against Hillary Clinton in SC, employing that turncoat, backstabber, Jim Clyburn, that many in the African-American community turned away from her. She, along with her husband, were characterized as racists by Obama, and for some reason I still cannot fathom, the community, the COUNTRY, bought that, despite their long, long history standing in stark defiance of that claim. But they believed Obama.

Instead of a hard-working Hillary Clinton in the White House, who would indeed have worked on behalf of the African American community, and ALL Americans, who would not be taking vacation after vacation after vacation while the Home sales worsen, more jobs are lost, and the DOW tanks, they got Obama. Even if he IS vacationing in the “historically black section of Martha’s Vineyard” at a gazillion dollars a week, I might add.

Still – it begs the question: just what did the African American community think Obama was going to do specifically for them? Oh, wait – I remember:

Wow. That is still hard to believe, that anyone thought that would happen if Obama became president. But someone clearly spread that word – she was not the only one who seemed to think that was the case.

Anyway, I think Leon sums the issue up perfectly:

[snip] “My take on that is, you have to treat him the same way you would treat any other president,” Leon explained. “Especially since he is not giving you any reason to treat him otherwise. And it is going to be very difficult, whether it is 2012 and he is not reelected or it is 2016 and we’re dealing with a new president — who most likely will not be African American — it is going to be very difficult to hold that new president to a different standard.” [snip] (Click HERE to read the rest.)

There’s a concept – treat Obama like every other president. That would be a change, wouldn’t it? Holding Obama to all the same standards as every other president or presidential candidate? What a novel idea. It’s too late for the latter now, but 2012 is not that far away (it just feels like it is).

I guess we will just see how this continues to play out, and if the dissatisfaction with Obama trickles throughout the African American community, not just the leaders and intellectuals. Time will tell…

As she begins her general election race for South Carolina’s top statehouse job, Republican Nikki Haley is part of a group of candidates this year who are simultaneously pursuing another goal: to be their state’s first female governor.

Women are running to break the political glass ceiling in eight states that have never had a female governor, including California, New Mexico and Minnesota. Currently, six women  three Democrats and three Republicans  serve as governors.

In South Carolina, Haley beat four-term Rep. J. Gresham Barrett in a runoff election for the GOP nomination Tuesday. Haley will face Democratic state lawmaker Vincent Sheheen in November in the race to succeed Republican Gov. Mark Sanford, who is term-limited.

“South Carolina just showed the rest of the country what we’re made of,” Haley said after her victory. “It’s a new day in our state, and I am very blessed to be a part of it.”

The prevalence of female candidates for statewide office has been a defining narrative of the 2010 election season, particularly for Republicans. There are 13 GOP and 10 Democratic women running for Senate, according to the Center for American Women and Politics (CAWP) at Rutgers.

“Part of it is timing and history,” said Meg Whitman, a Republican who is running to be California’s first female governor. “You’ve got a generation of women coming of age (who) are now engaging in the political process.”

Yes, like with so many things, it is all about timing, especially for so many women to be running at the same time:

Thirty-one women have served as governor in 23 states, according to CAWP. If at least three of them win in the November elections, a majority of states would either have a woman in the governor’s mansion or have had one in the past.

Debbie Walsh, the center’s director, cautioned against putting too much stock in such benchmarks, though. New female governors may be elected this year, but three are retiring or face term limits, including Jodi Rell, R-Conn.; Linda Lingle, R-Hawaii; and Jennifer Granholm, D-Mich.

The percentage of women holding statewide executive offices has declined from 28.5% in 2000 to 22.9% in 2009, according to the center’s statistics.

Conservative Women Have Success

“Having so few at any one time is part of the challenge,” Walsh said, noting that statewide elected positions can serve as launching pads for presidential campaigns. Case in point: Hillary Rodham Clinton ran for president in 2008 as a Democratic senator from New York.

What’s significant about 2010, Walsh said, is that “we are seeing more Republican women stepping up and taking the risk.” In the past, she said, female GOP candidates have been more moderate than their male counterparts. This year, a fresh brand of female conservatives is having more success in primaries.

Several of those candidates, including Haley, have been endorsed by former Alaska governor Sarah Palin.

“Most of these women are not just Republicans, they are conservative Republicans,” said Marjorie Dannenfelser, president of the Susan B. Anthony List, which supports female politicians who oppose abortion rights. “This is the moment to seize because the environment is right,” she said.

Plenty of Democratic women also are taking a stab at being their state’s first female governor, including Florida’s chief financial officer, Alex Sink, and state lawmaker Elizabeth “Libby” Mitchell, who is running in Maine.

Diane Denish, who was elected New Mexico’s first female lieutenant governor in 2002, is now seeking the state’s top job. She said the number of women running nationwide “sends a great message to women and girls that anything is possible.”

Because her Republican opponent, Susana Martinez, is also a woman, the state is guaranteed to make history. In a statement, Martinez said she appreciates the “historic significance of this election, as well as the elections taking place in other states.”

That’s pretty cool, actually – no matter who wins, it will be historic. Huh – where have I heard that before? I know, before people started acting like only an Obama win would be historic. Ahem. Yes, history will be made with wins by a number of these women, but that’s not all there is to it:

Many of the female candidates, including Whitman and Martinez, have downplayed the gender issue in their own campaigns  arguing that it doesn’t matter whether a man or woman is victorious, as long as whoever takes the job gets results.

“That, to me, doesn’t matter as much,” said Sarah Franks, a 34-year-old teacher who voted for Haley, but not because she’s a woman. “I mean I think it’s neat, but that doesn’t matter as much as just getting some new blood in the system.”

True that. New blood cannot hurt considering where we are now. Still, I admit I am happy that women are rising to this level, and so many qualified women at that. But of course, we cannot deny that sexism is alive and well in this country as we all well know from the debacle of 2008. And I think most of us can agree that women still have to work harder than men to get to the same levels, and even then, as we know from the Obama v. Clinton debacle, that far more qualified and experienced women still do not beat out the younger, less-qualified men. So, yes, I am glad to see that so many qualified women are running, and in some cases, will definitely be making history. That’s just cool.

As noted above, many of the women running are politically and socially conservative. But, that does not necessarily mean they are not feminists, as I have said for some time, and as Kathleen Parker points out in this piece, True (or false) Feminism:

Proving one’s feminist bona fides has become the latest challenge for women aspiring to public office.

Is she a “real” feminist who walks in lockstep with traditional feminist orthodoxy? Or is she a faux feminist, i.e., a woman who has benefited from traditional feminism, become all that she could be, but, alas, thinks independently on certain sacred tenets of the sisterhood?

The latest debate emerged recently when pundits on both sides of the widening chasm weighed in on the number of pro-life (and pro-life-ish) Republican women running for public office. The back-and-forth seems to have begun when feminist Jessica Valenti criticized Sarah Palin in The Washington Post for declaring herself a feminist.

The implication: A pro-life woman can’t really be a feminist.

Soon thereafter, Ramesh Ponnuru, National Review senior editor and author of “The Party of Death,” declared in The New York Times that 2010 is the year of the pro-life woman, listing all those on today’s ballot who happen to be pro-life.

Among them: Sharron Angle in Nevada, who will oppose Harry Reid for the U.S. Senate; South Carolina gubernatorial candidate Nikki Haley; former Hewlett-Packard CEO Carly Fiorina, who won the Republican nomination in California for the U.S. Senate seat currently held by Barbara Boxer; Susana Martinez, who became her party’s nominee for governor of New Mexico.

Seeing so many accomplished women reach the top of the political heap, not to mention their professions in some cases, should be cause for feminist celebration — except for that one thing. Thus, left-leaning feminists in the blogosphere have responded breathlessly, which I mention only to suggest passion rather than to imply debutante tendencies, though who can be sure?

Frankly, the absolute vitriol heaped on conservative women by so-called liberal women was startling (including the vitriol directed at Hillary Clinton, for that matter). As I have noted previously, when I was marching for Equal Rights For Women, I thought it meant ALL women, not just women who held the same liberal beliefs I did. I thought it was for all women to be self-actualized, not just ones like me. Parker continues:

This all would be tedious if it weren’t so entertaining. In fact, this is the crux of the crux in the arena of so-called women’s issues. Can one be a pro-life feminist, or is the question an oxymoron?

As a matter of orthodoxy, yes, but as a matter of reality, not really.

We’ve come a long way, baby, and there’s more than one type of woman roaming the vales and plains. But then, it was always so. There just weren’t many varieties of women in the public sphere, as Ponnuru points out.

Earlier feminists were almost universally pro-choice and have dominated political debate until now. Having access to abortion was viewed as the only way women could have full equality with men, who, until recently, couldn’t get pregnant.

OK, they still can’t, but we’ve now witnessed a bearded transgendering woman having babies — and fake wombs are inevitable — so anything’s possible, apparently. Good luck with all that.

Back to the point, we now see women who have managed to gain equality with men while also raising children, none more explicitly than Sarah Palin. At the risk of terminal heresy, I would suggest that behind almost every successful mother/politician/CEO is … a very good man.

Palin’s full house and career haven’t happened without the manly support of one Todd Palin. Real men don’t hold their wives back.

The reason Palin so upsets the pro-choice brigade is because she seems so content with her lot and her brood. One can find other reasons to think Palin shouldn’t be president, but being a pro-life woman shouldn’t be one of them.

Though this is ancient history for me and my generation, some of whom are now welcoming grandchildren into the world, some of the lessons we’ve learned bear repeating. Chief among them is that many women who have had babies find it harder, if not impossible, to see abortion as nothing more than a “choice” to eliminate an inconvenience.

I fall into this camp, though I’ve never been able to support reversing Roe v. Wade, which makes me unpopular with nearly everyone. Apart from legal arguments as to whether the Supreme Court ruling was constitutionally appropriate, I’m libertarian-leaning enough to insist that government should have no role in determining what anyone does with his or her body — as long as no one else is hurt.

Save your “ah-ha’s!” until the end, please. Obviously, the forming human life is destroyed, and thus I also can make a human-rights argument against abortion. I think we should.

That other women, such as Palin, want to reframe the abortion debate in new feminist terms, arguing that abortion hurts women and is, therefore, anti-woman, doesn’t bother me a bit. And it shouldn’t bother older-school feminists.

Equality, after all, means that every woman has a voice.

And that is the bottom line, is it not? For ALL women to have a voice. And this year, it may very well mean having more women’s voices in positions of power. That, to me, is exciting. How about you?

Fortunately, though, some people (besides us) are seeing Obama for who he is as this article highlights (h/t to LisaB), “Obama, The Thin Skinned President“. I have been saying it for ages – Obama is an incredibly petulant, immature, arrogant, narcissistic person who seems to want the perks of the job, and none of the responsibility. Hell, if Bush had said something like this, it would be ALL OVER the headlines. I would have been writing about that, too. But Obama? You know the drill: “Leave Barry ALLOOOONNNEEEE!”

Spare me.

Except these guys didn’t, thank heavens:

In their book “The Battle for America 2008,” Haynes Johnson and Dan Balz wrote this:

[Chief political aide David] Axelrod also warned that Obama’s confessions of youthful drug use, described in his memoir, Dreams From My Father, would be used against him. “This is more than an unpleasant inconvenience,” he wrote. “It goes to your willingness and ability to put up with something you have never experienced on a sustained basis: criticism. At the risk of triggering the very reaction that concerns me, I don’t know if you are Muhammad Ali or Floyd Patterson when it comes to taking a punch. You care far too much what is written and said about you. You don’t relish combat when it becomes personal and nasty. When the largely irrelevant Alan Keyes attacked you, you flinched,” he said of Obama’s 2004 U.S. Senate opponent.

I thought of this memo after reading the comment by Sen. Pat Roberts after he and other Senate Republicans had a contentious 80-minute meeting with the president on Tuesday. “He needs to take a Valium before he comes in and talks to Republicans,” Roberts said. “He’s pretty thin-skinned.”

Sen. Roberts is being too generous. Obama is among the most thin-skinned presidents we have had, and we see evidence of it in every possible venue imaginable, from one-on-one interviews to press conferences, from extemporaneous remarks to set speeches.

The president is constantly complaining about what others are saying about him. He is upset at Fox News, and conservative talk radio, and Republicans, and people carrying unflattering posters of him. He gets upset when his avalanche of faulty facts are challenged, like on health care. He gets upset when he is called on his hypocrisy, on everything from breaking his promise not to hire lobbyists in the White House to broadcasting health care meetings on C-SPAN to not curtailing earmarks to failing in his promises of transparency and bipartisanship.
In Obama’s eyes, he is always the aggrieved, always the violated, always the victim of some injustice. He is America’s virtuous and valorous hero, a man of unusually pure motives and uncommon wisdom, under assault by the forces of darkness.
It is all so darn unfair.

Not surprisingly, Obama’s thin skin leads to self pity. As Daniel Halper of The Weekly Standard pointed out, in a fundraising event for Sen. Barbara Boxer, Obama said,

Let’s face it: this has been the toughest year and a half since any year and a half since the 1930s. (Emphasis mine)

Really, now? Worse than the period surrounding December 7, 1941 and September 11, 2001? Worse than what Gerald Ford faced after the resignation of Richard Nixon and Watergate, which constituted the worse constitutional scandal in our history and tore the country apart? Worse than what Ronald Reagan faced after Jimmy Carter (when interest rates were 22 percent, inflation was more than 13 percent, and Reagan faced something entirely new under the sun, “stagflation”)? Worse than 1968, when Bobby Kennedy and Martin Luther King, Jr. were assassinated and there was rioting in our streets? Worse than what LBJ faced during Vietnam — a war which eventually claimed more than 58,000 lives? Worse than what John Kennedy faced in the Bay of Pigs and in the Cuban Missile Crisis, when we and the Soviet Union edged up to the brink of nuclear war? Worse than what Franklin Roosevelt faced on the eve of the Normandy invasion? Worse than what Bush faced in Iraq in 2006, when that nation was on the edge of civil war, or when the financial system collapsed in the last months of his presidency? Worse than what Truman faced in defeating imperial Japan, in reconstructing post-war Europe, and in responding to North Korea’s invasion of South Korea?

That isn’t “thin-skinned” – that is DELUSIONAL. He honestly thinks he has had more to deal with in the past 80 years than Roosevelt during a little thing he may have heard of, World War II??? Or how about Vietnam? The WORLD TRADE TOWERS??? Seriously? Wow. Yep, I’d say he’s delusional. Back to the article:

In his autobiography “Present at the Creation,” Dean Acheson wrote about the immensity of the task the Truman administration faced after war ended in 1945, which “only slowly revealed itself. As it did so, it began to appear as just a bit less formidable than that described in the first chapter of Genesis. That was to create a world out of chaos; ours, to create half a world, a free half, out of the same material without blowing the whole to pieces in the process.”

For Obama to complain that the problems he faces are so much worse than any other president in the last 80 years is stunningly self-indulgent, to say nothing of ahistorical.

With Obama there is also the compulsive need to admonish others, to point fingers, to say that the problems he faces are not of his doing. Oh, sure; on occasions there are the grudging concessions, like in Thursday’s press conference devoted to the oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico, where Obama says, “In case you’re wondering who’s responsible, I take responsibility” to ensure that “everything is done to shut this down.” But those words are always pro forma, done reluctantly and for tactical political reasons, a rhetorical trick that is meant to get him off the hook. As recently as last week, Obama, in the Rose Garden, was implicitly blaming the previous occupant of the White House for the explosion of the offshore rig Deepwater Horizon [Obama remarks linked here].

The president’s instincts are by now obvious to all: deflect blame, point fingers, and lash out at others, most especially his predecessor. We know from press reports (see here and here) that the strategy for the Democrats in 2010, two years after Obama was elected president, is to – you guessed it – blame George W. Bush.
What explains all this is hard to know. But it’s clear he has adopted an image of himself as something rare and remarkable, a historic figure of almost super-human abilities. “I am absolutely certain that generations from now,” Obama said during the summer of his presidential run, “we will be able to look back and tell our children that this was the moment when we began to provide care for the sick and good jobs to the jobless; this was the moment when the rise of the oceans began to slow and our planet began to heal; this was the moment when we ended a war and secured our nation and restored our image as the last, best hope on earth.”
“We are the ones we have been waiting for,” Obama and his aides said constantly during the campaign.

Hmmm. Yes, this simply adds credence to my contention that he is delusional. He really does seem to think he is some kind of Messiah figure. The whole “rise of the oceans began to slow” (because it was loaded down with oil, apparently) thing is just scary shit. There is no other way to describe it. And yet his “Resistance Is Futile” Obots didn’t bat an EYE at this Messianic statement. What does that say about them?? Oh, I think we all know that, too. And they walk among us. That’s pretty damn scary, too. They think he’s dreamy, after all, because they haven’t bother to really look, or to believe their own eyes and ears when faced with a ton of information to the contrary. So here we are, stuck with this man:

President Obama’s more unattractive personal qualities probably won’t wear well with the electorate. Americans tend to tire of those who are look back rather than ahead and are always blaming others for the problems they face.

Barack Obama — a man who was as unprepared to be president as any man in our lifetime — has over the last 16 months shown that he is overmatched by events. His poll numbers continue to drop, his health care proposal is becoming less rather than more popular, the oil spill in the Gulf is badly eroding his image for leadership and competence, and his party has been battered in election after election since November. We have now reached the point where Democrats are running against Obama and his agenda in order to survive (witness Mark Critz in Pennsylvania).

We can hope that Obama, an intelligent man, learns from the errors of his ways. But the great danger in all of this is that in the face of his troubles Obama and his aides become increasingly defensive, display a greater sense of entitlement and even a touch of paranoia. When arrogant men lose control of events it can easily lead to feelings of isolation, to striking out at critics, to bullying opponents, and to straying across lines that should not be crossed.

And so the president needs to surround himself with people who can tamp down on the uglier impulses within his administration, who are willing to tell Obama that the lore created by him, Axelrod, Plouffe, and Gibbs during the campaign has given way to reality, that cockiness is not the same as wisdom, and that spin is no substitute for substantive achievements. And Obama needs someone who has standing in his life to tell him that the presidency is a revered institution that should not be treated as if it were a ward in Chicago.

The ingredients are in place for some serious problems down the road. Those who care for the president need to recognize the warning signs now, sooner rather later, before it becomes too late, for him and for the nation.

“Intelligent”? Why oh why do we keep hearing THAT meme? How has he proven this “intelligence” thus far, I’d like to know? Tell me. Oh, sure, he got the DNC to support him, or the DNC PICKED him, more like it, knowing what an empty suit he is, and could be molded to do their bidding. But that isn’t necessarily “intelligence.” He couldn’t come up with his own policies, for crying out loud, so resorted to stealing from the REAL intelligent person in the race, then got the MSM to give him the credit. Again, not “intelligent.” There are other words for that. Corrupt, unethical, morally bankrupt (oh, sorry – that’s two words), conniving, duplicitous, and I could go on. Feel free to add your own. But none of those in and of themselves are markers of intelligence.

Bottom line though, is this: What in the hell is WRONG with this man? HOW in the hell did he get the most powerful job in the world?? WHO would want him to have this much power? And how are we going to recover from him being president? These are the questions with which we must wrestle, and so, so many more. Wow. “Thin-skinned” is the very least of what Obama is…

This would be especially true if we were living in the 19th century, which is where Chris Cillizza seems to be spending his time if this article is any indication, The Sarcasm Of Sarah Palin. Oh, yes – let’s talk about Palin’s sarcasm directed at Obama.

You may recall that before, much ado was made about Hillary Clinton mocking – MOCKING – The One. How DARE she?? Harrumph. Never mind her vast experience and qualifications over this wet-behind-the-ears first term senator for whom being in the Senate was only his SECOND full time job (organizing a community that had already organized itself before he started there, and finished its task after he left). Women, proper women, do not conduct themselves like that, certainly not in public, and most DEFINITELY not at the expense of a man.

And then there is Sarah Palin:

Former Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin delivered a well-received speech on Friday at the Southern Republican Leadership Conference, an address defined — as almost all of her public pronouncements have been in the 18 months since she emerged on the national political scene — by a stinging sense of sarcasm.

In her speech, Palin took her now-familiar stance as a wry critic of the Obama Administration.

“Yes we can spread the wealth around,” she said.

Palin questioned President Obama’s stance on nuclear weapons, mocking “all the vast nuclear experience he acquired as a community organizer and as a part time Senator.”

“How’s that hopey, changey thing working for you now,” she asked.

Line after line was received with thunderous applause by the 3,500 (or so) party activists and leaders assembled in New Orleans for what was widely billed as the first cattle call of the 2012 presidential race.

What Palin’s speech — and the reception it enjoyed in the room — was that in a certain segment of the Republican base she is absolutely revered. Her sarcasm played deftly to the outrage/anger that many people at SRLC clearly felt and the reviews in the room were over-the-top supportive of Palin.

But, the sarcasm-laden speech also seemed to typify the fact that Palin is more comfortable playing to those who already love her rather than to reaching out to those who take a more skeptical stance.

Sarcasm rarely plays well in politics — particularly among the independent voters who typically decide elections. It’s why naturally sarcastic pols — President Obama among them — largely avoid any wise-cracking in public.

Um, Chris, were you living in a hole in 2008?? Did you miss Obama’s sarcasm toward John McCain during the Election? Evidently. Even if Chris WAS living in a hole, a simple Google check could have disproved his thesis from the get-go, but hey, when he can use Palin as a punching bag, why bother? He continues:

Palin seems to be pursuing a different path — growing more rather than less sarcastic the longer she spends on the national stage. (Remember that Palin’s first ever major speech – at the 2008 Republican National Convention — showed glimpses of a sarcastic Palin but by and large was a study in earnestness.)

Palin’s sarcasm strategy will almost certainly affirm to some within the party’s base that she is their most able combatant against Obama. But, for others — Republicans and independents alike — it’s likely to sow some doubts about whether she is up to the task of governing if she is elected to the nation’s top office.

(Worth noting: While Palin received some of the loudest applause from the SRLC crowd, it was former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney, who didn’t even attend the event, who walked away with a win in the straw poll.)

For Palin to move beyond her comfort zone of Republican base politics and into ground as a serious candidate for president in 2012, she will almost certainly have to significantly scale down the sarcasm in her speeches.

Of course, if Palin has decided (or does decide) not to run for president then her current rhetorical style virtually ensures further commercial success for her books, speech and the rest of the growing Palin Inc. empire.

And, as always, predicting Palin’s next move in politics is an impossible task. Stay tuned.

How dare she. How DARE Palin use criticism with Obama! Women are not supposed to do this.

Obama sure can, though. Magically, when he does it, it is just A-Okay. Remember his response to Palin over her criticism? He said:

“I really have no response to that. The last I checked, Sarah Palin is not much of an expert on nuclear issues,” Obama said in an interview with ABC News.

Neither are you, Obama. But hey, that hasn’t stopped YOU from spouting off on any number of issues about which you know zip, zero, nothing.

Yes, Obama can be as snarky and sarcastic as he wants, being a man and all. Like when he said this about Hillary Clinton:

Then, laughing along with the union audience, Obama noted that Clinton seemed much more interested in guns since he made his comments than she had in the past.

”She is running around talking about how this is an insult to sportsmen, how she values the Second Amendment. She’s talking like she’s Annie Oakley,” Obama said, invoking the famed female sharpshooter.

He continued: ”Hillary Clinton is out there like she’s on the duck blind every Sunday. She’s packing a six-shooter. Come on, she knows better.”

Wow. Talk about winning hearts and minds during the Primary. Oh, that’s right – all of those young folks with no sense of decorum thought this kind of ad hominem attack was just peachy keen-o.

Winning over the other side seems to be another concern Cillizza has. I guess he means making sarcastic comments like this about the other party:

You know, I am so sick and tired of this double standard. It is fine and dandy for Obama to make deprecating, belittling, sarcastic comments to Hillary throughout the Primaries (I am sure you can name some others), fine for him to do the same to McCain, and Palin, during the Election, fine for him to do it to Palin, and the Republicans, heck – ANYONE who doesn’t think he walks on water – and that he’s “funny,” “witty,” and “quick on his feet.” Please.

Maybe Chris can’t stand that a woman like Palin can be a leader while being engaging, beautiful, AND funny. I readily admit, she is not as smart as Hillary is. Few people are, including The One. But you’ll notice, Hillary doesn’t get a whole lot of “face time” since becoming Secretary of State anymore, thus she is not as much of a threat to Obama. Palin, and the people she represents, are more of a threat. And if she uses sarcasm to get her point across, she is doing nothing that The One isn’t doing regularly.

We get to be sarcastic, too, Chris. Join the 21st century already and stop pushing this ridiculous double standard.

So, with all the hot water many Democrats are in now, aided by the new book, Game Change, no doubt the fundraising calls will get more and more insistent. They have to overcome not just what was in the book, but stories like this from the Washington Post, “Sen. Reid and son, Cory, Each Considered A Burden For The Other’s Campaign In Nevada.” Or how about this one, “Obama’s Approval Rating Dips To A New Low“? Then there’s this one, “Scott Brown Swearing-in Would Be Stalled To Pass Healthcare Reform“. And that is merely the beginning of the problems for the Democratic National Party.

By the way, one thing about this book, and that is the attacks (what else is new) on the Clintons, both of them. Tuesday morning, I just happened to turn on the news and there was Laura Ingraham, of all people, on. She was asked about what this book said regarding the Clintons, and – I cannot believe I am about to reference her – she said something along the lines of (this is not a precise quote, and I haven’t been able to get a link yet, but will supply it if it comes available), “Bill Clinton said he didn’t think Obama had the experience to be president, and Hillary did, especially after Arkansas, the White House, etc. Why is that a surprise?” Uh, yeah. No kidding. She added that she bet Hillary’s approval numbers were higher than Obama’s, which we do know is accurate. And of course, the Big Dawg was right on target, too, wasn’t he?? She continued to say that nothing in the book about the Clintons was that big of a surprise, which makes me wonder why there are articles like this one around, “The End OF The Clinton Machine.” Are these writers just HOPING so, and if that is the case, why? As Hillary always said, “what didn’t they like, the peace, or the prosperity?” Uh yeah.

Therein lies the end of the digression.

So, those headlines above, especially the last one (wanting to change the rules again)? That pretty much says it all about Obama taking his Chicago Politics to a national level. Oh, yippee.

Consequently, the combination of this being an election year, the rapid decline of approval for Obama AND the Congress, suggests to me we will be getting lots of fundraising calls, especially those of us who have given money in the past.

Just yesterday, I received a phone call from Emily’s List that went something like this:

Okay, maybe not QUITE that extreme, but I have had some very insistent thugs on the other end of DNC and DNC-affiliated organizations arguing with me about why I should give them any more money. This woman argued with me, too. Um, MY money, and I can give it to whomever I wish. If you start DEMANDING it, guess how much you’re gonna get from me? Nada, zip, zilch, nothing, big donut hole, zero dollars.

After two years of essentially the same response from me, “I don’t give money to liars, cheats, thieves, misogynists, and homophobe,” I feel I need new material. So I am turning to you for some pithy responses to the demands for money from the DNC.

Let’s hear it! What pithy retorts can I give these people?

So the other night, Obama had his big Afghanistan speech. Finally, after months of waiting for a decision regarding the request by General McChrystal, Obama laid out his plan, pretty much what had been telegraphed to us before the speech (yet, he still had to get in his photo op and applause, lest he whither away).

Naturally, there has been lots of response to that speech, as well as the location in which Obama chose to have it. Here is one of my favorite All-Stars, Charles Krauthammer on the Speech:

Uh, yeah. Krauthammer followed up this panel with a commentary, “Uncertain Trumpet,” which lays it all out.

And how about our friends across the pond? What did they think of Obama’s big speech? Well, the headline alone gives it away, “Barack Obama Is No Churchill.” Nope, not even a little bit:

One of the first decisions President Obama made upon taking office was to remove a bust of Sir Winston Churchill from the Oval Office and send it packing to the British Embassy. The gift, a present from the British people in the aftermath of the 9/11 terrorist attacks on the United States, was pride of place in the White House under George W. Bush, but was seen as surplus to requirements by his successor. Hardly a good omen for an increasingly unpopular president, whose nation is actively engaged in a global war against a brutal enemy that seeks the destruction of the free world.

Speaking at West Point last night, Barack Obama badly needed to display some Churchillian grit, but there was none on offer. As Commander in Chief President Obama has to project leadership, strength and determination before his country and his foes, as well as offer reassurance to Washington’s international allies. All were in short supply in front of the assembled cadets .The speech was less a rallying cry for victory over barbarism, than a dull professorial-style lecture that sought to justify his confused approach to the US mission in a cold and clinical fashion that simply failed to convince or inspire.

Ah, yes – the bust of Churchill that Obama could not WAIT to get out of the Oval Office. Talk about telegraphing tone – yikes.

Back to the speech itself:

Parts of the highly defensive speech were heavily partisan in nature, involving attacks on the Iraq War, as well as the previous administration’s approach to Afghanistan. He also could not resist a boast that “I’ve prohibited torture”, and that he has pledged to close down the detention facility at Guantanamo Bay. For a 40 minute speech there was barely any applause from the largely muted audience, except towards the end when he spoke of American values and its distinguished history.

The president went to great lengths to avoid referring to the enemy as terrorists, and refused to use the word Islamists, preferring to refer to the war as a “struggle against violent extremism.” At times it was a weak-kneed address better suited to a group of adoring left-wing students in Paris, Strasbourg or Berlin than the US military academy. Even the Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton, was stone-faced throughout.

After nearly three months of painful dithering over whether to launch an Iraq-style surge against the Taliban, the president disappointingly offered less than half the number of troops that his own commander on the ground had requested. General Stanley McChrystal had sought up to 80,000 soldiers to guarantee success, but was given just 30,000.

“Dithering” would be the operative word. Or, you could use “hemming and hawing,” if that suits better. The point is, a decisive president Obama is not. But there is something else he is:

There was also deflating talk from the president of a clear timetable for withdrawal of forces by July 2011, a hugely risky move that hands the initiative to the Taliban and its al-Qaeda allies. In justifying his withdrawal strategy he declared America could not afford to ignore the cost of the war, which at $30 billion this year is massively dwarfed by Obama’s $800 billion pork-laden stimulus package.

Significantly, there was no mention at all of the British contribution, and the Anglo-American Special Relationship was not even on Obama’s teleprompter, let along his radar screen. Great Britain will shortly have over 10,000 troops on the battlefields of southern Afghanistan, and has lost more than 230 brave servicemen and women alongside their American counterparts. The sacrifices made by America’s closest friend deserve to be acknowledged by the US president but were met last night with callous indifference.

And there it is. Do you get the impression that the UK is not so enamored (enamoured – to be inclusive) of Obama? No doubt, it started with the removal of Churchill’s bust from the Oval Office. Then came the numerous slights to Prime Minister Brown who got not so much as a State sandwich on his first visit (in stark contrast to the big huge State Dinner for the Indian Prime Minister). And then the failure to acknowledge the sacrifice of our allies in theater with us.

It all comes down to leadership:

America and the free world need stronger leadership than this. Instead of turning to Ronald Reagan and Winston Churchill as role models Barack Obama has so far chosen a middle way of compromise and uncertainty. That must change if the West is to triumph in Afghanistan. The addition of tens of thousands more troops is a step in the right direction, but is simply not enough to secure victory and is dramatically undercut by the bizarre announcement of an exit in 18 months.

The war in Afghanistan is ultimately a battle between good and evil, and is essential to the defence of the United States, Great Britain, Europe and all who believe in the cause of liberty and freedom. It is a war that is vital to keeping our cities safe from attack by Al Qaeda. It must be led by a president who firmly believes that it can be won, and who is willing to commit the resources necessary to bring the enemy to its knees. Today was a huge opportunity for Barack Obama to outline a clear, coherent strategy for victory, and he spectacularly failed to grasp it.

I would have to concur with the final assessment – Obama is not a world leader. He may be a world PLACATER, or a World Courtier, but a Leader? No, most definitely is not, not by a long shot. Spiegel’s take is summed up in this paragraph:

Never before has a speech by President Barack Obama felt as false as his Tuesday address announcing America’s new strategy for Afghanistan. It seemed like a campaign speech combined with Bush rhetoric — and left both dreamers and realists feeling distraught.

One could say that.

Since I mentioned the West Point cadets, and in case you didn’t know this already:

Just minutes before the president took the stage inside Eisenhower Hall, the gathered cadets were asked to respond “enthusiastically” to the speech. But it didn’t help: The soldiers’ reception was cool.

One didn’t have to be a cadet on Tuesday to feel a bit of nausea upon hearing Obama’s speech. It was the least truthful address that he has ever held. He spoke of responsibility, but almost every sentence smelled of party tactics. He demanded sacrifice, but he was unable to say what it was for exactly.

An additional 30,000 US soldiers are to march into Afghanistan — and then they will march right back out again. America is going to war — and from there it will continue ahead to peace. It was the speech of a Nobel War Prize laureate.

Many of us are not the only ones to acknowledge the timing of the withdrawal:

For each troop movement, Obama had a number to match. US strength in Afghanistan will be tripled relative to the Bush years, a fact that is sure to impress hawks in America. But just 18 months later, just in time for Obama’s re-election campaign, the horror of war is to end and the draw down will begin. The doves of peace will be let free.

Yes, so coincidental, Obama’s time-frame and his re-election bid. Hahahahahaha. (Click HERE to read the rest.)

At least now others in the world are beginning to awaken to the reality that many of us knew: Obama is a Poseur, completely incapable of governing, much less acting as the Commander in Chief. His continued use of our military, including the West Point Cadets, as a “photo op” to prop him up is disturbing.

Worst of all, though, he has managed to give aid to our enemies by telegraphing to them exactly how long they will have to go underground. He has aided them in his bid to play both sides. He’s not just a failed leader, but his announced withdrawal time line is detrimental to the effort, thus to our military, possibly our country. And for that, he is a disgrace.

But here’s the problem for me. I had really liked President Carter. I had a lot of respect for him, in fact. I was young and naive when he was in office, but certainly the work he had done AFTER leaving the White House was commendable. For instance, the work he and his entire family did for Habitat for Humanity has helped numerous people, including in my home town. I have experienced firsthand seeing the joy and pride the new homeowner as she looked at her house, and talked about what it meant to her. And the group of university students with whom I was working, all female, becoming more empowered, more sure of themselves, because they were helping to build someone a HOUSE, and the sense of pride and accomplishment that gave them.

The work Carter has done in Africa, helping to eradicate a horrible disease of worms that infiltrate too many areas there, doing horrible damage to the people they infest. Or his work in monitoring elections. Heck, even his recent decision to leave his church of many years because they will not ordain women.

My partner and I have visited the Carter Presidential Library in Atlanta, GA, a beautiful place in a calming and serene environment. I walked through that buildung filled with a sense of awe, seeing what he gave up, and subsequently his wife, when he left his commission as a Naval officer behind to go back to Georgia and help out the family. As I saw photographs marking historic moments, actual papers from events I had read about, or seen on tv. I was in awe as I saw his actual Nobel Peace Prize. And with pride, we have supported the Carter Peace Center for years now with monthly contributions…

(Photo by rachydachy)

But, things have been changed now. It began with some of his statements about Israel. Then President Carter inserted himself into the Primary Campaign, making some unkind remarks about my hero, “>Hillary Clinton. And now this. Being called a racist because I oppose the way by which Obama became President, but even more, because I oppose his policies. When someone calls me a racist, I gotta say (as we do down here in the South, “Them’s fightin’ words.” And so, I have written this letter to send to the Carter Center when my next payment is due:

Dear Carter Center,

Sincerely,
The Rev. Amy

What a sad day, for me personally, but also for this nation, when a former president makes such a grievous, and unfounded, charge against over half of the population. Because we have the audacity to judge the president by his CHARACTER, rather than the color of his skin, as Martin Luther King, Jr., charged us to do, we are called a heinous name. How sad, and how infuriating.

President Carter, as respectfully as I can muster after being called a racist, I would suggest it is time for you to go into retirement, and leave off sharing your political opinions. You are not doing yourself or your legacy any good, to be sure. Even more, you are not doing this nation any good. Rather, you are fanning flames that divide us, not unite us, all to provide cover for a man who, had he been properly vetted in the first place, and had the DNC followed its own rules, would never have gotten this far. Speaking for me only, I am judging Obama on the merits, not the color of his skin. I suggest you do likewise.

Buying Brand Obama

Barack Obama is a brand. And the Obama brand is designed to make us feel good about our government while corporate overlords loot the Treasury, our elected officials continue to have their palms greased by armies of corporate lobbyists, our corporate media diverts us with gossip and trivia and our imperial wars expand in the Middle East. Brand Obama is about being happy consumers. We are entertained. We feel hopeful. We like our president. We believe he is like us. But like all branded products spun out from the manipulative world of corporate advertising, we are being duped into doing and supporting a lot of things that are not in our interest.

What, for all our faith and hope, has the Obama brand given us? His administration has spent, lent or guaranteed $12.8 trillion in taxpayer dollars to Wall Street and insolvent banks in a doomed effort to reinflate the bubble economy, a tactic that at best forestalls catastrophe and will leave us broke in a time of profound crisis. Brand Obama has allocated nearly $1 trillion in defense-related spending and the continuation of our doomed imperial projects in Iraq, where military planners now estimate that 70,000 troops will remain for the next 15 to 20 years. Brand Obama has expanded the war in Afghanistan, including the use of drones sent on cross-border bombing runs into Pakistan that have doubled the number of civilians killed over the past three months. Brand Obama has refused to ease restrictions so workers can organize and will not consider single-payer, not-for-profit health care for all Americans. And Brand Obama will not prosecute the Bush administration for war crimes, including the use of torture, and has refused to dismantle Bush’s secrecy laws or restore habeas corpus.

That is EXACTLY what MANY of us have been saying ad nauseum for MONTHS now – Obama is another Bush, further evidenced by his saying one thing and doing the exact OPPOSITE:

Brand Obama offers us an image that appears radically individualistic and new. It inoculates us from seeing that the old engines of corporate power and the vast military-industrial complex continue to plunder the country. Corporations, which control our politics, no longer produce products that are essentially different, but brands that are different. Brand Obama does not threaten the core of the corporate state any more than did Brand George W. Bush. The Bush brand collapsed. We became immune to its studied folksiness. We saw through its artifice. This is a common deflation in the world of advertising. So we have been given a new Obama brand with an exciting and faintly erotic appeal. Benetton and Calvin Klein were the precursors to the Obama brand, using ads to associate themselves with risqué art and progressive politics. It gave their products an edge. But the goal, as with all brands, was to make passive consumers mistake a brand with an experience.

“The abandonment of the radical economic foundations of the women’s and civil-rights movements by the conflation of causes that came to be called political correctness successfully trained a generation of activists in the politics of image, not action,” Naomi Klein wrote in “No Logo.”

Well, ain’t that the damn truth. Sad, but the truth, nonetheless. And it led to this:

Obama, who has become a global celebrity, was molded easily into a brand. He had almost no experience, other than two years in the Senate, lacked any moral core and could be painted as all things to all people. His brief Senate voting record was a miserable surrender to corporate interests. He was happy to promote nuclear power as “green” energy. He voted to continue the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. He reauthorized the Patriot Act. He would not back a bill designed to cap predatory credit card interest rates. He opposed a bill that would have reformed the notorious Mining Law of 1872. He refused to support the single-payer health care bill HR676, sponsored by Reps. Dennis Kucinich and John Conyers. He supported the death penalty. And he backed a class-action “reform” bill that was part of a large lobbying effort by financial firms. The law, known as the Class Action Fairness Act, would effectively shut down state courts as a venue to hear most class-action lawsuits and deny redress in many of the courts where these cases have a chance of defying powerful corporate challenges.

While Gaza was being bombarded and hit with airstrikes in the weeks before Obama took office, “the Obama team let it be known that it would not object to the planned resupply of ‘smart bombs’ and other hi-tech ordnance that was already flowing to Israel,” according to Seymour Hersh. Even his one vaunted anti-war speech as a state senator, perhaps his single real act of defiance, was swiftly reversed. He told the Chicago Tribune on July 27, 2004, that “there’s not that much difference between my position and George Bush’s position at this stage. The difference, in my mind, is who’s in a position to execute.” And unlike anti-war stalwarts like Kucinich, who gave hundreds of speeches against the war, Obama then dutifully stood silent until the Iraq war became unpopular.

Oh, yes – a man of SUCH conviction. Hahahaha. As long as it scores him some points, he’s ALL over it.

But get this – if there was any doubt whatsoever in any way, shape, or form, that Obama is the sole result of marketing, check this out:

Obama’s campaign won the vote of hundreds of marketers, agency heads and marketing-services vendors gathered at the Association of National Advertisers’ annual conference in October. The Obama campaign was named Advertising Age’s marketer of the year for 2008 and edged out runners-up Apple and Zappos.com. Take it from the professionals. Brand Obama is a marketer’s dream. President Obama does one thing and Brand Obama gets you to believe another. This is the essence of successful advertising. You buy or do what the advertiser wants because of how they can make you feel.

Yep, pretty much – so it doesn’t matter HOW empty the promises, or vague the rhetoric, doggone it, he just makes us feel all tingly inside (blech, yuck, ick).

Hedges has an explanation for how we got to this place:

Celebrity culture has leeched into every aspect of our culture, including politics, to bequeath to us what Benjamin DeMott called “junk politics.” Junk politics does not demand justice or the reparation of rights. Junk politics personalizes and moralizes issues rather than clarifying them. “It’s impatient with articulated conflict, enthusiastic about America’s optimism and moral character, and heavily dependent on feel-your-pain language and gesture,” DeMott noted. The result of junk politics is that nothing changes – “meaning zero interruption in the processes and practices that strengthen existing, interlocking systems of socioeconomic advantage.” It redefines traditional values, tilting “courage toward braggadocio, sympathy toward mawkishness, humility toward self-disrespect, identification with ordinary citizens toward distrust of brains.” Junk politics “miniaturizes large, complex problems at home while maximizing threats from abroad. It’s also given to abrupt unexplained reversals of its own public stances, often spectacularly bloating problems previously miniaturized.” And finally, it “seeks at every turn to obliterate voters’ consciousness of socioeconomic and other differences in their midst.”

An image-based culture, one dominated by junk politics, communicates through narratives, pictures and carefully orchestrated spectacle and manufactured pseudo-drama. Scandalous affairs, hurricanes, earthquakes, untimely deaths, lethal new viruses, train wrecks—these events play well on computer screens and television. International diplomacy, labor union negotiations and convoluted bailout packages do not yield exciting personal narratives or stimulating images. A governor who patronizes call girls becomes a huge news story. A politician who proposes serious regulatory reform, universal health care or advocates curbing wasteful spending is boring. Kings, queens and emperors once used their court conspiracies to divert their subjects. Today cinematic, political and journalistic celebrities distract us with their personal foibles and scandals. They create our public mythology. Acting, politics and sports have become, as they were during the reign of Nero, interchangeable.

Yet another reference to Nero – and appropriately so.

But here is yet another sad truth:

In an age of images and entertainment, in an age of instant emotional gratification, we do not seek reality. Reality is complicated. Reality is boring. We are incapable or unwilling to handle its confusion. We ask to be indulged and comforted by clichés, stereotypes and inspirational messages that tell us we can be whoever we seek to be, that we live in the greatest country on Earth, that we are endowed with superior moral and physical qualities, and that our future will always be glorious and prosperous, either because of our own attributes, or our national character, or because we are blessed by God. Reality is not accepted as an impediment to our desires. Reality does not make us feel good.

In his book “Public Opinion,” Walter Lippmann distinguished between “the world outside and the pictures in our heads.” He defined a “stereotype” as an oversimplified pattern that helps us find meaning in the world. Lippmann cited examples of the crude “stereotypes we carry about in our heads” of whole groups of people such as “Germans,” “South Europeans,” “Negroes,” “Harvard men,” “agitators” and others. These stereotypes, Lippmann noted, give a reassuring and false consistency to the chaos of existence. They offer easily grasped explanations of reality and are closer to propaganda because they simplify rather than complicate.

Pseudo-events—dramatic productions orchestrated by publicists, political machines, television, Hollywood or advertisers—however, are very different. They have, as Daniel Boorstin wrote in “The Image: A Guide to Pseudo-Events in America,” the capacity to appear real even though we know they are staged. They are capable, because they can evoke a powerful emotional response, of overwhelming reality and replacing reality with a fictional narrative that often becomes accepted truth. The unmasking of a stereotype damages and often destroys its credibility. But pseudo-events, whether they show the president in an auto plant or a soup kitchen or addressing troops in Iraq, are immune to this deflation. The exposure of the elaborate mechanisms behind the pseudo-event only adds to its fascination and its power. This is the basis of the convoluted television reporting on how effectively political campaigns and politicians have been stage-managed. Reporters, especially those on television, no longer ask if the message is true but if the pseudo-event worked or did not work as political theater. Pseudo-events are judged on how effectively we have been manipulated by illusion. Those events that appear real are relished and lauded. Those that fail to create a believable illusion are deemed failures. Truth is irrelevant. Those who succeed in politics, as in most of the culture, are those who create the brands and pseudo-events that offer the most convincing fantasies. And this is the art Obama has mastered.

Ah, yes – convincing people to ignore reality and just listen to the sound of his voice. Great – just what we want in our elected officials – to create a little fantasy world in which we can live and not have to deal with all that icky reality stuff:

A public that can no longer distinguish between truth and fiction is left to interpret reality through illusion. Random facts or obscure bits of data and trivia are used to bolster illusion and give it credibility or are discarded if they interfere with the message. The worse reality becomes—the more, for example, foreclosures and unemployment skyrocket—the more people seek refuge and comfort in illusions. When opinions cannot be distinguished from facts, when there is no universal standard to determine truth in law, in science, in scholarship, or in reporting the events of the day, when the most valued skill is the ability to entertain, the world becomes a place where lies become true, where people can believe what they want to believe. This is the real danger of pseudo-events and why pseudo-events are far more pernicious than stereotypes. They do not explain reality, as stereotypes attempt to, but replace reality. Pseudo-events redefine reality by the parameters set by their creators. These creators, who make massive profits peddling these illusions, have a vested interest in maintaining the power structures they control.

The old production-oriented culture demanded what the historian Warren Susman termed character. The new consumption-oriented culture demands what he called personality. The shift in values is a shift from a fixed morality to the artifice of presentation. The old cultural values of thrift and moderation honored hard work, integrity and courage. The consumption-oriented culture honors charm, fascination and likability. “The social role demanded of all in the new culture of personality was that of a performer,” Susman wrote. “Every American was to become a performing self.”

Hard work?? Thrift? Moderation? Oh, my – that is SOOO Twentieth Century! It’s a brand new day, folks, and along with that is a new brand, OBAMA, and his “listen to what I say, and ignore everything I do”:

The junk politics practiced by Obama is a consumer fraud. It is about performance. It is about lies. It is about keeping us in a perpetual state of childishness. But the longer we live in illusion, the worse reality will be when it finally shatters our fantasies. Those who do not understand what is happening around them and who are overwhelmed by a brutal reality they did not expect or foresee search desperately for saviors. They beg demagogues to come to their rescue. This is the ultimate danger of the Obama Brand. It effectively masks the wanton internal destruction and theft being carried out by our corporate state. These corporations, once they have stolen trillions in taxpayer wealth, will leave tens of millions of Americans bereft, bewildered and yearning for even more potent and deadly illusions, ones that could swiftly snuff out what is left of our diminished open society.

Chris Hedges’ new book, “Empire of Illusion: The End of Literacy and the Triumph of Spectacle,” will be out in July and can be preordered on Amazon (and please remember that No Quarter benefits if you click the Amazon button at the No Quarter site) or at your local bookstore

I couldn’t have said it better myself. Both Obama the Brand and the man are dangerous with his marketing to mask his real actions. Too many people did not wake up before granting Bush a second term (though even THAT is debatable given the state of our elections, particularly electronic voting machines – shameless plug for “Hacking Democracy” Live Chat and voter fraud in general). We can only hope, and work (in the good ol’ Twentieth Century way), to help more people move back into the reality-based community. To move from the illusion of Obama the Brand to the reality of Obama the Politician. The sooner, the better. And “sooner” can’t come fast enough for me. How about you?

Anchor Q: That which we know that Barack Obama went to the NATO meeting to get, did he get that? What did he get if not that?

Patrick Buchanan: Well, he said he got the NATO allies behind the strategy. Fine, this is an American-designed strategy. But he got very, very, very thin gruel out of the allies.

We were down to talking about 3,000 troops. He doesn’t even know if these are combat troops or replacement troops for the allies who are already there.

When you consider that 3,000 meager contribution, even if it is net, compare that to the 30,000 to 40,000 more American troops going in, the President was defensive. He said this is not a pledging conference. I think the president has got to be dissatisfied with the fact that he did not get more out of this summit. His first summit where he’s extraordinarily popular, and where if he’s going to get anything, he’s going to get it now. [Personally transcribed from MSNBC News Live, 11 a.m. ET, April 4, 2009.]

NOTE: There’s MORE BUCHANAN BELOW.

Once again, Obama is down-ranking the United States’ world standing as he behaved deferentially, slavishly grateful for that thin gruel: “Obama Praises NATO for Afghanistan Support.” This man has too little experience at this kind of meeting — you’ll recall that, as chair of the Senate Foreign Relations’ subcommittee on Europe and NATO, he failed to hold a single hearing or to visit any member of NATO, let alone NATO headquarters. After all, his seat in the Senate was merely a resume builder (as Nocturnal Warrior so smartly noted on his Tuesday night show — LISTEN). He did not WORK at his jobs; he used them as launching pads.

President Obama needed advisers by his side who had a clue: SecState Hillary Clinton, SecDef Robert Gates, NSA James Jones, envoy Richard Holbrooke. One of them! If you are merely a prop, you need people around you to help you stand up.

See also: “Obama Wants NATO Troop Support,” A.P./AOL, April 4, 2009:

[B]oth Merkel and Sarkozy stressed the need for Afghanistan’s government and security forces to shoulder an increasing share of the burden. They gave no sign they were prepared to send more troops. Both countries believe civilian aid and training for police are what is needed to stabilize Afghanistan. …

Of note: I would be remiss if I did not acknowledge that, later in the hour, Buchanan said that Obama’s symbolism was meaningful. Another analyst said that the “my way or the highway” approach [clearly referring to Bush] was gone, which is true.

But, I also want a president who is sensibly tough. The word “sensibly” is an important qualifier because, if we look to Obama’s action last week in firing GM’s Rick Wagoner, that was a nonsensical but highly symbolic gesture. I quote Larry Johnson in his must-read “Obama’s Economy of Torture“:

The firing of Rick Wagoner was not made for any rational economic reason. This is pure politics, designed in part to portray Barack as a tough guy who is taking charge on the eve of his international debut at the G20 summit. Not a single person on the Obama economic team has ever run a business or met a payroll. Barack and his team of bozos could not find a Secretary of Treasury who felt it important to pay taxes and wanted to appoint Tom Daschle to run Health and Human Services even though he was a lobbyist taking freebies on the side. And these are the people who want us to believe that they know how to run a car company?

BELOW: You can view the VIDEO of Obama’s press conference today, and more news articles:

More detritus, via the A.P., from the NATO meeting:

British officials traveling to the summit with Prime Minister Gordon Brown told reporters aboard his plane that Brown will offer to send more troops to Afghanistan but that depended upon other NATO members being prepared to send additional forces, Britain’s Press Association reported.

Spain said ahead of the summit that it would add a small contingent to help train Afghan army officers. Belgium said it will add some 65 soldiers to a force of 500 and send two more F-16 jet fighters, bringing the total number it has sent to six. [WOW! BE STILL MY HEART!]

A senior U.S. official traveling with Obama said Saturday that the administration expects that pledges and commitments from other NATO nations would come in over the next several weeks.

[...]

Looking to the future, the leaders are expected to issue a declaration Saturday that formally launches the creation of a new “strategic concept” or road map to define NATO’s roles, missions and way of functioning.
It would be the first such revision of the alliance’s purpose and function since 1999.

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

UPDATE #1: Pat Buchanan goes on, later in the hour on MSNBC:

They’re going to come home [from NATO meetings], and his guys are going to say to him — Gates and these other guys — “Mr. President, we didn’t get a thing on Afghanistan in terms of troops.” They got as many people in Western Europe under NATO as we’ve got here in the United States. We carry the hod in Iraq.

We carry the hod in Afghanistan. We’re putting in 40,000 guys. They’re giving us nothing. At that point Barack Obama is going to have to say, “Look, are we maybe going to have to go to the whip here as the #1 power here and tell these guys, ‘Look we had a nice summit here and now starting ponying up’.”

So I think they’re giving him a [inaudible], they’re lathering over there, but he’s got to wait until he gets home to find out what he’s gotten.

As for that IMF money, Peter, I don’t think you’re going to get it out of the United States Congress. …

Update 2: The prescient former ambassador Joseph Wilson wrote numerous op-eds WARNING voters about Obama’s failure to do his job as a senator and his utter lack of experience. If only voters had THOUGHT instead of FEELING. From “Obama’s illusions on foreign policy” written April 8, 2008:

[...]

In fact, Obama’s understanding of foreign policy is extraordinarily limited. He has had one job in the Senate Foreign Relations Committee: chairman of the Europe and NATO subcommittee. He has not held a single policy hearing in that capacity because, as he said in a debate, he has been too busy running for president. He has not even taken a fact-finding trip or provided any other oversight.

As to Obama’s self-promoted “judgment,” which judgment would that be? Would it be to follow the path of Bush 41: tough diplomacy backed by the threat of military action, as in the first gulf war? Would it be to ignore the rationale put forward by Colin Powell in the debate on the second gulf war? Would it be to vote exactly the same way Sen. Clinton did on war-related issues since he became a U.S. senator, which he has? Or is it simply to criticize from the sidelines with the benefit of never having had to face tough decisions with real consequences?

The next president will be presented with two difficult wars, U.S. moral authority at low ebb, and unprecedented complexity of our relations with the rest of the world. Obama has no record whatsoever, only his utter absence from his committee responsibility. His claim to be the one true heir to George H.W. Bush is a misguided illusion and no substitute for offering more about what foreign policies he would actually follow.

It seems that the autocue technique is not enough for President Obama. His handlers now think he needs in addition to a teleprompter, a hidden computer screen on the podium during his press conferences, giving him hints on how to answer questions. From American Spectator writing about his first national press conference:

“It looked scripted beyond the scripted part, the speech,” says one former communications adviser, who has been feeding notes and suggestions to the White House team and worked with them on the inauguration. “Every president has gone into one of these things knowing that there were some pre-arranged questions or journalists to be called on, but this one was pretty ham-handed.”

To that end, he says, the White House is looking to install a small video or computer screen into the podium used by the president for press conferences and events in the White House. “It would make it easier for the comms guys to pass along information without being obvious about it,” says the adviser.

The screen would indicate whom to call on, seat placement for journalists, pass along notes or points to hit, and so forth, says the adviser.

The key there is “pass along notes or points to hit.” Let me understand this correctly. Is the White House saying that we have a President who can not think on his feet or needs help in formulating a cogent thought on any of the topics he is expected to be knowledgeable? A person in his position should be able to offer substantive discourse on most topics, don’t you think? Or is it too much to expect from this President?

The article goes on to say:

Using a screen is nothing new for Obama; almost nothing he said in supposedly unscripted townhall events during the presidential campaign was unscripted, down to many of the questions and the answers to those questions. Teleprompter screens at the events scrolled not only his opening remarks, but also statistics and information he could use to answer questions.

Do you all remember this video on the campaign trail? Oh boy, did he need his teleprompter screen!

I wonder what will happen if his teleprompter breaks down on his SOTU speech. Bill Clinton could deliver his speech from memory when his teleprompter failed but I have my doubts about this guy, in spite of his much acclaimed (or should I say artificially inflated) oratorical skills. I hope they are ready with a recorded version and he could lip sync in case the teleprompter, the computer screen or anything else breaks down (absurd as it sounds).

Who can take this (deception) anymore? He is not an oratorical genius. He is not a natural even with the teleprompter, the way he moves his head from side to side and seldom looking at his audience. Now you know why he needed those big stadiums and big crowds during his campaign, so that these little quirks won’t be magnified.

If he is so smart and intellectual, why can’t he answer those damn questions without external help?