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?

These days my ears hurt a lot whenever I turn on TV news shows. Those who control how we will be forced to live appear to be digging us even deeper into an 8-year-old hole. And the one now trying to lead the new pack is a man with no experience in doing what he is doing. Even after a few days in office, it shows.

Kathleen Parker , writing for the Washington Post, says it so well.

The first however-many days of Barack Obama’s presidency have been a study in amateurism.

Many suspected that Obama wasn’t quite ready, but kept their fingers crossed. Optimistic disappointment is the new holding pattern.

What’s missing from Obama’s performance isn’t the intelligence that voters acknowledged in electing him. It’s the experience they tried to pretend didn’t really matter. Experienced politicians, after all, got us into this mess.

Absent is maturity — that grown-up quality of leadership that is palpable when the real deal enters a room. There’s a reason why elders are respected. They have something the rest of us don’t have — yet — because we haven’t lived long enough. We haven’t made the really tough decisions, the ones that are often unpopular.

Parker goes on to discuss what we at No Quarter have also been saying for a long time. We have a President who wants—needs, really—to be liked. That right there should have been a reason enough to refrain from running for this particular office in the first place. His inexperience alone is likely to reveal itself in a myriad of actions (or, as likely, inactions) that will result in confusing, confounded, ill-conceived, and wishy-washy decisions. You know the old saw: “He who seeks to please everyone ends up pleasing no one.”

I cannot help but wonder how in the world this young man with such a limited resume came to Obama’s attention, and out of ALL of the ministers in this country with far more experience and qualifications, this guy is the one Obama picked? But there he is.

I wrote a little about DuBois and Obama’s Faith-Based Initiatives recently (”Gimme That Old Time Religion“), and Obama’s expansion of Bush’s range. And now, it is official. Obama kicked it off at the National Prayer Breakfast the other day. Wanna guess what particularly odious piece Obama did not remove from Bush’s plan? The hiring issue. You know the one. It’s whether or not a group getting federal money could demand the people they hired believed the same as the organization doing the hiring. And for now, the answer is YES. You may recall that on the campaign trail, Obama said this:

On the campaign trail last year, Obama vowed to reverse the Bush hiring policy. “As someone who used to teach constitutional law, I believe deeply in the separation of church and state,” Obama said last July in a speech that pledged to expand Bush’s office of faith-based initiatives. “If you get a federal grant, you can’t use that grant money to proselytize to the people you help, and you can’t discriminate against them—or against the people you hire—on the basis of their religion.”

Except when you can, apparently. Naturally, all of the secular groups are crying foul, like Kathryn Kolbert of People For the American Way:

“President Obama needs to make good on his campaign promise that tax dollars aren’t used to unconstitutionally discriminate on the basis of religion,” said Kathryn Kolbert, president of People for the American Way.

She added: “It’s disappointing that today President Obama has missed an opportunity to put it into practice immediately.

Oh, sure – I just know Obama will get right on that, Ms. Kolbert. Hahaha – good one.

Funny, it wasn’t all that long ago that a spokeswoman for PFAW said:

“We’re glad to have a good seat at the table and that [the Obama transition team] is listening to all sides,” says Tanya Clay House, director of public policy for People for the American Way, which has expressed concerns about the propriety of federal faith-based initiatives. “The old administration listened to just one side of the argument.”

And look how well that “good seat” worked out for you, Tanya, not to mention the TAXPAYERS in this country. But I am just so sure Obama will come through for you, the other progressives at that wonderful table, and us. Right? Sure. Well, maybe, according to Mr. DuBois:

The newly named director of the Faith-based and Neighborhood Partnerships Office, Joshua DuBois, said that it was impossible to give a timeline for resolving the hiring issue and that resolution might come on a case-by-case basis, rather than in a sweeping policy directive.

“This is an area of unclear policy and practice, but we can now begin seeking the advice of government and outside actors and see what groups are doing on the ground,” said DuBois, who had previously served as religious outreach director of Obama’s presidential campaign. “The previous administration made decisions without understanding the state of law and practice.”

And the Obama Administration is different on that count HOW, exactly?? *Crickets* That’s what I thought.

And then there was the following article by Martha Burk at Huffington Post. Oh, don’t worry, I have the whole thing here so you don’t have to click over. Why? Because I care. Anyway, Ms. Burk is kinda mad about all of this whole because she claims that, “Obama’s Faith-Based Office An Insult To Women.” Oh, “Sweetie” – are you “feeling blue” because Obama is shoving women to the side again? May I ask, just what in his entire campaign history made you think he was going to NOT throw women overboard? Did you not get just a little inkling when he played Jay Z’s “99 Problems But a Bitch Ain’t One?” (And frankly, this has been so well documented by now, it does not need a link.) Or did you think when he signed the Lilly Ledbetter Act into law, it meant he cared about anything more than a photo op? You know that he (and Biden) weren’t even one of the 54 co-sponsors of that bill, right? And you SURELY must have heard that he didn’t even pay women the same on his staff as the men for the same job, didn’t you? Yeah – he only gave them 78 cents compared to the dollar for the men. I mean, I know you write for Huffington Post and all, but c’mon – you NEVER caught how incredibly sexist he was to Clinton, Palin, and women in general?? Really??

Apparently not:

President Obama attended the annual National Prayer Breakfast yesterday and used the opportunity to tout the reconstitution and expansion of George W. Bush’s Office on Faith Based Initiatives. In his remarks the president said he didn’t want to favor one religion over another, or “even religious groups over secular groups.” But in fact, that’s just what he’s doing.

National women’s organizations have been lobbying Obama, who has said he is a feminist, to reopen the White House Office on Women’s Issues. So far the answer is a big fat no – women’s concerns will be under the already swamped Office of Public Liaison. That’s a tiny shop that’s chronically understaffed and overstretched. Even with the best intentions, there’s almost no chance they can interface with women’s advocates in a meaningful way, much less shape policy to overcome the many setbacks we inherited from the Bush years.

Hold the phone – you BELIEVED him when he said he was a FEMINIST? All evidence to the contrary, it would seem. Burk continues:

In a direct insult to women, George W. Bush closed the Clinton-era White House Office on Women’s Issues in his first week, then ensconced the first-ever church/state liaison office in the same space. For our new president to “keep the faith” with religious groups while short-changing women is equally insulting. There is no doubt that women are responsible for his election. Females went for Obama by 56 percent to McCain’s 43 percent, while men split their votes about evenly. The Jesus crowd, on the other hand, voted 60% against the president.

You know what was an insult, Ms. Burk? A man who said absolutely NOTHING in the face of sexist, misogynistic attacks like this:

Now THAT’S insulting, regardless of whether it was Clinton or Palin. It speaks to a mindset, and a pattern. Never mind Obama flipping Clinton the bird, or brushing her off his shoulder, again in Jay Z style (and again, if you haven’t seen examples of either one of these instances, you need to see an optometrist). Or promoting – PROMOTING – a young man who had a photograph of himself
groping a cutout of Secretary of State (to be, at that time) Clinton ON THE INTERNET, to be the top speechwriter position in the White House. So if you think Obama is a feminist, I would suggest you are unclear on the definition of “feminist.” Here’s one for you:

Feminism is the belief that women have equal political, social, sexual, intellectual and economic rights as men do.

Nope – can’t see how you ever thought Obama was one. EVER.

Burk continues in her complaint about Obama shunning women for religion:

The newly constituted “office for faith-based programs and community partnerships” will be headed by Joshua DuBois, a 26-year-old Pentecostal preacher and Obama confidant, who will preside over a task force of 25 or so religious and community leaders. This group will give DuBois advice, which will presumably be passed on to the president.

To accord this advisory panel so much power, while relegating women to the margins, speaks volumes. Religious groups gained a lot from the Bush years – access to the White House, and millions of dollars in federal money, some of which was used to proselytize. And don’t forget, almost all faiths consider women second class citizens; many actively campaign against affirmative action, the Women’s Equality Amendment, the international human rights treaty for women known as CEDAW, and civil rights for gays and lesbians. Keeping this act going – even if it is broadened to include “community members” – is not the change women voted for.

You so were not paying attention to the entire primary and election campaigns, Ms. Burk. Obama has been pushing this religious agenda all along, including using people like Doug Kmiec, a Prop 8 proponent, to push that agenda. He has surrounded himself with sexist, homophobic pastors who he considers his close friends and confidants. And you thought that this wouldn’t have an impact on where women fell on the totem pole with him?? Okey dokey…

But Ms. Burk continues, like so many of the women who voted for Obama, to give him the benefit of the doubt, even though he has done NOTHING to deserve it:

It’s not too late for President Obama to change his mind and give the majority – women – a place at the table by re-opening the White House Office on Women’s Issues. If he really does support women as he claims, restoring the losses of the last eight years on reproductive rights, enforcement of Title IX, Medicaid funding, and employment protections should be given a higher priority than keeping the religious right happy for what promises to be a very short honeymoon.

Women’s groups are elated that the Texans are finally out of the White House. But if the new president wants their continuing loyalty, he ought to follow some good ol’ Texas advice: Dance with the one that brung ya.

Uh huh. MS. Burk, if I were you, I would not hold my breath for that. And you might want to consider removing those blinders or rose-colored glasses or blindfold that have kept you from seeing who Obama really is, especially when it comes to the treatment of women. It won’t change anything now – you already helped to get this sexist pig into the White House. But it will probably be better for your health to stop having unrealistic expectations of this man.

And it will be better for the country if the people who so blindly clung to his hope-y change-y message realized they were had by a marketing ploy, nothing more, and not re-elect this man. Now THAT is a change for which I dearly hope.

Oh, one last thing, Ms. Burk. Perhaps you might want to spend some time meditating on the following message, and consider that the next time you vote:

I’m just sayin’.

No Quarter Radio Presents: Sins of Omission with Paulie Abeles Monday nights, 9-10 p.m. ET On BlogTalkRadio January 26, 2009 guest: Rev. Marcia Dyson Active Supporter, Hillary Clinton

UPDATE: THE CHAT ROOM IS OPEN!

Until I did a lot of digging, I had NO idea how indebted all of us — you and me who supported Hillary Clinton — are to tonight’s special guest on Paulie Abeles’ radio show.

Let’s all call in at (347) 677-0792 and thank Rev. Marcia Dyson for her tremendous work during the primaries, and for all the time, money and travel she put in to help Hillary across the nation.

Then there’s our terrific new host, Paulie, who worked non-stop for Hillary in the primaries, despite having small children at home and a career. Both women have great stories to tell us. Marcia, for one, was on the ground in Texas during that insane two-step primary process, and she fought to get votes for Hillary in tough states like South Carolina, starting back in November 2007.

Sure, during the primaries, I saw Rev. Marcia Dyson on television many times during the epic battles of the Democratic state primaries, including on Larry King Live and other national news outlets. Most of the time, at least on television, she was alongside her equally famous husband, Michael Dyson, an avid Obama supporter.

But, until I did a lot of digging, I had no idea just how much on-the-ground WORK that Rev. Dyson put in to Hillary’s primary campaigns. Rev. Dyson was in so many states — key states, from Texas to South Carolina — urging voters to back Hillary. Here’s a marvelous article written by Dr. Dyson in March 2008:

A House Divided: Marcia Dyson – Hillary Clinton supporter & Michael Eric Dyson – Barack Obama supporter

I am tired of trying to explain this to my husband, so I’ll explain it to you instead. …

I have been an advocate for the civil rights of African Americans since back when we were called Negroes. Growing up during the 50s and 60s in Chicago, I was well aware of the fault lines of bigotry that blocked me from entering certain neighborhoods, classrooms or stores.

As an adult, I have championed [every black cause]. [...]

So given my personal track record, I astounded myself when I realized that the person that I would travel the country campaigning for — the person I trusted to work on behalf of African American children in need of Head Start programs, for people of color whose uninsured illnesses were left untreated, for single moms and working women who are treated as second class citizens with less pay for equal work than all my brothers of varied hue, and for minorities whose communities are targets of environmental racism — was NOT black! Not a Negro!

Yes, this phenomenal black woman is standing beside the phenomenal white woman – Hillary Clinton. For this moment in HERSTORY, I will let this capable, more than qualified, compassionate and intellectual white woman clean up a white man’s mess.

You’ll want to read the full story. Well, before we move on, I just have to include this great ending from “A House Divided”:

But when Michael presses me on my support of Hillary, I tell him what I’ll tell anybody – especially as we head into the March 4th primaries. This is, after all, Women’s History Month. After 150 years, it’s time to change the punctuation mark of Sojourner Truth’s famed line, “Ain’t I a Woman?” from a question mark to an exclamation point: “Ain’t I a Woman!!!”

Yes, Hillary, you are! The WOMAN for the job of president of these here United States. What Obama has us hoping for, Hillary is ready to deliver. And for the first time in American HISTORY “ladies first.”

Here are more great moments in Rev. Marcia Dyson’s activist work on behalf of her candidate, Hillary Clinton:

In Texas, on March 3, 2008, Rev. Dyson and Erika Alexander, at the Hillary Clinton Texas Town Hall in Austin, urged Hillary Clinton’s supporters to turn out for the full Texas “two-step”:

Then there’s her interview with Roland Martin on his radio show, proof that she was willing to go anywhere to let the word out about Hillary:

On CNN’s Larry King Live, with her husband, Marcia Dyson said:

M. DYSON: … I think that Carole is right on it, because even if you shake the glass of race and it settles into the class segment, you’re going to find a lot of African-American women of color in that class segment. And sexism has been really rampant, as well, in this election.

But what I want to say is that Hillary Clinton, very bravely, too, in the embodiment of a white woman, as an African-American woman, I never would have thought that I would be supporting, really, a white woman for president.

But I remember at the first debate at Howard University when she talked about if AIDS were in disproportion in the bodies of white woman as they are black women, it would be considered an epidemic and it probably would have been cured by now. I thought that she took a very poignant message that I’m concerned about the African-American community without speechwriting.


+++

M. DYSON: And for Hillary, I think that when she heard the speeches of Dr. King in the late ’60s, as she talked about in her books, that she, too, instilled that. Because, you know, you talk about crisis and opportunity, she went down into a great — in a very heated moment at “The State of the Black Union” that Tavis Smiley held in New Orleans — a community of people that there are thousands who had not voted for her. 

But she came back and held her feet to the fire to discuss some of the racial issues that unfortunately the media didn’t want to address. I mean we could talk about Ashley, the woman in Barack’s speech today — …

There’s also a great report — clear back in November 2007 — in the Caucus blog at the New York Times, “Clinton Backer Goes on ‘Faith Tour’“:

[...] We found the Rev. Dyson at Le Salon talking with Charles Davis, 58, the owner, who was preparing to clip a patron’s hair.

She was telling him that Mrs. Clinton would “let go of the ego, or the she-go, often demonstrated in politics” and that she would “put a swivel base on the Statue of Liberty” to turn attention toward all the tired and poor.

[...]

After the Rev. Dyson left, Ms. Bolden told us she liked Mrs. Clinton and said she had been strong during Tuesday’s contentious debate in Philadelphia (after which the Clinton campaign had said her male opponents had been piling on).

“I like the fact that she’s not intimidated when she’s speaking,” Ms. Bolden said. “I know how it is to be in a roomful of men. She’s always prepared. Whenever someone throws a cheap shot at her, she’s able to rebound and take it professionally.”

On her way out the door, the Rev. Dyson told us she thought that at the debate, Mrs. Clinton’s rivals had ganged up on her “but that was O.K.” because she is the front-runner. “That wasn’t very gentlemanly of them, but it proved she is a brave person and can take her own and can carry her own,” she said.

She then hopped in a van bound for Columbia and perhaps a bigger audience.

Amazing.

This line from Reverend Dyson:

[Hillary] would “put a swivel base on the Statue of Liberty” to turn attention toward all the tired and poor.

Yes, she would.

I mean, yes she will.

I wish she were doing it as president.

But she will now do it for peoples of the world, in the most dangerous and dark places, and fight for the help needed desperately by women and children, just as she did when she was a young college student and continuing through her eight years as First Lady.

Right now, I’m thinking of the questions I want to ask Reverend Dyson.

Call (347) 677-0792 and talk to Reverend Dyson and Paulie Abeles, tonight from 9 to 10:00 p.m. ET.

Special thanks to Catlibber for sending me this cartoon! This ‘toon brings to mind a link that Larry sent me earlier today, about Obama’s performance to date — if he’s kept his campaign promises, or not, and which ones he has yet to do anything about:

It’s from the St. Petersburg Times, and it’s called “The Obameter: Tracking Obama’s Campaign Promises.”

Here’s the outline and graph:

Then click here to see the specific promises that the newspaper is tracking in its “Truth-O-Meter.”

I don’t see stem cell research, which is one that I’m personally tracking. Since Obama aggressively used stem cell research against McCain, it’s one promise that I want to use to “hold his feet to the fire” to make sure he follows through and doesn’t, as some suspect, leave it to Congress, which will take far too long.

Last night, PatRacimora acknowledged that Obama did keep his promise on lifting the worldwide gag rule.

That’s just as important: We need to give President Obama credit when he’s got it coming, and the action that PatRacimora describes is VERY important to women around the world.

Ms. Dowd begins in her usual snide fashion:

Ask not, you know, what your country can, like, do for you. Ask what you, um, can, you know, do for your country.

After a lifetime of shying away from the public spotlight, Caroline Kennedy asked herself what she could do for her country.

Her soft-spoken answer — to follow her father and two uncles and serve in the Senate — got her ripped to shreds in the, you know, press.

I know about “you knows.” I use that verbal crutch myself, a bad habit that develops from shyness and reticence about public speaking.

Wow. That’s so nice of you, Mo, to first make fun of Caroline Kennedy’s crutch of saying ‘you know’ 120 times in one interview – only then to excuse it. This ignores the fact that Ms. Kennedy’s “you knows” may cover the fact that she doesn’t have very much that is pertinent to say otherwise. Mo then continues fawning:

I always thought that Caroline and her brother, John, had special magic capital in America because of their heartbreaking roles in the Kennedy House of Atreus.

… I found it bizarre that when Caroline offered to use her magic capital — and friendship with Barack Obama — to help take care of New York in this time of economic distress, she was blasted by a howl of “How dare she?”

How dare she indeed. Let me inquire of Ms. Dowd: how does Caroline’s “friendship” with Barack Obama or her magical Kennedy name enable her to magically help the beleaguered State of New York?

Is Ms. Dowd implying that if a Senator is not a ‘friend’ of Barack Obama, his or her state’s needs will be ignored? Surely, Hillary Clinton has done an amazing job for her constituents and earned their respect, despite the fact that the Bushes and Clintons are like oil and water. For one thing, Senator Clinton fought for and got better care for first responders after 9/11 when President Bush ignored their needs. She did it without the ‘magical friendship’ Ms. Dowd insists is so important. Furthermore, many in NY Congress as well as local representatives refused to abandon Hillary for Obama during the primary, though they were under great pressure to do so. They stuck with her for one reason: they each made clear, when they needed Hillary, she always showed up for their districts. Yet, Ms. Mo still treats Senator Clinton like a carpetbagger. How is it that Caroline is magically equipped, simply by virtue of the Kennedy name to rescue New York? Dowd then states:

Although Americans still have enough British in their genes to be drawn to dynasties, W. has no doubt soured the country on scions. And the camps of the other two New York dynasties — the Clintons (still bitter about Caroline’s endorsement of Obama) and the Cuomos (who’d like that Senate seat for Andrew) — have certainly done their best to undermine Caroline.

Who has undermined her? Ms. Kennedy has done a fine job of doing that for herself. And why shouldn’t NY Attorney General Andrew Cuomo want the seat – he is also far more accomplished? What about Congresswoman Carol Maloney – probably Hillary’s pick? Why should the far more qualified woman once again be overlooked? Why do we seem hell bent for leather to promote “American Idol” in this country? What has happened to the American dream of working for and earning what you want in life? And why do we assume the Clintons are bitter about Caroline’s Obama endorsement? And what does that have to do with the fact that Congresswoman Maloney is more deserving and more qualified for this appointment in her sleep than Caroline Kennedy?

Sounds like Ms. Dowd is the one who is bitter. The Clintons are husband and wife. No dynasty there that I can see, but Mo still pulls out the same old, tired narrative of ‘no dynasties’ that Obama used so effectively when trumpeting his excuse for CHANGE. Um, except when the dynasty is “Kennedy” – then the sky’s the limit. Heaven forefend we have someone who has some idea what the hell they are doing. But since we just elected a President who hasn’t a clue, perhaps Ms. Dowd feels we should keep the trend going. Ms. Dowd refers to Caroline Kennedy as offering the Senate “an infusion of class, intelligence and guts.” Guts? Um, you know, yeah, err, aah, you know aaaaaaand….yeah.

“People complain that the 51-year-old Harvard and Columbia Law School grad and author is not a glib, professional pol who knows how to artfully market herself, and is someone who hasn’t spent her life glad-handing, backstabbing and logrolling. I say, thank God.”

Oh, Mo! You’re kidding me, right? And your beloved “Obambi” hasn’t spent his career glad-handing, backstabbing and logrolling??! Certainly, P.E. Obama hasn’t any idea how to “artfully market” himself, does he?

The press whines that she doesn’t have a pat answer about why she wants the job. I’ve interviewed a score of men running for president; not one had a good answer for why he wanted it.

Gee, does that include P.E. Obama – the one you touted this entire election season while excoriating the far more qualified, eloquent (sans teleprompter) and caring Hillary Clinton at every opportunity? I believe when Obama was asked the first thing he would do as President, he said he would “put his feet up behind the desk.” Awe inspiring.

Ms. Dowd then tells us Caroline’s relatively inarticulate and inexperienced manner is no worry, since she “knows Caroline Kennedy.”…

“She’s smart, cultivated, serious and unpretentious. The Senate, shamefully sparse on profiles in courage during Dick Cheney’s reign of terror, would be lucky to get her.

Anyhow, it isn’t how you say it. It’s what you say. Hillary Clinton is a great talker, but she never stood up in the Senate to lead a crusade against any Republican horror show, from Terri Schiavo to the Bush administration’s dishonest push to war.”

I see, but Barack Obama stood up to …???? Who exactly? What crusade did the inspiring speaker, Mr. Hopey-Changey lead? Who did Joe Biden stand up to? Or Kerry? Or any of them? Furthermore, P.E. Obama supposedly made an anti-war speech in 2002 and then when elected to the Senate in 2005, spent the rest of his time voting in lock step with his party and rubberstamping everything that President Bush wanted. Senator Clinton, gave her vote for the IWR in 2002 very reluctantly, as her speech on the Senate floor shows. The very next day she, along with Senator Robert Byrd, set about restricting George Bush further in terms of what powers this IWR would grant him.

Again, Hillary is being judged by a ridiculous double standard. Dowd actually has the nerve to criticize her for not being the lone Senator to stand up against Bush and his cadre but the man Dowd affectionately named “Obambi,” who never stood up to anyone, or for anything, gets a pass. Does she even realize or care how contradictory this nonsense is?

And if we are going to talk about Terry Schiavo – didn’t Obama vote to keep her alive?

What the hell is Mo Dowd going on about here? She seems to conveniently forget that very man she spent the last year fawning over is just as vapid and chameleon-like as they come. Moral courage? How about political expediency? That is the only term our President-to-be understands.

I find Dowd’s closing words most hilarious:

Sitting in the Senate gallery on Tuesday as senators were sworn in by Dick Cheney, I saw plenty of lawmakers who had benefited from family.

It isn’t what your name is. It’s what you do with it.

So dynasties are OK as long as you are a Kennedy. But Hillary Clinton, who Dowd predictably finds time to trash once again, had far more accomplishments on her own that Caroline Kennedy ever had, only got to her Senate seat and a run for the nomination because of her husband? I see. Ms. Dowd sounds more like Chris Matthews every day. Jealous much? Hillary Clinton has done a great deal with her name but her detractors still are determined to pretend her accomplishments are non-existent, probably to make Caroline look better by comparison. Sorry. Not working.

What exactly has Caroline Kennedy done that entitles her to jump to the head of the line in front of Carol Maloney and Andrew Cuomo?

It is far more likely that Ms. Dowd chooses to champion Caroline because she is sweet and non-threatening – no brilliance detected. Hillary surely is a far more intimidating character. I have nothing against Caroline Kennedy personally. The question in re Caroline Kennedy isn’t what’s wrong with her – it’s what’s right with her for this particular job? Out of nowhere, she crooks her finger to get a Senate seat and it should be granted her?

The rather clueless Ruth Marcus of the Washington Post also chimed in…

“Caroline has always been part of my consciousness: the lucky little girl with a pony and an impossibly handsome father. What a fitting coda … to have the little princess grow up to be a senator.”

So in order to have a “storybook ending,” let’s put a totally unqualified Kennedy in the seat. Marcus enjoyed giving Mr. Obama a storybook ending as well. For those who don’t remember, Marcus is also one who saw fit to trash Hillary Clinton endlessly.

So a qualified woman is to be vilified and held to impossible standards – but one with no qualifications for the job is to be nursed along at every turn? What kind of a message are we sending with this behavior? When we send a woman up who is unqualified and she falters, she makes it twice as hard for the truly qualified female candidate to be sent up the next time.

The bottom line is this: When we lower the bar to suit an unqualified woman, or a minority of either sex, you are making it that much more difficult for a qualified person in the same category. Unqualified men seem to get by with little consequences, however.

Ms. Dowd may excuse Ms. Kennedy’s ‘verbal crutch,’ but that does not excuse her lack of deserving or qualifications otherwise. It also doesn’t excuse the fact that women like Ms. Dowd and Ms. Marcus seem incapable of celebrating a truly qualified and capable woman like Hillary Clinton over a truly unqualified, dissembling man.

Why didn’t they say this in their magazine BEFORE the election?

Yesterday I shared with you the audio of Tom Brokaw being interviewed by Charlie Rose where both men admit they don’t know who Obama really is or what he intends to do in office. Now, a post election admission from Jon Meacham and Evan Thomas of Newsweek; also interviewed by Charlie Rose. Audio is provided with commentary by Rush Limbaugh (transcript):

MEACHAM: You know, they don’t let him out. And have you ever seen a victory speech where there was no one else on stage?

ROSE: Mmm.

MEACHAM: No adoring wife, no cute kid. He is the messenger.

THOMAS: There is a slightly creepy cult of personality about all this. I mean, he’s such an admirable –

ROSE: Slightly. Creepy. Cult of personality.

THOMAS: Yes.

ROSE: What’s slightly creepy about it?

THOMAS: It — it — it just makes me a little uneasy that he’s so singular. He’s clearly managing his own spectacle. He’s a deeply manipulative guy.

RUSH: Now, let me tell you what they’re saying that they’re not saying. We’ve seen this before. We have seen this creepy cult of personality. We have seen this singular, managing his own spectacle. We’ve seen this deeply manipulative guy. We saw this before. They are scared. They are not saying that, but I hear fear. Here’s the next bite. Charlie Rose continues here with a question.

ROSE: Watching him last night in that speech, he finishes –

MEACHAM: Yeah.

ROSE: — and he sort of — it’s almost like he then ascends to look at the circumstance.

MEACHAM: He watches us watching him.

THOMAS: Watching him!

ROSE: Exactly!

THOMAS: He does –

MEACHAM: It’s amazing.

ROSE: It is amazing.

THOMAS: He writes about this metaphor being a screen upon which Americans will project. He said they want of Barack Obama; I’m not sure I am Barack Obama.

ROSE: Mmm!

THOMAS: He had — he has the self-awareness to know that this creature he’s designed isn’t necessarily a real person, and he’s self-aware enough –

ROSE: Ahhhhhh!

RUSH: Ahhhh. Charlie Rose, light goes on, ahhhh. Self-aware enough to know that this creature he’s designed isn’t necessarily a real person.

That is fear. These guys are looking at Obama and they’ve seen him the exact way we have, all of this time. They only now after they think they got him into office are now starting to talk about their fears about how nobody knows anything about him, his resume is thin, he’s only written two books, and they’re autobiographies, we don’t know what other books he’s read. Yes, we do.

We don’t know anything about him. It’s creepy, never seen a victory speech with nobody on stage — what is this making fun of Biden, by the way?

Locking Biden in the bar so he doesn’t come out? Look at all they hid. Look at all that they refused to report.

They had plenty of chances to write editorials at Newsweek magazine, and they didn’t write one reflective of what they really saw and know and fear about Obama.

At what point will Meacham and Thomas, along with Brokaw and so many others face the fact that they committed journalistic malpractice by hiding the character concerns they are only now sharing about Obama?

Were they just tooooo busy digging dirt on Sarah Palin’s children and Joe the Plumber to tell the American people what a “creepy,” “manipulative,” “creature” Obama is?

…………..

Read the original post and comments at Flopping Aces’ “Newsweek Editors: Obama a “Creepy,” “Deeply Manipulative,” “Creature”.

1)The computer systems of both the Obama and McCain campaigns were victims of a sophisticated cyberattack by an unknown “foreign entity,” prompting a federal investigation, NEWSWEEK reports today.

At the Obama headquarters in midsummer, technology experts detected what they initially thought was a computer virus—a case of “phishing,” a form of hacking often employed to steal passwords or credit-card numbers. But by the next day, both the FBI and the Secret Service came to the campaign with an ominous warning: “You have a problem way bigger than what you understand,” an agent told Obama’s team. “You have been compromised, and a serious amount of files have been loaded off your system.” The following day, Obama campaign chief David Plouffe heard from White House chief of staff Josh Bolten, to the same effect: “You have a real problem … and you have to deal with it.”
—————
Officials at the FBI and the White House told the Obama campaign that they believed a foreign entity or organization sought to gather information on the evolution of both camps’ policy positions—information that might be useful in negotiations with a future administration. The Feds assured the Obama team that it had not been hacked by its political opponents. (Obama technical experts later speculated that the hackers were Russian or Chinese.) A security firm retained by the Obama campaign took steps to secure its computer system and end the intrusion. White House and FBI officials had no comment earlier this week.

Read the rest ->

Nothing like being a victim to alert a person to the danger. I wonder if any technology-related policies will benefit from Obama’s victimization.

2)Meanwhile, in Russia, things are heating up. Foxnews has a piece about Russian President Medvedev “sending a signal” to the US.

Russia will deploy missiles near NATO member Poland in response to U.S. missile defense plans, President Dmitry Medvedev said Wednesday in his first state of the nation speech.

Medvedev also singled out the United States for criticism, casting Russia’s war with Georgia in August and the global financial turmoil as consequences of aggressive, selfish U.S. policies.

————————-

Speaking just hours after Obama was declared the victor in the U.S. presidential election, Medvedev said he hoped the incoming administration will take steps to improve badly damaged U.S. ties with Russia. He suggested it is up to the U.S. — not the Kremlin — to seek to improve relations.

“I stress that we have no problem with the American people, no inborn anti-Americanism. And we hope that our partners, the U.S. administration, will make a choice in favor of full-fledged relations with Russia,” Medvedev said.

Well, here we go. A Russian demand for a new American President to kiss some butt. Hmmmmm.

3)In the most thoughtful piece I’ve seen on the racial aspect of a President Obama, Shelby Steele talks a bit about what Obama implicitly promised and what he may not be able to deliver. From LAT.

[Obama's] talent was to project an idealized vision of a post-racial America — and then to have that vision define political decency. Thus, a failure to support Obama politically implied a failure of decency.

Obama’s special charisma — since his famous 2004 convention speech — always came much more from the racial idealism he embodied than from his political ideas. In fact, this was his only true political originality. On the level of public policy, he was quite unremarkable. His economics were the redistributive axioms of old-fashioned Keynesianism; his social thought was recycled Great Society. But all this policy boilerplate was freshened up — given an air of “change” — by the dreamy post-racial and post-ideological kitsch he dressed it in.

This worked politically for Obama because it tapped into a deep longing in American life — the longing on the part of whites to escape the stigma of racism. In running for the presidency — and presenting himself to a majority white nation — Obama knew intuitively that he was dealing with a stigmatized people. He knew whites were stigmatized as being prejudiced, and that they hated this situation and literally longed for ways to disprove the stigma.
——————–

Of course, it is true that white America has made great progress in curbing racism over the last 40 years.
——————–
It is exactly because America has made such dramatic racial progress that whites today chafe so under the racist stigma. So I don’t think whites really want change from Obama as much as they want documentation of change that has already occurred. They want him in the White House first of all as evidence, certification and recognition.

But there is an inherent contradiction in all this. When whites — especially today’s younger generation — proudly support Obama for his post-racialism, they unwittingly embrace race as their primary motivation. They think and act racially, not post-racially. The point is that a post-racial society is a bargainer’s ploy: It seduces whites with a vision of their racial innocence precisely to coerce them into acting out of a racial motivation. A real post-racialist could not be bargained with and would not care about displaying or documenting his racial innocence. Such a person would evaluate Obama politically rather than culturally.

On the nose. Particularly that last part. Although many people would not feel the same, I can say that this election has pretty much cured me of any need to seek “racial innocence.” While many blacks have often said they felt constrained not to make whites feel “threatened” by their presence, I think whites could respond that they often felt constrained to project “I’m not racist” at every opportunity.

However, I’m not doing it anymore. I’ll be polite to people, not wishing to give offense and just hoping to get along – same as ever. But I’m not going to worry if someone perceives me as a racist because I looked at them too long or noticed what was in their grocery cart or any of a thousand things you do when you interact others. I’m done with that.

But what about how Obama will transform our culture? What does Steele say?

There is nothing to suggest that Obama will lead America into true post-racialism. His campaign style revealed a tweaker of the status quo, not a revolutionary. Culturally and racially, he is likely to leave America pretty much where he found her.
——————
Presidents follow the culture; they don’t lead it. I hope for a competent president.

Yeah. I completely agree. All I ever wanted was competence.

4)The Orlando-Sentinel had an interesting and yet ridiculous piece today. Obama won because of black athletes. Seriously.

If you’re searching for tangible reasons why it became possible for Barack Obama to make his historic run at the presidency of the United States, then look no further than the golf course, basketball court or football field.

Obama may have emerged from the partisan political arena, but it was the nonpartisan athletic arena that opened white America’s eyes and minds to the amazing potential and personalities of black America.

OK, you can make a case for any barrier-breaker, no doubt about that. But to suggest that black athletes who excel in the ruthless meritocracy that is sports today somehow are the forerunners of a man elected despite a lack of experience is not a very good argument, IMO. Seeing Michael Jordan play basketball or Lynn Swan play football is to see a truly expert individual. Simply put, you don’t play if you don’t have the chops.

But to suggest a presidential campaign reflects meritocracy is absurd. It reflects many things, but not necessarily merit. These athletes will be out on their butts as soon as they can’t perform. Anyone honestly think THAT will happen to BO? Has it yet?

5)Who should get Obama’s Senate seat? An AA of course. I’m seriously doubting any white people need apply, but let’s look at the contenders. From Newser is a Time piece on who could fill that seat.

As confidence grew in recent weeks that Barack Obama would be the next President of the United States, a battle intensified among various Illinois politicos to fill his Senate seat. Although a number of local leaders have publicly expressed interest in the position, the decision on who will complete the roughly two years remaining in Obama’s Senate term ultimately rests with Illinois’ governor, Rod Blagojevich, a Democrat and former congressman. . .
—————

Identity politics may play a major part in Blagojevich’s decision. Observers believe the governor may feel compelled to appease two of his core constituencies — women, and blacks, particularly from his native Chicago area — that could prove crucial to his prospects should he seek reelection in 2010. He may feel extra pressure to replace the Senate’s only black member with another African-American. One of the names most frequently mentioned here is Jesse Jackson Jr., a veteran Congressman who represents parts of Chicago’s South Side, and a national co-chair of Obama’s presidential campaign.

In an interview Monday, Jackson told TIME: “I’d be honored and humbled to succeed Sen. Obama in the U.S. Senate. I’m confident the governor will make a decision in the best interest of the state, and country.” But Blagojevich could also opt for a sort of placeholder figure to complete Obama’s term and allow Democrats to find a long-term candidate for 2010. Among the prominent black politicians the governor would turn to in that scenario, are Illinois’ secretary of state, Jesse White, or Emil Jones Jr., the recently retired president of Illinois’ senate, and one of Blagojevich’s few General Assembly allies.

The author mentions some other contenders, but I think Jackson is the most likely choice and he’s clearly indicated he wants it. And as national co-chair of Obama’s campaign, I’m betting it’s his. As for the idea that a woman might get the seat? Only if Obama tells Jesse Jr. to pipe down.

A better question is this: what might Blagojevich need more than the goodwill of the President?

6)Newser also has a story from the AP about Iraq.

Iraqi officials said Wednesday they don’t expect Barack Obama to withdraw U.S. troops hastily from Iraq because he told them last summer that he wouldn’t make a decision without consulting them and U.S. commanders on the ground.

With violence down and the economy No. 1 on American voters’ minds, the Iraqis said they believe the new president will take his time before fulfilling his promise to end the war in Iraq, which costs U.S. taxpayers $12 billion a month at a time of financial crisis back home.
——————

“Obama has to deal with Iraq’s issues in a positive way and have a sense of responsibility to correct the situation in Iraq, as well the situation inside America,” said Salim Abdullah, spokesman of the largest Sunni bloc in parliament.

“We are not concerned that he will take a unilateral decision to remove troops quickly from Iraq since he needs to discuss this issue with the Iraqi government first,” Abdullah said.
——————–

This year, U.S. and Iraqi negotiators hammered out an agreement that would remove U.S. soldiers from Iraq’s cities by June 30, with the last American troops leaving the country by 2012. The accord still must be approved by parliament by year’s end when the U.N. mandate expires.

The draft agreement has drawn strong opposition inside Iraq, but government officials are hopeful that parliament can approve the pact in time for the deadline.

That would largely satisfy both Obama’s pledge _ and the Iraqi goal _ of an orderly end to the U.S. mission.

Don’t forget that part. Despite an agreement in place, Obama will take credit for any forward movement in Iraq. Having said that, I don’t think Bush deserves any credit at all. But perhaps some of his people might. They won’t get any.

7) Lastly, I looked in vain for MSM or even sorta MSM discussions of this election in terms of misogyny or in terms of women’s issues. Crickets. Except for a wonderful post here on NQ by Bud White, there is very little out there. We should push BO on this issue at every opportunity and carefully monitor his administration. While everyone talked about race being the “unspoken issue” of the campaign, it got thoroughly aired. What was never spoken of was hate against women.

So far, only bloggers are addressing the issue, but here’s another one:

Grail Guardian is pointed:

There will never be a female President of the United States. There. I said it. Ladies, go home and grab your burkas and start cooking dinner for your man and popping out babies. You will never have equal pay for equal work, you will never be considered competent or capable at anything you ever do, and you stand no chance of ever getting anywhere unless it’s to a soccer or hockey game to cheer your (male) children on. Of course the laws will be wide open to allow you to abort female children so you don’t have to sully the landscape with them at all anymore.

How do I know? Because before even half the nation’s votes were tallied tonight, not only were all the major networks calling the race for Barack Obama, but the pundits are already discussing how Sarah Palin was John McCain’s downfall. Pundits attempting to defend her popularity with statistics were shot down on Fox News. That’s it – it’s over. You will not see another female Presidential candidate taken seriously in this country in our lifetimes. We’ll be lucky if we continue to see women continue to hold seats in the Senate and House after tonight. Female Governors? Forget about it. Palin won’t be re-elected there, because in spite of the fact that Alaska loved her (90% approval rating) just 4 months ago, she has been trashed and is now persona non grata in her own state courtesy of the Chosen One.

Time to saddle up. We need to demand BO own this issue since he’s knowingly benefitted from misogyny. At the very least, he should be required to choose some women for his administration. But we already know what his people said to just that request before: “you can’t have that.”

Lynette Long talked with a BO staffer and heard just that.

Think the Congressional Black Caucus might be willing to push for women? BO MIGHT listen to them.

I don’t really enjoy attacking Joe Biden. He seems so vulnerable I feel it is almost like attacking a defenseless kitten with a sledgehammer. But since the Obama-bots have been so ungentlemanly to Sara Palin, and since he is lending his support to a rampant manipulator with no real substance or experience, I have decided that he is fair game (particularly as he seems to have been getting an easy ride from the media compared to Sarah Palin). I have two new videos that spotlight Biden. One is entitled “Joe Biden gets sand kicked in his face” (YouTube) and the latest (which quite a few people have said is my best video to date) is entitled “The Ballad of Barack and Joe” (above).

The latter video consists of a reading of a poem I wrote, inspired by the A.A. Milne poem “Disobedience”. It reads as follows: (And by the way, Biden’s middle name really is Robinette)

THE BALLAD OF BARACK AND JOE

by OldGrumpyGuy
(adapted from A.A.Milne’s poem “Disobedience”)
(permission given to reproduce in any public media)

Joseph Robinette Biden, otherwise known as Joe was famous for saying the wrong things
and being a little bit slow
It was a surprise then when Joe was elected to run as Obama’s VP
Even though, as wise people know, his emotional age is three.

Joseph Robinette Biden said to Obama, said he:
“It should be quite fun; I can get the job done, and be home in time for tea.”
But Joseph Robinette Biden was being a little naive
And had no inkling whatever of what Barack had up his sleeve

For how could slow Joe be expected to know that Obama had cunningly planned
to pick someone like Joe as his fall guy for the time when things got out of hand

For it wouldn’t be long before things would go wrong
While Obama was playing his game
For his promises lacked any substance and the horse he was riding was lame
So when the web of illusion unraveled, it was Joe who would shoulder the blame

For Joseph Robinette Biden was considerably long in the tooth
and all his experience should have showed him that Obama wasn’t telling the truth
But slow Joe, like a great many others, was too trusting, too easily swayed
by the conjurer’s bag of illusions and the sweet-sounding statements he made

Like the tale of the Emperor’s clothing, Obama was utterly bare
Quite devoid of any true knowledge. while seeming to show so much care
For this man was a very smooth talker, and all the folk longed to believe
all the swell sounding things that he promised
But he lied, or was he simply naive?

Whatever the reason, it’s tragic how so many folk were entranced
by the great manipulator’s illusions, and how so many joined in the dance
A dance that had only one outcome: Disappointment and heartache and ruin
For that is the price all must forfeit for dancing to the mad piper’s tune

But I cannot in good conscience give my vote for the most powerful job on Earth to someone I do not know. John McCain I know. I know we disagree on more than we agree but I know who John McCain is and most of all I trust John McCain to always do what he thinks is right, not just what may sell.

We are facing the risk of a president so little traveled that he had to make a whirlwind tour of Europe this summer just to get a “postcard” feel for the continent, who did not visit our gravely injured soldiers in Germany because no photographers could accompany him, and who spent most of the time prepping for a lavish rally in Berlin that was nothing more than expensive theater:

Democratic presidential candidate Sen. Barack Obama paid a German company nearly $700,000 for staging, sound and lighting services at a time he delivered a speech this summer in which he declared himself a “citizen” of both the U.S. and the world… (Flopping Aces blog)

Given that the first year of a presidency is especially dangerous, American voters must ask if it is John McCain or Barack Obama who is best able to face frightening international crises that come out of the blue. Mike McConnell, National Intelligence Director, explains:

And … remember this … who do YOU want answering that phone?

You all remember Hillary’s “3 a.m.” ad that shattered the “rose-colored glasses” of many voters and led to the stark realization that she would be a steady force as our nation’s leader but that Barack Obama simply didn’t have the experience or qualifications. In three words, he isn’t ready.

Then think about this:

Today, U.S. Senator John McCain issued the following statement concerning Barack Obama’s hedging on foreign policy and Iran:

“Earlier today, when asked about efforts to prevent Iran from becoming a nuclear power, Senator Obama said he might apply tougher sanctions — ‘potentially.’

I have called for tougher sanctions against Iran for years. I have supported tougher sanctions during this campaign that Barack Obama opposed, and if elected, I would work to lead an international effort to put tougher sanctions in place — not potentially but actually.

Senator Obama last year opposed legislation with broad bipartisan support that called for tougher sanctions on Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps for its terrorist activities.

Senator Obama was also asked today about capturing Osama bin Laden — he said he would ‘try him, apply the death penalty to him where it is necessary.’ I do not know why Senator Obama would have any doubt that it is necessary. There is no one more deserving of execution than Osama bin Laden. If he survives capture, the death penalty would be necessary, just and appropriate.

Senator Obama continues to hedge his bets on national security issues showing his inexperience and weakness. Senator Obama’s comments demonstrate once again that America cannot afford untested leadership when facing the threats posed by Iran and Osama bin Laden.”

Here is what Barack Obama told Wolf Blitzer on CNN’s “Situation Room” yesterday, October 31, 2008:

CNN’S WOLF BLITZER: Senator McCain says he knows how to capture Bin Laden and he says I’ll get him, if he’s elected president. Do you know how to capture Bin Laden?

BARACK OBAMA: I’m reminded of — he said this during the debate. I think that night, maybe, Jon Stewart on Comedy Central said, you know, why have you been holding out on us over the last six years? The fact is, along with George Bush, John McCain championed the strategy that distracted us from capturing Bin Laden that focused on Iraq that had nothing to do with 9/11. And so clearly, Senator McCain doesn’t know how to capture Bin Laden because he was supportive of a huge strategic blunder when it came to accomplishing the task. I will focus on what Secretary Gates and others have indicated is our number one security threat, and that is Bin Laden and Al Qaeda. We will go after him. We will kill him or capture him, try him, apply the death penalty to him where it is necessary. That’s the threat we should have stayed focused on. That’s the threat I will focus on when I’m president.

BLITZER: Senator McCain says that if he’s elected president, Iran will not become a nuclear power. Can you make that same commitment?

OBAMA: Well, I’ve said I will do everything in my power to prevent Iran from obtaining nuclear weapons. I think it would be a game-changer. It would not be acceptable. It would be a threat to our strongest ally in the region, Israel. But it would also potentially trigger a nuclear arms race in the region. And we have to both apply much tougher diplomacy and sanctions, potentially, if they do not move in a better direction. We have to give them some inducements to walk away from their nuclear program and we should never take a military option off the table.

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

NOW PLEASE READ THIS AGAIN:

Senator Obama continues to hedge his bets on national security issues showing his inexperience and weakness.

THEN ASK YOURSELVES AGAIN:

Is it company he’s kept all these years — all those dinners, meetings, and phone calls for with Palestinian radical Rashid Khalidi, anti-American radicals Bill Ayers and Bernardine Dohrn, and his anti-American racist minister Jeremiah Wright who consorts with the racist, anti-Jewish Minister Louis Farrahan, and many other elite liberals who hate this country — that makes Senator Obama incapable of putting country first, incapable of putting the safety of the American people first, and incapable of being tough when it is essential to the nation’s security that we be tough?

There’s Obama’s list of close friends — Rashid Khalidi, Bill Ayers, Bernardine Dohrn, Tony Rezko, Jeremiah Wright, and Father Michael Pfleger.

Then there’s McCain’s list of close friends — including Joe Lieberman and Lindsey Graham. And those are two patriotic senators who are known for (1) putting country before party, and (2) working effectively with all sensible senators who can cross the aisle.

IS IT ANY WONDER THEN THAT YESTERDAY GOVERNOR ARNOLD SCHWARZENEGGER SAID:

“John McCain served longer in a POW camp than his opponent has in the United States Senate. … Ladies and gentlemen, I only play an action hero in my movies, but John McCain is a real action hero.”

“The man tested in crisis.”

I believe that that is who we all should vote for, don’t you?

From my blog, Uppity Woman.