Seriously – how can that possibly be? And yet, that seems to be her take:

The call by some members of the black media for African Americans to support President Obama in racial solidarity is a terrible idea. Just as terrible as women supporting women only because of their sex, or any other group viewing the world solely through the narrow prism of their own experience.

If pursued and played by Obama, it would be the worst thing not only for his reelection campaign but also for the country. The man who was elected on a promise of unity — neither black nor white nor red nor blue — can’t now play the race card. Any of his supporters who play that hand will be doing a disservice to themselves and to the nation.

How did this come about?

As Obama’s approval has been slipping, some leaders in the African American media have begun calling on blacks to ignore their concerns and just vote black. Leading the pack is radio host Tom Joyner, who reaches an astonishing one in four black adults. Maybe we could just have Joyner and Rush Limbaugh wrestle each other’s ideas to the mat and skip these tedious debates, primaries and conventions.

Joyner is blunt with his 8 million listeners: “Stick together, black people.”

Again I ask – where the hell Was Ms. Parker in 2008? This is not news. This is SOP for the Obama Campaign. Just the other day, I mentioned Obama’s National Co-Chair, Rep. Jesse Jackson, Jr., and his threats to House members of the Black Caucus to toe the line and stand behind Obama, or face primary challengers (and then doing it anyway, even if they did stab Hillary Clinton in the back and get on board).

But wait, it gets even better with THIS claim by Ms. Parker:

Obama hasn’t played the race card overtly, though recently he did call on a mostly African American audience at the annual Congressional Black Caucus Awards dinner to kick off their bedroom slippers and put on their marching shoes. “Stop grumblin’. Stop cryin’. We are going to press on,” he said. “We’ve got work to do.”

WHAT? Obama has not overtly played the race card? Is she for real? Good grief, where has she been? Did she take one of Sir Richard Branson’s flights to outer space? Has she been living in East Mongolia? Has she not been paying any attention at ALL?

I am just shaking my head in disgust at this revisionist history from Ms. Parker’s keyboard. From Obama’s depiction of John McCain’s campaign as racist (remember this quote? “”And so the only way they figure they’re going to win this election is if they make you scared of me…”), to attacking Geraldine Ferraro and labeling her a racist for something he himself said, forcing her to resign from the Hillary Campaign, Obama has done nothing BUT play the race card. Hell, he just called the Tea Party racist a few months ago!

Ms Parker concludes:

This country has transcended much that was hideous and painful in the course of our evolution. It would be a shame to turn back now.

That it has, but it sure ass hell hasn’t stopped the Obama Campaign,the Obama Administration, and the DNC from labeling anyone who doesn’t support Obama as racists.

For the life of me, I don’t know how Ms. Parker has missed this over the past 3 years, but perhaps you could all remind her of the many and different ways Obama and his Minions have played the race card, from the way the DOJ has handled cases (or not), the assumption of the racist Cambridge police officer, Rep. Clyburn claiming that all ofd Obama’s problems come down to “black vs. white,” and so, so many more. Have at it!

Just from the title of this Sheila Marikar ABC report, you get a hint of a bias. The article doesn’t help to dispel that sensation, rather it escalates it:

There’s the stereotype of the Sarah Palin supporter, and then there’s Sonnie Johnson.

The 30-year-old African-American mother and wife is featured in “The Undefeated” as one of the many people Palin captivated when John McCain thrust her onto the national stage as his vice presidential running mate in 2008. In Pella, Iowa today for the premiere of the film, Johnson said she latched on to Palin when the former Alaska governor took the stage at the Republican National Convention.

“We were watching it on TV and my daughter was like, ‘A girl can be president?,’” Johnson recalled. “And I said, ‘Yes, baby, girls can do anything.’ That was the moment — I saw that look in my daughter’s eye, that anything in possible. The next week, I went to my very first political event, and that was to see Sarah Palin. John McCain and Sarah Palin.”

Johnson has become increasingly involved in the tea party since then, speaking at tea party events around her native Virginia. She’ll give the keynote address at an event held by the Charlottesville, VA. tea party on the Fourth of July with her young daughter by her side. [snip]

Obviously, the elephant in the room is that Hillary Clinton had run to be president, but she was not the party’s pick (and I use those words deliberately). So that Johnson’s daughter saw Palin as a potential president if McCain won is a difference. Palin was on the ticket, Clinton (unfortunately) was not.

That being said, there are so many glaring issues wrong with the entire way Marikar framed this piece that I barely know where to start. First, there is the whole “stereotype” assumption made by this “reporter.” One of the comments summed it up pretty succinctly:

VG; “stereotype” Who put the stereotype on Palin?? All you Obama loving scumbags in the corrupt MSM. You people make me sick.

I think many of us can appreciate this person’s sentiment about the circular practice of the MSM – castigate and attack, then stand back and “report” people regurgitating back the attacks launched, then explain that as the reality of the situation.

There were a few more comments I must share with you, beginning with the issue of women:

John; Unfortunately, women can’t be president. Just watching the vitriol that has been thrown at Sarah Palin makes that clear. The attacks on her family have been disgraceful. The attempts to dig through 24,000 pages of her email to try to find any dirt also makes it clear that America is not ready for a female leader. Best to tell our daughters to become teachers or mothers so they don’t become the next woman to be Palinized….

Jim (in response to Katherine); “There was a woman running in the Dem Primary, and she was pilloried by the misogynistic media… Palin got it X2, and she is still standing, and appears to be stronger than ever. Just sayin’.”

@Katherine: Couldn’t have said it better. I am an ex-Democrat and have had it with the way the democratic party takes the women constituency for granted. I am sick of how they treated Hillary. This was a woman that was many times more accomplished than Obama and after Obama’s presidency we can safely say she would have been many times more effective as a president. Now they are doing the same thing to Palin. I am just sick of the venom that has been thrown at her – just sick of it. [snip]

Amen, amen, and amen – I could not agree more. Many of you know that this has been my refrain about the Democratic Party, Obama, and the blatant, virulent misogyny they have been spewing our way.

But there is another piece to all of this:

[snip] “She’ll be on stage with me,” Johnson said. “I want to get her involved, little by little. I like to say that for the black community, nothing will change until we learn to love our children more than we love the Democratic party.”

After Stephen K. Bannon cast her in his 2010 documentary about conservative women leaders, “Fire From the Heartland,” he asked Johnson to speak about Palin’s influence on her for “The Undefeated.” Other tea party personalities have failed to capture Johnson’s attention as Palin has.[snip] (Click here to read the rest.)

Holy moley – calling out the black community for its allegiance to the Democrats is a mighty interesting turn. No doubt, that will raise some eyebrows, along with charges of being an “Uncle Tom.” I don’t know about you, but it does seem that whenever a black person does not subscribe to a particular point of view they are, by necessity, an “Uncle Tom.” I thought this comment by Colint summer it up:

Black woman as “unlikely” supporter…. funny…. imagine that, a black who isn’t brainwashed into loving the useless Democrats. Wow… what a revelation.

Could she have figured out the lie… figured out that the Democrats are race baiters?

Good question. Of course, Ms. Johnson would not have to look far. Heck, she need look no farther than my representative, Jim Clyburn, to see numerous instances of race baiting.

I don’t know about you, but I found this to be a pretty interesting glimpse into both how the MSM tries to package information, and how more people are not buying what they are selling. Maybe there really is hope yet.

UPDATE: Speaking of the media, The Hollywood Reporter has a glimpse into the new movie, “The Undefeated”. Hold onto your hats, this is not for the faint of heart:

[snip] The movie begins with Sen. John McCain introducing his running mate, then quickly cuts to the Hollywood sign, and the music turns ominous. A TV news anchor says, “Hollywood has a new favorite pastime: taking aim at Sarah Palin.”

Then the celebrity montage begins: Damon likens Palin to a “really bad Disney movie” and says she’s “really scary”; Letterman attacks her, and the discourse descends in to the filthy from there. Maher insults her on his TV show, Madonna screams obscenities about her while on stage, and comedians use graphic, severely bleeped language to describe Palin and the intensity with which they “hate her.”

When the montage is through, the screen goes dark and a Bible verse comes into focus: “By their fruits ye shall know them.” [snip] (Click here to read the rest.)

Yes, indeed we will. And the fruits being sown by these people against a woman they have never met, using the vilest of language to describe her, and even attacking her special needs child, says it all.

Yes, Rep. Moran made this ludicrous charge in an interview with an Arab TV station (honestly, I am having a hard time writing this, I am just so incredulous that this is his delusional rationale for the Election results. WOW.). Here is what the Representative from Virginia said:

[snip] The Virginia Democrat told Alhurra that Republicans gained 63 seats in the House “for the same reason the Civil War happened in the United States.”

“The Civil War happened because the Southern states, particularly the slaveholding states, didn’t want to see a president who was opposed to slavery,” Moran said. “In this case a lot of people in this country, I believe, don’t want to be governed by an African American, particularly one who is inclusive, who is liberal, who wants to spend money on everyone and who wants to reach out to include everyone in our society.” [snip] (Click here to read the rest.)

Can you believe this shit? Bringing up the Civil War as a justification for this absurd, obscene, ridiculous charge? What the hell is wrong with Moran?

Let me help you understand what happened in 2010, Rep. Moran. The reason for the huge shift was your party shoving a massive, costly health care law, that none of you bozos bothered to read, down the throats of Americans after we screamed our heads off telling you in every way we could we DID NOT WANT IT. It is because Unemployment in this country is still EXCEEDINGLY high, currently being touted at 9.4%, but that does not include the underemployed. It is because foreclosures in this country are expected to hit a record high in 2011. It is because the debt you and your cronies are running up just this year is $1.5 TRILLION dollars, added to the over $14 trillion we are in debt, a debt that has escalated under your party’s, and Obama’s, “leadership.”

I could go on and on, but it is clear you aren’t listening to what the people have been saying. No matter how clearly we have been telling you. This isn’t about race, this is about one party dominating the political landscape and doing what they wanted to do, and not what they people who sent them to DC wanted them to do. Seriously, using a charge of racism in the face of the reality of what is going on in our country is delusional at best. Using a charge of racism, or Nazism, as your colleague, Rep. Cohen (D-TN), did recently, is offensive, gutless, and an attempt at silencing all opposition.

With all due respect (as much as I can muster for someone who uses such a ridiculous charge), you need to look in the mirror, look at your party, look at what you are doing to this country, rather than cast aspersions. The Democratic Party has no one to blame but itself for what happened in 2010, and it has zero to do with race.

And now to the sexism portion of the post. I received a lovely email from a faithful No Quarter reader, Candy*, who wrote about the way Google organizes responses to a search on Sarah Palin. She noted that the primary results are largely negative, with only a few favorable ones tossed in here or there. I have no doubt she is right. (Photo credit: October 22, 2010, Photo by Matt Stroshane/Getty Images North America)

For instance, if you did a search right this minute, one of the very top articles is one that made me throw up in my mouth a bit. Here is the headline: “Tracy Morgan: Palin Is ‘Good Masturbation Material,’” complete with video of Morgan saying this. TNT was quick to apologize for this remark on their show, “Inside The NBA,” after they started getting emails about it, that is. But hey, still, they did apologize. One of the hosts, Ernie Johnson, did try to change the topic quickly, and to cut Morgan off, but it was already out there. Wow.

Many of us remember all too well how Google operated during the 2008 campaign. Many people complained about the bias way it presented its search results. Apparently, with some justification, as this article in Politico would indicate, “Obama-Google Connection Scares Competitors.” Uh huh, I bet. Though I would not hold my breath for any official acknowledgment, as the article makes clear:

[snip] Google says that Schmidt was acting on his own, and his politics don’t reflect the company’s official stance.

“Eric’s endorsement of Sen. Obama was a personal matter, and as a company Google was neutral in the campaign,” said Adam Kovacevich, Google’s senior manager of global communications and public affairs. “We look forward to working with the new administration and congressional leaders on both sides of the aisle to keep the Internet open and to promote economic growth.”

Obama’s transition team declined comment. [snip] (Click here to read the rest.)

Show of hands – who believes the Google guy? Anyone? Anyone? Yeah, me neither. Especially since Obama’s own team declined comment. Many of us remember having to grab snapshots of images before they got scrubbed from Google (yes, they may have gone up initially, but often got taken down). And, many of us remember Google not allowing anti-Obama blogs during the 2008 campaign. I am going to guess there may be more of the same now, especially given the close relationship between Obama and Google’s owner, Eric Scmidt.

But hey, don’t take my word for it. How about a little exercise – do a search on Google for Sarah Palin, and see what comes up. See how far you have to go to find something positive on her that does not come from, say, Fox News or American Thinker. Better yet, try to find a site for photos of her that do NOT have sexually suggestive photo-shopped pictures. Then try another search engine and see what happens. I am curious to see what you all find. Please feel free to share.

Finally, here’s a challenge for the Democrats as they gear up (or continue) the campaign for Obama for 2012: Please refrain from calling those who do not support Obama racists, or Nazis, or any of the other smears you have used against us in the past. Our opposition has absolutely nothing to do with the color of Obama’s skin, but with his policies and actions (along with the actions of many others in the Democratic Party, like Nancy Pelosi, who helped to craft Obamacare). Instead of using such highly charged rhetoric, try listening for a change at why people in this country are unhappy. Try looking at what is really going on with the economy, with the deficit, with people’s very lives. You know, what you were sent to Washington to do. Just a thought.

*Candy, thank you so much for the email. I appreciate your taking the time to write me, and appreciate your kind words. Thank you!

Now his gift has all but deserted him, and all that prevents the story from becoming tragic is his own apparent refusal to be affected by it. There are many explanations for why he seems diminished by the power of his own office, from the vestigial racism of the American public to his misreading of his own mandate.

Again, the race card. That part of his argument does not even deserve to be dignified with a response. As to the rest, Mr. Junod ignores the fact that people actually expect you to do the job once you get into office.

President Obama made incredible, lofty promises to the American people, to the point of being irresponsible in his campaign pledges. The greater the promise, the harder the crash, particularly when the American people are in dire straits, having to watch the golfer-in-chief recite platitudes from the do as I say not as I do school of governance.

Junod continues his musings:

Of course, Obama has never turned his back on us, but so many Americans have turned their backs on him that it amounts to The Anointed One, as he is sometimes referred, being stripped of something that can never return: his anointment. And without it — without his air of destiny, without the idea of Obama augmenting his actuality — the rooms he used to occupy so effortlessly have changed dimensions on him, until at times he might as well be speaking from the bottom of a well.

Never turned his back? The tone deafness of his administration focusing on everything but job creation would seem to indicate the opposite is true. Even Bob Herbert of the New York Times, long an Obama fan, resoundingly agrees on that score.

Mr. Junod also forgets, by design perhaps, that the only reason Obama was larger than life, seemingly eloquent and brilliant, was the media’s endless willingness to bestow those qualities upon him by virtue of the daily tongue bath they administered. Pundits built this outsized soufflé into something it never was – namely, a man with a miraculous ability to govern, to transcend politics and his own lack of experience or narcissistic nature.

Does anyone remember the speech he gave at West Point, when he escalated the war in Afghanistan after six weeks of slow-ketchup decision making? He was all alone on that stage, and he looked all alone and somehow outnumbered by the space that surrounded him. It was the first time he was betrayed by his own stagecraft. It was the first time the enormity of his decision dwarfed the eloquence he found to express it, and he has never again looked like a man born to fill stadiums. All this was in play on Wednesday, at the press conference he gave after the bloodletting of the mid-term elections. Could anyone have ever imagined that Barack Obama would be made to look inauthentic by the sloppy last-call tears of someone like John Boehner? Could anyone have ever imagined that he’d be in a room of reporters who wanted something from him — that he wouldn’t be able to deliver? The man acclaimed as the most gifted communicator of our age had to be prodded into admitting “it feels bad,” and after nearly an hour of prolix boilerplate offered but one takeaway line, “The Slurpee is a delicious drink,” before warming up and saying that he was going to invite Boehner to a Slurpee Summit. Indeed, the press conference was so painfully incommensurate to its historical moment that one had to wonder if he knew it — if he knew that even on this observance of loss he was losing his audience; if he knew that that he had lost not only the House of Representatives and a broad swath of the American electorate but his ability to talk his way into or out of anything; if the great singer knew that he had lost his voice. …

Inauthentic? Isn’t that what they always called Hillary? Inauthentic and overproduced. Aah, now the truth comes out – as Mr. Junod discovered when he followed Hillary morning, noon and night to see a real leader at work. Mr. Junod also acknowledged she would make a great president “now” but assumed her chance was forever gone to get the job. But had the mainstream media not been so reactively addicted to Mr. Obama as the antidote to Mr. Nuk-u-lar, perhaps they would have bothered to vet his claims or even his history, also largely romanticized. Perhaps we would have seen a different contest in 2008.

Finally, Junod observes:

In less than two years he had gone from sounding like a man who could always count on his ability to strum the mystic chords of memory to a man who, no matter what he said, sounded like a politician, and one in over his head at that. Now he sounded like a man who had already realized that he had lost more than he imagined he could but was just starting to understand that he was never going to get it back. He wasn’t going to cry about it — leave that to the Republicans — but he was going to take stock, and that may have represented a beginning of sorts, even if it was also clearly an end.

The big question everyone wanted answered after Tuesday night’s drubbing at the polls: Will Mr. Obama pivot? Does he get it? So far, the answer seems to be no. He has admitted to believing his own press – he is surrounded by true believers who never tell him he shouldn’t. Nancy Pelosi is still in denial. As to our likely new Speaker, John Boehner, he struck the right tone – understanding that the election was a rebuke of Democrats but there is no applause from Republicans either. I worry less about “mojo” than people willing to plant their feet behind the desk and get to work. I can’t offer much optimism is the ability of these two sides to work together, particularly if President Obama doesn’t the reality of our economic situation.

It is sad to observe that the “ability” Mr. Junod worries Obama has lost always came from the media more than Obama himself. The pundit class occupies themselves with the one thing they feel will keep them relevant – their ability to continue penetrating musings on the rise and fall of an idol. The pundit class is not capable of self-reflection. Else how could they not hold the mirror up to their own folly. Why should they? It pays good money to devote another hundred buckets of copy to Mr. Obama’s problems rather than admitting the media’s culpability in putting us in this situation in the first place. A gullible portion of the public is also at fault for believing them.

Mojo has nothing to do with it.

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…

We knew this was happening – we knew that many in the MSM were protecting Obama, were refusing to vet him, to investigate allegations against him, or those with whom he was very close, like Rev. Jeremiah Wright.

But here’s the thing. A number of these journalists (and academics), including from major news outlets, wrote down their plans to do what they could to protect Obama, both in the Primaries, and in the General Election. And did they ever. Check out this interview with Tucker Carlson (I know, I know – he was horrible to Hillary Clinton, but he does acknowledge that these “journalists” worked against her, too). It is eye opening:

We knew it – we knew they were using the race card to help Obama, and to protect him from scrutiny. And use it they did, over and over, and over again. They STILL are using it, for that matter.

But wait, there’s more. In this report, more of the actual statements by some of the so-called journalists who colluded to help Obama are brought to light:

And finally, and I bet you knew this was coming, these “journalists” are revealed to have coordinated attacks against Sarah Palin:

Daily Caller has much, much more on this topic, with more revelations each day, it seems (I am having some technical issues with my computer, so please forgive the lack of links to the actual stories).

I used to scoff at the charges of the “liberal bias” in the media. I thought they were ridiculous, sour grapes, and all of that. But this isn’t just bias, this is intentionally controlling news about one candidate, protecting a candidate from being properly vetted, and using a despicable tactic to deflect any questions, the race card. Despicable.

These people are not journalists, not by a long shot. Each and every one of them should lose their jobs over this. They shaped an entire election by their collusion, engaging in character assassinations, race baiting, and propaganda, to protect their chosen politician.

And they wonder why people in this country have lost faith in the media. After this revelation, they should wonder no more…

Michelle Obama did a little more than hang out with the NAACP, though. She gave the keynote address at their convention. Oh, and she knew the resolution charging the Tea Party with racism was being planned. Raise your hand if you are surprised she went ahead with the keynote speech anyway. * Crickets * Yeah, that’s what I thought.

Back to the NAACP. Apparently, they think people are racist if they dare to not acquiesce to everything Obama says, wants, does, and that he, unlike every other president we have ever had, must be free of any kind of disagreement or discord. If anyone dare oppose a massively expensive healthcare law, or oppose the rapid expansion of government under Obama, then, of course, they are racists.

Okay, okay, the NAACP did walk it back just a tiny bit when they acknowledged maybe ALL Tea Partiers are not racists, but not by much:

The NAACP passed a resolution Tuesday night condemning Tea Party activists, or at least some Tea Party activists, as racists who want “to push our country back to the pre-civil rights era.”

Tea Party groups across the country have vehemently denied that charge, calling Tuesday’s resolution a hypocritical act on the part of the NAACP — which has traditionally fought against stereotypes.

In a session that was closed to the media, the resolution that ultimately passed was toned down, according to the NAACP, to just “ask the Tea Party itself to repudiate the racist elements and activities of the Tea Party.” An original draft appeared to suggest — and many Tea Party leaders inferred — that the resolution accused the entire movement of being motivated by racial concerns.

“We take no issue with the Tea Party movement,” NAACP President and CEO Benjamin Todd Jealous said in a statement released late Tuesday night, after the vote. “We believe in freedom of assembly and people raising their voices in a democracy. What we take issue with is the Tea Party’s continued tolerance for bigotry and bigoted statements.”

Nonetheless, the St. Louis Tea Party is calling for the civil rights group to lose its tax-exempt status. “The NAACP is closely aligning with a partisan political campaign strategy,” said Bill Hennessy, a leader of the St. Louis Tea Party. [snip]

Interestingly, though, it isn’t just Tea Party members who are making this claim about the NAACP’s being a political tool for a partisan ideology. Some black activists are also making that claim as this press release highlights:

[snip] “As a frequent speaker at tea party rallies around the country, I can assure the NAACP that the tea party movement’s concerns are about President Obama’s policies and not his race,” said Project 21 fellow Deneen Borelli. “I’m deeply concerned that the NAACP is being used as a political tool to do the dirty work of the progressive movement. Instead of criticizing tea parties, the NAACP would be better served denouncing the racist comments made by a member of the New Black Panther Party and their voter intimidation outside a Philadelphia polling place in the last presidential election.” (Emphasis mine.)

According to a report in the Kansas City Star, the NAACP, which is conducting its 101st annual convention in that city, will take up a resolution as early as Tuesday to urge “all people of good will to repudiate the racism of Tea Parties, and to stand in opposition to its drive to push our country back to the pre-civil rights era.”

[snip]

Project 21′s Borelli added: “I urge the delegates to read the Contract from America – a list of policy objectives for Congress that was developed by tea party members nationwide. These objectives are clearly about limited government and liberty. In fact, the NAACP should be very concerned Obama’s cap-and-trade energy policy will lead to higher energy prices and higher unemployment – particularly among poor and minority households.” [snip]

Evidently, the NAACP failed to investigate these “racist” signs. Had they, they would have known that these were infiltrators into the party to discredit them. A simple Google search brings up a host of articles. It isn’t like the infiltrators were exactly clandestine in their actions, either.

I am just weary of the charge that everyone who does not buy what Obama is selling lock, stock, and barrel, who does not give him their utmost devotion, and sworn allegiance, is a racist. And now the NAACP is painting an entire group with a broad brush while ignoring the racist behavior of groups like the New Black Panther Party. Telling. Very telling indeed.

I guess we’re getting our “Change” after all, don’t you think?

UPDATE: NQ regular, Teakwood Kite, asked me about a video from a previous post that showed a number of African Americans present at a Tea Party. I don’t know if this is the one he meant, but the people speaking out here are pretty freakin’ awesome:

And what does it mean for our foundational rights as a country?

Recently, J. Christian Adams, former DOJ attorney, made some serious accusations about how the DOJ is doing business under Obama. Adams’ initial comments had to do with the New Black Panther Party (NBPP) about which I wrote recently, and the refusal of the DOJ to pursue a case against the NBPP despite irrefutable evidence of voter intimidation. Those charged with this issue flat out refused to even read the memoranda on the NBPP’s actions. Consequently, for this and other reasons related to this case, Adams resigned his position at the DOJ.

Here is Mr. Adams describing the situation at the DOJ to Megyn Kelly, also an attorney:

But wait, there is more. Mr. Adams is no longer holding back, and has exposed another issue related to the DMV and Voter Registration law at the DOJ in this piece:

This is beyond the pale.

So, let me see. NBPP 1, Voters 0. Dead People voting 1, fair elections, 0. Lawlessness in the DOJ 1, true justice, 0.

Mr. Adams testified before the U.S.Commission on Civil Rights about this very issue this past week, stating:

“We abetted wrongdoing and abandoned law-abiding citizens,” he later testified.

That is a staggering claim. Just think about that for a few minutes. This is the DOJ, after all.

One more quote from this article should also give you pause (and thanks to Ani for highlighting this):

But as the investigation unfolded, he said he discovered “indications” that the Black Panther Party was doing the “same thing” to supporters of former presidential candidate Hillary Clinton during the Democratic primary season in early 2008. He urged the commission to pursue testimony from other Justice officials to corroborate his story.

We knew that, of course, but now we have a DOJ whistleblower confirming it. Wow.

That Obama, fulfilling his campaign promise of bringing change to America. He surely is, just not good change. Now, despite the protests by the NBPP to the contrary, voter intimidation is permitted by the DOJ, depending on who is doing it, of course.

This is a sad, sad time in our country, when voter intimidation is not just allowed, but protected, by the Department of Justice. When the DOJ states it won’t be bothered with enforcement of the law against voter rolls being padded with the names of dead people, and those who are ineligible to vote.

This is our fundamental right as Americans, the right to vote, free of intimidation and threats. It is our duty to have our votes counted, and to have the process as clean as possible. It is clear that Obama’s DOJ has zero interest in making that happen.

And that cannot stand.

Huh. More evidence that Obama is not really clear on the definition of “controversial.” In case you need a reminder of the kind of message preached by Rev. Wright, here are some “highlights”:

What a moving message of love and peace from the reverend, don’t you think? Naturally, once his comments came to light, Obama did what he does so well – throw people under the bus. Yep, he quickly disowned his “uncle.” But, don’t you worry – Wright still loves him his Barry no matter how much distance Barry puts between them. Ain’t love grand?

One might have thought that after Obama dissed Wright, and distanced himself from his church of 20+ years, maybe Wright would have faded into the past. If that’s what one thought, one would be wrong. Oh, no, he is still out there, as this piece by Maureen Callahan indicates, Obama’s Race-Rant Rev. Rages On:

[...] During a five-day seminar Wright taught last week in Chicago, he was back at it, claiming that whites and Jews are controlling the flow of worldwide information and oppressing blacks in Israel and America.

“White folk done took this country,” Wright said. “You’re in their home, and they’re gonna let you know it.”

The course, advertised as focusing on politics and public policy in South Africa and America, was taught in a small, ground-floor room at the Chicago Theological Seminary, where Wright’s voice echoed out an open window. The class was composed of about 15 to 20 students, mainly older African-American women who would arrive early and giddily linger during lunch breaks and after class, looking for the reverend’s attention. (The course cost a little over $1,000 if taken for college credit and $300 if taken without.)

Holy moley. That’s a pretty good chunk of change to be lectured with hate speech, isn’t it? Wow – who knew? Ahem. But this is just the beginning of Wright’s vitriol:

[...]“Not once in my conversations with him have I heard him talk about any ethnic group in derogatory terms, or treat whites with whom he interacted with anything but courtesy and respect,” Obama said.

Yet during this course — which was described as asking, “What is the response and public witness of persons of faith to ongoing developments in both countries?” — Wright made many statements about what he believes are the true aims of whites and Jews.

“You are not now, nor have you ever been, nor will you ever be a brother to white folk,” he said. “And if you do not realize that, you are in serious trouble.”

He cited the writings of Bill Jones — author of the book “Is God a White Racist?” — as proof that white people cannot be trusted. “Bill said, ‘They just killed four of their own at Kent State. They’ll step on you like a cockroach and keep on movin’, cause you not a brother to them.’ “

What the hell?? Where does Wright come off with this kind of incendiary speech? And WHY is he preaching this hate-filled rhetoric? What is he trying to accomplish with this?

One last little gem from the, er, “good” reverend:

[...]The civil-rights movement, Wright said, was never about racial equality: “It was always about becoming white . . . to master what [they] do.” Martin Luther King, he said, was misguided for advocating nonviolence among his people, “born in the oven of America.”

“We probably have more African-Americans who’ve been brainwashed than we have South Africans who’ve been brainwashed,” he said, and seemed to allude to President Obama twice: “Unfortunately, I got in trouble with a fella for saying this . . . All your commentaries are written by oppressors.” At the mention of Nation of Islam head Louis Farrakhan — whom Obama disavowed during the campaign — black leaders “go cuttin’ and duckin’,” he said. [...]

Well, Wright may have retired from TUCC – to his million dollar home, built by TUCC, in a predominantly white neighborhood, mind you – but it hasn’t stopped him from spreading his hate-mongering, racist tirades.

And our current president sat there for over twenty years listening to that rhetoric. Perhaps that explains Obama’s selection of an Attorney General who, after a biracial man was elected president, declared Americans “cowards” when it comes to discussions on race. Or maybe that explains why the Department of Justice
dropped the charges against the New Black Panthers who intimidated voters in Philadelphia without bothering to read the memoranda on the case first. Never mind that the attorney handling the case, J. Christian Adams, said it was as clear a case of voter intimidation as well as a violation of federal law as he had seen in his Department of Justice career, one he resigned over this case. And it sure explains Obama’s response to Israel and her prime minister.

Yep – I would say this explains a lot. Wouldn’t you?

**Condolences to the family and friends of Sen. Robert C. Byrd, the longest serving Congressperson, who passed away this morning at the age of 92. Sen. Byrd was a man I had admired, until the summer of 2008. Still, prior to that time, he did a lot of good for the country.

I think the headline says it all, but just so you understand, it wasn’t his fault he lost. It’s all those damn Uncle Toms and racists to blame:

State Sen. Robert Ford said “Uncle Tom” is part of the reason he lost his bid for governor.

Ford, a black civil rights crusader who has served Charleston in the Senate since 1993, told The Post and Courier on Friday that his fellow Legislative Black Caucus members turned their backs on him and instead supported his white opponent, Vincent Sheheen.

“Uncle Tom was alive and well before, during and after the Negro and African-American struggle in this country, and obviously he is still alive today,” Ford wrote in a June 10 letter addressed to his “beloved Legislative Black Caucus members.”

Uncle Tom is a term used in contempt of blacks who are regarded as slaves to whites. It comes from the 1852 book “Uncle Tom’s Cabin.”

Ford acknowledged that he is “bitter,” but he said that does not change the situation. He accused Sheheen, a state senator from Camden, of not supporting diversity because, Ford said, Sheheen does not have any black men or women employed at his law office.

“The reason I am hurting right now is not because I lost,” Ford said. “It’s because they supported a candidate who doesn’t practice diversity.”

Sheheen’s campaign on Friday had no comment on the letter or Ford’s comments.

Wow. Well, good for Sheheen for not ratcheting up this claim with a response. Though honestly, any attempt at a response automatically puts Sheheen on the defensive. But Sheheen didn’t have to respond:

State Sen. Darrell Jackson, a Hopkins Democrat who is black, said Ford is wrong about Sheheen.

“Robert is one of my dearest friends,” Jackson said. “He is absolutely wrong and off basis with this. And I think he knows that. I think right now Robert is hurt and he said he is bitter.”

Jackson said Ford and Sheheen have chosen to share an office in the Senate office building. If Ford’s claims about Sheheen were true, the two wouldn’t share their workspace, Jackson said.

He also noted that Ford and Sheheen have a black administrative assistant. Sheheen also has selected a consulting firm run by a black man to work for his gubernatorial campaign, Jackson said. Also, Jackson said, Sheheen told him that he does not do the hiring at his law firm.

Jackson also said that every major piece of legislation that influences minorities in the state has Sheheen’s support.

“It’s not fair to Vincent,” Jackson said. “I love Robert, but I really have to speak up.”

Despite his hurt feelings, Ford said he “loves” Sheheen and believes he is a “good person.”

“I am going to work like hell to see to it that he wins,” Ford said.

Ford’s accusations come as South Carolina grapples with another racially charged situation.

Sen. Jake Knotts, R-West Columbia, called GOP front-runner Nikki Haley a “raghead,” a slur against her Indian-American decent. The Lexington Republican Party met Thursday night and voted to censure Knotts and ask him to resign.

Haley, a state representative from Lexington, faces U.S. Rep. Gresham Barrett in a runoff for the Republican gubernatorial nomination June 22.

Sheheen won the Democratic nomination for governor Tuesday with 59 percent of the vote. Ford garnered 18 percent and ran on a controversial platform of bringing back video poker and building a casino in Myrtle Beach.

The third Democratic candidate, Jim Rex, state superintendent of education, took 23 percent of the vote. (Reach Yvonne Wenger at ywenger@postandcourier.com.)

Damn right it isn’t fair to Sheheen to be labeled this way because Ford has “hurt feelings.” Lucky for Sheheen he has an African-American office mate and colleague who is willing to speak up against this charge. Otherwise, it would be a label hung on Sheheen’s neck he did nothing to deserve except beat Ford in a political race.

I respect what Ford did in his past, the work he did on behalf of Civil Rights. That is no small thing. When someone who has no experience, no qualifications, did no campaigning, and has little more of a platform than, “Get South Carolinians Back to Work,” as in Alvin Greene, beat out a white guy who has been in office, it is hard to use the race card (as noted by a commenter). Ford came in dead last. That means the voters didn’t really buy what he was selling.

Grow up, Ford – take your hits like an adult already. You ran, you lost. Now try and be a role model for graciousness in losing, not modeling the petulance and dirty tricks of the Whiner in Chief. It is beyond tiresome and unbecoming. It is just sad.

Democratic officeholders should be afraid.

Republican officeholders, too.

For many a year now, officeholders of both major parties have worked hard to earn the distrust of ordinary Americans. It appears that they finally have succeeded.

If only ordinary Americans hadn’t been so inattentive. If only ordinary Americans hadn’t been so trusting. If only ordinary Americans hadn’t been so damnably nice, the country would be in a better position to manage its finances today. [snip]

Better late than never, a lot of ordinary Americans are waking up to the sobering reality that there really is no one they can trust. Not Democrats. Not Republicans. Not government. Not corporations. And certainly not corporations in league with government.

The people who are angry today are more in tune with this nation’s founders than ordinary Americans have been in decades.

While there are those who make fun of a few tea partiers dressing up in costumes reminiscent of our founding fathers, those costumes are designed to make a point:

The United States has an intricate system of checks and balances, and a government structure based on a separation of powers, and a Bill of Rights that safeguards the rights of states and the rights of the people precisely because the greatest collection of political talent and philosophical insight ever assembled on this continent — and maybe anywhere on this planet — looked at the concept of government and said, “We need to make a really small cage for this thing, then be careful not to overfeed it.”

We seem to have lost the care-and- feeding instructions about a century ago. We let government out of its little cage and it has been consuming everything it can lay its paws on ever since. In the last 45 years, it has been on a real binge, and in the last year and a half, it has taken bigger bites than a lot of people thought possible.

Ordinary Americans who care about freedom are finally getting a clue and — horrors! — they’re hollering at members of Congress. That’s right: Nice, trusting, formerly inattentive Americans are getting in the faces of the political class and calling them names.

…If members of the political class are too tender to endure a little well-earned rudeness from the people whose hard-earned money they like to “spread around,” then they ought to get out of politics. Maybe their successors will find the voice of the people less irritating.

While O’Brien is correct in stating that this righteous anger needs to be expressed without violence, he also states that this administration and our media as taking to shutting down criticism with tactics of demonization (just like the administration before it):

Don’t doubt for a second that the left is hoping desperately for someone to step all the way out of line. They thought they had their man — and early news reports said they did — when Joseph Stack crashed his Piper Dakota into an IRS building in Texas.
As it turned out, Stack proved to be a Marx-quoting lefty — the wrong flavor of nut.

So the left has to settle for a little name-calling of its own: “ignorant,” “racist,” “homophobes,” “hooligans,” “extremists.” The list, as you know, goes on and on.

It’s bunk, but it’s the script.

Tea Party folks are just patriots worried, with good reason, about the future of the country they love. They’re vocal and they’re inspiringly unaffiliated.

They scare the hell out of both political parties, because they’ve embraced distrust.

The Democrats fear them because they see through the left’s empty promise of utopia in exchange for freedom. The Republicans fear them because they’re pushy and because they’re loyal to their principles rather than to a party.

They make everyone uncomfortable. That’s healthy.

While I’ve never been to a tea party protest, I got good and angry when the bailouts started at the end of 2008 and the pork laden non useful Stimulus package passed in 2009 and the bailouts of car companies that couldn’t run themselves properly happened, too. The 2700 page health care monstrosity, whose ugly details are now just coming to light, was the last straw.

I was taught to play by the rules only to discover my taxpayer dollars were used to bail out those using our investments as a giant ponzi scheme. And too many politicans who exempt themselves from the rules and policies we are expected to follow take pork for their districts as an inducement to continue to sell taxpayers down the river.

So crooks and liars are rewarded for their folly while the rest of us are told to pay the bill – and keep playing by the rules. That is but one reason for the groundswell of anger sweeping the country.

What are yours?

For some folks at MSNBC? Seems like it, given this recent departure. Craig Crawford, an MSNBC mainstay, has quit the network, even leaving before his contract was out. Wait until you read why that is in this article, MSNBC Political Analyst Craig Crawford Has Left the Network – In A Very Public Way. (Photo by Terry Ballard)

It confirms what many of us have been saying for a while:

Writing on his blog at CQPolitics.com, Crawford says he has found the network “unrewarding for me,” – and expands on his reason for leaving in a comment to Mediaite.

Crawford last appeared on MSNBC on February 5, as a guest on Countdown with Keith Olbermann, where he regularly appeared (according to TV Eyes). The blog post came exactly one month after that appearance. Crawford wrote:

Three months short of my current contract I sent the following to the boss, Phil Griffin: “Phil, Just wanted to give you the heads up that my situation with MSNBC has become so unrewarding for me that I’ve decided to move on. — Craig”

But he really expanded on the reasoning in the comments:

i simply could not any longer endure being a cartoon player for lefty games, just gotta move on to higher ground even if there’s no oxygen

i have never and never will forgive Chris for calling me a racist after the West Virginia primary (the last time I will ever go on air with him). Probably should have resigned then and there, but better late than never.

“Cartoon character for lefty games”?? Holy smokes! Tell us how you really feel, Craig:

We asked Crawford what he was referring to regarding Chris Matthews, and to expand on why he left the network. He responded by email:

I haven’t felt like a good fit for MSNBC since the presidential campaign, and the hard turn toward point-of-view programming. No particular event brought this on, just my desire to try other outlets and have more fun. As far as Chris is concerned, on Morning Joe after the West Virginia primary he accused me of always defending Clinton and what he claimed to be her racially motivated campaigning. That’s the problem. Trying to be fair became seen as bias in the new thinking over there. But I do wish my many pals at MSNBC nothing but good things.

This appears to be that incident from Morning Joe.

Dang, Craig, maybe you could have spoken up a bit more back then, giving it back to Tingly Leg that Hillary ISN’T racist, and for Tingles to claim she is, and calling you a racist, too, was nothing short of reprehensible and slanderous? Just asking. So, tell us more:

The decision by a Countdown regular to leave MSNBC because of his the way he perceives the network is a notable one. Although Crawford isn’t purely left-wing, he is a commentator that represents the left perspective. His exit, and his reasoning, show some level of discontent among those who may be politically on the same team at MSNBC.

Crawford says on his blog he will be on Fox & Friends as a guest on Monday, although FNC says he won’t be. He also writes in the comments that he is a “free agent.”

> Update: Crawford took down the F&F booking info shortly after publication.

Some interesting comments at both Craig’s blog, and at Mediaite about Craig’s decision. Many people support him, but a number of MSNBO viewers attack him for going to “Fox and Friends.” Now there’s a surprise.

It is mighty interesting that Crawford has departed the network before his contract was up, and especially the reasons why. I reckon it is better late than never. Oh, no, wait – because he colluded in MSNBC becoming MSNBO, participated in Hillary-bashing even if it was in staying silent in the face of blatant falsehoods about her from other commentators. And he did participate in their “lefty games.” Now, we are stuck with Obama wrecking our country. But, hey – if things keep going this way, there will be fewer “journalists” willing to make Obama’s presidency a success, like Good Ol’ Chris Matthews. I guess that’s something.

Welcome to the Kool Aide Free zone, also free of Hopium smoke. Glad you made it out, Craig.

Ron Christie offered a piece on The Hill’s pundit blog yesterday entitled “Amateur Hour Is Over.” In it he notes the security failures of the Obama Administration from the alleged Somali terrorist plot to assassinate the President on the date of his inauguration, the failure of Desiree Rogers to stop party crashers at a White House dinner and the near massacre caused by a terrorist on an airliner bound for Detroit. Christie faults everyone around the President as rank amateurs. Perhaps he is correct. But that is not what piqued my interest about this piece.

Christie’s article is just one of many that have lately seen the light of day where prior KoolAid drinkers are coming up for air and feeling disillusioned about the mythic figure they worked so hard to elect. Christie’s approach brings a particular type of cognitive dissonance into sharp relief. Namely, he stops just short of ever blaming the Commander in Chief for choosing these people to work for him in the first place. He is the President. He picked these people. He gives them their marching orders. He cannot pretend and we cannot pretend that he has nothing to do with it.

In article after article, the complaints range from fury over the outsourcing of the disastrous health care bill and failed $787 billion stimulus bill to Madame Pelosi to Obama’s disturbing and detached attitude to a terrorist who almost killed 300 people over U.S. soil on Christmas Day. Maureen Dowd complained of his “dithering” on Afghanistan – but a decision on an increase in troop levels was one he had supposedly made eight months before he finally made it. Whose fault was that? He is always “being given bad advice” or “his speechwriters need to do better.” No one blames Obama. I thought he was supposed to be “right on Day One.”

Bob Herbert of the New York Times has penned several pieces rightly complaining that we are not focusing on job creation. But does he think President Obama is not aware of the pain Americans have been feeling on the economy? He campaigned on the fact that job creation was Job One. Post inauguration, Obama instead forced health care (not going into effect for years), and cap and trade down our throats when a different agenda was clearly required in order to right the ship on the economy and to keep people in their homes with food on the table. Again, why does Herbert think this is happening? These are deliberate choices. Never waste a good crisis, remember?

I always wonder if pundits like Christie stop short of blaming Obama because they cannot admit to themselves that the person they hired for this job is a rank amateur as well, or worse, that he simply does not care about the immediate needs of the American people. Perhaps Christie, too, fears being called racist if he is anything less than worshipful about the mythic figure Axelrod and the media did such a wonderful job of selling to the American people in 2008.

How heartbreaking it must be to have bought the shiny new toy only to find out it doesn’t quite work as promised. These past months, I recall reading pundit commentaries attacking tea partiers, insulting them as “Tea Baggers.” Pundits claim they are not protesting government excess and corruption, but that they are hateful citizens who simply cannot accept that Barack Obama is our President. Yet his sycophants are the very ones who cannot seem to accept that he has the job. They are so busy providing cover for him, putting as much protective space as possible between him and the decisions he must make.

It is easier for some to trash friendships and turn their back on logic, even family to hold on to their belief systems. Oddly, these pundits do not realize by passing the buck, and letting it stop short of ever hitting President Obama’s desk, they too are admitting that he is not up to the job – or that he is merely the front man for shadowy corporate masters. You cannot have it both ways. It is not possible to refer to the Obama Administration as “amateur hour” and yet pretend that the President is brilliant. He must share responsibility here.

Robert Gibbs is one of the worst press secretaries I have yet seen. He is rude, talks out of both sides of his mouth and is a very poor spokesperson for the POTUS. As a loyal Obama operative, he got his proper reward, and we are hurting for it. Keeping him on is an executive decision, too. And it comes from only one place.

There is an old and rather crude saying: “Sh*t rolls downhill.” In all the years I’ve been in the work force, in any successful company, good morale and competence bleeds from the top down. No matter what kind of magnificent support team you have, if management is bad, all the competence and hard work in the world will not be able to keep the company afloat if the powers that be are mismanaging it.

I ran into a voter of President Obama’s who referred to him as a “charismatic figurehead.” But he cannot both be a figurehead and a brilliant leader who is capable of 11-dimension chess. Sooner or later the pundit class will have to choose – just as the President cannot continue to vote ‘present’ and will have to make a choice about what is more important – the American people or protecting his own ego.

Christie complains about Obama having poor advisors. But as our poster Felizarte pointed out, even with the best advisors, one must have the knowledge to properly evaluate that advice. Christie concludes his piece with the following:

The time for amateur hour is over. The president and the American people he has sworn an oath to protect demand excellence and competence at this critical time in American history. Those either incapable or too mired in bureaucratic niceties to serve the American people need to go. The stakes are far too high.

Clearly, this is a paragraph everyone at the White House needs to see. The President has sworn an oath to protect us and as such need to take Executive responsibility for what happens on his watch. Today, President Obama finally uttered the words “the buck stops with me” after a solid year of blaming President Bush and everyone else under the sun for every misstep. Let’s see if he means it.

Welcome to the party, Marc:

With a new NBC/Wall Street journal poll showing Obama hitting his lowest rating in that poll, and the poll showing that people are getting fed up with Obama, the Democrats and how both have handled health care, ( how they handled it, not rejecting things like the public option) those who supported Hillary Clinton for president in the Democratic primaries are starting to say “I told you so”.

Obama’s had the biggest approval ratings drop of any first year president in history. He has disappointed most of his supporters on the left. And he has accomplished little to nothing in his first year that has showed any concrete results in spite of him giving himself a B+.

What he has done is make more speeches and had more prime time press conferences in his first year than any president has had in their first term.

And play golf – Rubin forgot to add that Obama has played more golf in his short time in office than Bush did in three years. So glad he’s working so hard, aren’t you? Well, it shows:

On healthcare reform most of his supportes (sic) are complaining that he sold out and was two faced in his capitulation. Which he was. But these are traits he exhibited not only during his entire 12 years of elected office, but were on glaring display during the Democratic primaries.

Now everyone is angry with him for showing a lack of principle, commitment, experience and expertise and a willingness to sacrifice a principle on a dime but that’s who Obama has always been and he showed it repeatedly during the primaries, whether he was willing to sell out the voters of Florida and Michigan to help himself get elected, or reversing himself on a pledge to use public financing.

Now as Obama’s approval ratings continue to hit record lows for a first term president, and he is bringing the Democratic party down with him, as people are getting fed up with his handling of a propositon (sic) — the public option and health care reform — that 72% supported back in June, many Hillary Clinton supporters are starting to say “we told you so”.

More and more of Obama’s staunchest supporters, the same people who turned a blind eye to Obama’s deep character flaws, lack of experience, and brazen political dishonesty, and deceit, are now complaining that he’s not what they thought he was, that this isnt change they can believe in. But it never was in the first place. It was clear to anyone who paid attention that was nothing but a slogan.

Uh, yep – it surely was. Maybe that’s why his supporters were so mean and hateful to those of us in the reality-based world – because they KNEW Obama was nothing more than smoke and mirrors. By that point, they were already in too deep to admit they were wrong:

Ed Schultz, Arianna Huffington, the people at The Nation, Matt Taibbi at Rolling Stone, are just a few of Obama flag wavers now wavering in their support and scratching their heads saying “what happened”?

The answer is nothing happened. Obama is just being the same Obama he always was, the same Obama that was apparent during the Democratic primaries, the same Obama that a 18 months ago after listening to a couple of speeches, write that he was a snake oil salesman and the most underhanded, deceitful politician since Richard Nixon. But the press. who was in Obama’s pocket, refused to see it.

For those who saw through the phoniness, Obama has been exactly what the majority of Democratic primary voters thought he was. Remember that Hillary Clinton actually received more votes than he did and went into the Democratic convention having won the popular vote.

During the primaries Clinton supporters mocked Obama supporters and their beliefs as people who were “drinking the Kool-Aid”. Obama supporters accused Clinton supporters, and anyone who opposed Obama’s candidacy of being racist. This, from the candidate who ran on the fiction that he had the ability to unite people and bring people together. He ran on the fiction that he had some great ability to unite Democrats and Republicans. Which is why every Republican is voting against the health care bill and hasnt been able to unite any disparate group on anything.

Oh, right, how could I forget? Yes, we were all racists for expecting a presidential candidate to actually have some freakin’ qualifications to BE president. Yes, rather than admit they were wrrrooonnnggg, they pulled out the last “refuge of the liberal scoundrel,” as Charles Krauthammer said. They made an attack so vile, there was no way to defend oneself without the accuser acting smug and arrogant claiming we were nothing but liars about our racism. Oh, good times, good times, NOT.

So, now the veil is lifting for those who were too blind to see for over two years:

In a recent article in Rolling Stone, Matt Taibbi writes, “Obama pulled a bait-and-switch on us. If it were any other politician, we wouldn’t be surprised. Maybe it’s our fault, for thinking he was different.”

Yes it was your fault for not seeing what was right in front of everyone, and the fact that he pulled a bait and switch shouldnt leave anyone surprised. That was the snake oil Obama was selling during the primaries and a lot of people bought and are now finding out it was all just sugar water.

Why people are feeling more stung by Obama is that he did hold himself up to be a different kind of politician, someone above the petty politics and back room deals. And people bought it. What also makes it particularly insidious is when a snake oil salesman goes into a community that is hurting from disease and tells everyone he has the cure and its right in this here bottle when all along he knows its nothing but sugar water. That’s called a con. And now a lot of people who should have known better are realizing it.

It was clear during the primaries when Obama constantly reneged on promises and pledges and resorted to serial lying both when it came to Jeremiah Wright, and the incident in Ohio when a document was leaked that caught Obama red handed, lying to the people of Ohio about his position on NAFTA. He told the people in Ohio who were hurting economically precisely because of things in NAFTA that if they elected him he;d (sic) get rid of NAFTA. At the same time he caught telling the Candians (sic)to ignore what he said in Ohio, that he had no intention of getting rid of NAFTA that it was just for politics. If a politician is willing to get that low, nothing should surprise anyone. But at the time it was exposed, the same people who are complaining now about Obama betraying them didn’t care and turned a blind eye. If Clinton had been caught doing the same thing the press would have demanded she drop out and would have called her unworthy of being president, that she couldnt (sic) be trusted.

And so it was, the blind leading the blind. Did people REALLY believe that someone who chose Chicago for its style of politics, and who was completely enmeshed with those Chicago politicians, was truly ABOVE those politics? Really? Deep down inside?? If so, that’s just a bit delusional, especially considering what so many of us knew:

The fact that Obama was clearly the least qualified candidate for the Democratic nomination, didnt (sic) seem to matter to his supporters either. And while he claimed he was the person who knew how to bring people together the Democratic presidential primaries were the most divisive in the history of the party. He campaigned saying “voices must be heard” but he did everything in is power to keep the voices of voters in Florida and Michigan from being heard because he was landslided there by Clinton. Instead of fighting for the right to have their votes count on principle, he was quite content to have them silenced in favor of his own ambitions. So why are people surprised now, feeling that he sold them out on healthcare reform?

The other big issue that seemed to matter to Obama’s supporters was that he was black. So they took everything Martin Luther King stood for and threw out the window, which was that a person should be judged on the content of their character and not the color of their skin and decided the color of his skin mattered more.

But while this will come as a shock to them, Obama is not the first black president. He is the first mixed race president, half black and half white. He is no more the country’s first black president than Derek Jeter was the Yankees first black shortstop. In all of Jeter’s hall of fame career no one ever referred to him that way. But his genetic make up is the same as Obama’s. The difference is the random shuffling of genetic material which resulted in Jeter having more Caucasian features and a caramel complexion while Obama’s features and complexion were more black. Maybe now that they feel betrayed by Obama,those who supported him because they wanted a black president will admit Martin Luther King was right the first time.

Oh, if only. People wanted to see what they wanted to see, and decided, for their own, dare I say it, racist reasons, that Obama’s candidacy was MORE historic than the first WOMAN. We’ve had plenty of men, some better than others, but never, ever a woman of ANY ethnicity, yet only Obama’s was historic. What a crock of shit. (And I appreciate being able to work my Derek Jeter into this conversation!)

So were all of Obama’s promises:

During the primaries, Obama’s selling out his promises were rampant. He promised to use public financing if he was the nominee then reneged as soon as became the nominee. He promised to filibuster and vote against the FISA bill if it gave telecoms retroactive immunity then reneged, didnt filibuster and voted for it. And lied, until he couldn’t lie any longer about his relationship with Jeremiah Wright and on sending on his economic advisors to the Canadian embassy to tell them to ignore everything he was saying publicly about NAFTA.

This is the person that liberals and Democrats who supported him are now surprised has sold them out when it was apparent that Obama was probably the most underhanded politician since Richard Nixon. The difference between the two is that Nixon used deceit to get even. Obama used it to get ahead. It all goes to character and how that influences decisions. As well as having a vision and sticking up for a principle, something he has thrown overboard on healthcare.

So perhaps Hillary Clinton supporters can be excused if they are now saying ” We told you so”. Because they did.

Still are, and will be until this sham of a president is out of office, this man who cares more about appearing in COMMERCIALS than actually doing the work of the most important politician in the world. This man who seems constitutionally incapable of speaking the truth, or even taking a good long look at himself in the mirror. This man who will put his wife down on national tv in YET another appearance, because NO ONE is capable of doing ANYTHING better than he is. At least in his mind, and he doesn’t give a damn who he throws under the bus to make that point clear, including the mother of his two children.

Yep – we’ve been saying it for over two years. Obama was never qualified to be president, all the words he proclaimed notwithstanding. So yeah, those of us who supported the person who very likely would have been the greatest president in our lifetime have said this until we are hoarse: WE. TOLD. YOU. SO.

Yes, and no. They realize they need to change how the primaries are conducted, yet don’t see any real problems with how the last one went. I have written about the rampant Caucus fraud ad nauseum, but apparently, the DNC missed it. Even though the Clinton Campaign told them about it. Oh, whatever – you can’t make the blind see, especially when they don’t want to see.

Of course, my favorite (cough, choke) representative, Jim Clyburn, who is MY representative (cough, choke), is the voice for this article, “Democrats Consider New Presidential Nominating Process.” Honestly, the whole thing would be laughable if it weren’t so delusional:

National Democrats are considering changing the presidential nominating process, by establishing a new primary calendar and deemphasizing the influence lawmakers and political insiders have on choosing the party nominee.

The battle for the 2008 Democratic presidential nomination was marred by controversy as the Democratic National Committee argued with some state parties over when they could hold their primaries and caucuses and candidates were forced to take sides in this important internal party dispute.

House Majority Whip James Clyburn, D-South Carolina, said that the 2008 nomination contest “yielded a great candidate,” but readily acknowledged the problems that arose.

“We need to improve a little bit in spite of the fact that we got a great candidate out of the process,” Clyburn said Saturday at a meeting of a DNC working group tasked with drafting a new plan. “It was not very comfortable at various points along the way.”

Oh, yes, Obama the unqualified was just the most outstanding candidate in the entire field, with all of his vast leadership experience. Yeah, right.

And that pesky little “controversy”? That’s more often referred to as CHEATING, and people getting pissed off about it. But don’t let me rain on the Democrats’ Delusion Train.

How many of us complained about the way in which the Primaries were conducted, particularly the caucuses, and how states were penalized? How convenient for them to consider changes now that the damage has been done:

Democrats see an opening to change the system now, because this is “a rare cycle of no apparent Democratic presidential nomination challenge” in 2012 as President Obama is expected to seek a second term, according to the “Draft Report of the Democratic Change Commission,” discussed at the meeting.

Commission members, who range from lawmakers and grassroots activists to President Obama’s campaign manager, are charged with putting forth recommendations to help expand the Democratic base and increase more ethnic and regional diversity in choosing the party’s presidential nominee in 2016 and beyond, assuming Obama seeks a second term.

A commission suggestion would be to allow the first four states that held nominating contests in the January 2008 maintain their early, privileged calendar positions. But these states – Iowa, Nevada, New Hampshire and South Carolina – would be directed to delay holding their caucuses and primaries before February 1. All other states would be forbidden from holding their nominating contests until at least the first Tuesday in March.

Another recommendation in the report suggested grouping states by “region or sub-region.”

“This would not be a mandatory obligation upon the state parties,” the commission stated. “The commission recommends that these clusters be staggered throughout the window to allow for a deliberative process that benefits all voters and caucus-goers through the country.”

States parties that abided by the DNC’s calendar would be rewarded by getting special perks at the national nominating convention.

“Special Perks”? Oh, wowie zowie – like their own Rainbow Pony?

Here is where it gets good:

The commission also discussed how to reduce the influence of unpledged delegates – lawmakers and party insiders also know as superdelegates – who played a big role in the 2008 nomination contest.

“Unpledged delegates constituted 19% of the total convention and the presidential candidates were compelled to spend a substantial amount of candidate time and other resources to seek the support of these automatic delegates,” the commission stated. “We learned that in a closely contested presidential race, the nomination could be decided by this category of delegates.”

No formal solution dealing with superdelegates was arrived at Saturday and the commission will draft a plan to reduce their numbers in the coming weeks.

“The DNC must address the perception that there are too many unpledged delegates and those delegates could potentially overturn the will of the people, as determined by the state contests,” the commission stated.

“COULD potentially overturn the will of the people“? How about it DID overturn the will of the people! Between the Superdelegates and the DNC Rules and Bylaws Committee, which decided not to follow its rules and by-laws, it most definitely DID overturn the will of the people. The PEOPLE picked Hillary Rodham Clinton. The DNC and its minions made damn sure of that (make sure you read the Comments at the end of the article – other people get the influence the caucses and ACORN played). What a crock. See why I said these people are delusional?

Finally:

The commission is expected to vote on its final recommendations before December 18. The recommendations will then be sent to the DNC’s Rules and Bylaws Committee for further debate and discussion.

Mark Brewer, chairman of the Michigan Democratic Party, said he had no problem with reducing the number of superdelegates as long as state party chairs and vice chairs maintained their status and party leaders continued to play a role at the conventions.

But Brewer took exception to the idea of allowing four states to be granted a special exemption to hold their primaries before other states.

“From the perspective of Michigan and other states, it is unfair that any state have a permanent place at the top of the process,” said Brewer, who attended the meeting but is not a commission member. “It is unfair to give any states or state a monopoly.”

The Republican National Committee is also looking at how its party chooses its presidential nominee, and the DNC expressed interest Saturday in working with its political rival on a nomination calendar.

As a resident of SC, you may recall we were allowed to get away with having our primary TOO early, with absolutely no penalties whatsoever, because they knew the state would go to Obama. Especially since they, including Jim Clyburn, were working HARD on painting the Clintons – both of them – as racists.

Pathetic. Truly pathetic. These people will simply refuse to admit there was ever any wrong-doing whatsoever by Obama’s minions with caucuses or the DNC in stealing the nomination from Hillary Clinton, thus from US.

Personally, I don’t support liars, cheaters, and thieves. I guess I can add “Delusional” to the beginning of that list, too. Problems in how candidates are chosen cannot truly be addressed until past wrongdoings are acknowledged and rectified. The DNC seems far, far away from ever being able to do that.

And this is exactly why, after being a lifelong Democrat, my response to them is to fuck off. Changes now aren’t going to make up for the machinations of this past campaign season, and the arrogant, petty, neophyte with whom they stuck us. When they admit they should have a do-over, perhaps I won’t be so harsh on them. I’m not holding my breath for that ever happening, thus the sentiment is justified.

Bottom line, too little, too late, and with no remorse on the part of those who manipulated the outcome. In other words, no, the DNC hasn’t gotten enough of a clue. Will they ever?