David Brock, the conservative turned liberal advocate, has recently garnered a considerable amount of press coverage for his attacks on Fox News for, among many other things, allegedly taking over leadership of the Republican Party. What the news coverage has ignored is his use of tax-free funds for his organization, Media Matters for America (MMA), for these attacks — a form of government support for activities that clearly do not merit tax-exempt status and that as a result infringe on Fox News’ First Amendment rights.

MMA was originally established as an Internal Revenue Service Section 501(c)(3) organization, that is, an organization that can receive tax-deductible contributions to engage in educational activities. The more precise purpose was to counter alleged media bias and so to “identify occurrences of excessive bias in the American media, educate the public as to their existence, and to work with members of the media to reduce them.”

What MMA actually is doing, however, moves far afield from identifying possible bias to mounting a campaign to undermine a major media outlet and to promote the Democratic Party and progressive causes associated with it. Mr. Brock himself has described this new strategy as “a war on Fox,” an effort “to disrupt [Rupert Murdoch‘s] commercial interests” and look for ways to turn regulators against News Corp.’s media outlets. [snip] (Click here to read the rest.)

It does not matter if you like Fox, or hate it, but for taxpayer dollars to go to support an alleged non-profit that has a clear political agenda is unacceptable, regardless of whose political agenda it is. There are laws in this country against that sort of thing, after all. And there is that pesky matter of the US Constitution and the First Amendment. Taxpayers should NOT be funding this organization. If George Soros wants to fund it, that’s his decision, but Media Matters sure should not receive our money as a “non-profit.” That is just ridiculous.

And speaking of money, Obama was in New York Thursday night at a few fundraisers, trying to fill his coffers. I just have to ask – who is it that can afford a $35,800 a plate dinner?? That is not a typo – there are five numbers there on purpose. Just wondering.

While Obama was at it, he did a little pandering to the LGBT community, claiming he thinks we should have the same rights in this country as everyone else. I agree with that, but what CNN was not so great about reporting was that Obama also said he thought it should be a state matter. Huh – that’s the same thing Michelle Bachmann said in the recent debate (to give you a comparison).

Meanwhile, DADT is STILL the law of the land over 6 months later after the big hoopla in December. Yep, the government has not finished what it needs to do to change that. Big surprise, huh? Yeah, I didn’t think so…

Add to that Obama misspeaking about a Medal of Honor recipient while pandering at Fort Drum:

[snip] “Throughout my service, first as a senator and then as a presidential candidate and then as a President, I’ve always run into you guys. And for some reason it’s always in some rough spots.

First time I saw 10th Mountain Division, you guys were in southern Iraq. When I went back to visit Afghanistan, you guys were the first ones there. I had the great honor of seeing some of you because a comrade of yours, Jared Monti, was the first person who I was able to award the Medal of Honor to who actually came back and wasn’t receiving it posthumously.”[snip]

Except it was. Oops…

There is more going on, and feel free to discuss whatever you wish!

Update below the fold.

Of Obama campaigning. Yes, he has already started for his re-election. Blech. Oh, he just happened to show up at the Lincoln Memorial after the 11th hour agreement on the budget vote, running around, glad handing, acting like he was the one who wrote the damn thing:

Never mind that he was kicking and screaming throughout the whole process, threatening to veto an extension bill that would fund the Pentagon, thus the military, should there be a government shutdown. And never mind that the REASON we were on the verge of a government shutdown was the Democrats refusal to pass a damn budget last year when they controlled all three houses. Gee – can’t imagine why they decided not to do that, and that decision was made pretty early in the year.

And now Obama is prancing around like he did this single-handedly? Please.

It is only going to get worse from here on out. This is only the beginning of his re-election bid, which he curiously decided to launch in the midst of a boatload of serious issues facing the nation and the world (Libya, Syria, Yemen, Iran, the budget, gas prices that have doubled – DOUBLED -under Obama, and on and on).

Just as a reminder, these are some of the “highlights” toward which I imagine we can look forward, and the mature responses of his followers:

Or this:

Or how about this memorable comment:

Here’s some campaign advice for Mr. Obama, free of charge: when you are in the middle of a campaign, and you choose to go out to be among the people, including eating in a diner, when someone dares ask you a question, answer it. That’s why you are there, right? If you want an uninterrupted waffle-eating breakfast (and was that waffle ever an indicator of things to come from Obama), stay in your hotel room. I’m just saying – you might not want to get all snappy with the people you want to vote for you when you deign to mingle among them.

That is just the beginning. That doesn’t even begin to touch the ways in which Obama takes credit for actions that were not his (the list is way too long, but think back to the last election when he claimed to be on committees he wasn’t on, or bills on which he didn’t work, etc., etc.). How much worse is it going to get now that he actually got into the White House? Geez, I shudder to think.

I wonder if, maybe the second time around, the media might actually do more of its job, and ask him some real questions, like about Rezko, for instance. Or his connections to Big Oil. Yeah, I didn’t think so…

I don’t know that I can take another 1 1/2 of Obama campaigning. The last time was one time too many, if you ask me. I think I’m going to have to spend more time watching videos like this instead of watching Obama lie like a rug, calling people racists if they disagree with him, or tilting his chin up at people in the most arrogant manner possible:

Uh, yeah. This is much better, don’t you think?

**Update** My aunt mentioned to me today that Obama had been complaining about his loss of privacy. Was he ever. I knew he had complained about this before, but wow, want a little whine with that cheese, Mr. Obama? Good grief. I guess he didn’t believe Bush when he said being president was “hard work.” Hmm – I wonder if people will give Obama as hard of a time for saying this:

“I just miss – I miss being anonymous,” he said. “I miss Saturday morning, rolling out of bed, not shaving, getting into my car with my girls, driving to the supermarket, squeezing the fruit, getting my car washed, taking walks. I can’t take a walk.”

His dream, he said, was to “go through Central Park and watch folks passing by … spend the day watching people – I miss that”.

Faced with simmering criticism for playing more golf than most previous occupants of the White House, he explained that the sport was simply the best way of getting away from it all.

“It’s the only excuse I have to get outside for four hours at a stretch,” he told Hearst magazines. [snip] (Click here to read the rest.)

Oh, freakin’ spare me. After he pulled every dirty trick in the book to get INTO the White House, from caucus fraud to vote-stealing, he’s complaining (again)? That just takes the cake…

I think this calls for another horse video, this time with a cat (this one reminds me of my Jordan playing with a teeny tiny little kitten, letting him play with his tail and everything – so cute):

Indeed, their failure to report on them was staggering. One of my brothers just left my house, and he had never heard any of the things Obama said. You know, like the above-referenced “57 states,” and more.

Well, this time, or should I say, once again, the MSM has targeted Sarah Palin. Why? Because she had a slip of the tongue in the midst of a discussion on North Korea attacking South Korea, one she quickly corrected. Not that any of THAT matters. Heck, Obama had to be TOLD that he said there were 57 states. He didn’t catch his mistake (one of many). Nope. Not at all. But, hey – don’t let that change how they actually REPORT the news. Rather, they prefer to make the news, as they did with Palin’s misstep recently.

So, Palin has a little something for the media to help them along. Yes, she has compiled some of Obama’s greatest hits for them in this Facebook message:

A Thanksgiving Message to All 57 States

by Sarah Palin on Thursday, November 25, 2010 at 8:46pm

My fellow Americans in all 57 states, the time has changed for come. With our country founded more than 20 centuries ago, we have much to celebrate – from the FBI’s 100 days to the reforms that bring greater inefficiencies to our health care system. We know that countries like Europe are willing to stand with us in our fight to halt the rise of privacy, and Israel is a strong friend of Israel’s. And let’s face it, everybody knows that it makes no sense that you send a kid to the emergency room for a treatable illness like asthma and they end up taking up a hospital bed. It costs, when, if you, they just gave, you gave them treatment early, and they got some treatment, and ah, a breathalyzer, or an inhalator. I mean, not a breathalyzer, ah, I don’t know what the term is in Austrian for that…

Of course, the paragraph above is based on a series of misstatements and verbal gaffes made by Barack Obama (I didn’t have enough time to do one for Joe Biden). YouTube links are provided just in case you doubt the accuracy of these all too human slips-of-the-tongue. If you can’t remember hearing about them, that’s because for the most part the media didn’t consider them newsworthy. I have no complaint about that. Everybody makes the occasional verbal gaffe – even news anchors.

Obviously, I would have been even more impressed if the media showed some consistency on this issue. Unfortunately, it seems they couldn’t resist the temptation to turn a simple one word slip-of-the-tongue of mine into a major political headline. The one word slip occurred yesterday during one of my seven back-to-back interviews wherein I was privileged to speak to the American public about the important, world-changing issues before us.

I admit – I roared with laughter over Palin not having enough time to write up all of Biden’s gaffes – no kidding – I don’t have that kind of time, either, and I think I have way more time than the ever busy Gov. Palin. Anywho – I get her point – only with someone like her (or Hillary, or anyone who is not Obama or Biden), a slip of the tongue becomes an international scandal. Wow.

Here’s the thing – once again, the MSM failed to actually do their job:

If the media had bothered to actually listen to all of my remarks on Glenn Beck’s radio show, they would have noticed that I refer to South Korea as our ally throughout, that I corrected myself seconds after my slip-of-the-tongue, and that I made it abundantly clear that pressure should be put on China to restrict energy exports to the North Korean regime. The media could even have done due diligence and checked my previous statements on the subject, which have always been consistent, and in fact even ahead of the curve. But why let the facts get in the way of a good story? (And for that matter, why not just make up stories out of thin air – like the totally false hard news story which has run for three days now reporting that I lobbied the producers of “Dancing with the Stars” to cast a former Senate candidate on their show. That lie is further clear proof that the media completely makes things up without doing even rudimentary fact-checking.)

“Hope springs eternal” as the poet says. Let’s hope that perhaps, just maybe, they might get it right next time. When we the people are effective in holding America’s free press accountable for responsible and truthful reporting, then we shall all have even more to be thankful for!

Happy Thanksgiving, everyone!

- Sarah Palin

Love her, hate her, or be indifferent toward her, this continued faux outrage, this one-sided reporting by the Mainstream Media has got to stop. One would have thought that maybe, just maybe, the expose of the JournoListers shaping the news to benefit Obama from the get-go would have made the MSM act a bit more like professionals. Especially their acknowledgment that they intentionally went after Palin because she was a force with which to be reckoned, so they wanted to take her down.

But no. None of that happened. They have just gotten worse and worse. Perhaps they figured since the cat was out of the bag, what the hell? They might as well go all in. Except that isn’t journalism. That is the stuff of tabloids.

I mean, really – the AP – the ASSOCIATED PRESS – writes an entire article on the conspiracy of conservative bloggers to keep Bristol Palin on “Dancing With The Stars” – after the finale. Maybe, just maybe, people were sick and tired of the MSM going after this 20 yr old because of who her mom is, or two of the judges routinely giving her lower scores even though her technique was better than some of the other dancers (a concept backed up in the AP article as well). Oh, yes – the Associated Press quotes a mathematician, Jason Gershman of Nova Southeastern University in Florida, who referred to her dancing as “mediocre.” Sure would like to see THAT mathematician try to dance on this show. Then again, maybe not.

Let’s just take a little gander at Professor Gershman, he of the dancing judging(you don’t have to listen to him if you don’t want to – just take a look):

Uh, yeah – who is HE to critique Bristol’s dancing? I doubt he could come even close to what she accomplished in 10 weeks.

But I digress. In all honesty, I am pretty worried about what has come of the media in this country. If it’s not Sarah, it’s Hillary. It’s whoever they have decided they want to diss to accomplish their endgame. And that is disturbing to me in a big way.

So, good for Governor Palin for highlighting the numerous gaffes of Barack Obama, and the MSM’s failure to acknowledge same, while attacking her for a slip of the tongue. Someone’s got to do it, right?

My physical therapist doesn’t know that I dwell in the world of politics except when recovering from major surgery (and thanks, everyone, for your support and concern. More on that below…). At my last visit with him, he brought up politics. First, he bashed Fox News, and anyone who would watch “such trash”, claiming they make up news to suit their points, not report the news. I mentioned to him that Bret Baier routinely has someone from NPR on for the discussions at the end of his show (since he mentioned he likes NPR), and that Fox routinely has Democrats on. He said they were only the wimpy ones, though, not tough ones. Hmm. So, you know, they don’t count. Like the current head of the DCCC, Chris Van Hollen, I suppose. Okay. Whatever. Let’s find a way to not let facts influence our opinions. (I might add, before 2008, I had the same opinions about Fox, having never watched it. I believed the spiel from the DNC, Jon Stewart, MSNBC, and others. But they (Fox) were the only ones who treated Hillary Clinton with a modicum of respect, especially Greta Van Susteran, so I started giving them a chance. Turns out, they are not as horrible as the Democrats made them out to be.)

Meanwhile, my PT thinks MSNBC is just fine, naturally, and really only operates to counteract the vileness that is Fox. You know, they are performing a service, see, lest people fall under the spell of that horrible Fox machine. Misogynistic rhetoric by Keith Olbermann directed at Hillary Clinton during the 2008 Campaign was not something my PT noticed, but if there was anything, he suggested that I probably just noticed it since I am a woman. He couldn’t think of any instances in which he heard anything misogynistic from Olbermann at all.

I am not kidding. He said all of this with nary a thought that he could be making an ass of himself, or that he was being just a tad sexist his own self by minimizing my saying something was sexist because I’m a woman. (I wonder if a person of color says something is racist, does his/her saying so automatically mean they are just being too sensitive? Or is this something left more for us little ladies when we cry foul on sexism?)

That set the tone for what came next. The PT insisted that I was completely, flat out, absolutely, completely, couldn’t possibly be right, wrong when I said that that Obama stated there are 57 states, or that he said the Great Lakes are in Oregon, or that his parents were inspired to have him because of the March On Selma, even though that event occurred 4 years AFTER his birth, unless this information came solely from Fox News. You know how we women folk don’t really know nothing and all. Well, I quickly found him an article from the LA Times, “Barack Obama Wants To Be President of These 57 United States,” and asked if THAT was sufficient for him, even reading him this quote:

At a later stop Obama was talking with reporters and expressed concern he’d also mis-stated the number of potential cyclone victims in Burma. He said, “”I hope I said 100,000 people the first time instead of 100 million. I understand I said there were 57 states today. It’s a sign that my numeracy is getting a little, uh.” At that point, an aide cut him off and ushered journalists out. Before he could mis-speak again?)

I asked him if the LA Times would suffice. His response? He would have to look it up for himself. He is sitting there, seeing the LA Times masthead on my computer, but even that was not sufficient. Yeah, whatever, dude. Not only did he refuse to acknowledge any of the above instances of Obama misspeaking, but also blew off Obama’s claim that Hillary Clinton won Kentucky because it borders Arkansas, apparently, not understanding that Kentucky borders Illinois’ Southern border. His explanation? That for the people there, at least, it was a “psychological” closeness, so it made sense they would go for Hillary Clinton. Huh?? Wow. Oh, and I mentioned to him that the MSM did not do its job vetting Obama, that had Bush or ANYONE else, said these kinds of things, they would still be talking about them. Seems maybe MSNBC didn’t provide him with as much information as he thought it did (or Jon Stewart, whom he mentioned as one of the people from whom most young people get their news). Ahem.

And you know what his immediate response was to the litany of “mistakes” Obama made? One thing – Hillary and Bosnia. Right. Her exaggeration of one story is equivalent to all of the misstatements and flat out lies of Obama’s. Gotcha.

But here’s the thing – that example cam tripping right off his tongue, but he knew NOTHING about Obama’s gaffes and lies. That is telling in and of itself, isn’t it?

But that is just one guy. We know there are so many more who don’t notice the sexism because they are not women (according to my PT’s logic). For instance, how about California gubernatorial candidate Jerry Brown denying that a woman being called a whore is as bad as a racial slur? Not only did he deny it, he dismissed it out of hand. He sure does know how to win a woman over, doesn’t he?

I can make it a bit more local. Our SC Democratic nominee for the US Senate, Alvin Greene, was apparently just trying to flirt with a young woman when he showed her pornographic photos for which he has now been charged with a felony. At least that seems to be what his attorney was saying in this Washington Post article when the attorney said this:

“He was attempting to flirt with a young lady who had no interest in him,” Eleazer Carter told The Associated Press. “While the charges are very serious, I think it boils down to, when a lady turns you down, has it reached a criminal offense?”

That’s all it was, people – why is everyone making such a big deal out of it? Sheesh, c’mon, already – you little women need to stop being so sensitive.

Which is apparently what the California chapter of N.O.W. thinks in terms of calling women derogatory names. Yep – turns out they think it is A-Okay. You know what I mean – the Jerry Brown “hey, baby, being called a whore ain’t such a bad thing,” from the recent debate with gubernatorial candidate Meg Whitman. WTH??? Add to that Alvin Greene’s “just flirting” assertion, and I just had to share this recent experience. Holy Moley.

And speaking of physical therapy. I am still pretty busy with my daily regimen of physical therapy and dealing with high levels of pain (so, um, that’s my excuse if there are any typos or anything. The PT did say this is what happens when your bone and muscle are cut. It hurts, like being hit with a police baton right on the tibia over and over 24/7 for 6 – 8 weeks. Yep, sounds about right.). I have missed our conversations, but also haven’t been in a place where I can give the time I would like to fully engage. So, thank you again, everyone, for your thoughts and prayers. It means a lot to me. I am working up to writing more regularly, I promise.

“Few would have seen on that day that… that their American ally would be led by a man of African descent.”

That comment was SO out of place, and SO unnecessary.

Yet, SO typical.

Now, you know I can’t abide Andrew Sullivan for a bunch of reasons. Hence my unwillingness to give him any traffic at all by even going to his site and re-posting his article here. But when I saw this blurb, and Sullivan’s arrogant, and sexist, title, I just couldn’t resist. I almost cracked up laughing that he, of all people, is getting his nose out of joint about the questions Cheney was asked in this interview. Apparently, he has forgotten just about every interview Obama has had since he began his campaign, and he was running for the highest office in the land! Cheney is not running for anything (and I hasten to add, I have absolutely NO love lost for Dick Cheney. I appreciate that he supports his daughter, her partner, and their child, but that’s about it).

Perhaps Sullivan forgot this interview by Charlie Gibson of ABC News, an outlet that uses OUR airwaves for FREE, of Obama during the campaign:

How does it feel to break a glass ceiling?
How does it feel to “win”?
How does your family feel about your “winning” breaking a glass ceiling?
Who will be your VP?
Should you choose Hillary Clinton as VP?
Will you accept public finance?
What issues is your campaign about?
Will you visit Iraq?
Will you debate McCain at a town hall?
What did you think of your competitor’s [Clinton] speech?

Oooooohhhhh – how di Obama withstand those WITHERING questions?

Or more recently, how about Brian Williams and his day at the White House, one that culminated in THIS moment:

Seriously?? He really wants to go down this road of how political interviewees are handled? How about this clip with George Stephanapoulous:

Heck, George even supplies the correct verbiage to Obama! And may I just say one more time – HOW was this man portrayed as being ELOQUENT??? Holy smokes.

Okay, one more to prove the point, if you can stomach watching Keith Olberman:

Oh, yes – that is some HARD-HITTING “journalism” there for Mr. Sullivan. Get one of the two most biased for Obama show hosts (I refuse to call Olberman a “journalist”) to lob softballs for Obama to trash the Republicans.

By the way, remember Obama’s appearance with McCain at Ground Zero? Yeah, so dignified:

I digress. Back to the whole hard-hitting journalism thing: At least Steve Kroft pointed out Obama’s inappropriate laughter here:

But he did so with a smile, and accepted that lame-ass excuse from Obama as to why he was laughing while indicating how he was going to use our money to bail out the UAW even though Americans were STRONGLY opposed to that idea.

Sullivan complains about the questions asked Cheney? Maybe he should have been so worried about the questions asked of Obama…

Naturally, it’s about Secretary Hillary Clinton. For once, there was a GOOD article, calling out some of the sexism with which she has had to deal, while highlighting the incredible work she has been doing on behalf of the State4 Department, and our country. David Rothkopf had this article, “It’s 3:00 a.m. Do you Know Where Hillary Clinton Is?” I admit, when I first saw the title, I thought he was being snarky, and it was going to be yet another hatchet job on this amazing woman, this bright star. Imagine my delight when I read it, and discovered, far from snark, this was a serious article, about a serious role, and a serious person. All I can say is, it’s about damn time:

When it comes to Hillary Rodham Clinton, we’re missing the forest for the pantsuits.

Clinton is not the first celebrity to become the nation’s top diplomat — that honor goes to her most distant predecessor, Thomas Jefferson, who by the time he took office was one of the most famous and gossiped-about men in America — but she may be the biggest. And during her first seven months in office, the former first lady, erstwhile presidential candidate and eternal lightning rod has drawn more attention for her moods, looks, outtakes and (of course) relationship with her husband than for, well, her work revamping the nation’s foreign policy.

Even venerable publications — such as one to which I regularly contribute, Foreign Policy — have woven into their all-Hillary-all-the-time coverage odd discussions of Clinton’s handbag and scarf choices. Daily Beast editor Tina Brown, while depicting herself as a Clinton supporter, has been scathing and small-minded in discussing such things as Clinton’s weight and hair, while her “defense” of Hillary in her essay “Obama’s Other Wife” was as sexist as the title suggests.

Indeed, sexism has followed Clinton from the campaign trail to Foggy Bottom, as seen most recently in the posturing outrage surrounding the exchange in Congo when Clinton reacted with understandable frustration to the now-infamous question regarding her husband’s views. Major media outlets have joined the gossipfest, whether the New York Times, which covered Clinton’s first big policy speech by discussing whether she was in or out with the White House, or The Washington Post, where a couple of reporters mused about whether a brew called Mad Bitch would be the beer of choice for the secretary of state.

May I just pause here to say, THANK YOU for calling these “news” sources out for these sexist depictions/attacks on Clinton. Thank you.

As to the work of Secretary Clinton, the article continues:

Amid all the distractions, what is Clinton actually doing? Only overseeing what may be the most profound changes in U.S. foreign policy in two decades — a transformation that may render the presidencies of Bill Clinton and George W. Bush mere side notes in a long transition to a meaningful post-Cold War worldview.

The secretary has quietly begun rethinking the very nature of diplomacy and translating that vision into a revitalized State Department, one that approaches U.S. allies and rivals in ways that challenge long-held traditions. And despite the pessimists who invoked the “team of rivals” cliche to predict that President Obama and Clinton would not get along, Hillary has defined a role for herself in the Obamaverse: often bad cop to his good cop, spine stiffener when it comes to tough adversaries and nurturer of new strategies. Recognizing that the 3 a.m. phone calls are going to the White House, she is instead tackling the tough questions that, since the end of the Cold War, have kept America’s leaders awake all night.

In these early days of the new administration, it has been easy to focus on what Clinton has not achieved or on ways in which her power has been supposedly constrained. Indeed, some of her efforts have been frustrated by difficult personnel approvals or disputes with the White House about who should get what jobs. But this is the way of all administrations. More unusual has been the avidity with which the new president has seized the reins of foreign policy — more assertively than either George W. Bush or Bill Clinton before him. Obama’s centrality amplifies the importance of his closest White House staffers, while his penchant for appointing special envoys such as Richard Holbrooke (on Afghanistan and Pakistan) and George Mitchell (on the Middle East) has been interpreted by some as limiting Clinton’s role.

Given the challenges involved, it was perhaps natural that the White House would have a bigger day-to-day hand in some of the nation’s most urgent foreign policy issues. But with Obama, national security adviser Jim Jones, Vice President Joe Biden and Secretary of Defense Robert Gates absorbed by Iraq, Afghanistan and other inherited problems of the recent past, Clinton’s State Department can take on a bigger role in tackling the problems of the future — in particular, how America will lead the world in the century ahead. This approach is both necessary and canny: It recognizes that U.S. policy must change to fulfill Obama’s vision and that many high-profile issues such as those of the Middle East have often swamped the careers and aspirations of secretaries of state past.

Which nations will be our key partners? What do you do when many vital partners — China, for example, and Russia — are rivals as well? How must America’s alliances change as NATO is stretched to the limit? How do we engage with rogue states and old enemies in ways that do not strengthen them and preserve our prerogative to challenge threats? How do we move beyond the diplomacy of men in striped pants speaking only for governments and embrace potent nonstate players and once-disenfranchised peoples?

In searching for answers, Clinton is leaving behind old doctrines and labels. She outlined her new thinking in a recent speech at the Council on Foreign Relations in New York, where she revealed stark differences between the new administration’s worldview and those of its predecessors: The recurring themes include “partnership” and “engagement” and “common interests.” Clearly, Madeleine Albright’s “indispensable nation” has recognized the indispensability of collaborating with others.

Who those “others” are is the area in which change has been greatest and most rapid. “We will put,” Clinton said, “special emphasis on encouraging major and emerging global powers — China, India, Russia and Brazil, as well as Turkey, Indonesia and South Africa — to be full partners in tackling the global agenda.” This is the death knell for the G-8 as the head table of the global community; the administration has an effort underway to determine whether the successor to the G-8 will be the G-20, or perhaps some other grouping. Though the move away from the G-8 began in the waning days of the Bush era, that administration viewed the world through a different lens, a perception that evolved from a traditional great-power view to a pre-Galilean notion that everything revolved around the world’s sole superpower.

Obama and Clinton have both made engaging with emerging powers a priority. Obama visited Russia earlier this year and will host Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh in his first state dinner in November. Clinton has made trips to China and India, and she would have been with Obama in Russia had she not injured her elbow. Both have visited Africa and the Middle East, reaching out to women and the Islamic world.

To anyone who has been following Clinton throughout her career, the manner in which she has been pursuing her position should come as no surprise. You may recall a book she wrote some time ago, It Takes A Village, in which these kinds of concepts have been discussed. She works in a collegial manner, holding the bigger picture firmly in hand as she goes about her work. It isn’t about her. It is about the world, the country, and the citizens here and abroad. It is about pulling women and children up out of poverty, having people be educated, allowing people to live their lives, and not just fight to survive. That’s her deal, and it has been for a long, long time. And it is that commitment that leads to this:

On many critical agenda items — from a rollback of nuclear weapons to the climate or trade talks — such emerging powers will be essential to achieving U.S. goals. As a result, we’ve seen a new American willingness to play down old differences, whether with Russia on a missile shield or, as Clinton showed on her China trip, with Beijing on human rights.

At the center of Clinton’s brain trust is Anne-Marie Slaughter, the former dean of Princeton’s Woodrow Wilson School of Public and International Affairs. Now head of policy planning at the State Department, Slaughter elaborated on the ideas in Clinton’s speech. “We envision getting not just a new group of states around a table, but also building networks, coalitions and partnerships of states and nonstate actors to tackle specific problems,” she told me.

“To do that,” Slaughter continued, “our diplomats are going to need to have skills that are closer to community organizing than traditional reporting and analysis. New connecting technologies will be vital tools in this kind of diplomacy.”

A new team has been brought in to make these changes real. Clinton recruited Alec Ross, one of the leaders of Obama’s technology policy team, to the seventh floor of the State Department as her senior adviser for innovation. His mission is to harness new information tools to advance U.S. interests — a task made easier as the Internet and mobile networks have played starring roles in recent incidents, from Iran to the Uighur uprising in western China to Moldova. Whether through a telecommunications program in Congo to protect women from violence or text messaging to raise money for Pakistani refugees in the Swat Valley, technology has been deployed to reach new audiences.

Of course, you need more than new ideas to revitalize the State Department; you need resources, too. The secretary has brought in former Bill Clinton-era budget chief Jack Lew to help her claw back money for statecraft that many in Foggy Bottom feel has been sucked off toward the Pentagon. She has also created special positions to back new priorities, such as Melanne Verveer as ambassador at large for women’s issues, Elizabeth Bagley to handle public-private outreach worldwide and Todd Stern as the chief negotiator on climate.

Even just a few months in, it’s clear that these appointments are far from window dressing. Lew, Slaughter and the acting head of the U.S. Agency for International Development are leading an effort to rethink foreign aid with the new Quadrennial Diplomacy and Development Review, an initiative modeled on the Pentagon’s strategic assessments and designed to review State’s priorities. Stern has conducted high-level discussions on climate change around the world, notably with China. Clinton made women’s issues a centerpiece of her recent 11-day trip to Africa, where she stressed that “the social, political and economic marginalization of women across Africa has left a void in this continent that undermines progress and prosperity.”

Unlike other politicians, I don’t think Clinton appoints people to be “window dressing,” but to get the job done. That is further evidenced with the following appointment:

Clinton has also signaled the importance of private-sector experience by naming former Goldman Sachs International vice chairman Robert Hormats, a respected veteran of four administrations, to handle economic issues at the State Department, as well as Judith McHale, former chief executive of Discovery Communications, to run public diplomacy. In the same vein, she has opened up Cuba to American telecommunications companies and reached out to India’s private sector on energy cooperation — showing that this administration will seek to advance national interests by tapping the self-interests of the business community. As with any new administration, there have been inevitable problems. The old campaign teams — Clinton’s and Obama’s — still eye each other warily, but this feeling is gradually fading. And by most accounts, the administration’s national security team has come together successfully, with Clinton developing strong relationships with national security adviser Jones and Defense Secretary Gates. Her policy deputy, Jim Steinberg, has renewed an old collaboration with deputy national security adviser Tom Donilon; the two of them, working with Obama campaign foreign policy advisers Denis McDonough and Mark Lippert, have formed what one State Department seventh-floor dweller called “a powerful quartet at the heart of real interagency policymaking.” Henry Kissinger may have overstated matters when he said this is the best White House-State relationship in recent memory, but it’s not bad, while the State-Pentagon relationship is in its best shape in decades.

Huh. Well, I’ll be. Who could have seen THAT coming? Oh, I know – the 18 million people who voted for her!

But Clinton is not looking back to what was. Rather, she is looking ahead to see how best she can fulfill her work, As such, again, she looks at the big picture, and how best to accomplish what needs doing, including:

At the heart of things, though, is the relationship between Clinton and Obama. For all the administration’s talk of international partnerships, that may be the most critical partnership of all.

So far, according to multiple high-level officials at State and the White House, the two seem aligned in their views. In addition, they are gradually defining complementary roles. Obama has assumed the role of principal spokesperson on foreign policy, as international audiences welcome his new and improved American brand. Clinton thus far has echoed his points but has also delivered tougher ones. Whether on a missile shield against Iran or North Korean saber-rattling, the continued imprisonment of Aung San Suu Kyi in Burma or rape and corruption in Congo, the secretary of state has spoken bluntly on the world stage — even if it triggered snide comments from North Korea.

It is still early, and a president’s foreign policy legacy is often defined less by big principles than by how one reacts to the unexpected, whether missiles in Cuba or terrorism in New York. Promising ideas fail because of limited attention or reluctant bureaucracies, and some rhetoric eventually rings hollow, as the self-congratulatory “smart power” already does to me.

Nevertheless, there is evidence that, seven months into the job, Obama’s unlikely secretary of state is supporting and augmenting his agenda effectively. Not as Obama’s “other wife,” not as Bill Clinton’s wife, not even as a celebrity or as a former presidential candidate — but in a new role of her own making. (drothkopf@carnegieendowment.org

David Rothkopf is a visiting scholar at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace and the author of “Superclass: The Global Power Elite and the World They Are Making” and “Running the World: The Inside Story of the NSC and the Architects of American Power.” He will be online to chat with readers Monday at 11 a.m. Submit your questions and comments before or during the discussion.)

Indeed – she is embracing a “role of her own making.” It is hard not to consider what could have been had she been President instead of Secretary of State. Don’t get me wrong – as I have said a number of times, I am glad that Clinton is in such a crucial role for our country. Clearly, we need her. But the same intelligence; the ability, and vision, to hold the big picture in her grasp while determining the best course to achieve those goals, while finding the people who can affect those goals; the nation-building, yes, the community-building; are all the ingredients necessary for a good presidency. And I am pretty sure that a President Hillary Clinton would not have made any “wee-wee” remarks about the press corp, either. It’s a matter of decorum, the ability to hold things, events, people, in tension. It’s a matter of vision, and the ability to effect change in a real, meaningful way. That’s our Hillary. Thank heavens she is finally starting to get the recognition she so richly deserves.

– calling the vetting process for Obama administration nominees “ridiculous” and “a nightmare.”

At a question-and-answer session with staff from the U.S. Agency for International Development, a woman asked her when the agency would be getting a new administrator and “why it’s taking so long.”

“Let me say it’s not for lack of trying,” Clinton replied. “The process — the clearance and vetting process — is a nightmare,” she told the staff. “It takes far longer than any of us would want to see. It is frustrating beyond words.”

The secretary said she “pushed very hard last week, when I knew I was coming here, to get permission from the White House to be able to tell you that help is on the way and somebody will be nominated shortly.” But, she said, “the message came back, ‘We’re not ready.’”

Wow. So everyone who wants to work for the Obama Administration has to submit to a colonoscopy. Hillary certainly did. Oh, oops. Sorry. My bad. I guess. I mean. Not exactly everyone. I don’t think the Commander in Chief has ever submitted to, nor could he pass, his own vetting process. And Timmy “Turbo Tax” Geithner clearly would have failed, too, according to the criteria of the White House, except for the fact that our President made a big case of saying Timmy was the only one who knew how to fix the economy.

So how’s that working out so far?

Hey, in Timmy’s case, maybe a strict vetting process would have been a good idea. What a shame he was not subject to the same scrutiny as prospects for the USAID position. As Secretary Clinton further states:

“Anyone who has gone through it or looked at this process will tell you that every administration it gets worse,” she added.

“Some very good people just didn’t want to be vetted,” she explained. “You have to hire lawyers, you have to hire accountants. I mean, it is ridiculous!”

Drawing laughs from the crowd, Clinton said, “And then here’s one of the questions you get asked: First of all, you have to remember everywhere you’ve lived since you were 18. And, beyond a certain age you can’t even remember when you were 18!”

One of her “all-time favorite questions,” she said, is, “Please tell us every foreign national you know.”

“I mean, some people who are of different ancestry, they’re a hyphenated American and they have family still living in other countries, finally said it’s ridiculous. I mean, I have lots of cousins I’ve never met. You’re going to ask me to put their names down so they can all be interviewed? That’s ridiculous!

“You’re sensing my frustration!” Clinton sighed.

Now I know that news media is always looking for any sensational headline it can squeeze out to put Clinton and Obama at odds, but really this does seem to be undermining of her efforts? The combined one-two punch of the State Department and USAID is important and I am continually amazed, if not surprised, how this Administration keeps shooting itself in the foot, not able to focus on the big picture.
A job needs to get done here and this over burdensome vetting process is not helping, particularly when it is only selectively applied.

More do as I say, not as I do, I guess.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

And here Mr. Krauthammer sums it up perfectly:

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

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

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

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

What is not fine is this statement:

People of the world – look at Berlin!

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

As Mr. Krauthammer correctly concludes:

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

WE ARE LIVE NOW! CLICK ON THE ARROW TO JOIN US!

Come on by and let your hair down. You’ll be free to RANT about what you REALLY think about Michelle and Barack’s destruction of the once-unparalleled position of the United States as the globe’s clear superpower, both real and symbolically. I, for one, can’t take it anymore. Be sure to share what you’ve been saying and e-mailing to friends and family. Copy and paste any especially Obama-damning e-mails or blog comments you’ve written.

Axelrod puppet Barack Obama studies Axelrod puppet Deval Patrick as the latter offers empty slogans and gestures

David Axelrod manufactures commodities, not politicians: they don suits; they read teleprompters; they promise something new and unprecedented; but these newfangled objects cannot govern. No, I am not referring to Barack Obama, although this news does not bode well for Axelrod’s latest product; I am discussing Deval Patrick, who according to a 7News Boston poll has lost all credibility with the voters of Massachusetts.

Readers of No Quarter recall how Obama and Patrick read from the same script penned by David Axelrod.

I guess the voters of Massachusetts are finally experiencing a moment of disenchantment. Perhaps they now realize that all Axelrod’s commodities cum politicians can offer are “just words.” I quote the Boston Herald:

The survey of 400 registered voters – Democrats, Republicans and unenrolled alike – shows angry Bay Staters quickly losing faith in the state government, with Patrick taking the biggest hit.

Only 34 percent of those surveyed in the poll conducted for 7News by Suffolk University say the governor deserves re-election, while a stunning 47 percent say it is “time to elect someone else.”

Voters gave Patrick a 43 percent unfavorable rating and a 44 percent favorable rating. The rest are undecided….

Asked about Patrick’s job performance, 49 percent disapproved, 40 percent approved and 11 percent were undecided….

Patrick’s dismal poll numbers come after battering in the press over his naming of a senator pal to a costly plum post, raises for sheriffs, addition of two pricey staffers to the Pike payroll, embarrassing comments by his transportation secretary and his own dismissal of the controversies as “trivial.”

Aloof and oblivious to the cronyism of his administration, the incompetence of his Cabinet members and the apparent lack of ethics and fiscal responsibility he and his operatives are exhibiting, Deval Patrick is the ominous reflection of his political semblable Barack Obama.

No wonder why the NRSC has created the following advertisement:

The NRSC now knows what we have always known: Obama is just another Patrick. Indeed, he is just an updated version of a model everyone now knows is failed. He is, in other words, just so many ethereal words.

I am sure Obama will dismiss all the contradictions highlighted in the NRSC advertisement as so much trivia. He will probably claim that we cannot hold him accountable for what he promised during the campaign. After all, all he had uttered before the desperate crowds were “just words.” And I am sure he will become as aloof and oblivious as Patrick has as more and more voters lose confidence in his ability to lead as controversy compounds controversy. Commodities are alluring during a campaign, but they prove to be defunct the moment one tests their ability to govern. All that once appeared to be solid evaporates into so much hot air, I guess. The object that seemed so tangible in its promise provided nothing more than an impalpable mirage.

Obama is quickly becoming a Patrick, who from all indications is dead on arrival in 2010. Certainly if Obama continues on the path he has forged thus far, he too will be a flash in the pan, a wonder who lasted one term. This should be of no surprise, for he and Patrick are cut from the same cloth, hewn from the same block of wood, carved by the same Axelrod. And besides, his/tory has this tendency to repeat itself, rendering the past, the present and the future all into one grand, temporally suspended farce. Hillary Clinton, on the other hand, would have made her/story. For she was not assembled in Axelrod’s toxic factory.

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?

FROM BBC Business:

President Obama has called the contraction of the US economy in the final quarter of 2008 a “continuing disaster” for the US.

Speaking at the White House, he also announced a new task force to help middle-class working families.

US economic output fell 3.8%, the worst quarterly contraction in more than 26 years, official figures have shown………

Notice in the graph how the economic tanking seems to follow the ups and downs since Obama came roaring on the scene.  Obama up, economy down.

If I was a little more mistrusting than I already am, I’d swear that Obama wants to make the Depression Prophecy self fulfilling.  After all, Great Presidents are made in the cauldron of strife and war.  Boring times make for boring history.

* President In Training Obama

Cross Posted from my Partizane

It looks like President Obama hasn’t gotten acquainted to his White House surroundings. On the way back to the Oval Office Tuesday, the President approached a paned window, instead of the actual door — located a few feet to his right.

Uh, yeah. That would be a window, as evidenced by the fixed nature, lack of hinges, and a doorknob. Ahem.

As a reminder:

Doors didn’t open automatically for Obama’s predecessor either. While making a hasty exit from a 2005 press conference in Beijing, former President George W. Bush tugged on the handles of a door, only to find it locked.

Bush laughed off the blunder, but the pictures still live on as part of Bush’s lame duck legacy. However, there was little note taken of Obama’s rookie mistake.

Really? The media is going to ignore yet another “mistake” of Obama’s? What a new and different approach for their treatment of Obama! Cough. Ahem.

C’mon, already – this is pretty damn laughable. How can they ignore this? Shoot, at least Bush was somewhere unfamiliar – this was at the freakin’ Oval Office!! You better believe if this had been ANYONE else, ANYONE, it would be leading all of the news stories. Oh, well, I guess I should be thankful SOMEONE is covering it. The article finishes up with a bit of an excuse (again, oh what a surprise):

Obama, who was returning from meeting with Congressional leaders, may have been distracted by Republicans’ icy reception to his $825 billion stimulus package, which is poised to pass on Wednesday even without a groundswell of Republican support.

Yeah, that’s the ticket. He was thrown off his stride by those schmucky Republicans! What is their problem not wanting to hand out even more money for things like, oh, $600 million more for its fleet of 600,000 government cars? So what if the US Government is already spending a cool $3 BILLION a year on these cars? Sheesh! Skinflints.

Anywho – let’s just see if this photo has the shelf life of the Bush photo. I, for one, am not holding my breath.

Oh, but WAIT, there’s more that just came out!!! (Major H/T to Andy for this story.) It seems that before Obama tried to enter through the window at the Oval Office, he tried to take the wrong elevator after meeting with Republican Senators. He was a bit “disoriented,” it seems. Wow. This stuff practically writes itself. Though that was not as much of a faux pas, since he was trying to use the Senators’ elevator. Come to think of it, consider how little he did while in the Senate, it’s kind of a surprise he even knew about that elevator! Ahem.

Yep – I’m thinking there are going to be a whole lot more of these kind of episodes. As my buddy, Divine Democrat reminded me, we’ve already had his “57 states” thing, and I know he’s made a ton of gaffes while on the campaign trail. At least that’s something toward which we can look forward, right? Ahem.

What are some of the ones Obama made that stand out to you?