The American Idol president is running his own reality show and we are picking up the tab. Mr. Obama seems to think that he and his wife are the most fascinating part of the American narrative. Last Friday, the IOC clarified the butter for the Obamas. In the past months, we have published many articles reporting on Kool Aid drinkers who have lifted their heads from the pink trough, dazed and confused, wondering where the “Change” is. The list is long: Peggy Noonan, Frank Rich, Susan Estrich, Andrew Sullivan, Camille Paglia, Robert Reich. Feel free to add your own. Today I add three more to that growing list.

First WaPo’s Richard Cohen complains Obama Doesn’t Seem Ready to Lead:

Barack Obama’s trip to Copenhagen to pitch Chicago for the Olympics would have been a dumb move whatever the outcome. But as it turned out (an airy dismissal would not be an unfair description), it poses some questions about his presidency that are way more important than the proper venue for synchronized swimming. The first, and to my mind most important, is whether Obama knows who he is.

This business of self-knowledge is no minor issue. It bears greatly on the single most crucial issue facing this young and untested president: Afghanistan. Already, we have his choice for Afghanistan commander, Gen. Stanley A. McChrystal, taking the measure of his commander in chief and publicly telling him what to do. This MacArthuresque star turn called for a Trumanesque response, but Obama offered nothing of the kind. Instead, he used McChrystal as a prop, adding a bit of four-star gravitas to that silly trip to Copenhagen by having the general meet with him there.

Mr. Cohen is blaming Gen. McChrystal for someone else leaking his report to the President. The more important point is, as Gen. Wes Clark or anyone else who’s actually been in this position will tell you (and as he did say in an interview this weekend), you’d better listen to your commanders on the ground. Cohen is right that the 25 minute meeting with McChrystal on Friday was merely a photo op. He’s still deliberating. How many more months of ‘deliberating” are required while our soldiers are dying in Afghanistan?

This is the president we now have: He inspires lots of affection but not a lot of awe. It is the latter, though, that matters most in international affairs, where the greatest and most gut-wrenching tests await Obama. If he remains consistent to his own rhetoric of just last August, he will send more troops to Afghanistan and more of them will die. “This is not a war of choice,” he said. “This is a war of necessity. Those who attacked America on 9/11 are plotting to do so again. If left unchecked, the Taliban insurgency will mean an even larger safe haven from which al-Qaeda would plot to kill more Americans.”

President Obama has the disastrous example of Iraq where Bush’s Generals told him from the outset that an overwhelming force was needed. They did not get it. You saw the result. Obama himself admitted that the belated 2007 surge was wildly successful. How much more evidence does he need? Define the mission, and either send the forces in to get the job done or pull all our men and women out of there. Choose. Lead. That’s the job description. Date night I don’t care about. Dog walking I don’t care about.

Cohen concludes:

But the ultimate in realism is for the president to gauge himself and who he is: Does he have the stomach and commitment for what is likely to be an unpopular war? Will he send additional troops, but hedge by not sending enough — so that the dying will be in vain? What does he believe, and will he ask Americans to die for it? Only he knows the answers to these questions. But based on his zigzagging so far and the suggestion from the Copenhagen trip that the somber seriousness of the presidency has yet to sink in, we have reason to wonder.

Has the seriousness of the presidency sunk in? Now there’s a question.

You may be surprised to note that NY Times columnist Bob Herbert is wondering the same thing. A huge cheerleader for Obama, Herbert cried racism and even saw phallic symbols in the leaning tower of Pisa in a misguided attempt to defend his chosen hero last year. Now he wonders Does Obama Get It? Well, Mr. Herbert, don’t feel bad. This question has been keeping me up nights, too. He states:

The big question on the domestic front right now is whether President Obama understands the gravity of the employment crisis facing the country. Does he get it? The signals coming out of the White House have not been encouraging.

Clearly Mr. Herbert, if you have to ask, then Obama does not understand the gravity of the situation. Where is his good judgment? How can one not understand 9.8 unemployment – in reality it is a much higher number when one includes Americans out of work for so long they have fallen off the rolls.

The Beltway crowd and the Einsteins of high finance who never saw this economic collapse coming are now telling us with their usual breezy arrogance that the Great Recession is probably over. Their focus, of course, is on data, abstractions like the gross domestic product, not the continued suffering of living, breathing human beings struggling with the nightmare of joblessness.

Even Mr. Obama, in an interview with The Times, gave short shrift to the idea of an additional economic stimulus package, telling John Harwood a few weeks ago that the economy had likely turned a corner. “As you know,” the president said, “jobs tend to be a lagging indicator; they come last.”

The view of most American families is somewhat less blasé. …

Nearly one in four American families has suffered a job loss over the past year, according to a survey released by the Economic Policy Institute. Nearly 1 in 10 Americans is officially unemployed, and the real-world jobless rate is worse.

It is a nightmare. No one is blasé when they are worried how they are going to feed their families. What about the porkulus package? Is this administration waiting to release most of the funds in 2010 to help them at the polls? If that is the case, shame on them.

Why should Obama understand when he isn’t spending his own money? Half million dollar pizza parties, an obscene amount spent on the inauguration and several million on this reckless Copenhagen junket show a frightening disconnect between Obama’s priorities and his fiduciary responsibility to the American people. Herbert continues:

The Obama administration seems hamstrung by the unemployment crisis. No big ideas have emerged. No dramatically creative initiatives. While devoting enormous amounts of energy to health care, and trying now to decide what to do about Afghanistan, the president has not even conveyed the sense of urgency that the crisis in employment warrants.

If that does not change, these staggering levels of joblessness have the potential to cripple not just the well-being of millions of American families, but any real prospects for sustained economic recovery and the political prospects of the president as well. An unemployed electorate is an unhappy electorate.

Mr. Herbert, they are already crippled, but instead of addressing the urgency of the economy and Afghanistan head on, we get what George Will calls The Obamas’ Narcissism on Display. Speaking of Mr. and Mrs. Obama’s speeches before the IOC last week,

…Their separate speeches to the International Olympic Committee were so dreadful, and in such a characteristic way, that they might be symptomatic of something that has serious implications for American governance.

Both Obamas gave heartfelt speeches about … themselves. Although the working of the committee’s mind is murky, it could reasonably have rejected Chicago’s bid for the 2016 games on aesthetic grounds — unless narcissism has suddenly become an Olympic sport.

George Will suggested that since the Obamas used so many “I” and “me” references in their speeches, Obama’s genius speechwriters (Favreau et al) should have substituted the words I and me with “sauerkraut” to underscore the ‘antic nature of their excessive appearances.’ Someone needs to tell the Obamas that what is compelling about America is all Americans – all colors of the rainbow, all states, all social strata – together. All of us. Not just the two of them. And all of us are hurting out here. Our soldiers are hurting, too.

Will also points to Obama’s excessive use of cliché:

“At this defining moment,” a moment “when the fate of each nation is inextricably linked to the fate of all nations” in “this ever-shrinking world,” he aspires to “forge new partnerships with the nations and the peoples of the world.”
…
Does our Cicero even glance at his speeches before reading them in public?

All this is indicative of a man not connected to his words or not caring enough about either his audience or the subject at hand to come up with anything better than patented brand phrases that some focus group told him “resonate” with the public.

Our soldiers and our economy need a coherent plan. Now. He has had ample time to figure this out, as has Congress. Too much energy is focused on infighting for a health care plan that is such an incoherent monstrosity that they should trash it and start over. This is not even supposed to take effect until 2013, after the next election. Hmmm I wonder why. All things considered, that leaves health care the least urgent issue of the three.

On Afghanistan and the economy, pressing matters where lives, jobs and homes are on the line – where is the president? Will concludes:

Unhappy will be a president whose defining adjective is “vain.”

In keeping with the vanity of this man’s administration, we also see that nothing President Obama does is his own fault. This is the job he wanted. And a majority of the electorate voted him in to do it. What is he waiting for? There is no one else to blame if he hems and haws so long that Afghanistan is lost. There is no one else to blame if he insists on focusing on parts of an agenda that are not helping put the American people back to work. This is his presidency now. So I’ll ask again.

Mr. President, why did you want this job?

As a liberal from way back, I must say, if anyone on the left allows themselves to be represented in thought or deed by the likes of Keith Olbermann and Village Voice’s Michael Musto, they really need to rethink their life choices. Jay Leno has also earned himself a spot on the “who’s got the attitude of a pig” list by insulting Hillary yet again, but we’ll get to him in a minute. First, Olbermann did a feature on Countdown the other night where they “outed” the unfortunate runner up of the Miss USA contest, Carrie Prejean, as having breast implants! Oh, horrible, horrible and most horrible!! To the pitchforks!!

I bet Keithie puffed his chest up really high to deliver this news! What a precious little rooster he is! As you may be aware, the unfortunate Miss Prejean found herself in the cross hairs for truthfully answering a question she should never have been asked at a beauty pageant – her position on gay marriage. Even the Donald makes clear that question was ridiculous. No other contestants were asked this. Why her? This was nothing more than Perez Hilton trying to gain mileage for his cause in California, as payback, perhaps, for Prop 8 getting passed.

But Mr. Hilton and others like him would do well not to pick on Miss Prejean who had the courage to answer honestly, whether you agree with her or not. Especially since her position is no different than President Obama or VP Biden.

Mr. Hilton would do better to direct his anger toward President Obama, who gave his voters very mixed messages on the subject, saying vote “no” on Prop 8, but that “marriage is only between a man and a woman.” That was what ABC News referred to as a “nuanced position.” I see. It is fascinating that they must all find someone else to project their anger onto because they cannot bring themselves to lay responsibility at the proper door. And guess what, the fault ain’t with Miss Prejean for Prop 8 passing. Many of President Obama’s voters voted “Yes.”

It is hard to even stomach the following transcript, to see the depths of depravity of these two gents as they rip this woman apart with glee:

OLBERMANN (4/30/09): After going rogue at the Miss USA Pageant, Miss California, Carrie Prejean, was enjoying her new title as self-appointed champion of “opposite marriage.” Pageant officials are now retaliating. They’ve outed her—for having breast implants. Our number-one story, Miss California now being accused of using performance-enhancers…
snip
OLBERMANN: There it is here, Miss California is opposed to same-sex marriage, which is at least marriage between two human beings, but she has fully endorsed now marriage between a man and a woman who is partially made out of plastic.

MUSTO: Well, she’s dumb and twisted. She’s sort of like a human Klaus Barbie Doll. I mean, you tell Perez Hilton you’re against gay marriage? That’s like telling Simon Cowell you’re against screeching a show tune. This is the kind of girl who sits on the TV and watches the sofa. You know, she thinks innuendo is a Italian suppository. Can I keep going? On the pageants now, they really should have easier questions, like what’s your middle name or what show was Seinfeld on. I mean, this girl’s a ding-dong. I didn’t even like her earrings.

OLBERMANN: The cruelest cut of all. The outcomes here, too. Perez Hilton looks like an intellectual titan and some sort of civil rights leader. And the new poster girl against same-sex marriage is not just a boob, but a fake boob. This is a real win for this cause, is it not?

MUSTO: Well, Perez is the new me, let’s leave him alone. And using the C word is something I wouldn’t do. But yes, Carrie Prejean, however you say it, she’s getting something off her chest. But what she really needs to get off is the price tag there.

OLBERMANN: Now, the moral in this is what? Never cross a beauty pageant official who knows you’ve had implants?

MUSTO: Yes, exactly, that’s it. This has escalated to a public shaving. I mean, and what Moakler has left out, Keith, is they also paid for Carrie to cut off her penis, and sand her Adam’s Apple and get a head-to-toe waxing. I know for a fact that Carrie Prejean was Harry Prejean, a homophobic man, who liked marriage so much he did it three times. Now he’s a babe who needs a brain implant. Maybe they could inject some fat from her butt. Oh, they have?

OLBERMANN: There it is, your guilty pleasure. The one and only Michael Musto of the Village Voice. As always, good to talk to you, Michael.

Geez, guys, why don’t you just point a camera into your locker room while you slap each others’ naked butts with a towel? There is something sick and sad about this. What does it say about Keith Olbermann that he takes “guilty pleasure” about denigrating the mind and body of this woman, whatever her personal beliefs may be? With all the important news, and yes, even with all the other “guilty pleasures” out there, I wonder what made Olbermann once again, spend time demeaning and insulting a woman. I hate to give the guy oxygen, but clearly if he didn’t think he’d find a grateful audience for this sort of tripe, he wouldn’t be doing it.

Furthermore, if this woman were pro gay marriage (unlike Obama), waving an Obama sign, shouting “yes, we can!”, do we still think Olbermann and Musto would have decided to single her out and talk about her this way? If she had the “correct” politics, her implants, or anything else about her, wouldn’t be a problem for them. While we are on the subject, not long ago, President Obama appointed Governor Kaine to be the new Chairman of the DNC. He is reeeaaally against gay marriage. Got any “guilty pleasure” segments devoted to picked on this gentleman, Keith? I thought not.

Hypocrites, much?

But hey, don’t feel bad, he isn’t the only pig who could use a little lipstick to pretty himself up.

As Rev. Amy reported yesterday, Thursday night, Jay Leno joined the fray yet again to prove that sexism and denigrating characterizations of women are alive and well – even though the election is long over. While dancing around the dial Thursday night, this was the joke I was unfortunate enough to hear Jay Leno tell in his monologue:

“Kenyan women have vowed to withhold sex until their leaders stop bickering — they said they got the idea to withhold sex from a recent visit from Hillary Clinton.”

Thank you, Jay Leno, for advancing the theory to the audience that Hillary Clinton must be a robotic, frigid, ice queen. Surely everyone knew that — didn’t they? For anyone who laughed at this joke, you belong with Keith and the rest. Nothing like being disrespectful for no reason to an honorable public servant who is carrying your guy’s water! She is also the one who has been saying “women’s rights are human rights” for many years. Remember, Jay? But surely, let’s trash someone who is an advocate for women. Why not? It’s still open season for your cheap jokes, isn’t it?

Just to provide a little context, Jay also nailed Biden for his little gaffe about the swine flu – but he was making a joke at the man’s expense with some cause – VP Biden screwed up running his big yaw to unintentionally cause a panic. But why did Jay bring Hillary up? What possible reason could he have to make her the brunt of yet more insults? The woman has higher popularity than even the President right now, surely because she has already logged in over 75,000 miles working to improve our foreign relations. She has restored the State Department as the center of US foreign policy, as opposed to leaving it in the hands of the military. Wow. Sounds awful.

Surely we must find a reason to make sure the audience laughs at her. Personally, I don’t find Leno funny and never have. He’s always been a rather cheesy comic. But he has a huge following — this is the best he can do? Certainly, this is not the best we can do.

It is the year 2009 and apparently, many of the boobs on the news (whether these males have boobs are not), and our typical misogynist comedians, can find nothing else to talk about, joke about, crow about than to make women the brunt of their foolish put downs and insecurity.

I will not give it a pass. This “boys will be boys” crap is way old and indicative of the fact that in this day and age, too many outlets are sending the message that it is still not necessary to treat women with respect.

Until men and women stand up in a loud voice and protest, boycott and shout from the highest hill this has to stop – guess what? It’s not going to. Let those who would demean women find new jokes to tell or find themselves out of a job.

We have been exposed to an education lately on International Law and the Rule of Law. Everyone has been following the torture memos and some of us have a quaint understanding of how the U.S. signing the treaty at the Geneva Convention forcibly influenced laws that we were required, by the treaty, to add to our books. That treaty suits us and most of us don’t argue with the fact that we signed and ratified it.

But what if the U.S. was considering signing an international treaty that – in essence – violated our Bill of Rights? Remember. We DO have rights that some countries do not afford their subjects.

Back up. Did you know that the U.S. does not have to pass any laws to inhibit your 2nd amendment rights? If the UN sanctions an international treaty then any country signing and ratifying the treaty is under international law, bypassing our traditional balance-of-power safeguards. An international treaty signed by the president only needs to be ratified by the Senate. The House does not get to vote on it and U.S. courts cannot alter international law. It becomes law.

In 1997 Bill Clinton signed CIFTA but the Senate has refused to ratify it. This law would make it illegal for you to reload your own ammunition, register to carry your gun to go out hunting, possibly make gun clubs illegal and grant the other treaty countries the right to have you extradited to their country for prosecution on charges such as selling a gun at a gun show and that gun ending up in their very democratic (NOT) country. Article V Jurisdiction. They would know if you did anything wrong because the treaty calls for each country to openly share everything they know about you and your gun ownership and transfers with all those friendly South American countries. Article XIII Exchange of Information.

There are more anti-gun provisions in this treaty than all the gun control laws we have seen come before congress this year combined. I don’t know about you but I do not relish the thought of Hugo Chavez getting upset with one of my comments and demanding that I be delivered unto him – on some trumped up gun charge – for a heaping helping of some Venezuelan justice that could make even Dick Cheney cringe.

In Article IV, parties commit to adopting “necessary legislative or other measures” to criminalize illicit manufacturing and trafficking in firearms. Remember that “illicit manufacturing” includes reloading and modifying or assembling any firearm in any way. And, while treaties should not trump the Bill of Rights (in contrast to what the Supreme Court held in Missouri v. Holland), they do have the force of statute — which would mean that the Obama administration could promulgate regulations on the basis of this treaty which would ban any modification or machining of any firearm in any manner whatsoever except by license of the government.

Article IV goes on to state that the criminalized acts should include “association or conspiracy” in connection with “said offenses” — which is arguably a term broad enough to allow, by regulation, the criminalization of entire pro-gun organizations or gun clubs, based on the facilities which they provide their membership.

Knowing that bills such as HB 45 (Bobby Rush – IL) that could put you in jail for keeping a gun anywhere your 17 year old son could reach, such as in his hand while he is squirrel hunting, will likely fail, President Obama went to Mexico and pledged to his “american idol” fan base there that he would urge the U.S. Senate to ratify this treaty, giving the United Nations the right to dictate the terms under which you may own a gun – or not.

Dianne Feinstein and Richard Durbin have been leading an effort to get this treaty ratified since February 26, 2009 and will lead the charge, along with John Kerry to push this through the Senate. There are four binding acts the U.S. Senate can execute without judicial oversight or input from the House of Representatives. Confirm Judges; Confirm Cabinet Appointments; Confirm Ambassadors and Ratify Treaties.

The administration softened up the electorate by publishing the Right Wing Extremist report and there may just be enough “lie down and surrender our rights to keep the radical conservative kooks and Ron Paul supporters away from a loaded gun” support to allow the Senate to ratify this treaty without public protest.

We must not let this happen. It is going to take action by people other than the NRA to stop this. Anyone who believes that the “rule of law” in this country should be written in this country under our system of creating law should act. That means contacting your U.S. Senators, sharing this article and urging all of your friends to take action as well.

Here are some links to give you a background on this. Share this information freely while you still have the freedom to do so.

Two minute CNN video briefly explaining it.

Gun Owners of America’s position against the treaty.

Feinstein’s Letter promoting the treaty.

The Treaty.

To ascertain with certainty that we will be joining a fine club, here is the guest list showing those who have RSVP’d.

It’s been a week now, and I still don’t know what those “tea bag” protests were about. I saw signs protesting abortion, illegal immigrants, the bank bailout and that gay guy who’s going to win “American Idol.” But it wasn’t tax day that made them crazy; it was election day. Because that’s when Republicans became what they fear most: a minority.

Well, as Marshall McCluhan said, “the medium is the message,” so, nothing like coloring your message by only using the tiny fringe minority as an illustration of what the great majority of protesters were shouting about. This is nonsense, but by pushing your false premise, you have repeatedly and unfortunately shown that this is your level. You say that:

…“the conservative base is absolutely apoplectic because, because … well, nobody knows. They’re mad as hell, and they’re not going to take it anymore. Even though they’re not quite sure what “it” is.”

…[H]ere’s the list of Republican obsessions since President Obama took office: that his birth certificate is supposedly fake, he uses a teleprompter too much, he bowed to a Saudi guy, Europeans like him, he gives inappropriate gifts, his wife shamelessly flaunts her upper arms, and he shook hands with Hugo Chavez and slipped him the nuclear launch codes.

Well, no dear, that’s really not the sum total of what Republicans are worried about, nor is it the sum total of what the 3 million plus Democrats who did not vote for Barack Obama are worried about. While I do think that a man with a less than sophisticated grasp of the issues who is absolutely painful to listen to without his “prompter” is worrisome in the capable leadership department, I could give a rosy red damn about Michelle’s biceps or whether Europeans want to swap spit with him in the moonlight. That stated, let me try to clue your arrogant, self-righteous, insulting arse in:

First, Bill, to assume it was only Republicans protesting at last week’s tea parties shows the level of your denial. There were Democrats, too, and Libertarians and Independents as well as Conservatives. People are protesting endless bailouts. They were protesting a Stimulus package crafted by Nancy Pelosi et al behind closed doors that got passed without many in Congress even bothering to read it first; they are pissed that Wall St. is getting bailed out before Main St., with Timmy “Turbo Tax” Geithner and Larry “I like to fall asleep when my President is talking” Summers leading the parade, even though they helped these foxes who guard the henhouse get those outrageous bonuses in the first place.

They may be a little concerned that the President is telling which CEO’s to step down and that he is refusing to take back TARP money although some big banks are more than ready to repay it. They may be a little concerned about the slippery slope that entails. Go figure…

And I actually know some folks who voted for President Obama who were out there protesting. They have voiced to me their own desire to figuratively “storm the Bastille.” Most people have no objection to paying taxes. They have an objection to the Administration and the press assuming they are fools who will be terrorized like Chicken Little into believing the sky is falling so that this “crisis” can be used to pass all manner of reckless nonsense before anybody takes a second look. With his most interesting cadre of advisors, there is a little too much quid pro quo going on for my liking. Jeffrey Immelt, CEO of General Electric comes to mind. So much for a new era of transparency. Bill? Any comment?

Further you state the “big issues for normal people [are] the war, the economy, the environment, mending fences with our enemies and allies, and the rule of law.” Let’s discuss that, shall we. If not for the crack foreign policy team headed by Clinton et al, we would be in a disaster there too. And with Mr. President’s continuing gaffes, and his penchant for advisory “redundancy,” who knows if those efforts are being undermined.

You will also have to pardon me if I do not appreciate our President standing before a foreign people and saying that America is an arrogant country. We certainly have – and have had arrogant leadership. But how do you think Americans who feel gut punched, watching their savings go up in smoke, out of a job, struggling to feed their families, enjoy hearing such a horrid sound bite while their President is traveling with his staff of 500? How do you think our troops feel? If I had my druthers, we would not be in Iraq, but that is not the fault of our military or their families, who have for six years been bearing the brunt of the burden and sacrifice for the last Administration’s decisions and folly – a folly which then-Senator Obama voted several times to fund.

Surprise, Bill, nobody’s hands are clean. Where was the great consensus builder, Barack Obama, back in 2005-8 on the Senate floor, using his oratory prowess to urge a change in direction? What? *crickets* Oh, yes, he was voting to keep Terry Schaivo alive. That’s a good use of his time.

The rule of law, you say? Torture is wrong. Period. But it’s easy for me to make blanket statements from the anonymity of my keyboard. The fact is there is plenty of blame to go around there, too, as evidenced by the tap dance that Speaker Pelosi is now doing. As to the economy, even Paul Krugman, nobel laureate Keynesian doesn’t think Mr. Obama has the prescription anywhere near right, to the point that Rahm “Rahm-bo” Emanuel is getting all over him. You can hardly call Mr. Krugman a “dumped husband,” or a Republican for that matter.

You remember Mr. Krugman, don’t you, Bill? He’s the one who, over a year ago said that Hillary Clinton had the best plans for our economy and for health care. You remember Hillary, don’t you Bill? She’s the former First Lady, and two-term sitting Senator from New York who you saw fit to call a “cunt” on your show and then got on Huffington Post to defend your statement as rational. So you will, once again, have to pardon me if I call you out on the carpet as a misogynist fraud.

I have an excellent memory Mr. Maher, and as someone who used to watch your show until the Hillary bashing and your own hypocritical flip flops got too much for me to bear, I remember many of your past sound bites. You have a lot of nerve saying that “normal people” are worried about the rule of law. I assume you are referring to the release of the “torture memos.” Let me hasten to remind you of your worry that your home near the port of Long Beach would be hit so you were happy to have our government do whatever it took to protect you.

Let me also remind you that on April 15, 2005 you suddenly changed your tune and after roundly and consistently insulting President Bush, you said you have to “give your boy Georgie props on Iraq”. “Props on Iraq”? Iraq was headed for civil war in 2005. Your guest on the show that night, General Wesley Clark, all but told you as much and repeated the same on “Meet the Press.” It was a long two years after that until the “surge” took place. Your tune changes with the prevailing wind. One thing that doesn’t change, however, is your short memory and willingness to abandon the truth for a sound bite and an easy laugh.

Mr. Maher, I think perhaps you get too much of the news from your own echo chamber of HuffPo, DailyKos, MSNBC and Janeane Garafolo. If you could find the courage and decency to get off your own soapbox long enough to pay real attention and not listen to the likes of this biased cadre, you might find there were Republican politicians who tried to take the stump at the protests you so readily deride, only to be loudly booed by the participants.

Those of us, of all stripes, who are worried and angry are not just “hatin’ on a black man” to quote the offensive Ms. Garafolo. Nothing could be further from the truth. We are angry with Congress altogether – and that means Democrats and Republicans. We feel too many are living in a rarified air, clueless as to the concerns of, or their responsibility to, their constituency.

Your spreading this kind of propaganda, playing the race card to boot, which you also do in your article, is as reckless and cruel as it is false. As I discerned from many of the 699 comments which followed your piece in the LATimes, the shame is too many who don’t bother to do their own homework actually believe you.

In order to solve the serious problems we face, we need a President who does not pretend ignorance at the very existence of these protests. Hundreds of thousands of people from around the country were willing to take time off from work in the middle of the day, draw a sign and stand outside for hours to express a grievance. It would do well for the President, Congress and the likes of you to acknowledge that the amount of citizens angry here can most likely be measured in multiples of the actual number of protesters who showed up. And they know exactly what they are angry about. This is more than a fringe. This is more than right wing. And it certainly has nothing to do with racism.

I thought that the election of Obama as President was to usher in a new era of bipartisanship and respect. Well, the left is not the only group that is allowed to protest something – the moderates and the right get to pipe up, too. During the Iraq war, those of us who protested were roundly ignored or vilified. How is this administration behaving any differently? Mr. Maher, you and they are guilty of contempt prior to examination. And that, sir, is business as usual, from both sides.

Citizens from all ends of the spectrum need to find a way to reach out and find common ground, and keep communicating so that we figure out how to get out of the mess we are in. I have less and less confidence than anyone in power is really listening.

I know I am beating my head against a brick wall here, Mr. Maher, but you only show yourself to be as bad as the very stereotypes you demonize by putting forth this type of tunnel-vision drivel. Shame on you for deciding you are in any position to make pronouncements as to the motives of so many citizens just because they do not see fit to be part of your adoring flock.

“If the American people could see what I have seen from the air and ground during my many trips to the coalfields of Kentucky and West Virginia: leveled mountains, devastated communities, wrecked economies and ruined lives, there would be a revolution in this country,” Robert F. Kennedy Jr. said after a recent tour of West
Virginia while filming his documentary, Crimes Against Nature. Kennedy described the environmental devastation as the worst he’d seen anywhere.

Mountaintop removal coal mining (MTR) is a radical form of strip mining used in the Appalachian regions of West Virginia, Kentucky, Tennessee, and Virginia. Every day, coal companies detonate 2,500 tons of explosives to literally blow off the tops of mountains in order to reach thin seams of coal beneath the earth. These explosions are equal to the power of a Hiroshima bomb dropping every week, annihilating some of
the most biologically diverse temperate hardwood forest habitat in the world, and destroying and displacing entire human communities.

People who stay in their homes and communities confront numerous problems including contaminated drinking water, damage to homes from blasting, flooding, coal waste impoundment leaks, the threat of coal sludge impoundment failures, and respiratory and other health problems related to mining activities. According to the EPA (Environmental Protection Agency) 1,200 miles of Appalachian rivers and streams have already been buried, and 470 of Appalachia’s mountains have been permanently destroyed. The EPA also estimates that without a significant policy shift, mountaintop removal and other surface mining will destroy nearly 1.5 million acres in the Central Appalachian region by the end of the decade, an area larger than the state of Delaware.

Source: Ohio Valley Environmental Coalition

Robert F. Kennedy: The coal industry and the carbon industry in general are the largest contributors to the political process. So, you know, you have politicians who have essentially become indentured servants to these, and adopt the talking points of these industries.

In his interview with ABC News, conducted last week, Kennedy said, “you have very sensible politicians, including great men like Barack Obama who feel the need to parrot the talking points of this industry that is so destructive to our country.”

The opening Kennedy quote at the top of this article was captured by Filmmaker BJ Gudmundsson who travels into the coalfields and documents the devastation caused by mountaintop removal. She travels around the country presenting her completed works to anyone who will listen. On Thursday Night, 4/23/09 she gave a presentation at the Princeton (WV) Public Library. By coincidence, the coal association had a meeting in the same town, with major politicians invited. A local NBC TV station found the irony of the dichotomy irresistible. They sent a crew to BJ’s show and a crew to the Coal meeting. At 11:00pm they opened their newscast with the “show.”

Momentum is growing across West Virginia to stop mountain top removal mining.

Filmmaker B.J. Gundmundsson says she’s lived in West Virginia her entire life.

However, the day she first saw a mountaintop removal site, she was shaken to the core.

She made it her personal mission to take the public on a journey with her, through the mountains to expose the ugliness she describes as mountaintop removal.

“What had flabergasted me was that not all of West Virginia was not rising up in revolt against this.” Gundmundsson says. “I realized that people weren’t rising up because they can’t see it. You can’t get to it. You can’t just drive up to these places.”

Gudmundsson takes you on that journey in her film, Rise Up West Virginia.

She is now sharing her message and her film with other West Virginians and people around the country.

We’re not only loosing our freedom, we’re loosing our state! We’re being annihilated here! We’ve got the best politicians money can buy. – CNN Hero, Mountainkeeper, Larry Gibson.

WVVA – NBC TV

King Coal had to respond. They probably did not like the treatment their side of the story received. While they are talking about how great coal is the news producer laced images of blown up mountains into the story.

Anyway. Back to the Ross interview with Kennedy. This will tie together.

ROSS: So when you watched last fall with all the candidates, including President Obama talking about clean coal, what were you thinking when you watched all that?

KENNEDY: Oh, not only was I dismayed to see that, but also, if you looked at the presidential debates, the networks were allowing the coal industry to sponsor the debates. So that every single one of the presidential debates was sponsored by clean coal. So it’s not just that it’s corrupted the political process, but it’s corrupted essentially the American media as well.

Wealthy Politicians

ROSS: Have you seen the commercials they’re running now with President Obama, “Yes, we can” talking about clean coal? What’s your reaction to that?

KENNEDY: Well, again, I think it’s sad when political leaders feel that they are so indebted to these industries that they, and so fearful of them, essentially, that they have to endorse conditions that clearly are wrong.

ROSS: And you say that about President Obama?

KENNEDY: Yeah. Anybody who looks at this understands that the term “clean coal” is a dirty lie. That coal is neither cheap nor clean. It’s devastating to our country, it’s bad for our economy, it’s devastating towards our communities, and we have wonderful alternatives in this country if we’d only invest in them.

Final update on Princeton, WV. Before the filmmaker got out of town she heard, first hand, how political and angry this debate is. Princeton is raising money to build a new community library. During the film presentation the library director got a phone call from the Mayor. It seems a local coal baron was directing a matching fund to help build the library. He called the mayor and told him because the library was showing “that” movie, he was withdrawing the 50% match.

If you are following indentured servants, then where are you going?

ROSS: And do you think President Obama should reverse his course on this?

KENNEDY: Absolutely. There’s no such thing as clean coal, we’re destroying the Appalachians. And I guarantee you if we could get President Obama to fly over the Cumberland, to fly over the Appalachian mountains and see the destruction that’s occurring there, he would.

Note: Kennedy tried, after the ABC interview to back off the indentured servant comment. ABC then released the transcript of the entire interview. You can judge for yourself. Kennedy’s Backspace. and the full transcript.

I like Bobby Kennedy. He did not endorse Obama in the primary and he has been working to help stop the destruction of our beautiful mountains.

KENNEDY: My loyalties are to my country and not to any particular politician. And you know, I’ve been non-partisan. I’ve been 25 years as an environmental advocate, I’ve been non-partisan and bi-partisan. I don’t believe in partisanship. If somebody does something wrong, I’m going to say it whether they’re Democrat or Republican.

Many environmentalists believe that Obama broke his promise to halt mountaintop removal. That is not quite fair to him. He did not say he would end the practice. I heard his comments to the groups. He said it was wrong and that he would study it. And some hopey followers think that his presence in office is what prompted the EPA to start doing their job. That is not quite fair to the EPA. I talked to regulators last year. They were convinced that, no matter who won the election, they would be un-tethered. They are reviewing certain mining permits. The Army Corps of Engineers, who issued those permits, are fighting on behalf of the coal industry. This is not over yet.

Obama is still promoting Coal-to-Liquid technology. Basically you toss coal in a hopper and then burn some more coal in a furnace to produce the heat that turns to coal in the hopper to a type of liquid fuel. This fuel will burn cleaner than coal, true. But two times the coal is needed for this process. The first batch is burned just like it is at a power plant and it means twice as many mountains will forever be gone. U.S. News (not your average anti-business rag) is not convinced either.

So, do not buy into this clean coal crap. It is like thinking that you can wipe the poop off of a turd. Go ahead. Try it. The video below is just 30 seconds, no poop and it is a hoot.

Film clips courtesy of Patchwork Films.

Thursday, March 19
President Barack Obama will be making his first sit-down talk show appearance since becoming elected.

Top Ten Reasons Obama is Appearing on Jay Leno

10 – Letterman was an early supporter of Hillary Clinton

9 – John Stewart is too busy fixing the economy

8 – He’s itching for a tour of Jay’s garage

7 – Axelrod refused to lower himself and go on the show

6 – Now that she’s covered up her arms, Michelle is no longer sexy enough for prime time

5 – The handlers think he’ll look good to fat guys watching over their huge bellys

4 – W lowered respect for the position so far, Obama figures who cares if he’s on a joke show

3 – Right leaning Jay is just so compatible with Bambi

2 – He was invited and cannot pass up any chance to hear his own voice

And the number one reason his Oliness the Foist is appearing on Jay Leno

1 – He’s auditioning to replace the weekly address with a nightly Hour in the Oval with Barack

The guy just can’t sit still and actually govern.  I mean some of us knew he was nothing more than an excellent student of teleprompter but to continue to campaign is well, odd.  But I know why.  He is smarter than us.  He’s known all along that he has no skills to do real work so he is following in the lead of Ronny the Great.  Obama is a figurehead, pitchman for the incompetent ones who are trying to run the country.  He is the over paid CEO.

Cross posted from Partizane

LD

Dateline Afghanistan – The war continues on two fronts today.  American troops under the command of General Emanuel, have reached the outskirts of the Taliban stronghold of Kabul.  You might remember that the 16th army reached this same point back in 2025 only to be repelled by the forces of the Talibanni.  The Eastern front continues to confound the leaders of America’s Satellite Asia Command (ASAC), in geosynchronous orbit above India.  Even though Osama Bin Laden died of old age over 20 years ago, his forces fight on.  Quoting General Axelrod of ASAC, “Catching these mountain bred terrorists is like trapping rats in the sewers of Obama, D.O.”

Federal Move to Obama, D.O. almost complete – The long move is almost over.  Yes, there were unforeseen snags over the preceding 10 years of the move, but we at Daily Kos National News are proud to predict that the last employees will be re-settled by the end of March.  This has been a trying time for our government agencies but I think we can all agree that Washington, D.C. had outlived it’s usefulness and it is time we move to the former Chicago, Obama, Disctrict of Obama.  Little did Chicagoans’ guess that the name change back in 2013 was a premonition of great things to come.

Malia Obama announces candidacy – President Obama’s daughter Malia has announced her desire to succeed her aging father when he retires from his long, and glorious career.  Said Miss Obama, “Daddy is getting on and we all think it’s time for change.  I’m throwing my hat into the ring in the hopes of becoming the first woman President of the United States.”.  President Obama, speaking from the new South Side Brick House, said he certainly endorses his daughter as she is “uniquely qualified to carry on with my lifes’ work.”

More news as it happens, only on your source for truth, DKNN.

Cross posted from Partizane

While there is tremendous volatility in the markets and commensurate anxiety as a result, there were some major stories and developments that got less play but deserved more.

Allow me to expound. Robert Shiller, a highly distinguished Economics Professor at Yale Univeristy and co-designer of the Case-Shiller Home Price Index spoke this morning on Bloomberg News. Shiller is the preeminent expert on trends and developments in housing. He made the following assessments:

1. Glad to see that Obama is making an effort to support housing but has serious concerns about the effort.

2. $75 billion allocated for loan modification is not nearly enough to make a truly meaningful impact. (remember there is another $200 billion allocated for Freddie and Fannie to refinance mortgages).

3. No plan or proposal for those holding Jumbo mortgages leaves a large part of the market without benefits. Those homes will likely hang over the market.

4. Shiller believes we may very well see a second wave of speculation in housing. He has this opinion because he thinks some buyers will try to “bottom fish” the market. He believes our view of housing as an investment vehicle as opposed to a means of shelter and comfort needs to change!

5. He finds it impossible to make a forecast on the housing market given the great uncertainties about the impact of the stimulus proposal and banking plans.

6. While he welcomes the Obama adminsitration’s efforts, he cautioned that this economic downturn led by housing will not be over quickly.

7. Confidence is badly needed and will only return when our government and global governments are able to develop strategic and robust long term planning.

What do I think of Shiller’s comments? I think he is stating that Obama’s housing plan is well intended but given that we can not distinctly segment the housing market by sectors that it will have a marginal impact. Additionally I think he is being cautious in stating that Americans need to change their mindset about homes being piggy banks. I measure his comments next to former Australian Treasury Secretary Keating and I see the same message; this downturn will take considerable time to turn around!

I also listened to the cult-like NYU Professor Nouriel Roubini today as well.
He offered the following:

1. Strong possibility of a sovereign default in the Euro zone. He singled out Ireland, Greece, Iceland, Spain, Italy and Belgium as countries with the most issues within their banking sectors. He does believe that if only one or two countries expose their problems that the balance of the European Union will support them. He did not offer an opinion if the contagion is so massive and spreads. He did highlight the fact that Western European banks have outsized exposures to emerging Europe and the emerging markets elsewhere in the world. He singled out Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Belarus, and Ukraine as the countries with the greatest issues.

2. In the United States he thinks the prospects of a temporary nationalization of a major bank or banks may happen very soon. He does think the Obama administration’s moves so far (bank plan, housing) are in the right direction but do not go far enough.

3. Roubini does believe that the United States has moved quicker to address our issues than either Europe or Japan.

4. On the housing front he thinks that we will eventually have to move to a “principal reduction” program in order for it to be effective.

5. How will we pay for all this? Everybody’s taxes will be going up although not right away. We will also have to deal with increasing inflation.

Away from these two titans, there was a lot of rumbling in the markets and from Washington about bank nationalization. While Ken Lewis, CEO of Bank of America was all over the news defending BofA and how nationalization should not be a topic of conversation, I saw and heard nothing from anybody at Citibank. The market believes that Secretary Geithner will be out next week with more details about his Financial Stability Plan (hopefully it goes better this time) and there is an outside chance he releases something over the weekend.

From Washington I heard conflicting viewpoints on nationalization from Senator Dodd. Dodd was panned on Bloomberg at one point. I will admit he makes for a very easy target.

LD

The American populace knows that the primary architects in the formulation of the Stimulus Plan working its way through Congress are Rahm Emanuel, Nancy Pelosi, and Harry Reid. This contingent, along with President Obama, have not been bashful in stating they view the November election results as effectively a mandate to change policies emanating from Washington.

Against that backdrop, the initially proposed Stimulus Plan was so loaded with pork that the Republicans and the American population at large slammed it as more a promotion of the

Martin Feldstein

I will give President Obama credit for formulating a Panel to Advise Obama on Economy.

This panel will be known as the White House Economic Recovery Advisory Board. The Board will be headed by former Fed chair Paul Volcker. He will be joined by Jeff Immelt of GE, James Owens of Caterpillar, William Donaldson, former SEC chair, Roger Ferguson Jr. of TIAA-CREF, Richard Trumka of AFL-CIO, Anna Burger of SEIU, and Martin Feldstein, renowned Harvard economist. The group will be guided by Austan Goolsbee, an economic adviser to the White House.

Do you think President Obama and his economic team would listen to Mr. Feldstein or is that a “mere courtesy” having him on the board? Let’s review what Mr. Feldstein said about the Stimulus Plan just last week.

Regarding the proposed Stimulus Plan, Martin Feldstein offered that it is far better to go back to work and do it right versus merely doing it fast:

An $800 Billion Mistake

By Martin Feldstein
The Washington Post
Thursday, January 29, 2009

As a conservative economist, I might be expected to oppose a stimulus plan. In fact, on
this page in October, I declared my support for a stimulus. But the fiscal package now
before Congress needs to be thoroughly revised. In its current form, it does too little to
raise national spending and employment. It would be better for the Senate to delay
legislation for a month, or even two, if that’s what it takes to produce a much better bill.
We cannot afford an $800 billion mistake.

Start with the tax side. The plan is to give a tax cut of $500 a year for two years to each
employed person. That’s not a good way to increase consumer spending. Experience
shows that the money from such temporary, lump-sum tax cuts is largely saved or used
to pay down debt. Only about 15 percent of last year’s tax rebates led to additional
spending.

The proposed business tax cuts are also likely to do little to increase business investment
and employment. The extended loss “carrybacks” are primarily lump-sum payments to
selected companies. The bonus depreciation plan would do little to raise capital spending
in the current environment of weak demand because the tax benefits in the early years
would be recaptured later.

Instead, the tax changes should focus on providing incentives to households and
businesses to increase current spending. Why not a temporary refundable tax credit to
households that purchase cars or other major consumer durables, analogous to the
investment tax credit for businesses? Or a temporary tax credit for home improvements?
In that way, the same total tax reduction could produce much more spending and
employment.

Postponing the scheduled increase in the tax on dividends and capital gains would raise
share prices, leading to increased consumer spending and, by lowering the cost of capital,
more business investment.

On the spending side, the stimulus package is full of well-intended items that,
unfortunately, are not likely to do much for employment. Computerizing the medical
records of every American over the next five years is desirable, but it is not a cost-
effective way to create jobs. Has anyone gone through the (long) list of proposed
appropriations and asked how many jobs each would create per dollar of increased
national debt?

The largest proposed outlays amount to just writing unrestricted checks to state
governments. Nearly $100 billion would result from increasing the “Medicaid matching
rate,” a technique for reducing states’ Medicaid costs to free up state money for spending
on anything governors and state legislators want. An additional $80 billion would be given
out for “state fiscal relief.” Will these vast sums actually lead to additional spending, or will
they merely finance state transfer payments or relieve state governments of the need for
temporary tax hikes or bond issues?

The plan to finance health insurance premiums for the unemployed would actually
increase unemployment by giving employers an incentive to lay off workers rather than
pay health premiums during a time of weak demand. And this supposedly two-year
program would create a precedent that could be hard to reverse.

A large fraction of the stimulus proposal is devoted to infrastructure projects that will
spend out very slowly, not with the speed needed to help the economy in 2009 and 2010.
The Congressional Budget Office estimates that less than one-fifth of the $50 billion of
proposed spending on energy and water would occur by the end of 2010.

If rapid spending on things that need to be done is a criterion of choice, the plan should
include higher defense outlays, including replacing and repairing supplies and equipment,
needed after five years of fighting. The military can increase its level of procurement very
rapidly. Yet the proposed spending plan includes less than $5 billion for defense, only
about one-half of 1 percent of the total package.

Infrastructure spending on domestic military bases can also proceed more rapidly than
infrastructure spending in the civilian economy. And military procurement overwhelmingly
involves American-made products. Since much of this military spending will have to be
done eventually, it makes sense to do it now, when there is substantial excess capacity in
the manufacturing sector. In addition, a temporary increase in military recruiting and
training would reduce unemployment directly, create a more skilled civilian workforce and
expand the military reserves.

All new spending and tax changes should have explicit time limits that prevent ever-
increasing additions to the national debt. Similarly, spending programs should not create
political dynamics that will make them hard to end.

The problem with the current stimulus plan is not that it is too big but that it delivers too
little extra employment and income for such a large fiscal deficit. It is worth taking the
time to get it right.

The writer, an economics professor at Harvard University, is president emeritus of the
National Bureau of Economic Research.

Barack, how about you and Martin go for a little walk. Take your time!!

LD

Consider, for example, that The One promised a new way of doing business in Washington but is responsible for managing the vetting of prospective nominees that green-lights not one but three tax cheats. Instead of showing them the door and finding someone smart enough to know that, if they make more than $200,000, they ought to hire an accountant, Barack signs off on their nominations. (Maybe it is okay to not pay taxes and hold public office in Chicago).

It is only when the press gets wind of the facts that Barack and his team realize they have a problem. Sorry, this is not a “new way of doing business in Washington.” It is the same damn thing.

Barack and his team are acting like every other politician who has taken up residence in the White House–they initially decided to look the other way and excuse the inexcusable. While I credit Barack for admitting his mistake, it is a mistake he should not have made. Unfortunately, it appears that this is not an isolated event.

Victor Davis Hanson, in his typically understated fashion, offers up a list of warning signs and lays part of the blame laser-focused on the lap of the media for abetting the disastrous choice of the American people, so desperate for a “savior” from the Republican disaster, that they bet it all on a naive political neophyte:

Some of us have been warning that it was not healthy for the U.S. media to have deified rather than questioned Obama, especially given that they tore apart Bush, ridiculed Palin, and caricatured Hillary. And now we can see the results of their two years of advocacy rather than scrutiny.

The proof is so obvious:

No matter his protestations that he alone made the decision, it’s clear that former Senator Tom Daschle was summarily dumped, and Steve Clemons hints that Rahm Emanuel had a hand in it (”Many of Daschle’s camp are quite furious with Obama’s chief of staff.”) Clemons also argues that, in typical Democrats’ fashion, they gave up the fight long before they needed to.

General Anthony Zinni, who was already preparing for his departure to Iraq as its new ambassador, is left hanging by the White House. The puzzled general finally called up Gen. Jones, Obama’s National Security Advisor, and “was told that Christopher Hill, the outgoing assistant secretary of State for East Asia, was getting the job.” [SEE ALSO: Laura Rozen's "General Zinni gets undiplomatic treatment from Obama team" and related Memeorandum-listed stories.]

Gen. Zinni said no explanation was given. “That kind of bothered me,” he said. “I was told that I had it.”

What the hell? And now we have more distressing news coming out on Obama’s nominee to head Commerce, Sen. Judd Gregg.

The arch-conservative New Hampshire senator, as I wrote yesterday about a report in CQ Politics, “voted in favor of abolishing the agency as a member of the Budget Committee and on the Senate floor in 1995.”

Now we find out, via Time’s Mark Halperin, that Gregg had “ties to the disgraced lobbyist” Jack Abramoff. The White House is sloughing off the problem, even though Halperin points out that “a former legislative aide [of Gregg] is allegedly ‘Staffer F’ cited in a guilty plea last week by a former Abramoff deputy.”

The left hand is clearly not in touch with the right hand.

How did General Jones know that General Zinni was not the choice for Ambassador to Iraq, yet no one in the White House disabused Gen. Zinni of his justified assumption that he had the job?

How did no one in the White House and the very large vetting staff not clear Daschle’s tax problems and his relationships to for-profit health care companies?

How did no one in the White House not know that Gregg had voted to demolish the agency that he’s now been picked to oversee? Or that he has ties to Jack Abramoff?

Larry Johnson made a great point last night in his story, for which he took some heat, “Let’s Give Barack Credit“:

Did you catch Barack telling CNN’s Anderson Cooper, “I screwed up.” Damn, is that refreshing. After eight years of George Bush never admitting to any mistakes (even though they were numerous and glaring) it does appear that President Obama may be serious about this change thing.

However, the sole thing that matters after you admit you made a mistake is if you change your OWN behavior and that of your staff.

It’s disturbing to read Steve Clemons’ report about (1) the ease with which Democrats concede defeat and (2) the behavior of Rahm Emanuel, the man on whom Obama must most depend:

Obama seems to be replicating the pattern — conceding defeat on Tom Daschle, one of the people most responsible for actually creating the Obama political machine — and on the very same day yielding a senior cabinet position at the Department of Commerce not to a leading business official or Democratic Congressman or Governor — but rather giving it to Judd Gregg who voted 14 years ago to abolish the Commerce Department.

People will be parsing for some time Tom Daschle’s missteps with his taxes, and why he wasn’t vetted more by the Obama team, and whether Rahm Emanuel was part of the game knifing Daschle from behind, and what the political upper crust in Washington sees as “normal” when they leave office — but mostly, this was about the opposing team taking down one of Obama’s most important chess pieces.

This was all about Obama, about humbling him, about dividing progressives over whether to support or oppose Daschle.

What we see are two interesting things. First, we see that the divisions between the political franchises inside the Obama camp are fraught with tension and anger now. Many of Daschle’s camp are quite furious with Obama’s chief of staff.

Yes, Obama has been humbled. Perhaps. If he’s learned.

But the news about the “tension and anger” within the Obama camp is disturbing. For that to be cured, a strong and experienced leader is needed, and is Obama up to the job?

And if he isn’t, is his staff? Hell, his press office can’t even get out their daily press briefing videos and transcripts. You try to get one promptly, and you’ll see what I mean. (Meanwhile, over at State, Hillary’s press staff, like clockwork, posts the daily press briefing video and the transcript with lightning speed.) Victor Davis Hanson declares Robert Gibbs a “nightmare”:

Gibbs as press secretary is a Scott McClellan nightmare that won’t go away, given his long McClellan-like relationship with Obama (McClellan should have been fired on day hour one on the job). Blaming Fox News for Obama’s calamities is McClellan to the core and doesn’t work. He already reminds me of Reverend Wright’s undoing at the National Press Club—and he will get worse.

And the Columbia Journalism Review’s blog, Campaign Desk is as skeptical about Obama’s press office as I am:

Who’s Undercutting Obama?
For the moment, at least, it’s his press office

[...]

While it is too early to judge just how this will work out, the early signs are troubling. And interviews with a dozen Washington reporters indicate that the Obama press operation tends to embrace friendly questions, while treating skeptical questions as not worth their time or, worse, as coming from an enemy. [...]

Questions about whether Shapiro [a White House press office staffer] knows the difference between off-the-record, background, deep background, and on-the-record did not get asked, because Shapiro made it clear he had no interest in answering anything about how the Obama press secretary’s office is operating and what its tone will be. He said questions should be submitted in writing by e-mail to nshapiro@who.eop.gov. I sent Shapiro an e-mail outlining the contours of what would be covered in an interview, but have not received a response as of this writing, the following day.

Shapiro did say that there are press office numbers to call beside 202-456-2580, which has been the main White House press office number for decades. “You should have used one of them,” he said.

And those numbers are? Shapiro said these numbers would be made public soon. (Thoughts of the illogic made famous by Kafka, Catch-22, and Lewis Carroll’s King of Hearts come to mind here.) But there is more to this than just the answering, or not answering, of telephones and questions. [...]

The Obama administration is also editing briefing transcripts. So far it posts only snippets of some White House briefings at whitehouse.gov. Shapiro promised that would be corrected soon.

Politicians make choices and have to live with them. How they deal with journalists—especially whether they are candid and direct about dealing in facts—sets a tone that will influence the administration’s ability to communicate its messages, especially those Obama messages that run counter to deeply ingrained cultural myths about the economy, taxes, and the role of government. … [Read all -- it's worth it.]

Victor Davis Hanson has a litany of Obama’s failures.

One which struck me was Obama’s utter naivete in expecting the Republicans, over a series of luncheons, cocktail parties and Superbowl chips and dips, to warm to him — to find him inescapably charming and the answer to their prayers too. But these grizzled GOP veterans know far too much about D.C., about legislation, and about how to manipulate the malleable Democrats to ever be “touched” by the Obamatopia that sadly overcame millions of dreamy-headed Americans.

Obama seems to be the kind of guy who loves the campaign, the chase, the hunt, and the all-glorious win. But he is most definitely NOT the kind of guy who likes the day-to-day tough drudgery and decision-making.

Like many of his adoring fans at Daily Kos, he wants what he wants when he wants it. The hard work part of governing — the grinding job of building longterm alliances and forging sensible compromises and the long hours involved in accomplishing all of that, just do not appeal to these people. They want to snap their fingers, and have what they want.

I have never seen in Obama the capacity for that kind of work. I still do not.

I think that that is one reason that Obama made the disastrous decision to let Nancy Pelosi and David Obey control the writing of the stimulus packaging bill. That bill should have been closely overseen and scrutinized in the White House, and have received the most cold-hearted “due diligence” possible.

But Obama and team did not want to do that hard work. They thought they could pass off the job to Nancy and crew, a truly frightening decision given Nancy’s penchant for pet far-left projects that drew immediate criticisms from so many that the Republicans voted a unanimous NAY and even 11 Democrats in conservative districts also had to vote NAY in order to keep their seats.

Now, we have a mess of a stimulus plan that is so bad that Obama is not likely, at present, to even bring in the few Republicans he needs for the bill to pass the Senate. Even reliable types like Olympia Snow are rejecting the bill in its present form. She has directly asked Obama to remove the unnecessary and pork-driven parts of the bill; he’s said he did, but he has not. And she knows it.

And, while they fiddle, and Obama doesn’t do the hard work necessary, the American people — and the world’s people — are left with a worsening recession and increasing joblessness and worsening opportunities for small-, medium-, and large-sized businesses of all types.

You’ll have to read Victor David Hansen’s article in full, but here’s the closing:

This is quite serious. I can’t recall a similarly disastrous start in a half-century (far worse than Bill Clinton’s initial slips). Obama immediately must lower the hope-and-change rhetoric, ignore Reid/Pelosi, drop the therapy, and accept the tragic view that the world abroad is not misunderstood but quite dangerous. And he must listen on foreign policy to his National Security Advisor, Billary, and the Secretary of Defense. If he doesn’t quit the messianic style and perpetual campaign mode, and begin humbly governing, then he will devolve into Carterism—angry that the once-fawning press betrayed him while we the people, due to our American malaise, are to blame.

Have we anointed a messiah who sinks the minute he’s put out on the water? Have we hired a weatherman who can’t tell which way the wind is blowing? Have we chosen an orator who can only parrot the words of hired scribes, but lacks the depth of experience to understand the peril that lies before us? When I look at Barack I fear I am seeing a younger, but equally feckless clone of Jimmy Carter.

Perhaps this explains why he ended up in an elementary school. The naive, joyous laughter of schoolchildren provided a welcomed escape from the burdens of poor decision making.

OF NOTE: Steve operates his blog much as we do, welcoming diverse viewpoints for publication (and we don’t censor comments by those who disagree with us either!, as long as they don’t indulge in name-calling, which goes for both sides). So, today, Steve published a guest article, “Chris Nelson: Daschle Had to Go.” Allowing, even encouraging, diverse POVs on blogs is so much more stimulating than the Daily Kossack style of censorship that only allows nodding heads to participate. That’s our policy at NoQuarter, and it’s Steve’s too.

During the battle over John Bolton’s Senate confirmation to serve as US Ambassador to the United Nations, a post that Bolton ultimately achieved through presidential recess appointment rather than by Senate vote, I noticed a peculiar difference between leading Democrats and leading Republicans.

On the Sunday morning talk shows, leading Democrats kept saying that while they weren’t big John Bolton fans, ultimately the President would win the fight over the confirmation of America’s leading pugnacious nationalist.

At various times during the 21-month long struggle, then Senator Joseph Biden, Senator Chuck Schumer, Senator Richard Durbin, New Mexico Governor Bill Richardson, and Senator Patrick Leahy all said on political shows that Bolton would get confirmed. To his credit, Durbin actually withdrew his statement and issued a release through this blog commending those working hard to stop Bolton’s confirmation.

Dems were conceding before they needed to — and the Republicans, through the entire battle, were declaring victory even though there was dissension in their own ranks and they were losing the confirmation war.

Obama seems to be replicating the pattern — conceding defeat on Tom Daschle, one of the people most responsible for actually creating the Obama political machine — and on the very same day yielding a senior cabinet position at the Department of Commerce not to a leading business official or Democratic Congressman or Governor — but rather giving it to Judd Gregg who voted 14 years ago to abolish the Commerce Department.

People will be parsing for some time Tom Daschle’s missteps with his taxes, and why he wasn’t vetted more by the Obama team, and whether Rahm Emanuel was part of the game knifing Daschle from behind, and what the political upper crust in Washington sees as “normal” when they leave office — but what this was mostly about was the opposing team taking down one of Obama’s most important chess pieces.

This was all about Obama, about humbling him, about dividing progressives over whether to support or oppose Daschle.

What we see are two interesting things. First, we see that the divisions between the political franchises inside the Obama camp are fraught with tension and anger now. Many of Daschle’s camp are quite furious with Obama’s chief of staff.

And the Republican opposition, which has appeared of late to be weak and inchoate. . .isn’t.

– Steve Clemons

WORST JOKE TOLD (by Sen. Joe Lieberman): “Lieberman, who also spoke, ‘noted that former vice president Richard B. Cheney injured himself while moving into his new home, according to a source inside the dinner. “I had no idea waterboards were so heavy,”‘ Lieberman quipped.”

Hey, gang: What’s Sarah about to say to the Prez? And why is Joe Lieberman trying to grab her? And, BELOW THE FOLD, You’ll see more images of Sarah Palin, including video of her arrival.

Here’s the caption via the Chicago Tribune’s blog:

The odd trio at dinner: President Barack Obama, Sen. Joe Lieberman, who campaigned against Obama and for John McCain, and McCain running mate Sarah Palin, who accused Obama of “pallin’ around with terrorists” and now, as Obama joked last night, is “pallin’ around” with his crew. (Photos by Clarence Page)

Now, here are highlights of President Obama’s remarks, via Politico and Memeorandum:

Robert E. Lee, confused

Obama appears tonight at the Alfalfa Dinner, a gathering of Washington’s elite with Confederate roots, a fact on which the president remarked, according to excerpts from his prepared remarks:

I am seriously glad to be here tonight at the annual Alfalfa dinner. I know that many you are aware that this dinner began almost one hundred years ago as a way to celebrate the birthday of General Robert E. Lee. If he were here with us tonight, the General would be 202 years old. And very confused.

Now, this hasn’t been reported yet, but it was actually Rahm’s idea to do the swearing-in ceremony again. Of course, for Rahm, every day is a swearing-in ceremony.

But don’t believe what you read. Rahm Emanuel is a real sweetheart.

No, it’s true. Every week the guy takes a little time away to give back to the community. Just last week he was at a local school, teaching profanity to poor children.

But these are the kind of negotiations you have to deal with as President. In just the first few weeks, I’ve had to engage in some of the toughest diplomacy of my life. And that was just to keep my Blackberry. I finally agreed to limit the number of people who could email me. It’s a very exclusive list. How exclusive?

Everyone look at the person sitting on your left’ Now look at the person sitting on your right. None of you have my email address.

More on the dinner: “Obamas dine with Palin, McCain and the Bushes,” Clarence Page, Chicago Tribune, and Elite Officially Welcome Obama, Washington Post.

You live at the most prestigious and powerful address in the world. You can invite whoever you want, and they’re nearly sure to come. So, out of all the people you could invite, you choose THESE people? Via Politico:

- Sens. Bob Casey (D-Pa.) and Arlen Specter (R-Pa.) [GIANT YAWNNNNN!]

- Reps. Charlie Dent (R-Pa.), Mike Doyle (D-Pa.) and Patrick Murphy (D-Pa.) [Who?]

- Arizona Reps. Trent Franks (R) and Raul Grijalva (D) [More who?]

- Sen. Dick Durbin (D-Ill.), the lucky devil, is the only one to score an invite to both the cocktail party and the Super Bowl bash. And so it’s not a total boys’ club, Sen. Amy Klobuchar (D-Minn.), Rep. Rosa DeLauro (D-Conn.) and D.C. Del. Eleanor Holmes Norton will be on hand too. [Oh wow.]

Other congressmen set to watch the national event at the glam locale (what will the Sunday dress code be!?) are Reps. Elijah Cummings (D-Md.), Artur Davis (D-Ala.), Paul Hodes (D-N.H.) and Fred Upton (R-Mich.).

Must be party boys. Okay. We know the prez doesn’t have a lot of, um, acceptable longtime friends to invite over to the White House, so this “bipartisan” schtick is a great way for him to invite the “proper” types of people he barely knows, and probably never heard of until his staff presented him with the list this week. (I HOPE the White House prints names on those access badges. PBO is going to need them.)

But what if Obama could invite his REAL friends over for the Super Bowl? And which of these friends would YOU most like to see? CHOOSE: