In the name of defeating a president who is clearly bad for our economy, who champions crony capitalism and continues, even escalates, some of the worst of George W. Bush’s policies, disaffected Democrats are willing to vote for a Republican – but not anyone.

Ex-Pennsylvania Senator Rick Santorum, who seems to think that God ordained him keeper of the flame on social issues, took on a group of hostile (Republican) college students at a Concord, New Hampshire campaign stop. Santorum, stepping up his campaign after a surprising second place photo finish at the Iowa caucus this week, was “jeered after comparing gay marriage to polygamy.” James Oliphant of the L.A. Times reports:

Those skeptical of whether Rick Santorum has what it takes to win a general-election contest this fall have focused on, among other things, his drumbeating on social issues in a year when Republican strategists believe hitting President Obama on the economy is the way to win the White House.

Santorum’s potential vulnerability on that score was on display Thursday night in New Hampshire, where he was challenged on his views on gay marriage.

Santorum is an ardent, outspoken opponent of gay marriage, favoring an amendment to the Constitution that would define marriage as solely between a man and a woman. He received a rough welcome from a group of college Republicans in Concord — and it likely didn’t help matters when he compared a same-sex union to polygamy.

Here is the money quote:

“Are we saying everyone should have the right to marry? So anyone can marry anyone else?” Santorum asked, according to a video by NBC News. “So anybody can marry several people?”…

Confronted by one critic, he fired back, “What about three men?”

“If it makes three people happy to get married, based on what you just said, what makes that wrong and what you said right?”

So if you are gay, you automatically want to have an orgy? And make a mockery of Santorum’s life choices? Or was the “polygamy” dig some wacky and obtuse backdoor reference to Romney’s Mormonism?

Okay, Mr. Santorum, let me explain this to you – just in case you have never met any gay people. My husband and I have gay friends who are in a committed monogamous relationship. They have been together for thirty years. Did you get that? THIRTY. That is more than the majority of straight couples. They own a home, they work, they pay their taxes. You know, just like regular people. They are human beings just like you. Not wildebeests, you offensive boob. We have lesbian friends who likewise are in a committed, monogamous relationship and have been together for fifteen years. Why are they not entitled to the same security and rights as any other married couple?

Even former VP Dick Cheney has come out and said that gay couples deserve to have the same opportunity as everybody else when it comes to marital rights.

While I imagine any Republican candidate is going to attempt to establish their conservative credentials on this issue, Santorum takes this way too far with this ridiculing jab. Does Mr. Santorum really think that every gay man wants to go to church and march down the aisle in a dress? Or be “married” to several men at once? Whether it is called marriage or civil union, we are all equal and everyone should be afforded equal rights. A church is a private institution and if they don’t want to let you get married there, they will say no. My husband and I were not allowed to get married in a particular church because we were not parishioners there. The man and woman thing did not help us.

We attended a beautiful civil commitment ceremony earlier this year and rejoiced in the happiness of the two grooms. Marriage, as Mr. Santorum is quick to point out, promotes stability. Guess what. Gay marriage promotes stability, too. Is someone else’s joy or security that threatening to him? Did anyone stand in the way of Mr. Santorum and his wife’s happiness? Or their rights to raise a family as they have chosen to do?

It is interesting that a mini-firestorm was ignited the other day when liberal commentators Alan Colmes and Eugene Robinson both called Santorum out for his “weirdness” when, years ago, he and his wife lost a baby and brought the child home to their family as part of the grieving process – to make the child real to their family and get closure for his unfortunate death. These two “journalists” (lamely) apologized to Mr. Santorum and his family for their odious comments. One could argue (and several bloggers have), that Colmes and Robinson were on a mission to repel the electorate and classify Santorum as outside the mainstream by reintroducing this story.

Far from being “weird,” it has since been reported that grief counselors tell parents in this situation that this is a viable way to handle this tragedy for the health of the family. Yet, as Mr. Santorum acknowledged, he received a great deal of criticism for that decision when this most unfortunate event happened. While I think it is abhorrent for anyone to go after the family (or private choices of the family) of a candidate, it is interesting that Santorum expected compassion for his family’s choice, but seems incapable of offering any to the gay community, if they do not want to live their lives as he deems fit, or as his particular religious practice dictates.

In this election year, we are faced with many dire decisions and problems to solve. Many young people, growing up in an environment where homosexuality is accepted, are far more concerned with jobs than they are with discriminating against their classmates.

The National Review’s Robert Costa also reported on Santorum’s exchange re gay marriage:

“Every child in America deserves to know and be loved by their mother and father,” [Santorum] told them. “When we deny children that birthright, we are harming children, we are harming society.” It didn’t go over well with the questioners, who booed him.

It is not always possible to have the family unit that Mr. Santorum demands and it is far preferable to know true parental love, whether those parents are a gay or straight couple, or to have the love and dedication of a single parent, than not to know it at all. Love and guidance will always have a positive effect on a child. Our high divorce rate in this country makes clear that the traditional family unit does not guarantee happiness. It is false for Mr. Santorum to intimate, as he has on many occasions, that only children raised by a “traditional” family have any possiblity of a well adjusted life. Society is harmed when a child is ignored, abused or treated cruelly — and that abuse happens and has happened in plenty of “traditional” families. Cookie cutter rules do not apply.

If Republicans think they are going to make headway with moderates in the electorate preaching fire and brimstone, showing contempt for a woman’s right to choose or gays having the same rights as everyone else – they are in for a rude awakening.

If Republicans want to be the party of small government, then they should get the hell out of our bedrooms. And if Democrats want to be truly “progressive,” they should acknowledge that adults are capable of making their own educated decisions without mommy and daddy telling them what to eat, how cold to keep their house, what kind of car to drive or what kind of light bulbs to use. I am all for energy efficiency but when you tell me to use a light bulb that has mercury in it — you’ve lost the thread.

Just make sure when you are elected, the only regulations you put in place ensure that the stuff we buy is cost efficient and works – and don’t subsidize financial institutions that function as a giant Ponzi scheme bilking the rest of us without repercussion. And while you’re at it — and this goes for both parties — get your damned noses out of the trough.

We’ll do the rest, thanks.

Santorum, and others, would do well to forget the preaching and pandering and remember what, and who, this election is a referendum on…

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):

The New Agenda, presided over by the incomparable Amy Siskind, has just put out another video in their series of “Searching for Sexism.” Now, personally, I don’t think we have to look very far at all for signs of sexism in this culture. They are all around us, in our commercials, in our tv shows, in the news (e.g., constant sexist attacks on powerful women, not the media reporting sexism), in our schools, and in our families. In Episode Three, The New Agenda focuses on the role models (or lack thereof) our teenage girls are seeing, what they are experiencing in their dating relationships, and what they are doing to their bodies in an attempt to live up to an unachievable standard of “beauty.” Please watch:

Almost a year ago, I wrote a piece about violence against women, particularly in terms of teenagers, “This One’s For The Girls.” The great country singer, Martina McBride, created “My Time To Shine,” a project in conjunction with “Love Is Respect” for girls and women. McBride teamed with this organization in response to the rise of domestic violence in teenage relationships as one in three – 1 in 3 – girls suffers violence at the hands of their boyfriends. That is a harrowing, and unacceptable statistic. It is to that statistic, as well as to eating disorders, and the misogyny inherent in so much of our culture, that Amy Siskind and The New Agenda, created their video series.

And it is to the misogyny and sexism on display in our media that “Killing Us Softly,” the groundbreaking documentary on the imagery of women in advertising. There is much you will recognize in this video. To see image after image after image of the way women, and girls, are depicted, is disturbing, to say the least:

How is it, that in the Twenty-first century, we still have these images of women, that our girls continue to embody these messages of having to be thin? How is it a third of our girls are in violent relationships?

Meanwhile, we have Egypt erupting in protests, demanding that they be out from under the thumb of their dictator, our ally, President Mubarak, claiming they want democracy. Yet, they also want Islam in their laws. No need to read between the lines there, that means they want Sharia Law in their political system. So, I guess it is only democracy for men they want, and women,, who enjoy a fair amount of freedom in Egypt, will lose what freedoms they have now. One can expect if the protesters get their way, violence against women will become law.

Speaking of Egypt, Senator Bill Nelson of Florida, is calling for President Mubarak to step down, and allow Egypt to pursue democracy. I could not stop myself from yelling at him on the television. This senator comes from a state, and a party, that did more than its share in squelching not only democracy in 2008 by silencing a large number of its citizens in Florida by withholding their votes for Hillary Clinton, but also stood in the way of the people’s choice for the Democratic presidential candidate by reducing the power of their votes until they manipulated who the candidate was going to be.

How dare Senator Nelson preach democracy to someone else when he, and his party, stood squarely in the way of democracy in his own STATE? “Hypocrite” does not even begin to describe it. His actions (or lack thereof) then kept the most qualified woman, and our best chance to elect a woman president, off the ballot. And his call for democracy in Egypt rings hollow coming from the representative of a state that did so much to squash the voices of its own people.

Yes, The New Agenda is right,”their eyes are watching,” and what they, our girls, are seeing, is that they are less than their male counterparts in just about every way, shape, and form. They are seeing they are worth less, less important, less worthy of having a voice, a presence, a body that is healthy and whole. What they are seeing on tv, in magazines, in families, in schools, and in communities must change. And we must make that happen. For the girls. For us as a society.

In a letter today to President Obama, I asked for the resignation of White House Deputy Chief Technology Officer Andrew McLaughlin.

Last week, McLaughlin was officially reprimanded for violating its ethics policies. A White House investigation found that McLaughlin, a former senior executive at Google, had repeatedly circumvented both the letter and spirit of White House ethics rules by communicating with former colleagues about Administration policies affecting the company.

The White House confirmed that Mr. McLaughlin used his personal Gmail account when discussing White House business, possibly violating federal archiving rules.

From web privacy to Net neutrality to China’s Internet policies, McLaughlin actively engaged Google’s lobbying team and at least one top company official, in at least one case contradicting the Administration’s public stance.

Well, that last sentence is no surprise to anyone who has really been paying attention. The one area in which Obama has been consistent is saying one thing, and doing another. Back to the article:

In that instance, the Administration was publicly stating that it was fairly and dispassionately evaluating a Court decision that had the potential to materially affect Google. Yet McLaughlin simultaneously leaked highly sensitive material and inside information to a senior Google official via a confidential email that the policy would not change.

President Obama has repeatedly claimed that his Administration would have no tolerance for unethical ‘revolving door’ behavior by officials who are supposed to be working for the taxpayers but instead are granting special access and favors to their former employers. The situation with McLaughlin is a test of President Obama’s ethics commitment.

If the Obama Administration is truly committed to the idea of strict ethical standards McLaughlin’s tenure as a senior official of the Obama White House must end.

So there is that piece – the Obama flunkies using a major search engine as their own personal ad campaign (a bit of hyperbolic license, I admit), but there is yet another, far more serious, infraction by the Obama White House that is clawing its way to the light.

And that would be this, Gibbs Mum On Sestak Job Offer. At first blush, that might not seem like a lot, but in actuality, it is a federal crime:

Don’t ask the White House if Obama aides tried to force Joe Sestak out of the Pennsylvania Democratic Senate primary by offering him a job. They are keeping mum on the controversy.

Press Secretary Robert Gibbs deflected a barrage of questions about reports – stoked by Sestak himself – that he was offered a top position, perhaps Navy Secretary, in exchange for sitting out the Democratic Senate primary in Pennsylvania.

Sestak didn’t – and upended incumbent Republican-turned-Democrat Arlen Specter on Tuesday night.

“I don’t have anything to add today,” said Gibbs, who was forced to repeat that line several more times under intense questioning during his daily briefing.

Case in point: Washington Post “media critic” Howard Kurtz’s article today about FOX News Channel’s “reporters’” growing discomfort with the shenanigans of FNC darling Glenn Beck, he of the mighty chalkboard of insanity, his ludicrous fits of crying, his manic desire to be a political player, the fearmongering, paranoia and Stalin-Mao-Hitler-Marxist-Communist-Racist-Obama-hating cavalcade of madness. The meme that Beck is merely an entertainer and that FOX personalities are worried that the new star on the block could damage its relationship with the White House and the channel’s reputation are laughable at best. After all, Beck organized the infamous “9/12″ rallies, a non-news event enthusiastically covered by FOX, complete with inflated crowd estimates. Beck, in displays of false modesty, claims to be a mere rodeo clown. Nonsense. He’s a liar, an ignoramus and a dangerous Father Coughlinesque demagogue who has done enormous damage to political discourse and the profession of journalism. (Beck would probably decry Coughlin’s loyalties but the technique remains the same).

Beck apologized recently for wasting his audience’s time following a hilariously absurd and demented interview with disgraced tickling enthusiast and former Congressman Eric Massa. But not to worry, he’s back to whatever passes for normal now.

FOX’s “news” operation didn’t show restraint or a desire for fact-checking while helping pump damaging, and false stories about the Clintons into the media churn, with the Vince Foster conspiracy theory still holding a strong showing behind the JFK assassination.

And it’s not as if Beck makes money for the network. He’s a loss leader (here’s a partial list of companies that have pulled their ads, despite Beck’s strong ratings). There are rumblings that Rupert Murdoch’s children are fed up with the drama surrounding FOX News’s foolishness, but you can bet that as long as daddy Rupert is in charge and Roger Ailes continues to draw breath nothing will change.

The Kurtz article follows an absurd piece in the Washington Post by former New York Times Executive Editor Howell Raines. With wide-eyed wonder, he ponders the vexing question of why reputable media organizations don’t call FOX out as a propaganda mill. This from a man who if he had a sense of shame would have the decency to keep quiet about media ethics, considering that reporter Bush/Cheney stenographer Judy Miller’s wildly incorrect WMD/Chalabi articles started being published in the NYT on his watch. The New York Times, which sets the agenda for all other publications in the United States, was thereby complicit in pushing falsehoods that led to an unjust and unnecessary war, costing thousands of American lives and ruining the U.S.’s reputation around the world. Good work, Howell.

But to answer your question, Howell: Cowardice. The American media are sheep. You’re welcome.

American reporters love to express their wonder at the Pakistani media’s love of conspiracy theories and wrinkle their brows over what a terrible impact the dissemination of false and sensationalistic information could have on the U.S.-Pak relationship. Look in the mirror, people.

– Cross Post from: The Pakistan Update

The packaging of a fantasy is an art in and of itself cleverly crafted by publicists, ambitious stage parents and cynical editors. The formula is fairly simple. The performer must always be portrayed as single and wholesome. Marriage, homosexuality, bizarre personality quirks, poor grooming, violent tendencies, psychological issues, consumption of alcohol and/or drugs and smoking must be concealed at all costs lest the fantasy, and possibly a career, go up in smoke. Chastity rings a la Jonas Brothers are a big plus. The star has to be accessible but always slightly out of reach, cute but never sexual, perfectly behaved….and rather bland. Attracting and keeping the attention of young female fans, who tend to be fickle when it comes to the cuties they admire, is easier said than done.

But it’s impossible to put off the inevitable. The girls realize they’re at a puppet show when they see the strings. The star turns out to be a regular guy. After shedding a few tears and pouting a bit, the heartbroken and disappointed girls move on to the next object of their undying love.

During Campaign 2008, the American press corps hit a double by acting as both the editors of fluffy teenage magazines AND their audience: Weepy, starstruck young girls. The campaign coverage was breathless in its uncritical hero worship of candidate Obama while treating Hillary Clinton like the evil woman who comes between the adoring fan and the object of his/her adoration. The Yoko Ono of politics, if you will. The McCain camp spoofed this silly dynamic by putting out an ad drawing attention to the American Idol-like press coverage of the Obama campaign (the ad was removed from YouTube for copyright violations). And imagine how the press corps would have reacted if Bill Clinton had given his acceptance speech at the Democratic convention standing in front of a set bearing a distinct likeness to a Grecian temple.

Over a year has passed since Obama was sworn into office. Only now are the media beginning to ask whether the man they lost their heads over is the same guy from 2008. The jury’s still out with many in the press corps who continue to keep hope alive. For those who refuse to face the reality that Barack Obama is not the political Donny Osmond, the latest craze is blaming advisors for the Obama administration’s lack of legislative accomplishments. Never mind that Rahm Emanuel was not elected President and that it really doesn’t matter whether Valerie Jarrett chooses to hold court at a restaurant in Georgetown instead of pressing the flesh at an event (and you know things are getting dire when anyone in Obama’s circle is compared unfavorably to Bill Clinton, a man still reviled by the Washington press establishment). These people were appointed by the President to carry out his wishes. If Obama thought they were doing him a disservice they would be fired. The new narrative casting aspersions on the aides is a cop out. It advances the idea that these advisors fell out of the sky, formed a cabal and are now freelancing instead of following the orders of the First Boss. Nonsense.

Obama spent his first year holding a series of town halls, public meetings, press conferences and television interviews. But the bottom line is that legislatively the party has ground to a halt. The foolish narratives advanced by the media aren’t helping much. So the Republicans won an addition seat in Massachusetts? Yes, it’s a significant and important political story, but in a world populated by grown-ups going from a 60-40 supermajority in the Senate to 59-41 does not give the Democrats an out to fold their tents and go home. The Republicans haven’t achieved a supermajority in living memory but were still able to advance a controversial agenda during the tenure of George W. Bush. The fear and defeatism emanating from the Democratic caucus demonstrates an inability, or unwillingness, to lead. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid’s performance has been particularly timid. What ever happened to the Harry Reid who served as chairman of the Nevada Gaming Commission:

A man named Jack Gordon, who later married LaToya Jackson, tried to give Reid a $12,000 bribe. Reid let the FBI videotape Gordon offering him the bribe, and then, according to aLas Vegas Review-Journal account, he “put his hands around Gordon’s neck and said, ‘You son of a bitch, you tried to bribe me.’” That’s right, Senate Democrats are being led by a man who once tried to strangle LaToya Jackson’s future husband-manager.

The media have reached a crossroads. They can either do a group hug and cry over a dream deferred, an illusion they helped create, or they can stop searching for scapegoats and covering Obama as they would any other politician.

Will this happen? It’s hard to tell. It appears that the press have moved on to swoon over their next fascination: American Idol, er, Campaign 2012.

–
Cross Post from: ThePakistanUpdate.com

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Here is where it gets good:

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

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

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

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

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

Finally:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Okay, I admit it – I have tried to be in total denial about the following interview of Secretary of State Clinton and Ann Curry. My aunt sent me the pertinent quote earlier this week, and I just didn’t want to believe it. I still don’t want to believe it, to be honest. It makes me both sad and angry for reasons I am sure many of you share, too.

And now, to the interview:

Sigh. So, yeah, Secretary Clinton says she won’t run for President again. Sure, there was this (funny to me) quote in there:

“Maybe there is some misunderstanding which needs to be clarified,” she said. “I believe in delegating power … I am not one of those people who feel I have to have my face in front of the newspaper and TV every day … It’s just the way I am.”

Clearly a little dig at He Who Must Be On TV Every Day, which was enjoyable, I must confess. Okay, it was downright funny.

And then there was the part where even Andrea Mitchell, of all people, is commenting on how surprising it is hat President CLINTON has not received the Nobel Peace Prize despite raising BILLIONS of dollars for the Clinton Initiative which does great work all over the world. Never mind all of the work President Clinton did with President Bush (I) in terms of the Indian Ocean Tsunami and Hurricane Katrina. So, yeah, sure, it makes perfect sense that Mr. Talker No Walker Man would be the one who gets it. Pathetic.

Back to Hillary Clinton. I was hoping that maybe, just maybe she was trying to shift the focus off of her, and was trying not to steal the limelight from her boss (and her water carrying for him is a bitter pill to swallow). But, no, she has repeated that claim again in this article, the title of which is also bitter, Clinton: I’d Have Hired Obama. Yeah, she said it after the claim indicated in the title. I’ll let the article set the stage:

Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said Wednesday that if she had won presidential election, Barack Obama would “absolutely” have served in her Cabinet.

Recalling the conversation she had with then-president-elect Obama about her joining the administration during an interview on ABC’s “Good Morning America,” Clinton said that she was at first surprised when the president offered her the secretary of state post.

“It was, you know, about … five, six days after the election. And my husband and I were out for a walk, actually, in a, sort of, preserve near where we live in New York. And he had his cell phone in his pocket. It started ringing in the middle of this, you know, big nature preserve,” Clinton said. “Instead of turning it off, he answered it. And it was President-elect Obama wanting to talk to him about some people he was considering for positions.”

Clinton said she then picked up the phone thinking Obama wanted to talk generally about Cabinet picks when he surprised her by asking the former New York senator and Democratic rival to become his chief diplomat.

“He said I want you to be my secretary of state. And I said, ‘Oh, no, you don’t,’” Clinton recalled. “I said, ‘Oh, please, there’s so many other people who could do this.’

“But, you know, we kept talking. I finally began thinking, look, if I had won and I had called him, I would have wanted him to say yes,” Clinton continued. “And, you know, I’m pretty old-fashioned, and it’s just who I am. So at the end of the day, when your president asks you to serve, you say yes, if you can.”

Asked if she would have made the same call to Obama if she had been elected president, Clinton responded: “Absolutely. Absolutely. Oh, of course.”

Well, I can see that she would have to do so, but SHE would have been the boss, and SHOULD have been, as many of us think given te votes she received in the Primary.

And that brings me to this:

Additionally, Clinton backed up her statement from earlier in the week that she will not run for president a second time.

“I have absolutely no interest in running for president again. None. None,” she said. “I mean, I know that’s hard for some people to believe, but, you know, I just don’t.”

“I feel like I have had the most amazing life in my public service,” the secretary of state continued. “And for the last 17 years, ever since my husband started running for president, I have been, you know, in the spotlight, working hard. And this job is incredibly all-encompassing. So I think I’m looking forward to maybe taking some time off.”

She HAS had an amazing life, no doubt about it. She is an amazing woman – no one would expect anything less from someone of her stature. But I have to say, the thought of NEVER having a President Hillary Clinton is demoralizing. I feel like the DNC Elite have won (again), getting the Clintons out once and for all, despite the tremendous successes they have had independent of each other, and for the good of the country. It just burns me up that they might actually succeed. Dammit it to hell.

That despite the fact that k, Secretary Clinton has higher approval ratings than President Obama does now. I’m not kidding – hot off the Gullup wires, her ratings are 62%, and Obama’s are 56%. Maybe it’s because people are seeing that SHE is out there working her ass off on our behalf, on behalf of the country, and for the greater good of the world. They see Obama hemming and hawing, incapable of making hard decisions, or fulfilling campaign promises, yet showing up on YouTube doing the salsa (more or less) the other night while Clinton has been to the following countries between 10/9 – 15: Zurich, London, Dublin, Belfast, Moscow and Kazan. Holy smokes – makes me tired just reading the list.

She is just a remarkable woman, isn’t she?? Incredible energy, devotion, good humor, intelligence, and compassion, all in one person who SHOULD be the boss.

So I have been in denial, not wanting to believe my ears and eyes when she says she won’t be running again. Someone wake me when she changes her mind. Or Obama’s out of office. Whichever comes first…

(And a grudging thanks to Bronwyn’s Harbor for sending me the video. Thanks, BH – kinda!)

And now, to the interview:

Sigh. So, yeah, Secretary Clinton says she won’t run for President again. Sure, there was this (funny to me) quote in there:

“Maybe there is some misunderstanding which needs to be clarified,” she said. “I believe in delegating power … I am not one of those people who feel I have to have my face in front of the newspaper and TV every day … It’s just the way I am.”

Clearly a little dig at He Who Must Be On TV Every Day, which was enjoyable, I must confess. Okay, it was downright funny.

And then there was the part where even Andrea Mitchell, of all people, is commenting on how surprising it is hat President CLINTON has not received the Nobel Peace Prize despite raising BILLIONS of dollars for the Clinton Initiative which does great work all over the world. Never mind all of the work President Clinton did with President Bush (I) in terms of the Indian Ocean Tsunami and Hurricane Katrina. So, yeah, sure, it makes perfect sense that Mr. Talker No Walker Man would be the one who gets it. Pathetic.

Back to Hillary Clinton. I was hoping that maybe, just maybe she was trying to shift the focus off of her, and was trying not to steal the limelight from her boss (and her water carrying for him is a bitter pill to swallow). But, no, she has repeated that claim again in this article, the title of which is also bitter, Clinton: I’d Have Hired Obama. Yeah, she said it after the claim indicated in the title. I’ll let the article set the stage:

Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said Wednesday that if she had won presidential election, Barack Obama would “absolutely” have served in her Cabinet.

Recalling the conversation she had with then-president-elect Obama about her joining the administration during an interview on ABC’s “Good Morning America,” Clinton said that she was at first surprised when the president offered her the secretary of state post.

“It was, you know, about … five, six days after the election. And my husband and I were out for a walk, actually, in a, sort of, preserve near where we live in New York. And he had his cell phone in his pocket. It started ringing in the middle of this, you know, big nature preserve,” Clinton said. “Instead of turning it off, he answered it. And it was President-elect Obama wanting to talk to him about some people he was considering for positions.”

Clinton said she then picked up the phone thinking Obama wanted to talk generally about Cabinet picks when he surprised her by asking the former New York senator and Democratic rival to become his chief diplomat.

“He said I want you to be my secretary of state. And I said, ‘Oh, no, you don’t,’” Clinton recalled. “I said, ‘Oh, please, there’s so many other people who could do this.’

“But, you know, we kept talking. I finally began thinking, look, if I had won and I had called him, I would have wanted him to say yes,” Clinton continued. “And, you know, I’m pretty old-fashioned, and it’s just who I am. So at the end of the day, when your president asks you to serve, you say yes, if you can.”

Asked if she would have made the same call to Obama if she had been elected president, Clinton responded: “Absolutely. Absolutely. Oh, of course.”

Well, I can see that she would have to do so, but SHE would have been the boss, and SHOULD have been, as many of us think given te votes she received in the Primary.

And that brings me to this:

Additionally, Clinton backed up her statement from earlier in the week that she will not run for president a second time.

“I have absolutely no interest in running for president again. None. None,” she said. “I mean, I know that’s hard for some people to believe, but, you know, I just don’t.”

“I feel like I have had the most amazing life in my public service,” the secretary of state continued. “And for the last 17 years, ever since my husband started running for president, I have been, you know, in the spotlight, working hard. And this job is incredibly all-encompassing. So I think I’m looking forward to maybe taking some time off.”

She HAS had an amazing life, no doubt about it. She is an amazing woman – no one would expect anything less from someone of her stature. But I have to say, the thought of NEVER having a President Hillary Clinton is demoralizing. I feel like the DNC Elite have won (again), getting the Clintons out once and for all, despite the tremendous successes they have had independent of each other, and for the good of the country. It just burns me up that they might actually succeed. Dammit it to hell.

That despite the fact that k, Secretary Clinton has higher approval ratings than President Obama does now. I’m not kidding – hot off the Gullup wires, her ratings are 62%, and Obama’s are 56%. Maybe it’s because people are seeing that SHE is out there working her ass off on our behalf, on behalf of the country, and for the greater good of the world. They see Obama hemming and hawing, incapable of making hard decisions, or fulfilling campaign promises, yet showing up on YouTube doing the salsa (more or less) the other night while Clinton has been to the following countries between 10/9 – 15: Zurich, London, Dublin, Belfast, Moscow and Kazan. Holy smokes – makes me tired just reading the list.

She is just a remarkable woman, isn’t she?? Incredible energy, devotion, good humor, intelligence, and compassion, all in one person who SHOULD be the boss.

So I have been in denial, not wanting to believe my ears and eyes when she says she won’t be running again. Someone wake me when she changes her mind. Or Obama’s out of office. Whichever comes first…

(And a grudging thanks to Bronwyn’s Harbor for sending me the video. Thanks, BH – kinda!)

Dear John,
Just. Shut. Up.

The occasion of her instruction came because Edwards is now pondering

… “publicly” acknowledging paternity of his mistress’s baby, [though he] had not yet brought his wife around to the idea. With his mistress, baby in arms, testifying before a grand jury about the payments she received from Edwards’ associates, and the campaign aide he had pushed to claim paternity now shopping a book about the deceit, Edwards is reportedly considering a public affirmation of paternity as a way to spin the story in his direction — make it look like he is standing up to take responsibility, doing the “right thing.”

Ms. Estrich phrases the following like a delicate soufflé, perfectly timed as it comes out of the oven, piping hot and puffy:

Message to John Edwards: We know it’s your baby. Everyone knows that. You want to do the right thing? Do it privately. Do penance for the next 20 years. Wash your wife’s feet and help the poor. But don’t make public pronouncements or expect public forgiveness.

Nothing John Edwards can do will change the judgment we have reached about him. World-class scumbag doesn’t begin to describe it. I can think of no one in recent political history whose betrayal matches his.

While Ms. Estrich states that other politicians have likewise had affairs and does not excuse any of them, she points out in this case, his actions really go above and beyond the term “dog”:

How many times did I say that an extramarital affair is not an impeachable offense? It isn’t. But when your wife has metastatic breast cancer, when you use everybody around you, when you lie to her and your aides and the voters, when you distort a presidential race you had no business being in and bring a child into the world because of your arrogance and cruelty, then it’s an unforgivable one.

Therein lies the problem. His wife and campaign manager knew about the affair and advised Mr. Edwards not to run for the President in 2008. He did it anyway. I’m not going to play woulda coulda shoulda here, but the man campaigned in Iowa for two years. What if he were not part of the equation? He also took campaign contributions knowing he had this damning secret.

There was no way he could have believed he would get away with this all the way to election time. He was crucified for getting a $400 haircut. Although one could argue another man who is a political lightweight possessed of heavy personal baggage currently occupies the White House, we must remember that Edwards didn’t have the advantage of playing the race card daily to silence any critics or opponents.

Ms. Estrich rightly points out the continuing humiliation Elizabeth Edwards and her children must endure in processing this continuing mess, played out in front of a grand jury as it is determined whether or not Mr. Edwards acted illegally in funneling campaign monies to help support his mistress. Ugh.

I am reminded of the Democratic Convention last August. The second night was devoted to the accomplishments of women. Elizabeth was one of the scheduled speakers – until John Edwards’ actions were discovered. Suddenly not only he was scrubbed from the Convention, but her speech was cancelled as well. He did something wrong. She did nothing. Yet she must hide out along with him. She is an accomplished, respected woman who set an example with her courageous fight against cancer and should have been allowed to speak. She is not his chattel.

Just more of an unfortunate double standard that shows no signs of dissipating. I appreciate Ms. Estrich for saying what many should have said long ago.

It is cold comfort to discover that there is more than one politician who suffers from narcissistic personality disorder.

The founder of Blackwater, Erik Prince, is a Navy man, is also a Christian of the conservative strand. He has given a bunch of money to conservative causes, including James Dobson’s “Focus on the Family” group. Just to set the stage.

And Obama said, as a candidate, that he would not “rule out” keeping Blackwater, now “Xe,” in Iraq. Hillary not so much, not even close:

(she) released a statement announcing that Clinton is now co-sponsoring legislation to “ban the use of Blackwater and other private mercenary firms in Iraq,” saying, “The time to show these contractors the door is long past due.”

Uh huh. And what has Obama done since becoming president? He’s given Blackwater, aka, Xe, a $70 million dollar contract. Doesn’t that make you feel all warm and fuzzy?

Here’s the thing: the founder of Blackwater, Erik Prince, has been implicated by two former employees for murder. Yep. And you are not going to believe this story. It is going to make you SO happy (that’s snark) that Obama has chosen to give this man, and his company, more money to stay in the Middle East. I’ll give you some of the highlights, but I urge you to read the whole piece (and the author, Jeremy Scahill, has written a LOT about Blackwater. He was a bit snide about Hillary Clinton and her resolve to NOT have Blackwater on the payroll any longer, even though that was in the same article in which he pointed out that Obama the Candidate he wouldn’t “rule it out.” Still, the articles are worth reading.). To the article:

A former Blackwater employee and an ex-US Marine who has worked as a security operative for the company have made a series of explosive allegations in sworn statements filed on August 3 in federal court in Virginia. The two men claim that the company’s owner, Erik Prince, may have murdered or facilitated the murder of individuals who were cooperating with federal authorities investigating the company. The former employee also alleges that Prince “views himself as a Christian crusader tasked with eliminating Muslims and the Islamic faith from the globe,” and that Prince’s companies “encouraged and rewarded the destruction of Iraqi life.”

Now is when I remind you that Obama chose to retain this company. A “Christian crusader” hellbent on wiping Muslims off the map. WOW. There’s more:

Doe #2 states in the declaration that he has also provided the information contained in his statement “in grand jury proceedings convened by the United States Department of Justice.” Federal prosecutors convened a grand jury in the aftermath of the September 16, 2007, Nisour Square shootings in Baghdad, which left seventeen Iraqis dead. Five Blackwater employees are awaiting trial on several manslaughter charges and a sixth, Jeremy Ridgeway, has already pleaded guilty to manslaughter and attempting to commit manslaughter and is cooperating with prosecutors. It is not clear whether Doe #2 testified in front of the Nisour Square grand jury or in front of a separate grand jury.

The two declarations are each five pages long and contain a series of devastating allegations concerning Erik Prince and his network of companies, which now operate under the banner of Xe Services LLC. Among those leveled by Doe #2 is that Prince “views himself as a Christian crusader tasked with eliminating Muslims and the Islamic faith from the globe”:

To that end, Mr. Prince intentionally deployed to Iraq certain men who shared his vision of Christian supremacy, knowing and wanting these men to take every available opportunity to murder Iraqis. Many of these men used call signs based on the Knights of the Templar, the warriors who fought the Crusades.

Mr. Prince operated his companies in a manner that encouraged and rewarded the destruction of Iraqi life. For example, Mr. Prince’s executives would openly speak about going over to Iraq to “lay Hajiis out on cardboard.” Going to Iraq to shoot and kill Iraqis was viewed as a sport or game. Mr. Prince’s employees openly and consistently used racist and derogatory terms for Iraqis and other Arabs, such as “ragheads” or “hajiis.”

Among the additional allegations made by Doe #1 is that “Blackwater was smuggling weapons into Iraq.” He states that he personally witnessed weapons being “pulled out” from dog food bags. Doe #2 alleges that “Prince and his employees arranged for the weapons to be polywrapped and smuggled into Iraq on Mr. Prince’s private planes, which operated under the name Presidential Airlines,” adding that Prince “generated substantial revenues from participating in the illegal arms trade.”

Doe #2 states: “Using his various companies, [Prince] procured and distributed various weapons, including unlawful weapons such as sawed off semi-automatic machine guns with silencers, through unlawful channels of distribution.” Blackwater “was not abiding by the terms of the contract with the State Department and was deceiving the State Department,” according to Doe #1.

This is disturbing on so many levels, isn’t it? Naturally, Prince denies any wrongdoing:

In their testimony, both men also allege that Blackwater was smuggling weapons into Iraq. One of the men alleges that Prince turned a profit by transporting “illegal” or “unlawful” weapons into the country on Prince’s private planes. They also charge that Prince and other Blackwater executives destroyed incriminating videos, emails and other documents and have intentionally deceived the US State Department and other federal agencies. The identities of the two individuals were sealed out of concerns for their safety.

These allegations, and a series of other charges, are contained in sworn affidavits, given under penalty of perjury, filed late at night on August 3 in the Eastern District of Virginia as part of a seventy-page motion by lawyers for Iraqi civilians suing Blackwater for alleged war crimes and other misconduct. Susan Burke, a private attorney working in conjunction with the Center for Constitutional Rights, is suing Blackwater in five separate civil cases filed in the Washington, DC, area. They were recently consolidated before Judge T.S. Ellis III of the Eastern District of Virginia for pretrial motions. Burke filed the August 3 motion in response to Blackwater’s motion to dismiss the case. Blackwater asserts that Prince and the company are innocent of any wrongdoing and that they were professionally performing their duties on behalf of their employer, the US State Department.

Yes, Prince is claiming everything he did was on behalf of the State Department. Oh, sure. I have no doubt that, given how Hilary Clinton spoke of his organization during the campaign, that she was all behind what he was doing in Iraq. Again, that is snark.

So – will Obama be held accountable for keeping Blackwater/Xe on the payroll and at the State Department, or will he pass the buck (again) and blame Clinton, even though she wanted nothing to do with them?

Will Erik Prince get his comeuppance for his private “crusade” against Muslims? Will he be held to account for smuggling weapons into Iraq? If what has been alleged against him is true, he deserves everything that is coming to him. Personally, I am exceedingly offended that this man and his company have been on OUR payroll, operating this way on OUR behalf. What he has been accused of doing is obscene. Just reprehensible.

Tell me again why Obama renewed his contract, because I don’t get it (even before these allegations)…

John Harwood, the New York Times reporter and MSNBC analyst, said on MSNBC that Obama was introduced today as “Barack Hussein Obama” and that he emphasized “growing up in a majority Muslim country, that there are a lot of Americans like that and that I [Obama] am one of them.” [Transcribed via DVR playback.]

Jeff Zeleny, another New York Times reporter, responded, “Throughout the course of the primary campaign, one time when I used his middle name, we got a lot of angry e-mail from supporters of then Senator Obama who said, ‘Why do you have to remind people that his middle name is Hussein?‘ But he was doing that directly today to send a purposeful message that he is a part of the world, that he is just piece of American heritage, if you will.” [At NoQuarter, throughout the contests, if anyone used his middle name, we were accused by Obamabots of being racists.]

But today, not only did Barack Obama accentuate his middle name, he said this in a speech to the Turkish parliament:

“The United States has been enriched by Muslim Americans. Many other Americans have Muslims in their families, or have lived in a Muslim majority country. I know, because I am one of them,” he said.

What a stark contrast to his campaigns, when he minimized and disguised his affiliations with his Muslim relatives and his upbringing in a Muslim-dominant country (Indonesia). It is also notable today that every media outlet (CNN, A.P., Reuters, etc.) cut out that section of his speech. But I managed to find the video here, at about 3/4 of the way through this NECN video:

As an example of the heated accusations during the primaries, this was the headline at the Times UK: “Barack Obama: I’m no Muslim.”

From Barack Obama’s own “Fight The Smears” campaign Web site was this strong denial:

Here are the lengths that Barack Obama went to in South Carolina to win over the Christian right. (Click on this image to see the entire brochure, full-sized.)

The left column:

Lastly, who can forget this peculiar slip of the tongue when Obama was interviewed by ABC’s George Stephanopoulos in September 2008:

:::::::::::

Special thanks to all of the writers at NoQuarter for pitching in and helping me locate these images, links, and videos.

Your opinions are sought in two polls below, and there are TWO UPDATES:
Which colleges did this yokel go to? Anybody? You are so correct! What percentage of body mass does “white guilt” occupy in this guy, do you think? REALLY? That much? Of course, CNN chose his IReport for publication! It’s so touching, and, um, uh, forward-looking.

Rep. Paul Ryan, get goin’, guy. You’re real presidential timber with the brains and the actual experience!

After all, the American people always choose a person of substance over a symbol. Right?

There are hundreds of resources on the Internet, and countless books and seminar tapes, that advise that one — during a job interview or in any formal setting outside one’s own home — never cross one’s legs. The feet are to be flat on the floor with the legs comfortable resting together.

See the person on the right for how to do it. Do not follow the example of the person to your left:

Photo: Daily Mail

This photograph was sent by a fellow NoQuarter writer who asked, “Does she have to show so much of her thigh?”

The rise of the skirt and the surely unintended display of the thighs is one of the reasons why all experts advise that one does not cross one’s legs in any public setting outside the home.

By the way, don’t you think that the dress worn by the person to your left looks quite suitable for an early evening cocktail party? And don’t you find that the Dior ensemble worn by the person to your right is “quiet” — i.e., it does not call attention to itself? And should not all clothing worn in both formal and professional settings be “quiet,” and not intended to cause the eye to rivet to the clothing but instead to the person?

Here are but a very few of the experts on how to sit properly. They were randomly chosen. You can find hundreds more via Google’s search engine.

“BODY TALK,” by Carol Kinsey Goman, Ph.D, NonVerbalAdvantage.com:

Don’t Cross Legs:

While some people may think that crossing legs shows that you are comfortable and relaxed, this is not the time or place for crossing legs. Crossing legs is seen as especially inappropriate for women as well. Keep both feet on the floor and refrain from shifting leg positions. You will have plenty of time to stretch and cross your legs when the interview is over and you’re behind your own desk.

“Interview Body Language That Sends the Right Message“:

Be aware of the interview body language message your legs are giving. A lot of leg movement is both distracting and indicates nervousness. Resting one leg or ankle on top of your other knee makes you look too casual and comes across as arrogant. Crossing your legs high up conveys a defensive attitude in the one-on-one context of a job interview. Crossing them at the ankles or placing both feet flat on the floor conveys a confident and professional look during the job interview.

“How One Should Sit During The Job Interview?“:

• Crossing your legs at the thighs: Too familiar, especially at the beginning of an interview.
• Leaning forward too much: May make some interviewers feel uncomfortable, especially if you’re physically big and talk loudly.
Tips on good sitting practice include:
• Straight and upright body: This is a neutral sitting position that interviewers expect to see.

“Proper attire and etiquette for men and women“:

Wear a Suit – Although women have come a long way in the world of work, skirt suits are still preferred. There is an old saying “Dress the position you want, not the one you have.” Many corporate offices follow the professional look their customers are accustomed to working with and placing confidence in. Longstanding colors such as Blue, Black, Gray, or Brown are the color choice of many executive champions.

The trick is to look conservative and professional. Wear an appropriate length skirt, avoid tight skirts and mini-skirts. Let quality of your suit, followed by the strength of your words to impress your potential employer.

Blouses – A cotton or silk blouse in a neutral color with a simple collar is fine. Do not wear a sleeve-less blouse, just in case you have to take off your jacket. Most conservative offices do not allow sleeveless blouses as proper dress attire. Be sure, to ask about the corporate culture of an office prior rushing out to the interview. With the rise and fall of dot.com companies, much has changed. Make sure your power blouse should fit comfortably, and not appear to be tight, wrinkled or distracting due to loud colors.

In this photo, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton provides a perfect example of both attire and the positioning of one’s feet and legs:

As for the United States of America’s president? Well, perhaps he can sit like that at Camp David while he watches his beloved sports games. But at a formal tea service? Oh my.

See also, this book’s section: Global business etiquette By Jeanette S. Martin, Lillian H. Chaney

Special thanks to G. and P. for the photographs. And thanks to G. for the video update below.

UPDATE: Here’s the title of the EUX.TV video: “Is Michelle Obama pregnant?” My goodness.

And that bow! Isn’t that something?!

This video, which I do not believe we saw on American TV, comes from EUX.TV, which is “an independent webtv channel that reports on European affairs and EU politics.”

EUX.TV is headquartered in Brussels, Belgium.

Here is the accompanying text:

After the G20 in London, the NATO meeting on the French-German border, the Obama’s travelled to the Czech Republic for an official EU-US summit.

Obama and his wife Michelle listen to a Czech band at the presidential palace in the Czech capital Prague. Obama is in Prague for a summit with the European Union later on Sunday. The Czech republic currently holds the rotating EU presidency.

YES! The EUX.TV page is titled, “Is Michelle Obama pregnant?”

Update #2: Just in case EUX.TV stops by, we want them to know that Michelle’s stomach looked the same on January 20, 2009:

White House staff have met with both presidential candidates and their senior staffs to brief them on possible terrorist threats and current National Security issues between election day and January. Vetting of potential presidential staff members has also become–for both campaigns.

So what gets pimped all over the place by the Obama campaign? Not a story that both candidates have been briefed. Nope. This:

Senior Aides To Barack Obama have been meeting George W. Bush’s staff to begin planning a smooth transfer of power.

No kidding. You can’t make this shit up. How’s that for cocky?

…………………………………

From my blog, “Uppity Woman.”