See what I mean? How old is this guy, THREE? Here is more:

The president will refuse to make fund-raising visits during November elections to any district whose representative has not backed the bill.

A one-night presidential appearance can bring in hundreds of thousands of dollars in funds which would otherwise take months to accumulate through cold-calling by campaign volunteers.

Mr Obama’s threat came as the year-long debate over his signature domestic policy entered its final week.

Mr Obama is personally telephoning congressmen who are still on the fence this week, in between several personal appearances devoted toward swinging public opinion.

Yesterday he visited Strongsville, Ohio, home of cancer patient Natoma Canfield, who wrote to the president she gave up her health insurance after it rose to $8,500 (£5,600) a year. Mr Obama repeatedly has cited the letter he received from the self-employed cleaning worker to illustrate the urgency of reform.

Though Congress has already ignored several deadlines set by the president, March 21 is being treated by all sides the final target date, at which time all options would have been exhausted. The president has postponed an overseas trip by three days to see reform through.

Apart from arm-twisting by the White House, an advertising blitz that could cost £20 million by the end of the week, about the same level of a presidential campaign, has been aimed at about 40 undecided Democrats in the House of Representatives.

Good grief. Can this man possibly be more petulant, more childish? Or waste more money giving a speech we have already heard a gazillion times?? There is more to this article, which you can read HERE, but I really want to share some of the comments with you. They are hilarious:

This is a good thing because if he campaigns for them they will surely lose…..linda
*
What’s the second prize? Tony Gee
*
In his hubris, Mr. Obama actually thinks that congressional candidates will WANT him to campaign for them. After his performances in Copenhagen, Virginia, New Jersey and Massachusetts, I have to think that Dems are figuring out that he is POISON, and they’ll ask him to stay away. What a complete laughingstock this buffoon is.

Another reason to vote NO for socialized medicine. We don’t have the money for this idiocy. Jim

I hope he comes to Louisiana to support Senator Landrieu. Oh Happy Day! John
*
I have to assume that those who vote NO will be popping champaign and celebrating over Obama’s promise not to support their reelection efforts.

It’s pretty clear that Obama has the reverse Midas touch. Everything he touches turns to c**p–even when he gets his way it turns to c**p. BMF
*
No surprise here, just more Chicago Strong Arm Politics. This will backfire though as Pres. Obama’s “endoresment” has been the kiss of death for anyone involved so far.

This BIG BROTHER bill will get passed by deception, in the dead of night. It doesn’t have, and will never have the votes to pass in the light of day. Reform is needed, but not at the expense of our children’s children’s future. DaDeO
*
Reminds me of the kid on the losing side of a game who threatens to take his ball and go home and then is surprised when the others tell him to go ahead.

In November and 2012, there is a real opportunity to put adults in charge again!
Patriotic Chicago
*
obama won’r campaign for any democRAT not voting yes? Consider that a VERY BIG PLUS! He’ll throw anyone under the bus to pass his socialized POS! CONCERNED VETERAN
*
Obama is a Big Joke,Stupid Americans Voted for some idiot.Around the world he is alienating his friends like Israel & getting screwed by the chinese.When we were growing up as kids, i remember American Presidents were greeted with so much love & affection in our country,After Obama has become president we feel like throwing stones at him.Use your pea head brains properly & throw this joker out from your country. Maple
*
Somebody has to stop this insane legislation. It will be a catastrophe and the boondoggle of the century for fraud & corruption like we’ve never seen before.
Dugan

There are many, many more good ones there, and the rest of the article is worth reading.

But Obama is not the only one in this party to act like a child regarding this legislation. Another one is Steve Hildebrand. Who, you may ask? This article tells it all:

Obama Campaign Guru Eyes House Seat, Senior Obama campaign official Steve Hildebrand is eyeing a Democratic primary challenge to South Dakota Rep. Stephanie Herseth Sandlin, a decision he said hinges largely on whether she votes against health care reform later this week.

Hildebrand, deputy national campaign manager for Obama’s presidential campaign, told CNN in an exclusive interview that he has been frustrated with Herseth Sandlin’s voting record for some time, especially her decision to oppose the House health care reform bill in November. The House is expected to vote again on the issue later this week and a Herseth Sandlin spokesperson has said she plans to vote no again.

“I want to see how she votes on health care,” Hildebrand said. “If the vote is very, very close and we lose it or come close to losing it, I will take a serious look at challenging her.”

“She is on the wrong side of history,” he added.

A Herseth Sandlin spokesman declined to comment on the potential primary challenge.

Wow, this is a page right out of Rep. Jesse Jackson, Jr.’s playbook from the Primaries – “do what we want, or we will put a challenger up against you!”

What a bunch of thuggish toddlers this group is. Unbelievable:

Hildebrand said he has not spoken to the White House about a potential run, nor has he reached out to Sen. Tim Johnson, D-South Dakota, or former Senate Majority Leader Tom Daschle, D-South Dakota. Hildebrand, a close political advisor to Johnson and Daschle, said if he decides to run he will have a “conversation with them.”

“But I would not expect them to go against an incumbent within their party,” he said.

On Monday, Hildebrand sent an e-mail to South Dakota Democrats urging them to pressure Herseth Sandlin to support Obama’s health care reform efforts. He accused the Democratic congresswoman of “siding” with the GOP and “the big insurance companies” on the debate over health care reform.

“The bill may not pass the House without Stephanie’s support,” Hildebrand said in the email. “What a tragedy if we came this far in our fight to get health insurance reform, only to see the bill die because a few of our own Democrats stood in the way. We need Stephanie’s vote. It’s critical.”

He made no mention of a possible challenge to Herseth Sandlin in the note.

Hildebrand is the highest profile Democrat to openly talk about challenging a specific member of his own party over the health care issue, although the idea is picking up traction in some corners of the party.

Prominent Democratic strategist Donna Brazile wrote on her Twitter feed Monday that “If a handful of Democrats decide to defeat this bill, they deserve to get a primary challenge to defend the status quo & insurance industry.”

And MoveOn.org sent an email to its members on the same day asking them to “pledge to support progressive primary challengers to House Democrats who side with Republicans.”

Hildebrand said that if he decides to run, he will only accept contributions from South Dakotans and will cap the amount at $100. Widely credited with devising Obama’s primary political strategy – including the Iowa caucus win – Hildebrand said he thinks he “could run a very credible race for about $150,000 to 200,000.” Herseth Sandlin has more than $362,000 in the bank, according to her latest fundraising report filed with the Federal Election Commission.

The South Dakota primary is June 8.

At one time, Hildebrand said he “advised” Herseth Sandlin “on an informal basis” and even donated $500 to her campaign. But when she came on out in favor of a constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage, Hildebrand asked for his money back. Hildebrand, who is gay, is the principal in Hildebrand Strategies, political consulting firm based in Sioux Falls, South Dakota.

“Do what I want or else.” I feel like I am living inside an episode of “The Sopranos,” for crying out loud.

Along those lines, a special shout out to Rep. Kucinich. So, a ride on Air Force One was sufficient to sway you from your deeply held convictions about this Healthcare Bill? I regret I ever gave you one thin dime back when I thought you really were a man with integrity and honor. I won’t make that mistake about you again. But if I were you, I would have held out for that pony…

Blech – I feel like I need a shower. But I won’t leave you on this downer note about our petulant Toddler in Chief, and Turncoat Kucinich. It is St. Patrick’s Day, after all, so here are a couple o’ tunes to lift your hearts and souls:

Much has transpired in the intervening year. I would like to thank No Quarter regular reader, Boonies, for sending me this update,
Aasiya Zubair Hassan’s Tortured, Manipulated Life: Beheaded woman left statement detailing years of torment, tragedy.

I should warn you that, as the headline would indicate, this is a difficult story. It is about as far from a “feel good” story as one can get. It is painful, it is grotesque, and it is infuriating. Just so you know.

And now, to her story:

When Aasiya Zubair Hassan was finally ready to leave her husband, she prepared herself. She gathered copies of her police reports, photos of her beaten face, images of her ransacked house, scripts her husband made her memorize.

Then she painstakingly chronicled her years of torment in a 21-page court statement that painted her husband as not just a batterer, but a cruel, manipulative monster.

She detailed how he deprived her of sleep to “improve her personality,” made her sign memos authorizing him to punish her if she talked with the police and Child Protective Services, and threatened her with the loss of her children whenever she tried to break free.

Toward the end of her statement appealing for divorce in February 2009, she reflected on how furious her husband would be when he saw the document: “I am afraid of what he might do.”

One week later, she was dead. Her husband, Muzzammil “Mo” Hassan, led police to her stabbed and decapitated body in the Bridges TV studio they founded in Orchard Park.

Anyone who has done any work in the field of domestic violence, as I have, knows that this is when a woman is most at risk – when she is planning her escape. Unfortunately, this case does nothing to change that statistic:

None of this has apparently stopped Hassan from continuing — in letters to reporters and in his defense in court — to try to paint himself as the victim and his wife as the abuser.

“He was the abuser. He was the perpetrator. Now, he’s the manipulator,” said Afshan Qureshi, an advocate of domestic violence victims who knew both Aasiya Zubair Hassan, Hassan’s third wife, and Sadia Hassan, his second wife. “Those who are good at emotional abuse are good manipulators.”

From the Erie County jail, Hassan has sent handwritten letters to The Buffalo News and others portraying himself as an abused and battered spouse. In each case, he signed his mother’s name to the documents.

“If you are a mother like me, would you like to see your son being abused and cannot even turn to the system for help?” stated one letter.

It is clear that he wrote the letters, not his mother. Hassan, 45, has neat and distinctive penmanship. The News found the handwriting in all these letters match that of other documents signed under his own name. The postmarks are from Buffalo; his mother lives in Texas.

If you have any desire to read any of the letters this man has forged, click HERE, and you can get to them through links in the article.

I am not surprised by his actions. Rather, they seem to be pretty typical for someone like him:

Hassan seems to have no reservations about manipulating people by assuming other identities. In numerous cases, he appeared to have secretly authored documents that re-created reality and/or portrayed his wife as a dominating, mentally unstable woman.

Among the examples:

• Zubair Hassan stated that her husband forced her to give him the password to her e-mail account and subsequently logged into her account and sent e-mails to his attorney and his court-appointed psychologist pretending to be her.

One e-mail sent to psychologist Kenneth Condrell opens by stating, “I have been reading the Dale Carnegie book on “How to Win Friends and Influence People.” There is a chapter about admitting mistakes quickly and apologizing profusely and repeatedly. It struck me as a thuderbolt [sic] that I had difficulty admitting a mistake to Mo and struggled to apologize.”

It goes on to state, “I honestly do not believe he belongs in the Domestic Violence class. He has so much insights [sic] into human behavior and self-awareness.”

• While preparing to defend himself in a child neglect case, Hassan scripted the responses he wanted his wife to give when his defense lawyer questioned her in court. He made her stay home for two days to memorize her answers, she said.

In response to a question by defense lawyer David Siegel, “Do you think you are a battered woman?” Zubair Hassan was to respond as stated in the script: “What nonsense. Complete hogwash. I have always been a strong woman and a high achiever and no one violates my boundaries … My husband cannot tell me what I can and cannot do. I am my own person.”

• Hassan apparently drafted a letter for psychologist Condrell to sign describing his wife as a dominating and aggressive woman and further stating that “this personality profile test further indicates that Mrs. Hassan does not have the personality of a typical abused wife.”

The draft letter goes on to state “that there is no safety need that requires keeping Mr. and Mrs. Hassan apart over the next 6 months.”

A copy of the actual letter signed by Condrell and obtained by The News is much shorter. In it, Condrell states the personality test taken by Zubair Hassan as part of her master’s program in business “shows her to be a dominant, strong willed, aggressive woman.”

But he does not suggest that she wasn’t abused and does not state that her husband posed no safety threat. Further, it omits all references from the draft letter describing the husband as being “a persuasive, poised, influential, convincing, demonstrative and trusting person.”

Wow. Again, I wish I could say this was unusual. I cannot tell you the lengths to which some abusers have gone to play the victim, or to try and manipulate others involved in the situation to deny what the abuser has been doing, often for a number of years (and it usually starts out slowly, little by little, chipping away at the person’s self esteem, belittling them, then isolating them, cutting them off from finances, and on it goes):

In Hassan’s handwritten letter to The News, he states that Condrell testified in court that “Aasiya was aggressive, controlling and arrogant, while Mo was humble, kind and polite.”

Condrell declined to comment on the matter, citing his professional ethics, but Hassan’s statements are not supported by Condrell’s letter to the court.

• Hassan wrote two letters to The News under his mother’s name. The second letter included annotated copies of e-mails purportedly between Hassan and his wife.

“Inaccurate image’

The letters describe Hassan as part of an “epidemic” of battered men and cite authors and experts who have addressed the issue. They also describe his wife as an abuser who “needed proper medical help.”

“Many news stories have presented an inaccurate image of my son … The main reason for his difficulties is that he is too much of a people pleaser who avoids conflict. For years he kept appeasing a demanding wife. The more he appeased her, the more demanding she became,” one letter stated.

These actions are attributed to a man described as “manipulative” and “sick” by those who knew him and/or Zubair Hassan.

“She’s gone, and now the only thing he can destroy is her reputation,” said Faizan Haq, who once worked with both husband and wife. “He has nothing else in his control except her name. In a way, he’s still abusing her. He hasn’t stopped.”

In January, defense lawyer Frank M. Bogulski stated in court that Hassan was a “battered spouse” and promised “a revolutionary defense” that would get Hassan acquitted, using both psychiatric elements and legal justification.

Both defense lawyers, Bogulski and Julie Atti Rogers, state they are not committed to a specific defense and have not seen the divorce affidavit by Zubair Hassan.

“An affidavit is only one person’s side,” Bogulski cautioned. “Just because it was put in an affidavit doesn’t mean it was true.”

That’s exactly what I mean. The batterer often presents him(her)self as the batteree (if you will), often knowing the correct language to use to try and make that case, the right buttons to push. I cannot tell you how many times the batterer will get a restraining order against the person whom they are battering. It is far more common than one might think. at least in this case, the DA seemed to have a clue:

District Attorney Frank Sedita laughed when he heard of Hassan’s self-portrayal as a victim last week.

“What do any of these claims have to do with the issue that is before the court and the issue that will be before the jury?” he said. “Is there sufficient evidence to prove, beyond a reasonable doubt, that the defendant murdered his wife? That is the only issue to this point.”

In Zubair Hassan’s divorce appeal to the court, she attached 16 exhibits attesting to her husband’s abusive and controlling nature.

One exhibit, dated March 7, 2008, is a formally written, “confidential” memorandum of understanding that Hassan made his wife sign.

In it, both spouses “agree” that under threat of punishment, Zubair Hassan will not call, cooperate with, or threaten to call law enforcement. She also “agrees” not to threaten to leave him.

Physical abuse

The sworn statement signed by Zubair Hassan a week before she died brings to light many other details of a terrifying reality.

Contrary to Hassan’s assertions to The News that he never used his physical size to overpower his wife, Zubair Hassan’s sworn statement is full of instances where she claims he used his size and strength to imprison or physically hurt her.

Most of those claims are supported by police reports, photographs and witnesses. Among the worst incidents described by Zubair Hassan that were previously unknown to The News:

• When Zubair Hassan unexpectedly became pregnant in early summer of 2006, her husband, who is a stocky 6-foot-2, imprisoned her in the bedroom and sat on her until she admitted she needed psychiatric help.

In two separate incidents later that month, he punched her in the face, and dragged her down the driveway and sat on her after trying to convince her to have an abortion. She subsequently miscarried.

• The family’s four children — two older ones from a previous marriage, and two very young children born to Zubair Hassan — were also victims.

Child Protective Services investigated several complaints lodged by school personnel against Hassan for physical abuse of the children and his wife, ransacking the house and otherwise posing a threat to their safety.

Jennifer Greer, who baby-sat for the Hassan children from 2002 to 2008, said the young daughter would talk about hearing thunder on nights when there was no storm, and the young son spent much of his life living in an imaginary world where everyone was a superhero and they all cared for each other.

“It was heartbreaking to watch him go through that,” she said.

As we know, children also pay a price when there is domestic violence in the home. Sadly, this story is no exception:

• In October 2007, Zubair Hassan tried to fly to New York for a few days, but while Greer was driving her to the airport along Route 219 with the two young children in the back seat, Hassan ran their car off the road.

Greer cried as she recalled the terrified children in the car.

“Raising them, they were like my own kids,” she said. “All of us could have died on that day.”

• Hassan repeatedly punched his wife in the face until blood was pouring out her nose in April 2008. His wife recalled the oldest daughter screaming to her father, “I’m taking her to the hospital. I don’t care what you say. I’m not going to let her die here.”

Hassan did not let her seek medical treatment and refused to let her leave the house for a week because of her bruises, Zubair Hassan stated.

Two previous wives

Zubair Hassan was not the only woman who charged Hassan with abuse. So did his two previous wives.

Qureshi, president of Saathi of Rochester, a domestic violence program for South Asian women, said Hassan once pushed his second wife, Sadia, out of a moving car.

After the Muslim community intervened on her behalf, he told her she could have a divorce and get her green card only if she let him claim he was the abused victim.

“She was very scared,” Qureshi said. “She didn’t know what to do, where to go.”

Zubair Hassan asked for an order of protection as part of her divorce appeal, allowing her husband to be near her only at the Bridges TV studio, where she was later found dead.

“I am fearful for my children’s safety as well as my own,” she stated.

Hassan’s lawyers said their client shouldn’t be convicted by the media before his murder trial begins in September.

“We don’t in any way want to disparage Aasiya or her memory,” Bogulski said. “This is a horrible tragedy. But at the same time, we have to keep in mind that there is a presumption of innocence in regard to my client, and we ask the public to keep an open mind.”How Dostan@buffnews.com

Oh, yes. That is important – presumed innocence and not trying cases in the media. Though Hassan DID tell police his wife was dead, and her body was found at his business. But still, right?

I have written a fair amount about Women’s History this month, and as much as it pains me to say, this is a part of our history, too. Not even so much our history as it is the present for far too many of us (95% of battered persons are women). Chances are good that right now, right this very second, a woman is being battered. Almost half (42%) of women who are murdered are killed by people with whom they are intimate. That is an issue of monumental proportion, if you ask me. I am glad that Secretary Clinton acknowledged in her recent speech to the UN that we have a ways to go for women’s equality here at home, but wow – do we ever.

But whatever we do to address this critical issue, it will be too late for Aasiya Zubair Hassan, and a number of other women in this country. That is just heartbreaking. But we must push on, we must put a stop to violence against women once and for all. And we must do it NOW!

It is not just that Ms. Goggins was the first black woman in the South Carolina legislature. It is what she accomplished in the legislature during her tenure. Her history, and her passing, are woven together in this narrative:

When Juanita Goggins became the first black woman elected to the South Carolina Legislature in 1974, she was hailed as a trailblazer and twice visited the president at the White House.

Three decades later, she froze to death at age 75, a solitary figure living in a rented house four miles from the gleaming Statehouse dome. (AP File Photo, 1974)

Goggins, whose achievements included key legislation on school funding, kindergarten and class size, had become increasingly reclusive. She spent her final years turning down help from neighbors who knew little of her history-making past. Her body was not discovered for more than a week.

Those neighbors, as well as former colleagues and relatives, are now left wondering whether they could have done more to help.

How tragic. Freezing to death might make more sense given the winter parts of our nation have had, but this was the Upstate (as we call it), near the capital. More on this below.

But it was how she lived her life that was so inspiring:

“I’m very saddened. People like her you want to see live forever. She had quite a gift for helping others,” said state Sen. John Land, a fellow Democrat who was first elected to the House the same year as Goggins.

Goggins, the youngest of 10 children, grew up the daughter of a sharecropper in rural Anderson County, about 130 miles northwest of the capital. She was the only sibling to earn a four-year college degree. Her bachelor’s in home economics from then-all-black South Carolina State College was followed by a master’s degree.

She taught in the state’s segregated schools, married a dentist and got into politics. In 1972, she became the first black woman to represent South Carolina as a delegate to the Democratic National Convention. Two years later, she became the first black woman appointed to the U.S. Civil Rights Commission.

“I am going to Columbia to be a legislator, not just a black spot in the House chambers,” she told The Associated Press in 1974 following her victory over an incumbent white man from a district just south of Charlotte, N.C.

Wow – what a stunning statement. I love her spirit in that declaration. And she had a reason for phrasing it just that way:

Voters “were weary of poor representation. They were ready to accept a person who was sincere and concerned about things. Those feelings go beyond color,” Goggins said.

She sat on the powerful House budget-writing committee and was responsible for funding sickle-cell anemia testing in county health departments.

The former teacher also helped pass the 1977 law that is still the basis for education funding in the state. Her proposals to expand kindergarten and to reduce student-teacher ratios in the primary grades were adopted after she left politics in 1980, citing health issues.

“She was not bashful or anything. She liked to talk. I used to say she could sell an Eskimo ice,” recalled Ilese Dixon, 88, of Pendleton, Goggins’ last surviving sibling. “She was just lively and smart. She thought she could fix the world.”

That is quite a resume Coggins amassed in the Legislature. Clearly her passion for education was reflected in the law she helped pass, and thankfully so. Education has not been the strong suit for South Carolina, I’m afraid.

But what of her life after the Legislature? Here is more:

Her colleagues say they never learned the specifics of her illness and, since she didn’t talk about it, they didn’t press.

Several years after leaving the Legislature, Goggins divorced and then moved to Columbia in the early 1990s, renting the brick ranch house in a quiet neighborhood off North Main Street where she lived for 16 years.

Her son said she worked several years as a case manager for the state Department of Health and Environmental Control, although a spokesman said the agency had no records of her employment. At one point, she also started a nonprofit tutoring service called the Juanita W. Goggins School of Excellence.

Neighbors said she was always a private person. One neighbor said she would return her waves, but refused to let visitors in the door.

Last year, about the same time the Legislature voted to name part of a state highway after her, Goggins was mugged near her home. She changed the locks on her door and stopped taking walks, according her neighbors and landlord.

Good heavens – how horrible that she was mugged in general, but the injury to insult of it happening around the time her name was associated with the state highway seems obvious to me.

Sadly, Ms. Coggins was alone when she died:

Police found Goggins’ body March 3 — two weeks after she was last seen. Her landlord contacted police after a next-door neighbor realized he had not seen her lights on in some time.

Coroner Gary Watts said she died of hypothermia, probably about Feb. 20, and said he found indications of dementia. When she died, during a cold snap, Goggins was wearing several layers of clothing, yet her heat was working at the time.

She had money to pay her bills, but the utility company said it shut off the electricity for nonpayment Feb. 23. Watts said it appeared Goggins was using Sterno to cook, but her stove was still functioning when police climbed through a window and found her.

Wow, this is just so sad, on so many levels:

“I miss her,” said Erskine Hunter, an 83-year-old neighbor who ensured Goggins’ lawn was mowed and hedges were trimmed. “I don’t know why I didn’t go over there and hammer on the door.”

Hunter said Goggins occasionally came to his home and visited with his granddaughter. She refused to let anyone drive her anywhere, and refused rides to and from the bus stop, so he often went to the grocery store for her. But he had not done that in several months.

State Sen. John Scott, whose realty company owns Goggins’ home, said he and his sister tried to take care of Goggins as best as they could without prying.

“We lost a great trailblazer,” said Scott, a Democrat from Columbia. “Our family’s very saddened this happened to a person who’s given so much.”

His sister who manages the property, Linda Marshall, said Goggins declined help from the county.

“She needed someone to assist her, but anyone who tried to get close, she’d block them off,” she said. “She was very fragile. This was something I always dreaded.”

Why she withdrew remains a mystery even to her son. He attributes it to her illness, which was never fully diagnosed.

“That’s something I’ve been trying to get my head around for the last 15 years,” said Horace Goggins Jr., 42, of Powder Springs, Ga.

He last saw her about six months ago. She would not let him help her either, he said.

He wants to focus on her accomplishments and the good times at his mother’s funeral Friday in Rock Hill.

“I would like for her to be remembered as a woman who cared about her community,” he said. “I want her to be remembered as a positive role model, not only for African-American girls, but also any young girl who has a want and a desire to make a change and do something positive.” (Emphasis mine.)(This version CORRECTS the age of Goggins’ son to 42, not 43.)

And so, that is how Ms. Coggins will be remembered, as someone who worked hard to make something of herself, but who did not stop there. She went on to live a life filled with good works on behalf of others, especially children, to try and ensure they had the best start in education possible. That is no small feat. Add to that her work on sickle cell anemia, and her contributions were invaluable.

We mourn her passing, and extend deepest condolences to her family and friends. And yet, we celebrate the many gifts Juanita Coggins brought to so many in this state. May she be a role model for all girls, regardless of race,regardless of locale, to let them know they, too, can make a difference with their lives. Juanita Coggins rightfully takes her place in this Women’s History Month for her accomplishments, and her efforts on behalf of others. May she rest in peace knowing she lived a life of giving.

I have seen any number of people justify this action, good people, who believe the lines being fed them by Obama and the Democratic leadership about using this option, claiming the Republicans used it before, even equating getting Obamacare passed this way as comparable to how Social Security and Medicare were passed. Those comparisons are simply false:

Leave aside the irony of invoking “the American people” on behalf of a bill that consistently has been 10 to 15 points underwater in every poll since the fall, and is getting more unpopular by the day, particularly among independents. As Maine Republican Olympia Snowe pointed out in a speech last December, Social Security passed when Democrats controlled both Congress and the White House, yet 64% of Senate Republicans and 79% of the House GOP voted for it. More than half of the Senate Republican caucus voted for Medicare in 1965. Historically, major social legislation has always been bipartisan, because it reflects a durable political consensus.

Yet, these false comparisons continue, on a daily basis it seems.

While that is important to make clear, it is not my main point here. My point is about this man: Senator Robert C. Byrd, Democrat, of West Virginia. Specifically, I want to share Senator Byrd’s response to using a budgetary process to force such a massive program on us. Who cares what Senator Byrd says, you query? Well, he is one of the creators of Reconciliation, and oh, does he have something to say about usage of Reconciliation being threatened now (the following is from April 29, 2009):

Statement on FY 2010 Budget Resolution

“I like this budget. I support many of the policies that the President’s budget embraces – including middle-class tax relief, and badly needed investments in our nation’s infrastructure – but I cannot, and I will not, vote to authorize the use of the reconciliation process to expedite passage of health care reform legislation or any other legislative proposal that ought to be debated at length by this body.”

“Using reconciliation to ram through complicated, far-reaching legislation is an abuse of the budget process. ((Emphasis mine) The writers of the Budget Act, and I am one, never intended for its reconciliation’s expedited procedures to be used this way. These procedures were narrowly tailored for deficit reduction. They were never intended to be used to pass tax cuts, or to create new Federal regimes. Additionally, reconciliation measures must comply with Section 313 of the Budget Act, known as the Byrd Rule, which means that whatever health legislation is reported from the Finance Committee or legislation from any other Committee that is shoe-horned into reconciliation will sunset after five years. Additionally, numerous other non-budgetary provisions of any such legislation will have to be omitted under reconciliation. This is a very messy way to achieve a goal like health care reform, and one that will make crafting the legislation more difficult.”

“Whatever abuses of the budget reconciliation process which have occurred in the past, or however many times the process has been twisted to achieve partisan ends does not justify the egregious violation done to the Senate’s Constitutional purpose. The Senate has a unique institutional role.” (Emphasis mine)

I know, I know – Senator Byrd completely went against the will of the people of his state (along with Senator Jay Rockefeller) when he threw his support to Obama rather than the one, Clinton, his people overwhelmingly chose. But STILL – this is important. What he is saying is important. It paints a picture in bold relief that for the Democrats to pull this kind of maneuver is an “Abuse of Power.” Coming from the longest serving senator, who has been through a lot of Administrations and Congresses, that is saying something. He continues:

“It is the one place in all of government where the rights of the numerical minority are protected. As long as the Senate preserves the right to debate and the right to amend we hold true to our role as the Framers envisioned. We were to be the cooling off place where proposals could be examined carefully and debated extensively, so that flaws might be discovered and changes might be made. Remember, Democrats will not always control this chamber, the House of Representatives or the White House. The worm will turn. Some day the other party will again be in the majority, and we will want minority rights to be shielded from the bear trap of the reconciliation process.”

That reminds me of this quote by Joe Biden on the Reconciliation process: “and I pray God that when the Democrats take back control we don’t make the kind of naked power grab you are doing.” Sorry, Joe – either the Democrats aren’t listening to you, or God isn’t. Guess where my money is.

Back to Byrd’s statement:

“Under reconciliation’s gag rule there are twenty hours of debate or less if time is yielded back, and little or no opportunity to amend. Those restrictions mean that whatever is nailed into reconciliation by the majority will likely emerge as the final product. With critical matters such as a massive revamping of our health care system which will impact the lives of every citizen of our great land, the Senate has a duty to debate and amend and explain in the full light of day, however long that may take, what it is we propose, and why we propose it. The citizens who sent us here deserve that explanation and they should demand it. We must not run roughshod over minority views. A minority can be right. An amendment can vastly improve legislation. Debate can expose serious flaws. Ramrodding and railroading have no place when it comes to such matters as our people’s healthcare. The President came to the White House promising a bipartisan government because he knew how sick and tired the American public is of scorched earth politics. I daresay President Obama should not be in favor of the destruction of the institutional purpose of this Senate in which he served any more than he would bless a rigged psuedo-debate on healthcare, completely absent minority input.” (Again, emphasis mine)

“While I support the admirable budget priorities outlined in this resolution, I cannot and will not condone legislation that puts political expediency ahead of the time-honored purpose of this institution.”

Reconciliation is not the answer, never was. But that Obama and the Democrats are even considering it speaks volumes about the plan, Obama, and the Democrats, especially Nancy Pelosi, who had the audacity to say this:

“They know that this will take courage,” Nancy Pelosi said in an interview over the weekend, speaking of the Members she’ll try to strong-arm. “It took courage to pass Social Security. It took courage to pass Medicare,” the Speaker continued. “But the American people need it, why are we here? We’re not here just to self-perpetuate our service in Congress.”.

One can only hope, and pray, that cooler heads will indeed prevail. One can only hope that the will of the people will ultimately triumph, and that this plan goes back to the drawing board where it belongs. One can only hope that the eyes of people, good, usually reasonable, people, will see this ploy for what it is. A purely political, ego-driven, lobby pandering, 1/6th of our economy government run plan opposed by the majority of Americans.

Perhaps Nancy and Barack should pay more attention to their elder statesman, who actually helped write the damn Reconciliation thing.

It is, in short, an Abuse of Power: ‘An undemocratic disservice to our people and to the Senate’s institutional role.’ Couldn’t have said it better myself.

But now we are finding out that this threat may have been overstated, though I seriously doubt it is as a result of Obama’s claims. Actually, it is worse than that. As it turns out, Climate Scientists Withdraw Journal Claims of Rising Sea Levels.

Say what?

Again, I believe in being a good steward of this planet on which we make our home regardless of how much the claims of global warming may, or may not, be exaggerated. I have long been an environmentalist, and do not feel compelled to change that underlying belief because a bunch of scientists may, or may not, have fudged the data.

But here’s the thing. This is my front yard:

So, not only does this matter to me in a big picture way, it matters to me in a very personal, direct way. As it is, insurance companies like State Farm have stopped insuring people who live on the coast in these here parts like I do (our insurance is with Lloyds of London – I kid you not).

And we get articles like this in our daily newspaper, “Coalition Hoping For Sea Change As Ocean Levels Rise,” that contain information in them that scares the absolute bejesus out of Lowcountry residents, like me:

An international group of climate scientists predicted last fall that sea levels will rise by 23 inches this century as the oceans warm, which would be roughly double the rise documented during the last century.

That prediction from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change did not account for the record-setting pace of melting polar ice, however.

“The potential is so astounding, if it continues,” Duke University Professor Orrin Pilkey said at a panel discussion in Charleston addressing the issue. “I think that 3 to 5 feet is a conservative estimate for coastal management here.”

Holy crappydoo – that would make a HUGE change in terms of where I live right now, especially when we are already getting high tides that leave the water lapping the bottom of our docks. But add to that the fact that this is Hurricane Alley. If waters are truly rising, the impact of a hurricane hitting at the “right” time will surely increase the levels of devastation, will they not?

Well, yes, if THIS article is to be believed, “Study: Warming To Bring Stronger Hurricanes“:

Knutson said the new study, which looks at worldwide projections, doesn’t make clear whether global warming will lead to more or less hurricane damage on balance. But he pointed to a study he co-authored last month that looked at just the Atlantic hurricane basin and predicted that global warming would trigger a 28 percent increase in damage near the U.S. despite fewer storms.

That study suggests category 4 and 5 Atlantic hurricanes — those with winds more than 130 mph — would nearly double by the end of the century. On average, a category 4 or stronger hurricane hits the United States about once every seven years, mostly in Florida or Texas. Recent category 4 or 5 storms include 2004’s Charley and 1992’s Andrew, but not Katrina which made landfall as a strong category 3.

Outside experts praised the work.

The study does a good job of summarizing the current understanding of storms and warming, said Chunzai Wang, a researcher with NOAA who had no role in the study.

I am more confused than ever. These are not abstract issues to me. They are very, very real, impacting people I know, cities I love, and my very home. So, do we believe this research, or do we not?

Which raises the bigger question: When did “Scientific Method” become so incredibly subjective? Who, or what, is gaining from these questionable studies? If there truly is global warming, which I have long believed to be true because I trusted that these scientists were doing their work based not on politics, but DATA, and that is not being called into question, what are we to believe?

Again – these are not abstract questions to me, or to the community in which I live. We have to plan for these kinds of changes, if they are indeed true. We have to plan what to do in the event of such catastrophic changes, for our homes, and even our docks, not to mention our investments. Are they scaring the crap out of us because they know for a fact this is happening, or because there is some other incentive for doing so? The recent article claiming there has been no “global warming” in 15 years seems to contradict the NEW study claiming hurricanes are getting worse BECAUSE of global warming.

Good grief – can someone help me out here?

I love John Kass of the Chicago Tribune. He is one of the very, very few columnists who tried to warn us about Obama, Obama’s record (or lack thereof), how he came to be a Senator, and all about Chicago Politics. Simply put, he was a voice crying out in the wilderness.

And now, he has turned his pen (or keyboard, as the case may be) to the rumor that Rahm Emanuel, Obama’s Chief Thug And Chicago-Style politician, may be running for mayor of Chicago in this article,

Rahm In The Mayor’s Race Would Be Quite A Fish Tale. Indeed. Here is Kass on this possibility:

On my first day back at work after vacation, the political news from Washington hit me like a cold dead fish in the face:

Rahm Emanuel, mayor of Chicago?

That’s enough to freeze the bowels of every voter in the land.

“Emanuel, the most political animal in this town … is said to have told people that the ( White House) chief of staff role is an 18-month job and that he is considering a run for mayor of Chicago,” wrote columnist Sally Quinn in the Washington Post on Tuesday. (Tribune photo by Jose M. Osorio / December 18, 2008)

With Hollywood continuing to suck up to the Obama administration, imagine the benefits of a Rahmsian mayoral campaign. HBO’s “Entourage” could film here. The lead character, a charismatic Hollywood agent named Ari, is based on Rahm’s brother, Ari.

Just think of the scenes at Cafe Bionda and Tavern on Rush, and the parts for Rahm’s Chicago buddies, the entourage he’ll need to run things if he’s mayor. State Sen. Jimmy DeLeo (D-How You Doin?) could play Turtle and handle the parties. Corrupt former city water boss Donald Tomczak, who’ll be released from federal prison this year, would thrill “Entourage” fans in the role of Donny Drama.

The White House could have thrown cold water on the idea. Instead, a White House source told the Tribune that “Rahm is 100 percent focused on the job at hand — serving President Obama as his chief of staff.”

From such non-denial denials, a demonic campaign may yet be hatched. If so, I might get down on my hands and knees and beg Mayor Richard Daley to stay. This would frighten the mayor and quite possibly unhinge him — permanently.

Now THAT should give you an idea of what it would be like for Rahm to take the helm of Chicago from someone who lives in Chicago. Kass, undeterred, did something too few journalists seem capable of these days. He picked up the phone to seek answers as opposed to relying on whatever rumor mill put this out:

So I called a mayoral source. “It’s news to us,” said the source. “The mayor has no intention of not being mayor.”

Whew. If the prospect of a Rahm mayoral campaign is frightening, just think if Daley retired and played the geezer, an old man with trousers high, bragging about how he did everything he pleased and nobody could do anything about it.

Of course, he’d want to show up at his old haunts. That’s when every politician he terrified over the years would line up to insult him. Don’t even mention the cops and firefighters. Daley couldn’t handle that kind of retirement.

So if Daley’s not the mayor, it means either he’s passed on or he’s taking a long vacation on some exotic beach, drinking gin and tonics, watching “Entourage” DVDs.

The Washington Post is an esteemed newspaper. But the editors eat in Washington. They don’t eat in Chicago. Yes, papers from Washington and New York periodically dispatch their foreign correspondents to our gritty Midwestern precincts to chronicle our quaint, earthy ways. But they never quite get it.

Don’t you just love this guy? “Quaint, earthy ways” – too funny. Oh, if a presidency hadn’t hinged on that kind of thinking:

Just one year ago, Obama was in his first miracle phase, feeding the multitudes with two fish sandwiches and five hot dog buns. He was applauded as a reformer, even while putting Chicago City Hall guys in charge of the world.

Later, a few journalists were annoyed at Obama’s penchant for meekly bowing down before measly foreign kings and emperors. But bowing meekly is what every young Illinois state senator does when summoned to the mayor’s office in Chicago.

When the president installed Rahm as his chief of staff, the Washington media were turgid with respect, praising Rahm as a shrewd political alley fighter, a maestro of profanity, a former ballet dancer tough enough to send a dead fish to an enemy, just like a Hollywood gangster.

Naturally, the national media marveled that Obama selected a Clinton guy, Emanuel, to run things.

That is because the National Media didn’t bother to do their jobs, as we know all too well:

But Rahm is no Clinton guy. He’s a Daley guy.

And if folks in Washington weren’t so besotted with all that primo Hopium they’ve been smoking, they’d have understood this.

Preach it, brother, preach it!

There’s more:

And, legend has it that Rahm sprouted fully formed from the navel of mayoral brother Billy Daley. Rich even assisted at the birth, and according to the dusty hieroglyphs, is said to have shrieked:

“Push, Billy! Push! Billy, I can see the head! Don’t give up! Push!”

The Washington establishment also ignores how Rahm got elected to Congress in 2002 from Illinois’ 5th District. The district’s Democratic state central committeeman, DeLeo, had something to do with it. So did all those illegal City Hall patronage workers swarming the precincts, led by Donny Drama, currently in federal stir for the nasty habit of taking bribes.

Exactly the same way they ignored how OBAMA got elected to office, or that the one time he couldn’t get everyone OFF the ballot, he LOST. Oh, yeah. Betcha didn’t know that. And he only won his US Senate seat because they managed to unseal sealed divorce records, thus forcing the Republican, Jack Ryan, to drop out right before the election. (You may NOT have heard that there was another Democrat, Blair Hull, who also had his sealed divorce records unsealed. Voila, he was out of the race, too. There is reason to believe that it was David Axelrove and Obama who forced that to happen, too, according to the link above. Who knew, right?) So, Obama ran against Alan Keyes. One of my cats could beat Alan Keyes in an election. That was no big feat. But, no. They didn’t bother:

Yet as if by tacit agreement, Rahm’s Chicago back story doesn’t make national news. But neither did the mayor’s reaction when Rahm was made chief of staff of the Chicago Way.

“It’s a gain,” Daley said last year. “It’s a real gain, gain, gain.”

Unless it’s a fish. A real fish, fish, fish.

And it’s really cold. (jskass@tribune.com)

A “gain” indeed. And we have seen just what kind of “gain” – Chicago Politics Writ Large.

I guess that is one thing about which Obama told the truth. He isn’t a Washington politician – he is something worse – a Chicago politician. And we are seeing exactly how that is playing out across the country now…

You tell ‘em, Senator Graham!! I admit, even when I was a far lefty Democrat (now Independent), I couldn’t help but be impressed by Senator Graham.

I may not agree with him on everything, but I sure as hell agree with his interpretation above. I also agree with his call for a Constitutional review by the SC Attorney General regarding the Nebraska Buy-off:

This article found in my local newspaper provides a more comprehensive explanation of Graham’s request:

Graham Wants Investigation

U.S. Sen. Lindsey Graham said Sunday that he wants South Carolina’s top prosecutor to investigate a deal that helped secure the 60th vote needed to pass a Democratic health care bill through the Senate.

Blasting Senate Democrats for what he called “backroom deals that amount to bribes,” Graham found much to complain about in their health care bill. He was particularly irked that the senator who provided that final vote to head off a Republican filibuster, Ben Nelson of Nebraska, cut a deal in which the federal government pays his state’s share of the cost for new Medicaid recipients.

Graham, a South Carolina Republican, called on state Attorney General Henry McMaster to review the constitutionality of the deal, and a McMaster spokesman said he looks forward to meeting with Graham to discuss it.

“There is one state in the union where new enrollees for Medicaid will be signed up and it won’t cost anybody in that state money,” Graham said on CNN’s “State of the Union.”

“A lot of people, Republicans and Democrats, are upset by this,” Graham said. “Is it constitutional? I want the attorney general of South Carolina to look at this.”

Nelson, who skirted the issue in a news conference Saturday, confirmed the deal in a CNN interview Sunday. But he said he didn’t ask for special favors…

Click HERE if you wish to read the rest of the article.

Senator Graham is by no means alone in his disgust for the way this Health “Care” bill has come about, and its resemblance to “Chicago-style politics.” This article by the Chicago Tribune (!) certainly supports that supposition: How Health Lobbyists Influenced Reform Bill; Former staffers of lawmakers from Harry Reid to Mitch McConnell push clients’ agenda. Uh huh. What a big ol’ surprise – that this bill being shoved down our throats was crafted by LOBBYISTS:

David Nexon had a big problem. An early version of national health care legislation contained a $40 billion tax aimed squarely at members of the medical device trade association he represents.

Nexon, a former adviser to the late Massachusetts Sen. Ted Kennedy, went to work. He marshaled 14 people like himself — lobbyists who were once congressional aides, many of them from staffs of congressional leaders or committees that had a hand in crafting the health care overhaul.

When Senate Democrats unveiled their bill in mid-November, Nexon’s handiwork was evident. The tax on device-makers was still large — $20 billion — but only half what it might have been without the efforts of Nexon and his fellow lobbyists.

Nexon’s team is an illustration of how deeply the health care industry has embedded itself on Capitol Hill, using former aides of lawmakers and ex-lawmakers themselves.

An analysis of public documents by Northwestern University’s Medill News Service in partnership with the Tribune Newspapers Washington Bureau and the Center for Responsive Politics found a revolving door between Capitol Hill staffers and lobbying jobs for companies with a stake in health care legislation.

At least 166 former aides from the nine congressional leadership offices and five committees involved in shaping health overhaul legislation — along with at least 13 former lawmakers — registered to represent at least 338 health care clients since the beginning of last year, according to the analysis.

Their health care clients spent $635 million on lobbying over the past two years, the study shows.

The total of insider lobbyists jumps to 278 when non-health-care firms that reported lobbying on health issues are added in, the analysis found.

My blood is boiling now; how about yours? Better take your high blood pressure medication, then:

Part of the lobbying pressure on current members of Congress and staffers comes from the powerful lure of post-congressional job possibilities.

“There’s always a worry they may be thinking about their future employment opportunities when dealing with these issues, particularly with health care, because the stakes are so high and the breadth of the issues — pharmacies, hospitals, doctors,” said Emory University political scientist Alan Abramowitz.

Lobbyists’ earnings can dwarf congressional salaries, which currently top out at $174,000 annually for lawmakers and $156,000 for aides, though committee staff members can earn slightly more.

In the health care showdown, insider lobbying influence has magnified the clout of corporate interests and helped steer the debate away from a public insurance option, despite many polls indicating majority support from Americans, according to Rutgers University political scientist Ross Baker.

“It imposes a kind of conservative bias on the discussion,” said Baker, himself a former Senate staffer.

The lineup of insiders working for clients with health care interests includes at least 14 former aides to House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer and at least 13 former aides to Montana Democratic Sen. Max Baucus, the chairman of the Finance Committee and a key overseer of the health care overhaul.

This is just shocking on its face, isn’t it? I gues I shouldn’t be at all surprised that a bunch of these people worked for the same ones trying to ram this through before anyone has had a chance to read the damn thing in its entirety:

Nexon, who is now senior executive vice president of the Advanced Medical Technology Association, is among at least a half-dozen former Kennedy aides lobbying on health care.

Nexon acknowledged the value of congressional connections, “but in the end, it’s not who I know, it’s what I know.”

It makes sense to hire former staffers for the health care showdown because they tend to be “more generalists, dealing with a broad range of issues,” something that is in demand for legislation that sprawls across at least a half-dozen federal agencies and encompasses issues ranging from tax policy to hospital reimbursement rates, according to Nexon. But specific issues also get specialized help. Earlier this year, the Christian Science Church hired a former Kennedy staffer, Carolyn Osolinik, and three of her colleagues at the Mayer Brown law firm, all veterans of Capitol Hill. The firm has been paid at least $110,000 so far to push a provision requiring insurers to consider covering Christian Science prayer treatments.

Phil Davis, a senior official of the church, said the church wanted access to decision makers. “The noise level goes sky high. It’s hard to get in to talk to people,” he said.

The largest insider lobbying cadre belongs to the Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America, or PhRMA, which employs at least 26 former congressional members and staffers, according to Medill/CRP research.

Two other drug interests, biotech firm Amgen Inc. and the Biotechnology Industry Organization trade group, with at least 24 and 16 insiders respectively, ranked second and fourth among reported hiring over the past two years of lawmakers’ former staffers and members of committees considered in the analysis.

“The numbers shouldn’t surprise anyone,” said Ken Johnson, a PhRMA senior vice president. “Former staffers have a unique understanding of how the legislative process works. And when you are trying to advocate on behalf of smart public policies, you want smart people on your team.”

But Bob Edgar, president of Common Cause, a nonpartisan, nonprofit watchdog group, had a harsher assessment, blaming “a toxic cocktail of insiders and money” for short-circuiting a government-run plan that would have competed with private insurers.

“We’ll get a bill. And the president will sign it. But it’ll be less than the country deserves,” said Edgar, a former six-term member of the House.

Health care lobbyists increase their effectiveness by strategically targeting their campaign contributions or the donations of the interests they represent, Edgar said.

But, but, but – I thought lobbyists were going to have no part in an Obama Administration!! Ahahahahaha – and if anyone actually bought THAT line of crapola from Obama, I have some waterfront property in Wyoming to sell you because there is more:

Health industry contributions to congressional candidates have more than doubled so far this decade, rising to $127 million in the 2008 election cycle from $56 million in the 2000 election, with disproportionate sums going to the party in power and to members of committees that oversee health care, according to the Center for Responsive Politics.

But lobbyist and former Kennedy staffer Andrew Rosenberg said political conditions, not big money or the predispositions of lobbyists sidelined a public option.

“You could see this coming from a long way off. The Democratic Party is now the big tent party. They have to get to 60 votes. That is the reality,” Rosenberg said. “It was going to have to be something that appeals to moderates” opposed to expanding government-run health insurance. (Tribune Newspapers’ Tom Hamburger and Joe Markman contributed to this report.)

So now you know – Senator Lindsey Graham has it exactly right – this policy was not crafted with US in mind. It was crafted by and for the health care insurers and those who are connected to them. They wrote this thing that the Democrats are hell-bent on getting through this year. They, and the Democrats who are getting money from them, are the ones who will most definitely benefit most. Because from everything I have heard and read, WE will be the ones who lose the most while paying the most.

And if all of these shenanigans to buy votes aren’t unConstitutional, they are most definitely unethical. Seems like the only change that has come to Washington is bolder cheating. Yep, sounds like “Chicago-style politics” to me!

Anyway, this isn’t her first rodeo in politics, though, as the article makes clear:

Houston became the largest city in the United States to elect an openly gay mayor on Saturday night, as voters gave a solid victory to the city controller, Annise Parker.

Cheers and dancing erupted at Ms. Parker’s campaign party as her opponent, fellow Democrat Gene Locke, a former city attorney, conceded defeat just after 10 p.m. when it became clear he could not overcome her lead.

Twenty minutes later, Ms. Parker appeared before ecstatic supporters at the city’s convention center and then joked that she was the first graduate of Rice University to be elected mayor. (She is, by the way.) Then she grew serious.

“Tonight the voters of Houston have opened the door to history,” she said, standing by her partner of 19 years, Kathy Hubbard, and their three adopted children. “I acknowledge that. I embrace that. I know what this win means to many of us who never thought we could achieve high office.”

With all precincts reporting, Ms. Parker had defeated Mr. Locke by 53 percent to 47 percent.

Throughout the campaign, Ms. Parker tried to avoid making an issue of her sexual orientation and emphasized her experience in overseeing the city’s finances. But she began her career as an advocate for gay rights in the 1980s, and it was lost on no one in Houston, a city of 2.2 million people, that her election marked a milestone for gay men and lesbians around the country.

Indeed, quite a milestone, to be sure, but a tad bit disappointing that she avoided making the connections. Of course, it is understandable that she would emphasize her experience and qualifications (what a concept!), but I am not sure why te two were mutually exclusive. Still, it’s pretty damn cool.

Of course, Ms. Parker isn’t the first out mayor:

Several smaller cities in other regions have chosen openly gay mayors, among them Providence, R.I., Portland, Ore., and Cambridge, Mass. But Ms. Parker’s success came in a conservative state where voters have outlawed gay marriage and a city where a referendum on granting benefits to same-sex partners of city employees was soundly defeated.

Turnout was light across the city on a rainy, foggy day, with only about 16 percent of registered voters going to the polls.

Ms. Parker’s sexual orientation did not become an issue in the race until after the general election produced no winner and led to a run-off between her and Mr. Locke, who is black and enjoys strong support among African-American voters.

The two Democrats differed very little on the issues. Mr. Locke, who is 61, promised to crack down on crime and expand the police department. Ms. Parker, 53, said her experience as controller made her a better candidate to steer the city through the tough financial times it now faces.

The candidates also started slinging stones at one another in final weeks as it became clear neither had a huge advantage in the few polls conducted here. Mr. Locke bashed Ms. Parker as “soft on crime” and suggested she favors tax increases. She portrayed him as nothing more than a lobbyist for developers.

They forgot Cary, NC. Just saying. It’s a shame that the stones started flying near the end, but we all know that is not unprecedented by any stretch.

What is worse is this:

But the ugliest attacks came from a group of black pastors who spoke out against Ms. Parker for what they called her gay agenda and two separate anti-gay advocates who sent out fliers in the mail calling attention to her support from gay groups and to her relationship with her partner. Mr. Locke denied having anything to do with the attacks, but two members of his finance committee gave $40,000 to help finance one of the mailings.

Some national gay-rights groups, meanwhile, came to the aid of Ms. Parker’s campaign with money and volunteers to staff telephone banks in a get-out-the-vote effort and to urge her likely supporters to vote.

Political strategists said that to win, Mr. Locke needed to carry a large majority of the black vote, which is usually around a third of the turnout, and to attract significant support from conservative whites, many of them Republicans, who are also about a third of the voting mix here.

Oh, that pesky “gay agenda” – demanding the same rights extended to every other American citizen. Damn us! Ahem.

Naturally, Ms. Parker’s supporters were mighty happy:

The crowd at Ms. Parker’s speech included dozens of young gay men and lesbians who had volunteered on her campaign. Many were elated with the sense of history being made.

“It’s a huge step forward for Houston,” said one of the volunteers, Lindsey Dionne, who is lesbian. “It shows hate will not prevail in this city.”

Robert Shipman, who is gay and worked long hours for Ms. Parker, said: “The diversity in this room, it’s not just gay people, it’s gay, straight, black, white, Jew, Christian, Muslim, every kind of person. It took all of us to get to this point.”

For his part, Mr. Locke was gracious in defeat, calling for unity after what had sometimes been a heated campaign. “We have to all work together to bring our city closer and closer together,” he said.

Ms. Parker appeared to have cobbled together a winning coalition of white liberals and gay people, who were expected to turn out in large numbers.

Rachel Marcus contributed reporting from Houston.

Congratulations to Ms. Parker. This is quite an achievement, and she deserved it. Well done!

And while I am at it, D.C. Council Votes to Allow Same-Sex Marriage, Mayor Fenty to Sign, Congressional Hurdles Remain for D.C. Gay Marriage After City Council’s Approval. How about that? Another piece of good news, at least for the time being:

The D.C. Council today voted overwhelmingly for the final time to legalize same-sex marriage in Washington D.C., with two council members opposing.

“This legislation is an important and historic step towards equal dignity, equal respect and equal rights for same-sex couples here in our nation’s capital, which also preserves the right of clergy and congregations to adhere to their faiths,” said Human Rights Campaign President Joe Solmonese.

The legislation passed today would allow same-sex couples to be married in D.C., along with five other states, but not require clergy or religious organizations to provide services, accommodations, or facilities for the services.

That seems fair to me. Of course, the denomination that ordained me has been doing same-sex marriages for a lot of years now, so there’s that. I appreciate that is not the case for (too) many, though.

The passage was expected:

The clear majority vote was not a surprise to oberservers (sic) who anticipated the bill’s easy passage today. The night before, Councilmen Harry Thomas and David Catania addressed a rally of about 350 supporters at the Kennedy Recreation Center in Washington D.C.

Catania, one of two openly gay council members who first introduced the legislation, asked supporters not to hold the two opposing votes against Councilman Marion Barry and Councilwoman Yvette Alexander, and said that their “no” votes respected the wishes of their constituencies.

“I want to thank the two who are not with us. Not because they are not with us now. But because they have been with us so often on so many other issues,” Catania said.

The D.C. measure, which first passed Dec. 1, by the same wide 11-2 margin, reinforces the nationwide trend towards gay marriage in legislatures and at the courthouse even though advocates of same-sex marriage are continuing to falter whenever the issue is put directly to a public vote.

That was a gracious thing to say by Catania, a rare action in politics these days, it seems. Still, wassup with the two not voting “Yay”?

But this ain’t a done deal yet:

The historic legislation faces a series of hurdles before gays can officially tie the knot in the nation’s capital.

Mayor Adrian Fenty, a Democrat, still must sign the bill into law, which he has pledged to do most likely before Christmas. From the time the mayor signs the gay-marriage bill, Congress will have 30 legislative days to enact a joint resolution of disapproval. President Obama would have to sign that resolution for the city law to be blocked.

If approved by the Democractic-controlled Congress as observers say they expect it will be, gay marriage is on track to become legal in Washington by late January, making it the first jurisdiction below the Mason-Dixon Line to allow full civil equality for gays and lesbians.

But even if a resolution of disapproval is not enacted, members of Congress can try to attach an anti-gay marriage rider to another piece of legislation.

The top Republican on the House subcommittee which oversees the district is considering a variety of legislative methods for blocking gay marriage there, including the appropriations process.

“Some people legitimately and often ask: ‘Why is it that a congressman from Utah, or anyplace else, is sticking their nose in this?” asked Rep. Jason Chaffetz, R-Utah. “Article I, Section 8 of our Constitution says that in all cases, the Congress shall oversee the laws of Washington, D.C., and that is what we’re trying to do.”

While Chaffetz is confident that gay marriage could not survive an up or down vote in the Congress, the Utah Republican acknowledges that the House’s liberal leadership will almost certainly thwart any efforts to block gay marriage from coming to a vote.

“I still think traditional marriage would win” if it were put to an up or down vote, said Chaffetz. But “procedurally, I think they’ve got an iron grip on their ability to block it from coming up for a vote,” he added, referring to the House’s Democratic leadership.

Beyond the efforts taking place in Congress, an additional anti-gay marriage effort is being made in D.C. Superior Court.

A group called Stand4MarriageDC wants a ballot measure which says that “only marriage between man and woman” should be “valid or recognized” in the city.

Last month, the D.C. Board of Elections and Ethics ruled that allowing residents to vote on a gay marriage ban would violate Washington’s 1977 Human Rights Act, which prohibits discrimination.

The Stand4MarriageDC group is now suing in Superior Court on the theory that if the Council has the right to change the law in order to allow same-sex couples to marry, then the people have the right to make laws on the same subject.

“I think proponents of same-sex marriage are afraid of having a vote because traditional marriage typically wins,” said Chaffetz.

Unfortunately, that has been the case thus far. But that doesn’t mean the fight isn’t worth figthting:

The architect of today’s gay marriage legislation countered by saying that questions about minority rights should not be left to votes of the people. To make his argument, D.C. City Councilmember David Catania noted that the district had a referendum in 1865 in which only 36 of the city’s residents voted to extend the franchise to African-American males.

“It isn’t that I’m fearful of losing,” Catania told ABC News. “I think the process is diminishing. I think that putting the rights of minorities on the ballot and allowing the forces of intolerance to spend an unlimited amount to demonize and marginalize a population is … unsavory.”

The groundwork for today’s vote was laid in May of this year when the D.C. Council voted to recognize gay marriages performed in other states.

Catania says that while the May vote may seem incremental, it was in fact the bigger leap.

“We’re fighting about whether or not couples have to get on a plane to get married–not whether or not they can,” said Catania. “It’s about where the marriage should take place–not whether or not it is the lawful equivalent of a heterosexual marriage. That happened over the summer.”

The latest ballot-box defeat for gay marriage came last month when Maine became the 31st state to use a public referendum to block gay and lesbian couples from marrying. The residents of Maine voted to repeal a state statute passed by the legislature and signed by the governor which would have permitted gays and lesbians to marry. Maine’s gay-marriage statute had not yet taken effect, awaiting the outcome of the referendum.

The decision on the part of voters in Maine to exercise the “people’s veto” amounted to a tough loss for gay marriage advocates who were hoping to score a ballot-box victory after seeing court-mandated gay marriage repealed last year in California by Proposition 8.

While the ballot-box defeats in Maine and California have given conservatives a populist argument against gay marriage, proponents of marriage equality have scored important judicial victories in Massachusetts, Connecticut, and Iowa as well as legislative victories in Vermont and New Hampshire.

As my dear friend, Connie, would say, “Cool beans!” Indeed, two big achievements for the GLBT community in just one week. Wow!

And yet, it is hard to truly delight in these achievements after the news my partner delivered the other night after we got home from our vacation. Her company is changing insurance companies, and we thought everything was all set. Turns out, when they had quoted how much it would cost to have me on her insurance, it was for MARRIED couples, not domestic partners. That little change is going to cost us an additional $2,400 a year, because we are not able to be legally married. It doesn’t matter one whit that we have been together for almost 14 years. While I celebrate the achievements in other states, it doesn’t change some very basic issues, like insurance, at least not for Blue Cross Blue Shield of NJ.

So I am happy for Ms. Parker, and happy for D.C., but there are real-world differences that none of that changes, and this would be one of them. As noted above, the financial differences are many, and in too many cases, mighty costly. But we are over a barrel – I need it, and only a big group policy like this will not exclude my pre-existing conditions. I have to say, it pisses me off. In a big way.

Anyway, congratulations to Ms. Parker – this is historic indeed, and not just because she went to Rice University. All the best to her in her new position.

I admit, this one really shocked me, even more than Maine. What else surprised me was that it wasn’t even that close a vote:

The State Senate defeated a bill on Wednesday that would legalize same-sex marriage, after an emotional debate that touched on civil rights, family and history. The vote means that the bill, pushed by Gov. David A. Paterson, is effectively dead for the year and dashes the optimism of gay rights advocates, who have had setbacks recently in several key states.

The bill was defeated by a decisive margin of 38 to 24. The Democrats, who have a bare, one-seat majority, did not have enough votes to pass the bill without some Republican support, but not a single Republican senator voted for the measure. Still, several key Democrats who were considered swing votes also opposed the bill.

Mr. Paterson made an unusual trip to the Senate floor minutes after the last vote was cast, saying, “These victories come and so do the losses, but you keep on trying.”

True, there are wins and losses, and yes, we just have to keep on trying. But there are some agencies against which we are fighting that will be difficult to overcome:

The state’s Roman Catholic bishops, who had actively lobbied against the bill, said they were pleased by the vote.

“While the Catholic Church rejects unjust discrimination against homosexual men and women, there is no question that marriage by its nature is the union of one man and one woman,” Richard E. Barnes, the executive director of the New York State Catholic Conference, said in a statement. “Advocates for same-sex marriage have attempted to portray their cause as inevitable. However, it has become clear that Americans continue to understand marriage the way it has always been understood, and New York is not different in that regard. This is a victory for the basic building block of our society.”

Not quite sure how I can read that as anything other than being unjust, but that’s just me Still, this was not the overriding factor:

In the end, it was not an issue that broke down along racial lines, or even religious and agnostic divisions. In fact, nine of the Senate’s 11 black members voted in support of same-sex marriage.

“When I walk through these doors, my Bible stays out,” said Senator Eric Adams, a Brooklyn Democrat who compared the law preventing same-sex marriage with laws that kept blacks and whites from marrying. “I believe there are certain moments here where we can benchmark our lives by the votes we took.”

The debate was as personal as any to take place in the Senate chamber in years. Senators spoke of their experiences as Jews and Baptists, as blacks and women. They spoke of spending long nights contemplating their votes and the deceased gay friends and relatives who inspired their decision.

Senator Ruth Hassell-Thompson, a Democrat who represents parts of the Bronx and Westchester County, spoke publicly for the first time about her gay brother, who was shunned by her family and moved to France.

“He had disappeared from our lives. And my father worried, but he could not ask him to come home,” she said, fighting back tears. Ms. Hassell-Thompson said she searched for her brother and eventually found him and asked him to come home. But he told her he was hesitant because he felt his family did not want to see him. “I said, ‘But your sister does.’ ”

Hold on, I need a moment…

Okay. Unfortunately, not everyone felt similarly:

State Senator Rubén Díaz Sr. of the Bronx made an impassioned argument against same-sex marriage, describing his continued opposition as reflecting the broad consensus that marriage should be limited to a union between a man and woman. “Not only the evangelicals, not only the Jews, not only the Muslims, not only the Catholics, but also the people oppose it,” he said.

Senate Republicans had said before the vote that they believed their members could provide a few votes for the bill.

“There may be a few, that’s very possible,” said Senator Thomas W. Libous of Binghamton, the deputy Republican leader. “Everybody’s feeling is get it on the floor and let’s vote it up or down. It’s been talked about enough. Let’s get it done. I think it’s going to be very close.”

Ms. Krueger said before the debate began that she was optimistic the bill would pass, but added, “It depends on whether Republican votes are delivered.”

But, as it turned out, not close at all.

New York has now joined a growing club:

Had the legislation passed, New York would have become the sixth state where marriage between same-sex couples is legal or will soon be permitted. But now that it has failed, New York becomes the latest state where gay rights advocates have made considerable progress only to see their hopes dashed.

Last month Maine became the 31st state to block same-sex marriage through a referendum. The Maine State Legislature had voted to legalize same-sex unions earlier this year, but opponents of gay rights gathered enough signatures to put the measure on the ballot.

Last year, California voters repealed same-sex marriage after the State Supreme Court said that gay couples had the right to marry.

Unlike in Maine, however, New York does not have a referendum process that allows voters to overturn an act of the Legislature.

The State Assembly had already approved the legislation, and Gov. David A. Paterson had said he would immediately sign the bill if it made it to his desk.

Shortly after midnight on Wednesday, the Assembly voted 88 to 51 to allow same-sex marriage. Though the Assembly has already passed the bill twice, a quirk in New York’s legislative code required the Assembly to pass the bill again before the governor can sign it.

As the vote approached advocates on both sides of the debate were pushing ahead with a last-minute effort to shore up support.

“We’re working it as hard as we can,” said Senator Eric T. Schneiderman, a Democrat who represents the Upper West Side and who supports same-sex marriage. “It feels very good right now. It feels like its going to happen. But this is an issue where some people don’t want to declare themselves until the last minute. And I think, believe it or not, I think there are one or two people who are really still torn.”

Demonstrators on both sides of the issue were relatively scarce in the Capitol on Wednesday. A small group of Orthodox Jews gathered outside the Senate chamber, one of them holding a sign that read “Gay Union/A Rebellion Against the Almighty.”

Rabbi Yisroel Dovid Weiss of Monsey, N.Y., said he traveled to Albany to remind the Senate “that the world belongs to the Almighty, and they have to reckon with his rules and his law.”

As John L. Sampson, the Senate Democratic leader, walked into his office on Wednesday morning, he flashed a thumbs-up to same-sex marriage supporters standing a few feet from the protesters. But Mr. Sampson acknowledged he did not know how the vote would turn out.

“I’ve got my work cut out for me,” he said.

So do a lot of us, apparently.

And it doesn’t stop there: A Surprisingly Dark Day For Gay Rights In New Jersey. Just next door to New York, the LGB community is engaged in a battle that they may not have expected:

Support for gay marriage in Trenton is draining away like water from a tub as nervous legislators scurry towards safer political ground.

“I can’t say I’m confident now,” says Sen. Loretta Weinberg (D-Bergen), a lead sponsor. “I think we still have a pretty good chance. But people are getting nervous and weak-kneed.”

Bad as that sounds, know that Weinberg is spinning this as best she can. Several other senators, supporters and opponents, say the movement is all but dead.

“They’ve lost the momentum,” says Sen. Kip Bateman, a Somerset Republican who considered supporting the measure until last week. “I don’t think it’s going to happen.”

So mark this as a black day for the cause of gay rights in New Jersey. Marriage equality was supposed to be the big prize, the final measure of respect, a sign that gay families were indeed equal under the law.

Instead, gay couples and their children are getting another ugly reminder that their families are regarded as second-class, as something less than the families next door.

Gay activists are bitter about what they see as betrayal. Democrats, especially Gov. Jon Corzine, told them over and over to wait for this moment.

And now they are getting tepid support, or none at all.

“Many of us in the progressive movement just want to throw up,” says Steve Goldstein of Garden State Equality, the state’s leading gay rights group. “Democrats put out one hand out to ask for money, and with the other they stab you in the back.” (Emphasis mine.)

This is a refrain that is becoming more and more common from the LBG community. Many within the community are waking up to the realization, one shared by many women, that the DNC could care less about them, simply paying lip service and nothing more. Obama picking a homophobic, anti-choice chair for the DNC pretty much says it all.

Back to Trenton:

So what changed in the last month? Why did supporters get so nervous?

For one, Corzine’s big loss has Democrats rattled. Republican Chris Christie united his party, and did well in Democratic strongholds like Middlesex County. He didn’t emphasize the gay marriage issue, but when asked, he promised a veto.

Democrats were rattled again when voters in Maine rejected gay marriage in a referendum, the 31st state to do so.

Perhaps most important, the Roman Catholic Church in New Jersey threw its muscle into the fight. Bishops and priests spoke against it from the pulpit, and more than 150,000 parishioners signed petitions in opposition.

Several legislators said they were impressed by that show of strength, given that Catholics make up more than 40 percent of the state’s population.

“Any time you see that kind of passion, you have to pay attention,” said Sen. Jennifer Beck, a Republican from Monmouth County. “You’re elected to be the voice of the people who voted for you.”

Finally, there were discouraging noises from Sen. Steve Sweeney, a South Jersey Democrat who will take over as Senate president in January, replacing Sen. Richard Codey (D-Essex).

Sweeney suggested that the legislature should leave this issue aside for now, and focus instead on the economic crisis. It was pure political nonsense, because the legislature is not even considering major economic bills.

But the signal was sent.

Indeed, and it is one that seems to be appearing all too often these days. And the result is all too predictable:

So the senators began to peel off. Codey found himself counting heads to reach 21, the magic number to win passage. He couldn’t get it from Democrats, so he reached out to Republicans.

“Codey called me,” Bateman says. “I’m told they (Democrats) have 14 or 15 votes on this. I told him they have one or two (Republicans) at most.”

At tense moments like this, most politicians behave like herd animals. They are careful not to stray far from the pack. And if one of them gets rattled, everyone runs.

What we have on our hands today in Trenton is a bunch of scared herd animals. And it’s not a pretty thing to watch.

Only 2 percent of voters said this is the most important issue to them. And these skittish Democrats are almost all in gerrymandered districts that were drawn to ensure they win by large margins.

Ask senators privately what would happen if they all voted their consciences, and you get the same answer over and over: It would pass with votes to spare.

But our leaders, these puny men and women, are too scared to stand up and be counted.

Wouldn’t it be nice if we could drum up a voter backlash against that?

Oh, I think a backlash is coming on a bigger scale, but for now, the message is all too clear: Members of the LGB community are not equal.

And then there is someone who SHOULD have said no, and that would be noted Homophobe, Pastor Rick Warren, he of Obama’s Inauguration fame. Pastor Warren is getting notice for what he would NOT do:

Rick Warren Refuses To Condemn Proposed Ugandan Law Executing Gay People

That would be President Obama’s friend Rick Warren. Rick Warren who says he even ate dinner with a gay couple once. Rick Warren who says he doesn’t hate gay people. Funny, then, that Rick Warren refused to condemn Uganda’s proposed legislation to executive people for being gay and HIV positive. From Newsweek via Box Turtle:

But Warren won’t go so far as to condemn the legislation itself. A request for a broader reaction to the proposed Ugandan anti-homosexual laws generated this response: “The fundamental dignity of every person, our right to be free, and the freedom to make moral choices are gifts endowed by God, our creator. However, it is not my personal calling as a pastor in America to comment or interfere in the political process of other nations.” On Meet the Press this morning, he reiterated this neutral stance in a different context: “As a pastor, my job is to encourage, to support. I never take sides.” Warren did say he believed that abortion was “a holocaust.” He knows as well as anyone that in a case of great wrong, taking sides is an important thing to do.

Oh, I’d go one further. Rick Warren has taken sides before. He did it with Prop 8. On the side of the haters. But now he won’t do it when they’re talking about executing gay people? Why, because it’s a foreign country and Rick doesn’t get involved in foreign politics, only our own? Yes, I remember well when Jesus told us all to be good Christians only in our own backyard.

I don’t remember that passage and I have read the Christian Scriptures a number of times. Oh, wait – that’s because it isn’t in there. And, I don’t remember Obama speaking out about that practice, either. Birds of a feather he and Warren.

It’s hard to even know what to say at this point. It really is. It is just hard to live in a country in which so many people are willing to discriminate against you. I totally understand why the brother of the NY State senator moved to France. I, too, hope to end up living somewhere in which people see me as fully human, and where my almost 14 yr relationship is deemed as worthy under the law as other of my fellow citizens. A place in which I am not just treated as equal, but seen as equal. Heaven knows, that would be some change I could believe in…

Oh, boy. So, did I get this right, ACORN has/is working with Larry Flynt, the king of pornography??? Holy crappydoo – I am sure so many people will be happy to know that’s to whom their hard earned dollars are going.

Thursday night, James O’Keefe, Hannah Giles, and Andrew Breitbart were on Hannity (h/t to Bronywyn’s Harbor for this video), and they have some mighty interesting thins to say about who is being scrutinized, and who is not:

What, they expect AG Holder to go after ACORN? Why, because of the numerous tapes revealing their wrong doing? They want him to listen to the whistle blowers who are willing to come forward to expose what ACORN has done – with our tax dollars, I might add? Hey, he’s BUSY working on bringing the 9/11 Masterminds to NYC for a Civilian trial, for pete’s sake (for recent posts on this topic, go HERE and HERE). I mean, really – he’s got his hands full being schooled by Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC) on the whole military tribunal thing and all. Sheesh – what do they expect? For Holder to do his JOB???

I am sure they did not expect for Jerry Brown to go after THEM rather than the ACORN employees. Then again, given the way this Administration has been going with ACORN, maybe they should have. I mean, isn’t that why Obama brought in Bauer, to run interference for ACORN? Oh, no, wait – that was to “erase tracks between Obama and ACORN.” Well shoot, in that case, for what are Jerry Brown and Eric Holder waiting?? Ahem.

Well, I don’t think any of us are going to be holding our breath for THAT. And it is so typical that the people exposing the massive problems with ACORN are the very ones being targeted by the Powers-That-Be, rather than the organization engaging in questionable activities.

Our justice system really has lost its bearings when war criminals are extended rights given to American citizens. And American citizens who expose wrong doing by a group receiving Taxpayers money are targeted by those with connections to the justice system. I guess Obama HAS brought change to America…

Isn’t that great?? Well, it would be if it was actually true. But it is not. For instance, did you know that Puerto Rico has 99 districts? Nope, me, either. Because they don’t. They have 1 (one). How about Arizona? Heck, they’ve got at least 38 (thirty-eight), right? Oh, wait, no they don’t – they have 8 (eight). The alleged “recovered jobs” bragged about by Biden and how our stimulus money is being spent don’t quite match up. I know, big surprise (almost as much as the following report being on ABCNews):

Wow that’s some “state of the art system” you got going on there, Joe. And I am SOOOOO sure that all of the problems are the result of people not knowing in which district they live. Oh, sure. Because it is so difficult to access that information. I mean, really, you might need to make a PHONE CALL or something. Or look it up on “the internets,” if it isn’t in the area in which you live. Because then, you could just take a little look-see at your voter registration card! Gosh, I am just stunned that they would not be getting these numbers right!

Speaking of jobs, check out these headlines:

This is exactly why so many of us are concerned about the Government running our health care system. Can you say fraud? If they cannot even get this right, how are they going to adequately address issues of life and death?? I don’t think even an abacus could help out there …

The current issue of Time Magazine has Secretary of State Hillary Clinton on the cover, and an article by Joe Klein entitled, “The State of Hillary: A Mixed Record On The Job.” On Joe Scarborough the other morning, they discussed this article (major H/T to Bronwyn’s Harbor for the video):

How cute is Joe Scarborough calling Secretary Clinton his “girlfriend”?? Repeatedly? Evidently, he has NO idea how much competition he has, does he?

And Scarborough makes a great argument about Hillary Clinton “not going rogue.” Of course she is taking the tack Obama has directed her to take. It is not a surprise that Obama would want her to do the HARD work while he “flying at 40,000 ft”.

Just to be clear on Pakistan, the White House does back Secretary Clinton on what she said there. While it may not be the language Mika wants her to use (and honestly, could Hillary Clinton say anything of which Mika approved? Just asking, in a snarky kind of way.)

Don’t even get me started on the whole election thing, though. Don’t even get me started. Good for JOE for pointing out – AGAIN – that the media played a huge role in how she was treated, as we all know already.

The remarks by General Petraeus were telling, telling indeed. That, along with the relationship she has developed with our military personnel is exactly why I contend she would have gotten to Fort Hood tout suite after the tragedy there. Because she truly cares about those serving in uniform. She, unlike our President, has made that support crystal clear.

Okay. About this “unnamed White House source” crapola. I am referring to the “Unnamed White House sources” who claimed Secretary Clinton had made big mistakes in foreign policy since becoming Secretary of State reminded me of the “Unnamed McCain aides” who made the most outrageous, and false, allegations about Gov. Sarah Palin, including that “she didn’t know Africa was a continent.” That is to say, I just cannot take their claims seriously. Especially when one of those high up in the Obama Administration, Jon Favreau, has demonstrated just how much he respected Hillary Clinton when he posted a photo of himself groping a life-size Hillary Clinton cutout on Facebook. Yeah, right. I’m not buying what they’re selling. I’ve seen plenty from those folks already, and have been singularly unimpressed. Whatever.

Anyway, it was an interesting discussion about Secretary Clinton, the work she is doing, and Joe’s undying love for her. All I can say about that is, join the club, Joe, join the club.

Speaking of Secretary Clinton, Saturday is when she commissions the assault ship, USS New York. There will be video available later, which I will then put up. For more on the USS New York, its 7.5 tons of steel from the World Trade Towers, and the emotions it elicits, please watch the video below:

Very moving, and powerful. Great thanks to those who serve aboard this state of the art vessel, and who sought to serve aboard this ship. The motto of the ship is apt: Strength Forged Through Sacrifice. Never Forget.

They won’t forget, and neither will we.

May this ship and its crew have smooth sailing for years to come.

(Photo by Michael Loccisano/Getty Images North America)

UPDATE: Here is the link to NavyTV’s video of the Commission of the USS New York.

Due to the tragic events at Fort Hood yesterday, this post was delayed out of respect for those who were lost and wounded. Our thoughts and prayers are with their families, friends, and all those serving at Fort Hood.

Bleary eyed, but sated with my celebratory Belgian pecan waffles, turkey link sausages, numerous cappuccinos, and with a goofy grin plastered on my face, I am happy to report that the New York Yankees have won their 27th World Series Championship. Woohoo!!

The Yankees have christened their new stadium with their 27th World Series Championship in 40 tries. They won the Series 4 – 2 over a gutsy, exceptional Philadelphia Phillies team with a strong 5 2/3 showing by Andy Pettitte. Pettitte gave up 3 runs, but battled hard for outs and got the ones that counted even though he only had 3 days rest. Pedro Martinez was operating on regular rest, but that didn’t keep the Yankees from driving him out of the game early. Joba Chamberlain and Demaso Marte held down the fort until the Yankees could bring in the greatest reliever of all time, Mariano Rivera. Rivera got the last 5 outs of the game, capping a phenomenal year, and post-season, with a final score of 7 – 3. Derek Jeter recorded his 175th hit in his post season appearances, and had a hit in all but one game in the entire Post Season. Alex Rodriguez was hit by pitches three times, as was Mark Teixiera, but A-Rod also provided a tremendous spark to the offense, casting of the demons of post seasons past.

The Yankees manager, Joe Girardi, won 3 World Series rings as a Yankees player (catcher), and has now won 1 as a manager in only his second year at the helm. That is quite a feat. And quite a feat to have done both for the same team. Not only is he a great manager, and a great player in his day, but a great humanitarian, too. On his way home from the stadium last night, after their big win, he stopped and helped a woman who had crashed her car into a wall. Not only did he check on her and make sure she was okay, but he flagged down a police car for her. Oh, and he had to run across a highway on which people routinely go 80 mph, according to the article link above. He didn’t tell the woman who he was, either. She found that out after the fact. That’s one helluva guy.

The Yankees, with the best record in baseball (103 wins in the Regular Season), played like the best team in baseball, and earned this 27th World Series Championship.

(Gallery of Photos, NJ.com)

Hideki Matsui earned the World Series MVP on the strength of his bat, driving in 6 runs Weds. night, tying a 49 year old record held by Bobby Richardson, also a Yankee. Matsui’s contribution to the team throughout the postseason was simply outstanding.

(Eric Gay/AP)

This team started out slowly at the beginning of the season, losing their ace, Chien Ming Wang, early in the season. Alex Rodriguez was out for almost a month following hip surgery, with more surgery to follow in the off season. Mark Teixeira was also off to a very slow start with his bat, but not his defense. Yankee fans were dismayed, to say the least, when the Yankees were swept by the Red Sox – TWICE – early on.

But then something happened – A-Rod came back, Tex’s bat began to match his defensive prowess, the pitchers started locating their pitchers, and the team became a team. People often complain about how much money the Yankees spend on their players, but all the money in the world doesn’t buy you a Championship – it has to be won. This team, this 2009 club, is just that – a TEAM. They enjoy each other, have fun with each other, and they are passionate about playing the game. We usually hear about the highly paid players, like A-Rod, or Tex, or CC Sabathia. But there are plenty of players on that team who contributed who do not rake in the big bucks. The point is something happened this year. Despite their slow start, despite losing some crucial players, this team jelled as a team. They backed each other up, they worked for every win, and as a result, they are now the new World Series Champions.

Oh, and for all of the Yankee haters, here is a little piece of trivia for you – when the Yankees win the World Series, historically stocks go up, especially when they do it in 6 games! So, even if you hate them, there is a total bonus to them winning!

Here is Hal Stein Steinbrenner, son of The Boss, George Steinbrenner, talking about this team, and this win:

This win came exactly 9 years after the Yankees lost the World Series in Game 7 back in 2001. That was an emotional year for the Yankees, for the entire country, coming as it did on the heels of the attacks on the World Trade Towers. It is fitting that this week, the week the Yankees claim their Championship, in New York City Harbor is the USS New York awaiting its commission. This new ship is partially made with 7.5 tons of reclaimed steel from the rubble of the World Trade Towers. While traditionally* only submarines are named for states, former NY State Governor Pataki lobbied to have this state of the art ship named for New York as both a memorial and a monument to those who were lost, and for those who will take the fight to our attackers. The ship’s motto: Never Forget. Here it is sailing into New York City Harbor this week:

(AP Photo, Newsday.com)

Secretary of State Hillary Clinton will commission this assault ship on Saturday. Secretary Clinton will represent the Administration, but as a NY State senator at the time of the attacks, and one who worked diligently for the First Responders in New York City, it is most fitting that she has this honor.

It is a big week for New York City, for the Yankees as they clinch their 27th Championship, and as this great monument to those who were lost at 9/11 is commissioned into active duty.

Go, Yankees! Only four and a half more months until Spring Training starts!

* Please see comment below on naming of ships/submarines – while accurate that a certain class of submarines receive the names of states, that appears to be a fairly recent event.

I am sure you will be SHOCKED to learn that Obama is acting in much the same way. I know, I know – what a surprise. Ahem. Well, it seems some one has been doing a little investigative journalism, something in VERY short supply of late. But get this – I tell you, you better be sitting down – in this case, it was – WAIT FOR IT –
MSNBC. YES, the very network to which we routinely refer as “MSNBO”! Once I recovered from the shock of it all, I couldn’t wait to see just how transparent President Obama was compared to Bush. (I wonder if there is a way for us to do a pool on these kinds of things, like for NCAA basketball or something?)

This is what MSNBC uncovered in this report:

Obama Names 110 White House Visitors

The White House on Friday released a small list of visitors to the White House since President Barack Obama took office in January, including lobbyists, business executives, activists and celebrities.

No previous administration has released such a list, though the information out so far is incomplete. Only about 110 names —and 481 visits —out of the hundreds of thousands who have visited the Obama White House were made public. Like the Bush administration before it, Obama is arguing that any release is voluntary, not required by law, despite two federal court rulings to the contrary.

The emphasis there is mine. This is a bit of a schizophrenic opening. On the one hand, they want to champion that Obama released 110 names – Woohoo!! On the other hand, they have to acknowledge that, once again, President Obama is using the SAME arguments as Bush. Moreover, this “Constitutional Scholar” is doing so in clear violation of not one, but TWO federal court rulings! Maybe the KoolAide was made improperly that day, I don’t know, but the report continues:

Under the Obama White House’s policy, most names of visitors from Inauguration Day in January through the end of September will never be released. The White House says it plans to release most of the names of visitors from October on, and that release is due near the end of the year. There are limitations there as well, including potential Supreme Court nominees, personal guests of the First Family, and certain security officials.

The names released Friday include business leaders and lobbyists with a lot to gain or lose from Obama policies. They include Microsoft co-founder Bill Gates (whose foundation is pushing for changes in teacher pay), former AIG chairman Maurice Greenberg, Exxon Mobil CEO Rex Tillerson, Chevron CEO David O’Reilly, Citigroup’s Vikram Pandit, Goldman Sachs CEO Lloyd Blankfein, JP Morgan’s James Dimon, Bank of America CEO Kenneth Lewis, John Stumpf of Wells Fargo, Morgan Stanley’s John Mack, State Street bank’s Ron Logue, BNY Mellon’s Robert Kelly, labor leader Andrew Stern of the Service Employees International Union (22 visits)*, American Bankers Association CEO Ed Yingling, community bankers president Camden Fine, and lobbyists Heather and Anthony Podesta, whose brother John Podesta led Obama’s transition team.

Besides Gates, Microsoft CEO Steve Ballmer and General Electric CEO Jeffrey Immelt are also on the list. (Msnbc.com is a joint venture of Microsoft and NBC. One of NBC’s parents is GE.)

Advocates and nonprofit leaders include National Organization for Women President Kim Gandy, and Risa Lavizzo-Mourey, president of the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation, which is interested in health policy.

So, this is how Obama is paying these people and organizations back, by having them in the White House? I bet Kim Gandy was just all aflutter after she threw ALL women under the bus to endorse Obama over a life-long women’s advocate. There is more on her below.

I know many readers will be interested in this White House guest:

Democratic donor and businessman George Soros visited with White House aides twice.

Yes, indeedy, a major funder of Moveon.org has been to check up on his biggest investment – ahem – twice.

We’re just getting started:

Political figures include former Sen. Thomas Daschle, former House Speaker Newt Gingrich. Chicago Mayor Richard Daley, former Gov. Howard Dean, Sen. Al Franken, former Vice President Al Gore, former Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan, the late Sen. Edward Kennedy, and Democratic strategist Steve Elmendorf.

Celebrities at the White House include Oprah Winfrey, actors Brad Pitt, George Clooney and Denzel Washington, and tennis star Serena Williams. Journalists include Paul Krugman, the New York Times columnist and Nobel Prize winner in economics.

Conservative religious leader Gary Bauer visited, as did liberal civil rights leaders Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson.

Okay, the last two, along with Oprah, are NOT a surprise. Gary Bauer? Just a tad surprising.

For anyone who wants to see more:

Msnbc.com has put the full list in a handy PDF file, and also in an Excel file for those who like to sort.

One guest is mighty interesting:

Not that Bill Ayers

The White House warns that many names that may appear familiar — and controversial — do not in fact refer to the most famous people to carry those names. Jeremiah Wright is on the list, but it’s not the president’s former pastor. This Michael Jordan is not the basketball player. This Michael Moore is not a filmmaker. The William Ayers who took a group tour of the White House isn’t the former radical from Chicago who figured so prominently in the 2008 campaign. And the Angela Davis on the list has a different middle initial than the activist and former fugitive.

The White House could have avoided some of that sort of confusion by providing more information on the visitors, such as an employer name and the city they hail from. For example, is the Shawn Carter who attended a poetry reading the same one who goes by Jay-Z and had campaigned for Obama?

“This unprecedented level of transparency can sometimes be confusing rather than providing clear information,” a White House special counsel, Norm Eisen, wrote on the White House blog.

If you spot a name on the list that bears investigating, please drop us a note.

Of COURSE we will just trust Obama and his spokes-minions when they assure us that this Bill Ayers could not POSSIBLY be domestic terrorist – Capitol Building and Pentagon bomber – long time friend and mentor Bill Ayers! He is just some guy who wanted to visit the White House Gift Shop and pick up a couple of Marine One helicopter models for his boys. I am sure of it. Sheesh. Really? They expect us to believe this crap? Evidently – they got plenty of other people to believe that kind of crap and more, so why stop now?

Okay – if you are consuming any liquids right this minute, I suggest you put it down when you read this:

Limited release

Despite the accompanying White House claim of “transparency like you’ve never seen before,” the Obama White House continues to take the same legal position as the Bush White House, arguing that the records are not public records subject to the Freedom of Information Act. Only limited “voluntary releases” are being made to settle a lawsuit filed by an advocacy group, though a federal judge has twice ruled that all the visitor logs are public. (Again, emphasis is mine.)

Yet there are severe limitations to the transparency:

Most of the visitors from Inauguration Day to September will never be released by the White House under this voluntary disclosure — unless the public can guess their names. The White House policy doesn’t allow members of the public or press to ask for “everyone who visited health czar Nancy-Ann DeParle,” or everyone who visited on May 4, or everyone from the American Medical Association. Only individual names can be checked.

I know, right? Didn’t this sound just a little pissy?? From someone at MSNBC?? The bigger picture is that the Obama Administration is BREAKING THE LAW. Hell to the YES, that information falls under FOIA – this is OUR White House, not the Obamas. We most definitely DO get to know every single John Smith and Jane Doe who cross the threshold of the White House. You better believe we do.

This is just the tip of the iceberg, but it is a start:

The list released at 4:30 p.m. Friday includes just about 110 names with 481 visits. Those names were among those requested by members of the public so far, for visits during the period from Inauguration Day through July. (That’s why we know of visits by the wrong Bill Ayers, the wrong Angela Davis, etc., but we don’t know of visits by countless unnamed lobbyists.) Members of the public who used the White House online form to check names did not receive a personal reply indicating whether or not the request was received, or whether the name appeared on the list, so the system provides no feedback. Does the absence of Bill Clinton’s name on the list mean that he has not been to the White House, or that the request wasn’t received by the White House online system?

A request for the complete records of all visitors from the first months of the administration, filed by msnbc.com, was rejected by the White House, and an appeal is pending. The news organization requested the names of all visitors to the Obama White House beginning with Inauguration Day. Msnbc.com has filed an administrative appeal with the Department of Homeland Security, which oversees the Secret Service.

Say whaa?? The White House rejected a request from their lapdog “news” source?? Huh. There’s a shocker. Welcome to the “Under The Bus” club, MSNBC!

The Wall Street Journal focused on the most frequent visitor to the White House. He was mentioned in the list above, but without the acknowledgment of the frequency:

SEIU’s Stern Tops White House Visitor List

Promising “transparency like you’ve never seen before,” The White House released its visitor log this evening under a new voluntary disclosure policy.

The log chronicles 481 visits to the White House from individuals ranging from Jay-Z to Bill Gates from January through July.

The list includes William Ayers, Jeremiah Wright, Michael Moore, Robert Kelly (R. Kelly), Malik Shabazz, and Michael Jordan.

But the White House said those aren’t the guys you’re thinking of. Nor is the log complete.

Ahahahahahahaha!!! I just cannot get enough of this one – sure, they aren’t the same people. Yeah, okay, we believe you. NOT. And because it is just so much fun to see them squirm, I am keeping in the part that is repetitive of the article above, especially the quotes from Eisen. Oh, what a funny guy:

“A lot of people visit the White House, up to 100,000 each month, with many of those folks coming to tour the buildings. Given this large amount of data, the records we are publishing today include a few ‘false positives’ – names that make you think of a well-known person, but are actually someone else,” Norm Eisen, a special counsel to the president, writes on the White House blog. “The well-known individuals with those names never actually came to the White House. Nevertheless, we were asked for those names and so we have included records for those individuals who were here and share the same names.”

Adds Eisen: “This unprecedented level of transparency can sometimes be confusing rather than providing clear information.”

Uh, ya know, I think we are all smart enough to not get all confused by this incredible level of “transparency.” Beginning with, we actually know the definition of “transparency,” something Eisen and Obama apparently do not.

And then there is this:

One thing is clear: *Service Employees International Union President Andrew Stern holds sway at the White House, where he’s listed for 22 visits—the top number on the logs. Visitors in the top 10 also include former Clinton White House Chief of Staff John Podesta, former Senate Majority Leader Tom Daschle, National Organization for Women President Kim Gandy, and NARAL Pro-Choice America President Nancy Keenan.

So THAT’S what Gandy and Keenan got for stabbing Hillary Clinton and, well, WOMEN, int he back – visits to the White House. I guess there is something gained by selling your soul, though, personally, I don’t think it is worth it. But that’s just me.

Anywho – yes, the President of the SEIU, again, the union co-founded by the founder of ACORN, Wade Rathke, is the TOP visitor at the White House. The SEIU has been in the news quite a bit, especially for holding California hostage – threatening that their good buddy, Obama, would not give the state any federal stimulus funds if it had the audacity to expect the union to cut wages like everyone else so the state wouldn’t go bankrupt. NOW we know how the union was able to do that. All those visits to the White House apparently paid off – for the union, not California, the state with one of the largest budgets around (as in 5th in the world). What makes this more egregious is that California pays a lot into the federal tax system and receives little comparatively speaking. And this union is allowed – by the White House – to hold it over a barrel. Yep, all those meetings seemed to do the trick!

Aren’t you just so heartened by all of this “transparency”? And by seeing who Obama is welcoming into our White House? Yeah, me, too. As long as the Obama Administration continues to thumb its nose at Federal Law, I reckon we should be “thankful” for this (no, not really – it’s BS that they are still sitting on so much information).

Oh, but if you can just GUESS who might else have been there and submit that form asking them, maybe you can confirm some other folks who have been there, too. Lemme know what you find out, okay? I am sure we would all just love to know…

Turns out I am not the only one who wonders why Obama continues to get a free pass for actions that, had Bush done them, would be front page news (and again, I have NO love lost for Bush – absolutely zero, but fair is fair). Josh Gerstein of Politico had these same questions, about which he wrote in this article, What If Bush Had Done That?. Indeed:

A four-hour stop in New Orleans, on his way to a $3 million fundraiser.

Snubbing the Dalai Lama.

Signing off on a secret deal with drug makers.

Freezing out a TV network.

Doing more fundraisers than the last president. More golf, too.

President Barack Obama has done all of those things — and more.

What’s remarkable is what hasn’t happened. These episodes haven’t become metaphors for Obama’s personal and political character — or consuming controversies that sidetracked the rest of his agenda.

It’s a sign that the media’s echo chamber can be a funny thing, prone to the vagaries of news judgment, and an illustration that, in politics, context is everything.

Conservatives look on with a mix of indignation and amazement and ask: Imagine the fuss if George W. Bush had done these things?

The media’s “echo chamber”? That is a kind reference for what they are really doing, or rather aren’t doing: their jobs. Conservatives aren’t the only ones questioning why this is happening. Anyone who truly cares about the our democracy and the state of journalism in this country are asking, too. But they do ask a good question:

And quickly add, with a hint of jealousy: How does Obama get away with it?

“We have a joke about it. We’re going to start a website: IfBushHadDoneThat.com,” former Bush counselor Ed Gillespie said. “The watchdogs are curled up around his feet, sleeping soundly. … There are countless examples: some silly, some serious.”

Indeed, Bush got grief for secret meetings with the oil industry, politicizing the White House and spending too much time on his beloved bike. But it’s not just Republicans who notice. Media observers note that the president often gets kid-glove treatment from the press, fellow Democrats and, particularly, interest groups on the left — Bush’s loudest critics, Obama’s biggest backers.

But others say there’s a larger phenomenon at work — in the story line the media wrote about Obama’s presidency. For Bush, the theme was that of a Big Business Republican who rode the family name to the White House, so stories about secret energy meetings and a certain laziness, intellectual and otherwise, fit neatly into the theme, to be replayed over and over again.

Obama’s story line was more positive from the start: historic newcomer coming to shake up Washington. So the negatives that sprung up around Obama — like a sense that he was more flash than substance — track what negative coverage he’s received, captured in a recent “Saturday Night Live” skit that made fun of his lack of accomplishments in office.

“There may well be almost an unconscious effort on the part of the media to give Obama a bit more slack because he is more likable, because he is the first African-American president. That plays into it,” said Sherry Bebitch Jeffe, a political analyst at the University of Southern California.

Democrats find the complaints of Obama “getting a pass” hard to stomach in light of the way the press treated Bush — particularly on the single biggest mistake of his presidency, relying on the faulty intelligence leading up to the war in Iraq. Now, Obama’s aides say, the positive coverage simply reflects the fact that their efforts are succeeding.

“As our administration makes progress on the agenda that Washington has ignored for too long, we expect we’ll get some news coverage of that progress that we like and some tough coverage that we don’t,” White House spokesman Josh Earnest said. “It’s not unlike the New Orleans Saints, who are getting lots of good coverage of their perfect record so far — certainly better coverage than the [2-5] Redskins — but it doesn’t mean the Saints have liked every story that’s been written about them since training camp. It goes with the territory.”

There are signs the friendly tone toward Obama is ebbing. Case in point: a front-page story in The New York Times noting that Obama’s all-male basketball games drew fire from the head of the National Organization for Women, who called the games “troubling.”

I agree that Bush seemed to be treated with kit gloves, way, way too much for my liking. The media does seem to enjoy determining who our next president will be. But even Bush’s treatment pales in comparison to the lovefest the MSM has had for Obama.

So yes, they are now asking why Obama excludes women (though he has now tried to rectify that by asking ONE woman, Melody Barnes, to play golf with him) in his games? We have known for ages that often, it is on the golf course or basketball court that favors are curried or power is amassed, hence the desire for women to achieve membership in numerous country clubs across the country. Oh, and Obama’s response to the NY Time’s articles highlighting that women were excluded? “Bunk, ” he said. Uh, yeah, no. It isn’t, President Obama.

There are too many examples of just how Obama has been allowed to skate free:

But here are other stories in which Obama seems to have gotten a pass:

New Orleans

As a candidate, Obama railed against the Bush administration for abandoning and then neglecting the people of New Orleans during Hurricane Katrina. He made five campaign trips to the city.

But as president, Obama waited almost nine months before visiting the Big Easy, spent less than four hours on the ground there and then jetted to San Francisco for a $3 million Democratic fundraiser.

“Don’t judge anybody on the amount of time that they’ve spent there. Judge only what this administration promised that they would do, what they’ve done every day and what they’re continuing to work on,” press secretary Robert Gibbs said, pointing to positive reviews of the federal government’s efforts under Obama.

For their part, Democrats can’t see how Bush officials can muster much umbrage over anything related to New Orleans, given how the Republican administration handled the initial response to Katrina.

Forget “Bush Officials.” How about us plain ol’ Americans? We’re pretty pissed off about it, too. Just saying. A biggie is this:

Managing The Press

When the Obama administration moved in recent weeks to isolate and disparage Fox News as a wing of the Republican Party, there were few immediate howls of outrage — even from Fox’s fellow journalists in the media.

Press defenders and First Amendment advocates who jumped on the Bush administration for using military analysts to shape war coverage reacted with a yawn to the White House’s announcement that it had deemed Fox to be not a “legitimate news organization.”

“Had I said about MSNBC what the Obama White House said about Fox, the media uproar would still be going on,” said Ari Fleischer, who served as Bush’s press secretary until 2003. “I instinctively would have known … the media would have leapt to their feet to defend them. I’m shocked it’s not happening now.”

One press veteran agreed. “If George Bush had taken on MSNBC, what would have happened?” said Phil Bronstein, editor-at-large of the San Francisco Chronicle. “That’s one place you can point to a real difference in how I’d imagine Bush would be treated.”

No freakin’ kidding. People would be screaming their fool heads off about free speech. But the Obamam crowd? They just jump on the Fox bashing bandwagon. Nice.

And this is a big one, too:

Politicizing the White House

Throughout the Bush administration, liberal critics warned that the hand of Bush political adviser Karl Rove was spreading politics into all corners of government. Reporters were on alert for any sign that politics was infecting the work of federal agencies. One top appointee got in hot water for allegedly asking agency officials to work to “help our candidates” across the country.

So some Bush aides went nearly apoplectic earlier this month when they spotted Gibbs and Obama’s political guru, David Axelrod, in photos of a Situation Room meeting on Afghanistan policy.

“Oh, the howling and screaming that would have happened if Karl Rove was sitting in on even a deputies-level meeting where strategy was being hammered out. People would have just gone ballistic,” said Peter Feaver, a former White House aide for both Bush and Bill Clinton.

Also, in about nine months, Obama has already attended more than two dozen fundraising events, while Bush did only six in his first year in office, according to a tally by CBS’s Mark Knoller.

Gibbs said Obama had to do more to raise a similar amount of money, since the kinds of soft-money fundraisers Bush did early on were banned. “This president … doesn’t accept money from PACs or lobbyists and doesn’t allow lobbyists to give at fundraisers that he’s at, as well,” Gibbs added.

Uh, yeah, sure, okay, Mr. Mealy Mouth Man. We all buy that one, right? Uh, yeah, no.

Then there is this one:

Dealing With Business, In Secret

Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney endured years of criticism and lawsuits that stretched all the way to the Supreme Court over secret meetings Cheney’s Energy Task Force held with oil and gas companies. When the policy emerged, critics said Cheney was carrying water for the industry.

Obama pledged to hash out health care reform live on C-SPAN and excoriated Bush for kowtowing to the drug industry. But aides signed off on the drug industry’s agreement to find $80 billion in savings to support reform. However, Obama aides didn’t disclose that the agreement involved the White House promising that current health legislation wouldn’t include further cuts or give the government the right to negotiate over drug prices.

I admit, this did actually get a rise from a few folks, like Greg Palast. But that moment seems to have passed now. Now, people rarely mention it. Big surprise…

And another issue near and dear to many of us:

Toning Down Human Rights

During the campaign, Obama talked tough on China. While candidate Obama pushed Bush to take a hard line, President Obama hasn’t. Hoping to win China’s help on Iran and North Korea, Obama skipped a meeting with the Dalai Lama and said little when China undertook a violent crackdown in its largely Muslim Xinjiang region. The White House has pledged to meet with the Dalai Lama later.

And while candidate Obama warned Bush against a “reckless and cynical initiative [that] would reward a regime in Khartoum that has a record of failing to live up to its commitments,” President Obama’s envoy to Sudan, Scott Gration, seemed to lay out a similar incentive-driven approach.

“We’ve got to think about giving out cookies,” said Gration. “Kids, countries — they react to gold stars, smiley faces, handshakes, agreements, talk, engagement.” The White House backed away from Gration’s characterization of the strategy but did recently lay out a strategy of engaging with the Sudanese regime.

Obama snubbed the DALAI LAMA. C’mon already – THAT’S not going to get an outcry? He’s the DALAI LAMA, for pete’s sake! No? *Crickets*

Just for, um, fun:

Traveling And Recreating

In his campaign and as president, Bush was mocked for a lack of interest in all things foreign — seven minutes touring the Kremlin, 25 minutes at the Great Wall of China, before declaring, “Let’s go home.”

During a trip to Europe in June, Obama chastised German and French reporters for suggesting that he was snubbing those countries by making only brief stops in each. “There are only 24 hours in the day. And so there’s nothing to any of that speculation beyond us just trying to fit in what we could do on such a short trip,” he told reporters in Germany.

But after taking his wife out for an attention-grabbing date night, Obama promptly jetted back to Washington. Within about 90 minutes of arriving at the White House, the tightly scheduled president was on the move again — headed to Andrews Air Force Base to play nine holes of golf.

How quickly people change. If Bush had done ANY of these things, the HuffPo and Daily Kos crowds would have been going ballistic about it. But now that it’s THEIR guy, it’s peachy keen. Where is the sense of fair play? Where is the concept of right is right? No, all of that gets completely thrown out of the window if it is someone they actually LIKE.

That is just sad. While ethics can be situational, the similarities between Bush and Obama are glaring, as many of us said they were all along. To completely disregard any sense of decency because it’s their guy weakens their arguments about choosing him in the first place. It makes it crystal clear that this is about winning at all costs, and choosing someone with little more than a teleprompter to do so.

It weakens their arguments against Bush, too, though they will most likely never admit that. But it’s true. In this case, what’s god for the gander, is, well, good for the gander.

Maybe if the media actually starts to do its job (for instance, where are all of the photos of Obama playing golf all of the time? Or basketball? They never failed to show Bush playing or riding his bike.), maybe they will start to open their eyes. One can hope, anyway. In the meantime, it continues to be our job to hold Obama’s feet to the fire for decisions he makes, and doesn’t make. It is our job to hold up the glaring similarities between Bush and Obama. And do so we will…