No, I am talking about political connections that can get you into the University of Illinois at Champaign-Urbana. Like if you are related to Tony Rezko, for example (if you want more information about Rezko, just do a search at NQ – you’ll get plenty of posts on him and his connections to Obama). Oh, I am not making this up. It has been a big scandal in IL. Haven’t heard about this? Huh – there’s a surprise!! Ahem. Seriously, though, Board of Trustee members of the flagship university have been resigning like rats fleeing a sinking ship over this issue, including the Chairman of the Board of Trustees, Niranjan Shah. Shah resigned earlier this month. Considering this story broke in MAY, it makes me wonder what took so long…

And about Tony Rezko’s relative, the Chicago Tribune reported:

In one case, a relative of Antoin “Tony” Rezko, the now-convicted influence peddler for former Gov. Rod Blagojevich, got admitted after U. of I. President B. Joseph White wrote an e-mail stating that the governor “has expressed his support, and would like to see admitted” Rezko’s relative and another applicant.

White’s message to the university chancellor was passed on to admissions officials on the same day they entered a rejection decision for the Rezko relative. “He’s actually pretty low,” replied an admissions officer, referring to the applicant’s ACT score and other credentials. “Let me know when the denial letter can go out.”

Instead, the relative was admitted.

Since 2005, about 800 undergraduate students have landed on the clout list for the Urbana-Champaign campus. It’s unknown how many would qualify for entry on their own, but their acceptance rate is higher than average. For the 2008-09 school year, for example, about 77 percent were accepted, compared with 69 percent of all applicants.

Wow. It seems that maybe “Chicago-style” politics are actually “Illinois-style” politics. Especially considering what this means in terms of academics, and what the University President had to say about all of this:

That’s in spite of the fact that patronage candidates, as a group, had lower average ACT scores and class ranks than all admitted students, records show.

In 2008, for example, freshmen on average ranked in the 88th percentile in their high school class, while clouted students ranked in the 76th percentile.

High school counselors and admissions experts said letting clout affect admissions compromises the integrity of the university.

“Whether it’s [a Rezko relative] or any other kid who takes a spot, he typically takes a spot of someone who is more qualified. That’s the part that gets my blood boiling,” said Jim Conroy, a New Trier Township High School college counselor. “This is not a private institution. This is yours and mine. Our flagship state university should not be part of any political shenanigans.”

President White said it’s not unusual for selective universities to receive input on applicants from interested parties, and it’s important to have a system to track the requests. The additional information can help the admissions office make a more informed decision, he said – though the university discourages applicants from sending letters of recommendations, saying on its Web site that “sending unsolicited materials can be distracting.”

He declined to discuss specific cases, including the Rezko relative, but said: “I would never support admission of a student over better-qualified students simply because of connections and pressure.”

But the Tribune review of about 1,800 pages of documents shows politically appointed trustees and lawmakers routinely behave as armchair admissions officers advocating on behalf of relatives and neighbors – even housekeepers’ kids and families with whom they share Hawaiian vacations. They declare their candidates “no brainers” for admission and suggest that if they are not accepted, the admissions system may need revamping.

Um, well, yes – I would say that’s a Newsflash from the Department of DUH on the whole revamping thing.

Here’s what the investigation found: The investigation found:

–University officials recognized that certain students were underqualified – but admitted them anyway.

–Admissions officers complained in vain as their recommendations were overruled.

–Trustees pushed for preferred students, some of whom were friends, neighbors and relatives.

–Lawmakers delivered admission requests to U. of I. lobbyists, whose jobs depend on pleasing the lawmakers.

–University officials delayed admissions notifications to weak candidates until the end of the school year to minimize the fallout at top feeder high schools.

For example, this spring an applicant described as having “terrible credentials” by the undergraduate admissions office was denied admittance. She sought help from Trustee Frances Carroll, who encouraged her to appeal the denial – an option not mentioned in rejection letters or any university literature. Carroll forwarded the appeal to University Chancellor Richard Herman and sought his help. The applicant was admitted.

Then, to avoid drawing attention at the applicant’s high school, where her acceptance could raise eyebrows, documents show the university planned to wait until the end of the school year to notify the applicant.

Carroll said the Lincoln Park High School senior, whom she didn’t know, had a 3.2 grade-point average, participated in many extra-curricular activities and deserved a spot at U. of I. Carroll said she likes to help disadvantaged students who may not understand the system.

Patronage has become such an entrenched part of the admissions process that there’s even a name for the applicants with heavy-hitting sponsors: “Category I.”

While some trustees and lawmakers said they didn’t realize there was a separate category for their requests, the records showed they needed only to forward a name and a few vital statistics to have the student placed in it.

And many did so without reservation.

Doesn’t this all sound eerily familiar? Sure does to me…

Remember Jesse Jackson, Jr., and his claim that voters should “analyze” Hillary Clinton’s tears?  We should analyze those tears in the wake of Hurricane Katrina, he said, especially as Hillary will have to face the Democratic voters of South Carolina, 45% of whom are African-Americans who see “real hope” in Barack Obama.

Maybe Jesse and all those African-American voters who dismissed Hillary’s tears but saw “real hope” in Obama should analyze this in the wake of Hurricane Katrina and of Barack Obama’s deceitful campaign:

WASHINGTON — In projecting the job benefits from the giant stimulus bill signed into law Tuesday by President Barack Obama, the White House says the 2nd Congressional District that includes New Orleans will receive the lowest job employment benefit among the 435 nationally.

The White House says it is a formula-driven number…

The 2nd Congressional District of Louisiana includes New Orleans, a city that is struggling to repopulate and to rebuild its infrastructure. Although the region is still recovering from Hurricane Katrina, it will receive the least amount of stimulus from Obama’s vaunted package. New Orleans, I guess, is only worthy of one’s attention when one is campaigning and race baiting, not when one is writing a spending bill. That is quite the Mardi Gras gift for a city that supported him with 79% of the vote during the general election.

New Orleanians will still celebrate Carnival tonight with the Ancient Druids in Uptown. And New Orleans will recover, even if Obama and his operatives in Washington, DC, will sit idly at their desks as this city sinks into the Gulf. Besides, we have seen this before. Does anyone remember George W. Bush in 2005 or John Calvin Coolidge in 1927?

Question Hillary’s tears all you want, Senate Candidate #5. At least her actions and her little formulas will not wash us away. Maybe you and the people you answer to can analyze that after you finally read the stimulus package for which you voted. And please tell me if the African-American voters of South Carolina will still see “real hope” in Obama in the wake of his decision to ignore New Orleans.

In the nation’s capitol, on the brink of history, the hour approaches …

If January 20th marks the “brink of history,” what have we been living in so far? And won’t the Visigoths, Greeks, Romans, Egyptians, and Mesopotamians be just a little bit ticked off to be left out of history, particularly by Keith Olbermann, Rachel Maddow, Chris Matthews, and David Shuster?

Another favorite of mine is “new beginnings.” If it’s a “beginning,” it’s necessarily new. I.e., the phrase is ridiculously redundant.

Okay, that out of my system, here’s a video about a nice, sweet man from Illinois about whom a great fuss was made and for whom police were called, until today when, all of a sudden, he was before the Vice President of the United States, being sworn in as a U.S. Senator:

Just kidding. It was sweet today to see him touch his name plate next to the door to his new Senate office. And the excitement in the faces of his family. PEBO erred on that, but Harry Reid paid the price. But, at least in the end, it came out the way it should have for U.S. Senator Roland Burris (D-Ill.).

And what else is going on in the world? And Illinois? Any new scandals?

The most recent piece by Kass deals with an issue about which very few people are talking: Rahm Emanuel’s seat. Yeah, right? Hardly anyone is talking about who is going to fill his seat:

With the eyes of the nation on the saga of Tombstone Burris—and our Illinois politicians hopping predictably toward impeaching the governor like those dancing chickens at the state fair—don’t forget another vacant congressional seat of prime importance to the Obama White House.

Until last week, it belonged to U.S. Rep. Rahm Emanuel (D-Tomczak), now chief of staff to President-elect Barack Obama, who ran on the platform of bringing reform to American politics.

With so many new readers from strange lands finally getting interested in how Chicago works—and by this I mean the editorial boards of many American newspapers—you might start by learning about Emanuel’s 5th District.

It is dominated by the shadow governor of Illinois, state Sen. James DeLeo (D-How You Doin’?), the state central Democratic committeeman, the fellow who’ll decide who gets slated by the party, the guy behind the guys.

Say, whaaaa? You mean there are more Chicago-style politics going on in the state even though good ol’ Blago has been charged with some shenanigans? Of course, you know that type of politics has NOTHING to do with Obama, or emanuel, or Emil Jones , or any other Chicago politician, right? Oh, sure:

Emanuel’s district runs from the historically mob-dominated town of Melrose Park on east, through Elmwood Park into the city, to Chicago’s Viagra Triangle along Rush Street. No, how you doin’?

Jimmy’s not talking to me these days. He didn’t like the columns about his luxury car leasing deals and those trips to the casino in Aruba with that other big risk-taker, Illinois Secretary of State Jesse White.

Yeah, that Jesse White.

That is from the, “you can’t make this shit up” file. Kass continues:

Yet there is another expert on Emanuel’s political rise, the world’s foremost authority in the field:

Don Tomczak.

Unfortunately, Mr. Tomczak, a top political operative for that other famous reformer, Mayor Richard Daley, is indisposed.

Tomczak will be indisposed until July 3, 2010, when he is scheduled to get out of federal prison, where he was sent after pleading guilty to taking $400,000 in bribes for city trucking contracts in that department Daley still doesn’t know anything about.

“Mr. Tomczak was a gentleman of the old school,” his lawyer, Patrick Cotter, said the other day. “That was the only way he was ever taught to do things. That’s not an excuse, but it is an explanation.”

“A gentleman of the old school”? That’s a LEGAL defense these days?? Oh, no – just in Chicago, the very place in which Obama CHOSE to begin his political career. Hmmm – I wonder why:

Years ago, Daley put Tomczak in charge of an illegal political army of stooges on the city payroll who worked elections to get promotions and overtime to benefit Daley’s machine.

City Hall allowed Tomczak to bring the Democratic army out to Will County to elect his son Jeff as a Republican state’s attorney. But the important work was in the city, where Tomczak muscled for Emanuel in 2002.

There were hundreds of Tomczak/Daley stooges knocking on doors, manning precincts, passing literature for Emanuel to install him and knock out a true progressive local Democrat, Nancy Kaszak.

Tomczak testified to this at a federal trial of other convicted Daley patronage chiefs. The mayor was so upset that his mouthpiece, David Axelrod, felt compelled to write an op-ed piece in the Tribune that took the side of patronage and clout, saying it wasn’t all that bad, really.

Well, if AXELROD said it “wasn’t all that bad,” then surely, it wasn’t (cough, choke):

Simultaneously, Axelrod was massaging the message for Obama about transcending the old, corrupt politics and ushering in the sunshine of reform, a slogan that sent tingles up the legs of pundits.

After Tomczak cooperated and testified, Emanuel defended Daley and denied any knowledge of the Tomczak army that elected him.

“I am not here to excuse any illegal acts or the violation of the public trust,” said Emanuel at a lunch at the City Club. “Corruption is corruption. It cannot be excused and it cannot be overlooked.”

But he did overlook it, saying Daley didn’t know what was going on at City Hall because the mayor “outsourced” his politics, and Rahm didn’t know who sent Tomczak and hundreds of knuckle-draggers to install him in Congress to do the people’s business.

And now this pause until we can all stop laughing. Rahm claims Daley didn’t know what was going on or that he was clueless about the legion of people out drumming up support on his behalf (wow, does THAT ever sound familiar). And that corruption cannot be tolerated???? Oh, hahahaha – that’s a good one, Rahm! You card, you!

Okay – now that we’ve wiped our eyes from laughing ’til we cried at this massive hooeyfication, get this:

“I guess when you have hundreds of city workers show up to help you on your campaign, you don’t ask any questions,” said Jay Stewart, executive director of the Better Government Association, in an interview Thursday.

“Rahm is one of the few people who defended the mayor in these corruption scandals. He’s a creature of Chicago politics. As Mayor Daley benefited from Tomczak’s efforts, so did Rahm Emanuel,” Stewart said.

I have a question. Do ANY of these people believe the crap that comes spewing out of their mouths? I mean, REALLY – any one of them? I’m just asking because I cannot imagine saying stuff like this and not crack up laughing, or feel compelled to TELL THE TRUTH, but that’s just me.

Meanwhile – Rahm defended Daley from all of the corruption scandals? For real? And now he’s Obama’s right-hand man? Wowie zowie:

Now that Emanuel is working to help Obama bring reform to the nation, 5th Congressional District candidates will eagerly rub up against Jimmy DeLeo, and the lucky one will get a kiss on the cheek. DeLeo is having a big meet soon at the Zam Zam Banquet Hall, and the neighborhood will be awash in the sound of puckering.

But do chickens really have lips?

In the meantime, Blagojevich will be impeached and his Senate appointee, Burris, will fill Obama’s seat.

Tombstone will ooze into the job the way lime Jell-O fills one of those terrifying fish-shaped molds your grandmother keeps in her cupboard. So no real surprises there.

But if you really want to see dancing chickens, watch what happens in the 5th Congressional District.

Emanuel will want someone to sit still and keep the eggs warm until he’s ready to reclaim his nest. And here’s my question.

Are they chickens, or are they just dancers?

jskass@tribune.com

I’m sorry, too – but it had to be done, don’t you think (and trust me when I tell you I found the shortest, best one!)?

I guess only time will tell for these Chicago-style politicians – both in IL and in DC…

Then I have been mislabeling myself for the past 36 years. See, I thought a feminist was someone who believed in women’s equality, who believed that women’s rights were human rights, who believed that women had the right to make decisions about our own bodies, that women had the right to equal pay, and that women had the right to self-determination, not being ruled by a man, to name a few. See, that’s what I thought it meant. What a surprise to discover at this late date that, at least according to Ms. Magazine, I have been WRONG, WRONG, WRONG.

Evidently, in their opinion, a feminist is someone who plays songs like, “99 Problems But a Bitch Ain’t One” when he enters a hall (and I intentionally picked the link to go to Huffington Post since so many of those people claim there is no way this happened. Hell to the yes, it DID.). A feminist is someone who flips off – in public – in a speech that is televised – a female US Senator who is also a Former First Lady of the US and a Former First Lady of Arkansas who, coincidentally, believes women’s rights are human rights. She even gave a little speech about it. But I digress…

Apparently, a feminist is someone who chooses for the chair of the Democratic National Committee a man who is anti-choice (oh, and as a bonus, anti-gay). A feminist picks a pastor, Rick Warren, to give a major prayer who equates abortion to Nazism. Once again, as a bonus, is tremendously anti-gay, comparing homosexuality to incest and pedophilia. So much so that he will not ALLOW gay people into his church.

A feminist, as it turns out, believes that women who are “feeling blue” should not be able to have an abortion. And a feminist believes any real discussion of abortion is above his pay grade.

A feminist, at least the one Ms. Magazine is revering, is free to make sexist comments about his competitor, allow vulgar, degrading sexual statements to be made and WORN on t-shirts (forget it – I’m not linking to those despicable shirts) without uttering ONE WORD against it, and pays the women on his staff less than the men.

And, lastly(but by no means the end), a feminist is someone who not only has retained on his staff, but ELEVATED to the top speech-writing post in the White House, this young man, Jon Favreau, who demonstrates his “affection” (read: sexist pig incredibly inappropriate actions) for Senator-Soon-To-Be-Secretary-Of-State, Hillary Clinton in the photo below:

Yep – no doubt about it – all my adult life, I have been completely and utterly wrong about what it means to be a feminist. Turns out, it is the exact opposite of what I always believed it to be.

I thought, I hoped, I prayed that after Bush was out of office, our country, our media, our leaders, our organizations, would return to the reality based community. Sadly, it seems that too many are continuing to perpetrate the charade of who Obama is. I guess it would just be too embarrassing to admit they, like so many others, had been completely duped by him (hey, if you want to know what it is like for all of those people who gave everything for Obama only to be dissed by him, just ask that sexist pig Jesse Jackson, Jr., Obama’s campaign manager who threw not just Hillary but his own FATHER under the bus for Obama; or Jay Rockefeller; or John Kerry who shilled for Obama, hoping for that Secretary of State position; or HOWARD DEAN, who wasn’t even invited to the introduction of the new DNC chair, what it is like to realize they’ve been had. Frankly, it couldn’t have happened to more deserving people, especially Howard Dean, who allowed the Rules Committee to proceed in a completely unethical, immoral way all the while making it very clear who the DNC wanted for its nominee. So, Howie – what are you doing with your time under the bus?? Just wondering…). But to promote Obama, the most sexist, MISOGYNISTIC candidate I have ever seen as a FEMINIST is grotesque. Ms. Magazine has lost all credibility. Its editors have lost their minds. And they have sure lost me.

If this is what it means to be a feminist, freakin’ count me out. I don’t want to be lumped in the same group with a misogynistic (homophobic) pig like Obama. Clearly, we need another name for those of us who DO care, and work for, rights for women because as of this date, “feminist” has become a disparaging word, at least for me.

“Roland Burris is a good man and a fine public servant, but the Senate Democrats made it clear weeks ago that they cannot accept an appointment made by a governor who is accused of selling this very Senate seat. I agree with their decision, and it is extremely disappointing that Governor Blagojevich has chosen to ignore it. I believe the best resolution would be for the Governor to resign his office and allow a lawful and appropriate process of succession to take place. While Governor Blagojevich is entitled to his day in court, the people of Illinois are entitled to a functioning government and major decisions free of taint and controversy,” said President-elect Obama.

Oh, no. Obama is “extremely disappointed.” Well, join the freakin’ club, Obama. You aren’t the only one. There are millions of us who are disappointed. Heck, despairing might even be the word of choice. But I digress.

Now, Obama has changed his tune (surprise!!!!!). According to this CBS Report, Obama is now saying:

Mr. Obama was just asked about the Burris appointment during his morning press conference. The president-elect did not take a position, saying it was “a Senate matter.”

Mr. Obama noted he had known Burris for years, adding: “If he gets seated, then I’m going to work with Roland Burris, just like I work with all the other senators.”

Newsflash from the Department of Duh: You already took a position, Mr. Obama. Perhaps YOU should learn hot to use that whole Google thing to remind yourself of what you said about a week ago. Just sayin’.

And for the record, the Senate does NOT get to decide who they will allow in or not. It’s a matter of who each state sends. You might want to go take another little look-see at that pesky piece of paper you find to be so “deeply flawed,” the Constitution. Just a thought!

But Obama isn’t the only one who is probably making Burris’ head spin (and mine). The above-mentioned Senate owner (hey, that’s how he is acting), Harry Reid. His constant stand that Burris will now be admitted to his playgroup is now weakening:

After repeatedly saying they wouldn’t accept him and turning him away Tuesday, it now appears that Senate Democrats eventually plan to seat Roland Burris after all.

After Burris met privately with Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid and Senator Dick Durbin of Illinois, Reid told reporters today that he hopes “sooner rather than later” the full Senate will vote on whether to accept Burris.

And get this:

Reid said he and Burris met for 45 minutes and since he had “never met the man,” it was “very enlightening,” calling Burris “obviously very engaging, a very nice man.”

Well, by all means, Harry, if the only criterion you have is if you think someone is “nice” enough, glad to hear Burris suits you on that level.

I have written about this before, but holy crap – our Senate is a very small junior high school. Grow the hell up already, Harry!! Sheesh!

By the way, in the article linked above about Reid, there is a link to a US News and World Report article (by Michael Barone)regarding issues of legality and seating Burris. I’ll bottom-line it for you: they have to seat him.

In the meantime, I think the following should be Burris’ theme song:

So, what will it be? Will he stay or will he go?

Say this is not true.

You tell us that armed guards are going to keep Roland Burris from taking his seat. One strike.

But Harry, now this?

Days before Gov. Blagojevich was charged with trying to sell President-elect Barack Obama’s U.S. Senate seat to the highest bidder, top Senate Democrat Harry Reid made it clear who he didn’t want in the post: Jesse Jackson, Jr., Danny Davis or Emil Jones.

Rather, Reid called Blagojevich to argue he appoint either state Veterans Affairs chief Tammy Duckworth or Illinois Attorney General Lisa Madigan, sources told the Chicago Sun-Times.

Now, granted Harry recommended women, which is REALLY rare from today’s Regressives Progressives. But Harry blew off four, count them four, black potential candidates to fill Barack Obama’s slot. The only black US senator is leaving that seat, and Harry couldn’t abide one of these four guys? And looking at the names tells me that Roland is the best pick of all.

At least Roland is not a long-time New Party borderline Communist waiting to send us all to the potato fields after he redistributes our income, like Danny Davis.

At least Roland is not a typical Chicago Fixer and Obama’s political Godfather like Emil Jones. How ironic, though. Jones Made Obama. Incidentally, this is the same guy who called an African American Clinton delegatean “Uncle Tom”. I wonder what he’s thinking now about his “Godson” Barack Obama turning his back on Roland Burris.

I honestly don’t know what Jesse Jackson Junior is, besides being Jesse Senior’s son. Furthermore, he thew his own father under the bus for Barack Obama, which to me is a strong indicator of just how far he would go to get ahead.

Say what you want about Jesse Sr. Agree with him or don’t agree with him, but he has worked his tail off for the African American community since he was a young puppy. I remember Jesse speaking at my college during what the Gen-Y crowd would call the Stone Age. Jesse Junior’s achievement record is Nil compared to his father. He’s hitching a ride off of Daddy’s name and everybody knows it. So the least he could have done was show his father some respect. This goes to character. But still, this guy went all out for Barack Obama, even unto turning his back on his own father.

But Harry seems to have a problem with placing of anyAfrican American in the seat of the only black person in the Senate. And apparently Barack Obama has the same problem.

Barack would do well to remember that if he hadn’t bamboozled the African American community into thinking, among other things, that he is going to drop money from the sky upon them, he would not be President-Elect Obama today. This has to be a huge blow to the morale of the community. The Congressional Black Caucus has got to be wondering where Reid and Obama are really coming from.

Overall, I cannot avoid the temptation to say on behalf of Women in America: Welcome To The Club. Unfairness Sucks, doesn’t it? I’ll bet it does. That’s why this statement from the Obama camp is particularly unconscionable:

An Obama transition team spokeswoman would not comment, referring reporters to a report released by Obama’s transition team before Christmas.

I have a feeling, if this “transition” is any indicator, we are going to hear a lot of “No Comments” from Barack Obama in the next four years. He is doing the same thing with the Gaza conflict. He acts as if we are interrupting his hoops and workout every time the press asks him a burning question. Considering the practice he got during the primaries and the election, he’s seasoned at avoiding questions that force him to reveal a detail or make a commitment. But what’s up with this subject of his Senate seat replacement? Does Barack want to pull a Clarence Thomas and kick the ladder out from under him for African Americans now that he got to climb it?

This morning Reid has denied having this conversation at all. I hope this is true. But I have the distinct feeling that Blago knows where plenty of bodies are buried and some of those bodies were dragged across the room while the tape was rolling–

Considering Reid’s behavior over Roland Burris’ appointment— what with talk of Armed Guards–and considering there is a boatload of audio tapes– my money is on the man with the Big Hair on this one.

Things are lookin’ bad for ya, Harry. This morning FOX paraphrased you as saying on this morning’s Meet The Press,

“We have the right to do whatever we want to”.

Nice to know we are living in a Democracy, Harry. Nice to know. Just really hard to tell when we have a cranky Totalitarian bastard like you in charge of the Senate.

Barack Obama on Thursday stated the following:

“I have never spoken to the governor on this subject. I am confident that no representatives of mine would have any part of any deals related to this seat. I think the materials released by the U.S. attorney reflect that fact,” Obama said at a Chicago news conference. “I’ve asked my team to gather the facts of any contacts with the governor’s office about this vacancy so that we can share them with you over the next few days.”

But on Friday we learned the following:

Emanuel, who has long been close to both Blagojevich and Obama, has refused to respond to questions about any involvement he may have had with the Blagojevich camp over the Senate pick. A spokeswoman for Emanuel also declined to comment Friday.

One source confirmed that communications between Emanuel and the Blagojevich administration were captured on court-approved wiretaps.

Another source said that contact between the Obama camp and the governor’s administration regarding the Senate seat began the Saturday before the Nov. 4 election, when Emanuel made a call to the cell phone of Harris. The conversation took place around the same time press reports surfaced about Emanuel being approached about taking the high-level White House post should Obama win.

Emanuel delivered a list of candidates who would be “acceptable” to Obama, the source said. On the list were Obama adviser Valerie Jarrett, Illinois Veterans Affairs director Tammy Duckworth, state Comptroller Dan Hynes and U.S. Rep. Jan Schakowsky of Chicago, the source said. All are Democrats.

Where do we begin with Obama’s statement on Thursday?

“I am confident that no representatives of mine would have any part of any deals related to this seat.”

I am confident you phrased this statement in the manner you did, for you knew Emanuel was in contact with Blagojevich through his Chief of Staff and through other advisors and operatives. I am also confident that Emanuel is avoiding reporters, for Emanuel knows his voice is recorded on wiretaps gathered by Fitzgerald and his investigators. It is time for Emanuel to resign and to vacate his House seat. And by the way, is not former Daley operative Valerie Jarrett Co-Chair of your Transition Team? Why was the Co-Chair of your Transition Team in contact with Tom Balanoff, the SEIU Representative, who according to page 69 of the criminal complaint filed by Special Agent of the FBI David Cain “stated that he would find out if Senate Candidate 1 [Valerie Jarrett] wanted SEIU Official to keep pushing her for Senator with ROD BLAGOJEVICH.” Maybe it is time you answer questions about Valerie Jarrett’s contact with Blagojevich and his operatives.

“I have never spoken to the governor on this subject.”

You claim you did not speak to the Governor, but Emanuel submitted a letter with a list of candidates you preferred to Blagojevich. In other words, you communicated with the Governor about the open Senate seat. Moreover, news reports you and your operatives have attempted to remove from the Internet reveal you met with the Governor the week following the Presidential election. You met with him, and you sent him letters. This website contains two screen shots and a press release from Blagojevich’s office documenting that meeting. I recommend you read them and explain their existence to the media during your next press conference. Thank you for your prompt and anticipated cooperation.

“I think the materials released by the U.S. attorney reflect that fact.”

Perhaps you need to think again, for the criminal complaint filed by Special Agent of the FBI David Cain reveals that a line of communication existed between your team and that of Blagojevich. We also know that members of your team, including Emanuel, were engaged in conversation with members of Blagojevich’s team about the open Senate seat and the possibility of positions for Blagojevich since November 4, 2008. Maybe you need to read and reread the criminal complaint until its full import and significance is understood. And besides, no one cares what you “think;” we care about what is known.

“I’ve asked my team to gather the facts of any contacts with the governor’s office about this vacancy so that we can share them with you over the next few days.”

Ask your staff again. Obviously they are incapable of compiling information, for it is Sunday, and no documents have been made available to the public. Do you have any intention of sharing any and all communications between your staff and that of Rod Blagojevich? And while your seemingly inept, incompetent and corrupt staff compiles these records for the perusal of the traditional media and writers online, I recommend you ask them to create a dossier on your dealings with Rezko. This staff, after all, is housed in the Kluczynksi Federal Building on Dearborn Street in Chicago. Access to records from your days as a state Senator of an inner city Chicago state Senate district should not be difficult for a group of overpaid operatives in your Transition offices to obtain. I imagine they are not very bright, but if they refrain from engaging in drunken gang rape simulations with your speechwriter Jon Favreau, the lazy and inept lot will probably have the energy and focus to locate and compile these documents in a timely manner.

=========================

One paragraph, one lie, two equivocations and one false promise: how and why does anyone take Barack Obama seriously?

UPDATE:

Times Online reports calls for Emanuel’s resignation as Obama’s Chief of Staff. I quote with emphasis:

THE bullish, foul-mouthed but effective Chicago arm-twister Rahm Emanuel has come under pressure to resign as Barack Obama’s chief of staff after it was revealed that he had been captured on court-approved wire-taps discussing the names of candidates for Obama’s Senate seat.

Emanuel’s presence at the heart of the scandal threatens to roil the president-elect’s administration as a Chicago prosecutor builds his corruption case against Rod Blagojevich, the Illinois governor.

Not only should Emanuel resign as Obama’s Chief of Staff; he should resign from the US House, where he is also Chair of the House Democratic Caucus. According to the Chicago Tribune, he is yet to vacate his House seat. I quote:

Though now working full-time on Obama’s transition, Emanuel has yet to resign his congressional seat. Illinois law has a different process for filling vacant House seats than Senate seats. When Emanuel resigns, a special election will be held for his replacement.

Emanuel should resign as Chief of Staff and as member of the US House, as sources have confirmed his involvement in the scandal surrounding Obama and Blagojevich. I quote the Chicago Tribune again:

One source confirmed that communications between Emanuel and the Blagojevich administration were captured on court-approved wiretaps.

Another source said that contact between the Obama camp and the governor’s administration regarding the Senate seat began the Saturday before the Nov. 4 election, when Emanuel made a call to the cell phone of Harris. The conversation took place around the same time press reports surfaced about Emanuel being approached about taking the high-level White House post should Obama win.

Emanuel delivered a list of candidates who would be “acceptable” to Obama, the source said. On the list were Obama adviser Valerie Jarrett, Illinois Veterans Affairs director Tammy Duckworth, state Comptroller Dan Hynes and U.S. Rep. Jan Schakowsky of Chicago, the source said. All are Democrats.

Promising to rid Congress of what she called a Culture of Corruption, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi stated the following after Democrats seized control of the House in 2006:

“The intention of our Founding Fathers was for Congress to be a marketplace of ideas. The Republicans have turned Congress into an auction house – for sale to the highest bidder. You have to pay to play. It is just not right.

“Democrats are leading the effort to turn the most closed, corrupt Congress in history into the most open and honest Congress in history.

Communicating with Blagojevich’s Chief of Staff, submitting a list of candidates Obama approved to Blagojevich through operatives and advisors and participating in conference calls in which Blagojevich was attempting to forge a “pay to play” deal with Obama and Jarrett, Emanuel is engaging in the “pay to play” practices Nancy Pelosi decried on January 6, 2006. If Democrats are truly committed to ridding the House of ethical clouds, cronyism and corruption, then Emanuel must resign as Chairman of the House Democratic Caucus.

He must also resign as Obama’s Chief of Staff, for Obama has promised “a new dawn of American leadership,” a new dawn that includes a “clean break from the broken politics of Washington.” Emanuel’s direct participation in conversations with Blagojevich reveals that Obama will never enact a clean break if Emanuel is one of his chief advisors. Barack Obama’s inability to disclose all communications between his staff and that of Blagojevich in a timely manner is also a sign that no clean break with the politics of the past will occur during an Obama administration.

I wonder if more calls for Emanuel’s resignation will surface. And if such calls surface, I hope they also include calls for him to resign from the US House. For not only should the White House be free of Emanuel’s corruption; Democrats in the House do not need to be tied to the scandal that is the “pay to play” politics of Washington, DC, and of inner city Chicago, where Democrats Rahm Emanuel, Rod Blagojevich and Barack Obama were schooled in the art of corrupt machine politics.

Jesse *let me repeat* Jackson, “I met with Blagojevich for the first time in four years, on Tuesday.”

Now, perhaps he means in an actual conference room, with pens, pads of paper, and donuts (or bagels), but it’s not *just words* in these situations. I would think, during a press conference, in a serious situation such as this, you would be very, very careful.

Because, as I read on Newsbusters, here is Jesse last August, tearfully hugging Blagojevich. There is much more here, at newbusters, from P.J. Gladnick.

It sure sounds like, according to the reports, that someone was offering to pony up, up to a million big ones, for Jesse to get the Senate seat. So, he needs to be very careful about what he denies, and when he denies it happened.

And if Obama has nothing to hide, in addition to all the scrubbing going on wrt news stories, why are they now scrubbing their own web site, and not allowing any Blago questions? From Politico: Blagojevich questions censored on Transition site

Politico has another article called * 7 Blago questions for Obama*. Too bad anytime someone tries to ask Obama those questions, they are deleted.

Like I said in my previous post, it doesn’t sound like, according to the phone calls, that Obama agreed to any kind of pay for play. But, he denied any contact at all, which doesn’t appear to be true. And that leads one to believe that he at least KNEW that Blago wanted something for the seat. Every one seems to agree on that – that Obama’s team was not agreeing to pay to play. Also, I want to know why Obama continued to endorse him and stand by him for the last four years, when, according to Chuch Todd and Joe Scarborough, everyone knew Blago was corrupt.

I am just not buying the excuses that neither Jackson or Obama knew Blago was corrupt. Shocked and saddened just don’t fly.

Obama said today in his press conference that he personally has not had contact with Blago, but they are pulling together all the info they can, about who might have, from his camp, had talks with Blago about the Senate seat. We know someone did….

And then we have this doozy from Hot Air, via Verum Serum, a photo of Obama and Blagojevich taken from Blagojevich’s official newsletter dated 11/12/08, eight days after the election. (I wonder what they are whispering about?)
The topic of the Blagojevich newsletter story? The Senate succession: Here is Uncle Pat and Joe Sco discussing the scandal, this morning. And more here. And an interview with Mike Duncan, RNC Chairman, here.

As people always say, it’s not about the crime, it’s the cover up.

Listen to the video in its entirety because Matthews describes further how VERY near he was to where that bomb went off. And Ayers (of course, this was not discussed today) is a free man solely because his attorneys managed to prove the FBI improperly conducted wiretaps. (I have MUCH MORE TO SAY about this below, and ask you to read along and then share YOUR reactions and add your own knowledge and your own impressions of what occurred, shamefully, on MSNBC.)

I can only imagine what Concerned Mother would have to say about this travesty.

It is unconscionable to me that we and the MSM constantly RAGE about O.J. Simpson, who murdered two people, but not reject Barack Obama, a presidential candidate, now president-elect, who has associated freely and over a long time with a man who could have killed dozens and dozens of people.

On his remarkable radio show a few weeks ago, Nocturnal Warrior made a brilliant point about PEBO’s selection of numerous former Clinton White House and cabinet members. Warrior said that PEBO has to select such people because he has almost no FRIENDS or LONGTIME ASSOCIATES to appoint to any serious jobs in his administration. This is a situation that has NEVER occurred in the history of the presidency of the United States. Heretofore, every U.S. president has had a rich collection of friends, associates, and allies from whom he could select many qualified for high-ranking administration positions. But not Barack Obama. You faithful readers of No Quarter know of many of Obama’s real longtime associates: Jeremiah Wright, Tony Rezko, Father Michael Pfleger, William Ayers, Allison and Cullen Davis, Penny Pritzker, Bernardine Dohrn, and on and on, only a very, very few of them suited for any respectable position at any level in an administration. (I’ve clicked several Categories to provide you with a list.) And now, this week, we learn more about other Obama longtime associates like Rod Bagojevich and his wife.

William Ayers’ Crimes, and Additional Perspective History

The SOLE reason no one died is because Ayers et al. were piss-poor bomb makers. What is the sentence range these days for an attempt to commit murder? And don’t forget all the other bombs that nearly killed many others. Including the judge, his wife, and his children — while they slept — simply because that judge was doing his job: Handling the trial of a Black Panther. I’m not generally in favor of the death penalty, but Ayers’ and the Weather Underground’s attempts, repeatedly, to kill as many people as possible in the Capitol, the Pentagon, police stations, and a judge’s home are the works of people so dangerous that those people should never be freed, and may be eligible to be charged with a capital offense.

Ayers has famously said, “Free as a bird, guilty as hell, ain’t America great.” (From Larry Johnson’s must-read article, “A Statement by a Retired FBI Agent Re William Ayers.”)

Dear readers, please understand this: All that, to Matthews, is just some history. It has some import to Matthews, given that he might have been blown up himself, but apparently not much since the conversation flows easily and reasonably amicably, and Matthews, at the end of the interview, gladly flogs Ayers’ book. THEN, after this interview, Matthews has his panel on. Matthews asks Joan Walsh, Salon’s editor, why Ayers — who appeared today to be “confessional” in his tone — didn’t do that during the campaign. Ms. Walsh LAUGHS with a SMIRK on her face, and says, “I think he wanted to stay out of it entirely, and not dignify what the McCain campaign and others were doing.”

Thank you, Ms. Walsh. We now know who the real criminals are. Shame on you, John McCain. Shame on you, Sarah Palin.

Ms. Walsh, please share your opinions with John Murtagh. Well, of course. That’s unfair. You don’t know who John Murtagh is.

Uppity Woman can tell you, in her story, “When This Man Was 9 Years Old, Ayers Bombed His Home.”

If I may, I will contrast the actions of William Ayers and the rest of the sociopathic members of the Weather Underground to the actions of a man who — unless you’re my age and you closely followed anti-war activities during the Vietnam War — you’ve probably NEVER heard of, and will not hear of in the MSM.

After all, he didn’t make bombs. He didn’t befriend a future president and excite the easily excitable rightwing. He simply did the hard work of truly changing history and he paid the price that true, albeit boring, heroes do, in anonymity.

His name is David Harris.

He was the resident counselor in the boys’ dormitory across the street from my girls’ dorm. Many of us sat at his feet as he modestly told us his stories about traveling to the South in summers past to try to help black people get the right to vote. He also shared with us the music he’d learned about in the South — the blues. He told us about Muddy Waters and more. We were entranced. With him, with his stories and the very REAL danger he was in during those summers when white racists wanted to kill him and every white college kid who dared to fight for blacks’ right to vote.

He ran for student body president and I worked on his campaign. He ran on the sole condition that, if elected, he would not serve. He won in a landslide. And did not serve.

Then his draft number came up. (My memory is vague these days, but I believe he tried all the normal routes available back then, such as conscientious objector status, and so on. All of those routes failed.)

So he went to prison. Leavenworth. About seven years ago, I did a search on him, curious what his life had been like. I discovered that he had written a book about his time in Leavenworth, along with his then-wife Joan Baez. I bought the book, and read it. It was a heart-wrenching account. I had no idea that being an inmate in Leavenworth was such a horrific, maddening, insane experience.

It is a simple story, really.

He refused to fight for a war he did not believe was right.

The U.S. government tried him and sentenced him to prison.

He served roughly three years, as I recall.

You may disagree with his decision, but he decided to take the punishment like a man.

He had a father who, as I remember it, was an attorney in Fresno, California. His father surely had some means, but not enough to prevent his son from going to prison.

Bill Ayers had a father who was Chairman of Commonwealth Edison and a mover/shaker in Chicago politics, the arts and education. His father had the means to hire a cadre of attorneys who successfully prevented his son from spending a single day in prison.

David Harris did not build bombs.

He tried to help blacks in the South get to vote, at great risk to his own life.

He helped educate and watched over younger students attending the university, which was often a tedious task, listening to those 18-year-olds’ angst and fear and uncertainty and their various problems with and anxieties about their classes.

He helped the students with the difficult reading for the required freshman class, The History of Western Civilization, because he had read all of those works, including all of Plato, Socrates, and more, and he could — and did — explain those works to those anxious students. He spoke with them patiently and kindly and always very softly.

He was a hulk of a man with broad thick shoulders and a large angular head and a blond mustache but he was, as they say, a gentle giant.

He did not teach the younger students to build bombs or burn down buildings.

He taught the students about giving black people the right to vote and about the blues and about philosophy and about literature and about political thinking and about peaceful protest and about Martin Luther King and Gandhi.

He marched and sang folk songs with his wife, who bore their son.

What a dull man.

Doubtless, Chris Matthews will never invite David Harris for a feature interview.

If only he’d built bombs and then buddied up with a future president, he’d be a sought-after guest.

At least he has an entry in Wikipedia.

:::::::::::

Via Google News results:

Matthews to Ayers: ‘I Agitate My Way, You Agitate Your Way‘ – NewsBusters

Chris Matthews invited on Bill Ayers on Wednesday night’s “Hardball,” and actually confronted him about his bombing of Capitol Hill during his days as a member of the ’60s terrorist group Weather Underground, as the former Capitol Hill police officer emotionally observed: “I was a Capitol policeman at the time, so I was one of the guys that could have been killed obviously at the time you put that, your guys put that bomb in there. So I have a little personal interest. It wasn’t just vandalism. To me it was life-threatening to the guys I worked with. And there were some pretty good guys working there.”

However Matthews, who paradoxically may not even be alive to conduct this interview today if the Weather Underground’s bombs were more devastating, devoted most of the interview tossing softballs Ayers’ way, as the two often agreed with each other on Barack Obama and Iraq policy as the “Hardball” host pointed out they only really differed on how to spread their points of view: “Well, Mr. Ayers, with all due respect, you agitate your way, I agitate my way.

Matthews, who back in October dismissed Sarah Palin’s mention of Ayers, as “the politics of distraction,” began the interview by setting up Ayers to play down any association he had with Obama: …

READ ALL: Matthews to Ayers: ‘I Agitate My Way, You Agitate Your Way‘ — NewsBusters

AND READ MORE of NoQuarter’s treasure trove of materials on the bombings conducted by William Ayers.

1)The computer systems of both the Obama and McCain campaigns were victims of a sophisticated cyberattack by an unknown “foreign entity,” prompting a federal investigation, NEWSWEEK reports today.

At the Obama headquarters in midsummer, technology experts detected what they initially thought was a computer virus—a case of “phishing,” a form of hacking often employed to steal passwords or credit-card numbers. But by the next day, both the FBI and the Secret Service came to the campaign with an ominous warning: “You have a problem way bigger than what you understand,” an agent told Obama’s team. “You have been compromised, and a serious amount of files have been loaded off your system.” The following day, Obama campaign chief David Plouffe heard from White House chief of staff Josh Bolten, to the same effect: “You have a real problem … and you have to deal with it.”
—————
Officials at the FBI and the White House told the Obama campaign that they believed a foreign entity or organization sought to gather information on the evolution of both camps’ policy positions—information that might be useful in negotiations with a future administration. The Feds assured the Obama team that it had not been hacked by its political opponents. (Obama technical experts later speculated that the hackers were Russian or Chinese.) A security firm retained by the Obama campaign took steps to secure its computer system and end the intrusion. White House and FBI officials had no comment earlier this week.

Read the rest ->

Nothing like being a victim to alert a person to the danger. I wonder if any technology-related policies will benefit from Obama’s victimization.

2)Meanwhile, in Russia, things are heating up. Foxnews has a piece about Russian President Medvedev “sending a signal” to the US.

Russia will deploy missiles near NATO member Poland in response to U.S. missile defense plans, President Dmitry Medvedev said Wednesday in his first state of the nation speech.

Medvedev also singled out the United States for criticism, casting Russia’s war with Georgia in August and the global financial turmoil as consequences of aggressive, selfish U.S. policies.

————————-

Speaking just hours after Obama was declared the victor in the U.S. presidential election, Medvedev said he hoped the incoming administration will take steps to improve badly damaged U.S. ties with Russia. He suggested it is up to the U.S. — not the Kremlin — to seek to improve relations.

“I stress that we have no problem with the American people, no inborn anti-Americanism. And we hope that our partners, the U.S. administration, will make a choice in favor of full-fledged relations with Russia,” Medvedev said.

Well, here we go. A Russian demand for a new American President to kiss some butt. Hmmmmm.

3)In the most thoughtful piece I’ve seen on the racial aspect of a President Obama, Shelby Steele talks a bit about what Obama implicitly promised and what he may not be able to deliver. From LAT.

[Obama's] talent was to project an idealized vision of a post-racial America — and then to have that vision define political decency. Thus, a failure to support Obama politically implied a failure of decency.

Obama’s special charisma — since his famous 2004 convention speech — always came much more from the racial idealism he embodied than from his political ideas. In fact, this was his only true political originality. On the level of public policy, he was quite unremarkable. His economics were the redistributive axioms of old-fashioned Keynesianism; his social thought was recycled Great Society. But all this policy boilerplate was freshened up — given an air of “change” — by the dreamy post-racial and post-ideological kitsch he dressed it in.

This worked politically for Obama because it tapped into a deep longing in American life — the longing on the part of whites to escape the stigma of racism. In running for the presidency — and presenting himself to a majority white nation — Obama knew intuitively that he was dealing with a stigmatized people. He knew whites were stigmatized as being prejudiced, and that they hated this situation and literally longed for ways to disprove the stigma.
——————–

Of course, it is true that white America has made great progress in curbing racism over the last 40 years.
——————–
It is exactly because America has made such dramatic racial progress that whites today chafe so under the racist stigma. So I don’t think whites really want change from Obama as much as they want documentation of change that has already occurred. They want him in the White House first of all as evidence, certification and recognition.

But there is an inherent contradiction in all this. When whites — especially today’s younger generation — proudly support Obama for his post-racialism, they unwittingly embrace race as their primary motivation. They think and act racially, not post-racially. The point is that a post-racial society is a bargainer’s ploy: It seduces whites with a vision of their racial innocence precisely to coerce them into acting out of a racial motivation. A real post-racialist could not be bargained with and would not care about displaying or documenting his racial innocence. Such a person would evaluate Obama politically rather than culturally.

On the nose. Particularly that last part. Although many people would not feel the same, I can say that this election has pretty much cured me of any need to seek “racial innocence.” While many blacks have often said they felt constrained not to make whites feel “threatened” by their presence, I think whites could respond that they often felt constrained to project “I’m not racist” at every opportunity.

However, I’m not doing it anymore. I’ll be polite to people, not wishing to give offense and just hoping to get along – same as ever. But I’m not going to worry if someone perceives me as a racist because I looked at them too long or noticed what was in their grocery cart or any of a thousand things you do when you interact others. I’m done with that.

But what about how Obama will transform our culture? What does Steele say?

There is nothing to suggest that Obama will lead America into true post-racialism. His campaign style revealed a tweaker of the status quo, not a revolutionary. Culturally and racially, he is likely to leave America pretty much where he found her.
——————
Presidents follow the culture; they don’t lead it. I hope for a competent president.

Yeah. I completely agree. All I ever wanted was competence.

4)The Orlando-Sentinel had an interesting and yet ridiculous piece today. Obama won because of black athletes. Seriously.

If you’re searching for tangible reasons why it became possible for Barack Obama to make his historic run at the presidency of the United States, then look no further than the golf course, basketball court or football field.

Obama may have emerged from the partisan political arena, but it was the nonpartisan athletic arena that opened white America’s eyes and minds to the amazing potential and personalities of black America.

OK, you can make a case for any barrier-breaker, no doubt about that. But to suggest that black athletes who excel in the ruthless meritocracy that is sports today somehow are the forerunners of a man elected despite a lack of experience is not a very good argument, IMO. Seeing Michael Jordan play basketball or Lynn Swan play football is to see a truly expert individual. Simply put, you don’t play if you don’t have the chops.

But to suggest a presidential campaign reflects meritocracy is absurd. It reflects many things, but not necessarily merit. These athletes will be out on their butts as soon as they can’t perform. Anyone honestly think THAT will happen to BO? Has it yet?

5)Who should get Obama’s Senate seat? An AA of course. I’m seriously doubting any white people need apply, but let’s look at the contenders. From Newser is a Time piece on who could fill that seat.

As confidence grew in recent weeks that Barack Obama would be the next President of the United States, a battle intensified among various Illinois politicos to fill his Senate seat. Although a number of local leaders have publicly expressed interest in the position, the decision on who will complete the roughly two years remaining in Obama’s Senate term ultimately rests with Illinois’ governor, Rod Blagojevich, a Democrat and former congressman. . .
—————

Identity politics may play a major part in Blagojevich’s decision. Observers believe the governor may feel compelled to appease two of his core constituencies — women, and blacks, particularly from his native Chicago area — that could prove crucial to his prospects should he seek reelection in 2010. He may feel extra pressure to replace the Senate’s only black member with another African-American. One of the names most frequently mentioned here is Jesse Jackson Jr., a veteran Congressman who represents parts of Chicago’s South Side, and a national co-chair of Obama’s presidential campaign.

In an interview Monday, Jackson told TIME: “I’d be honored and humbled to succeed Sen. Obama in the U.S. Senate. I’m confident the governor will make a decision in the best interest of the state, and country.” But Blagojevich could also opt for a sort of placeholder figure to complete Obama’s term and allow Democrats to find a long-term candidate for 2010. Among the prominent black politicians the governor would turn to in that scenario, are Illinois’ secretary of state, Jesse White, or Emil Jones Jr., the recently retired president of Illinois’ senate, and one of Blagojevich’s few General Assembly allies.

The author mentions some other contenders, but I think Jackson is the most likely choice and he’s clearly indicated he wants it. And as national co-chair of Obama’s campaign, I’m betting it’s his. As for the idea that a woman might get the seat? Only if Obama tells Jesse Jr. to pipe down.

A better question is this: what might Blagojevich need more than the goodwill of the President?

6)Newser also has a story from the AP about Iraq.

Iraqi officials said Wednesday they don’t expect Barack Obama to withdraw U.S. troops hastily from Iraq because he told them last summer that he wouldn’t make a decision without consulting them and U.S. commanders on the ground.

With violence down and the economy No. 1 on American voters’ minds, the Iraqis said they believe the new president will take his time before fulfilling his promise to end the war in Iraq, which costs U.S. taxpayers $12 billion a month at a time of financial crisis back home.
——————

“Obama has to deal with Iraq’s issues in a positive way and have a sense of responsibility to correct the situation in Iraq, as well the situation inside America,” said Salim Abdullah, spokesman of the largest Sunni bloc in parliament.

“We are not concerned that he will take a unilateral decision to remove troops quickly from Iraq since he needs to discuss this issue with the Iraqi government first,” Abdullah said.
——————–

This year, U.S. and Iraqi negotiators hammered out an agreement that would remove U.S. soldiers from Iraq’s cities by June 30, with the last American troops leaving the country by 2012. The accord still must be approved by parliament by year’s end when the U.N. mandate expires.

The draft agreement has drawn strong opposition inside Iraq, but government officials are hopeful that parliament can approve the pact in time for the deadline.

That would largely satisfy both Obama’s pledge _ and the Iraqi goal _ of an orderly end to the U.S. mission.

Don’t forget that part. Despite an agreement in place, Obama will take credit for any forward movement in Iraq. Having said that, I don’t think Bush deserves any credit at all. But perhaps some of his people might. They won’t get any.

7) Lastly, I looked in vain for MSM or even sorta MSM discussions of this election in terms of misogyny or in terms of women’s issues. Crickets. Except for a wonderful post here on NQ by Bud White, there is very little out there. We should push BO on this issue at every opportunity and carefully monitor his administration. While everyone talked about race being the “unspoken issue” of the campaign, it got thoroughly aired. What was never spoken of was hate against women.

So far, only bloggers are addressing the issue, but here’s another one:

Grail Guardian is pointed:

There will never be a female President of the United States. There. I said it. Ladies, go home and grab your burkas and start cooking dinner for your man and popping out babies. You will never have equal pay for equal work, you will never be considered competent or capable at anything you ever do, and you stand no chance of ever getting anywhere unless it’s to a soccer or hockey game to cheer your (male) children on. Of course the laws will be wide open to allow you to abort female children so you don’t have to sully the landscape with them at all anymore.

How do I know? Because before even half the nation’s votes were tallied tonight, not only were all the major networks calling the race for Barack Obama, but the pundits are already discussing how Sarah Palin was John McCain’s downfall. Pundits attempting to defend her popularity with statistics were shot down on Fox News. That’s it – it’s over. You will not see another female Presidential candidate taken seriously in this country in our lifetimes. We’ll be lucky if we continue to see women continue to hold seats in the Senate and House after tonight. Female Governors? Forget about it. Palin won’t be re-elected there, because in spite of the fact that Alaska loved her (90% approval rating) just 4 months ago, she has been trashed and is now persona non grata in her own state courtesy of the Chosen One.

Time to saddle up. We need to demand BO own this issue since he’s knowingly benefitted from misogyny. At the very least, he should be required to choose some women for his administration. But we already know what his people said to just that request before: “you can’t have that.”

Lynette Long talked with a BO staffer and heard just that.

Think the Congressional Black Caucus might be willing to push for women? BO MIGHT listen to them.

According to Taheri, Jackson said Obama:

. . . promised “fundamental changes” in US foreign policy – saying America must “heal wounds” it has caused to other nations, revive its alliances and apologize for the “arrogance of the Bush administration.”

The most important change would occur in the Middle East, where “decades of putting Israel’s interests first” would end.

Jackson believes that, although “Zionists who have controlled American policy for decades” remain strong, they’ll lose a great deal of their clout when Barack Obama enters the White House.

Read the rest ->

Wow. I guess, for Jackson, “hymietown” is back. Didn’t Obama already get into trouble earlier this election season over remarks about Jerusalem? How about anti-Jewish material on his website? Regardless, such sweeping statements about Isreal, even using “Zionist” is telling about Jackson’s view of Jews. I bet he thinks all Jews are bankers who caused the mortgage meltdown (woooooo – I am being snarky, but would it really surprise anyone if this were the case?) And, just for the record, who is going to do all this “apologizing” Jackson talks about?

Buuuuuutt, you say, how can Jesse speak for Obama? Well, that’s also very interesting, and Jackson, of course, has a non-answer.

Jackson warns that he isn’t an Obama confidant or adviser, “just a supporter.” But he adds that Obama has been “a neighbor or, better still, a member of the family.” Jackson’s son has been a close friend of Obama for years, and Jackson’s daughter went to school with Obama’s wife Michelle.

“We helped him start his career,” says Jackson. “And then we were always there to help him move ahead. He is the continuation of our struggle for justice not only for the black people but also for all those who have been wronged.”

Look at that second paragraph again. Jackson sounds as if he not only feels Obama owes him but he also appropriates Obama himself into Jackson’s civil rights work. Looks like Jackson thinks he’s Obama’s daddy. Seriously, Jackson is trying to take credit for Obama’s political existence. Fair? I have no idea, but that statement reveals a real lack of finesse. Or maybe finesse isn’t the point.

Don’t forget, Jackson, the de facto “Black American leader,” also has Chicago roots; and his son JJ Jr, is an Obama campaign manager. While Jackson may be a loose cannon, I just can’t see him deliberately placing his son in a precarious position.

And for those of you who might think electing Obama will go a long way to healing the racial wounds of America, think again.

Will Obama’s election close the chapter of black grievances linked to memories of slavery? The reverend takes a deep breath and waits a long time before responding.

“No, that chapter won’t be closed,” he says. “However, Obama’s victory will be a huge step in the direction we have wanted America to take for decades.”

An Obama election will be a “huge step” but not enough. Never enough. Shelby Steele, a notable AA writer and thinker on “Black America” would say that Jackson is signaling that “white America” will never be off the hook. I read it the same way. That’s, well, astounding because Obama’s campaign has touted his ability to be “trans-racial” and “bring people together,” not letting the past rule the present kind of thing. And here is Jackson, promising otherwise. Hmmmmmm.

Jackson was asked about Obama’s potential policies on a variety of issues, and he carefully started with the “I’m only a supporter, not a policy maker” hedge. But his remarks sound more precise than vague wishes on Jackson’s part.

What does Jackson want an Obama economic program to include?

On the economic front, he hopes for “major changes in our trading policy.”

“We cannot continue with the open-door policy,” he says. “We need to protect our manufacturing industry against unfair competition that destroys American jobs and creates ill-paid jobs abroad.”

“Open door?” Is that relating to trade or immigration as it affects trade, or both?
And how is Jackson channeling Obama with regard to the Iraq war?

Taheri says:

His most surprising position concerns Iraq. He passionately denounces the toppling of Saddam Hussein as “an illegal and unjust act.” But he’s now sure that the United States “will have to remain in Iraq for a very long time.”

What of Obama’s promise to withdraw by 2010? Jackson believes that position will have to evolve, reflecting “realities on the ground.”

“We should work with our allies in Iraq to consolidate democratic institutions there,” he says. “We must help the people of Iraq decide and shape their future in accordance with their own culture and faith.”

And on Iran – what does his non-connection with Obama tell him about that?

On Iran, he strongly supports Obama’s idea of opening a direct dialogue with the leadership in Tehran. “We’ve got to talk to tell them what we want and hear what they want,” Jackson says. “Nothing is gained by not talking to others.”

Would that mean ignoring the four UN Security Council resolutions that demand an end to Iran’s uranium-enrichment program? Jackson says direct talks wouldn’t start without preparations.

“Barack wants an aggressive and dynamic diplomacy,” he says. “He also wants adequate preparatory work. We must enter the talks after the ground has been prepared,” he says.

Interestingly enough, Jackson doesn’t say WHO prepares the ground. Iran, for its part, thinks the US should abide by some preconditions. Newsbusters notes:

Vice President for Media Affairs Mehdi Kalhor said on Saturday that Iran has set two preconditions for holding talks with the United States of America.

In an exclusive interview with the Islamic Republic News Agency, he said as long as U.S. forces have not left the Middle East region and continues its support for the Zionist regime, talks between Iran and U.S. is off the agenda.
——————————-
On Saturday, Kalhor said Tehran would accept ‘repentance’ on behalf of the US government toward the Iranian people.

“Negotiations would be rational if the US moves out of the Middle East and the US government gives up its widespread support for the Zionist regime,” he said.

Apologies? Zionists? Well, remember what Jackson said:

. . . promised “fundamental changes” in US foreign policy – saying America must “heal wounds” it has caused to other nations, revive its alliances and apologize for the “arrogance of the Bush administration.”

The most important change would occur in the Middle East, where “decades of putting Israel’s interests first” would end.

Jackson believes that, although “Zionists who have controlled American policy for decades” remain strong, they’ll lose a great deal of their clout when Barack Obama enters the White House

Is this a response to Obama’s statement about meeting Iran without preconditions? And Obama’s vision for Israel, via Jackson?

“Bush was so afraid of a snafu and of upsetting Israel that he gave the whole thing a miss,” Jackson says. “Barack will change that,” because, as long as the Palestinians haven’t seen justice, the Middle East will “remain a source of danger to us all.”

“Barack is determined to repair our relations with the world of Islam and Muslims,” Jackson says. “Thanks to his background and ecumenical approach, he knows how Muslims feel while remaining committed to his own faith.”

Thanks to his BACKGROUND? Obama swears he’s not a muslim, so this must mean his years in Indonesia, right? Ecumenical approach? BLT is ecumenical? Since when? BLT at least excoriates whites, Jews and many other AAs. How ecumenical is that? Or is ecumenical a euphemism for humping the pulpit? (Want to see Rev Wright “riding dirty” again?)

Now, all this is verrrrrrry interesting. Is Jackson acting as a surrogate? His son, an Obama campaign manager, famously said the campaign had to figure out how to attack a white woman (Hillary) in a “post OJ world.” Jackson supposedly went off the reservation sometime later with his “cutting” remarks, accidentally or not, caught on camera and has remained relatively quiet since then. So why is he talking now?

If Jackson IS a surrogate of the easily denied variety, his remarks are worthy of comment although the campaign will surely disavow. The tone of his remarks as well as the substance are likely to offend many Americans. But since campaigns constantly toss out “trial balloons” via the easily denied surrogate, Jackson’s remarks will definitely present just such an opportunity, regardless.

But what if Jackson is lobbing spitballs? If his earlier remark about Obama’s dangles more accurately reflects the reality of the relationship, is this interview his “scissors?” Is Jackson trying to assert authority? Or is he trying to steer Obama’s choices by making public what he feels Obama cannot get away with and enable him to thus get “half a loaf?” And why THIS reporter and THIS paper?

The author, Amir Taheri, is the columnist who broke the story about Obama telling Iraqi leaders to “wait for the next administration.” Presumably, Taheri is no particular friend of the Obama campaign. Odd that Jackson would have consented to an interview with this particular journalist – even more so when you remember Jackson never met a microphone or podium he didn’t want to preen for. He could have talked to anyone. He talked to Taheri.

“Obama is about change,” Jackson told me in a wide-ranging conversation. “And the change that Obama promises is not limited to what we do in America itself. It is a change of the way America looks at the world and its place in it.”

Is the NYPost the only paper covering the World Policy Forum? You know how Marshall McLuhan famously said “the medium IS the message?” In this case, I think it is as important to ask why Jackson chose this venue as it is to parse his words.

Of course, maybe the Post is the only paper covering this hugely important gathering on the French seaside.

Still, Jackson’s remarks are incendiary in terms of foreign policy and current US relationships. I doubt they’ll play well here at home – so why make them? Is it all a smoke screen? Or is it dead on? Either way, I don’t like the feelings these remarks give me.

There’s much not to like. Jackson’s vague status with Obama makes it difficult to infer from these remarks Obama’s positions. That’s on purpose. The remarks themselves signal some potentially huge shifts in US policy. I’m also not at all comfortable with the idea that such a shift could actually be signaled by Jackson before the US electorate votes.

And I don’t like the tone. The notable thing about his tone is Jackson is both accusatory and promising apologies. Jackson accuses his own country of gross misconduct and promises some form of repentance. Think Jackson will be the one Obama sends over to apologize? It would serve him right, but Jackson has always felt more sinned against than sinning and his remarks reflect that. Jackson may feel his country needs to apologize, but he probably feels he should be on the receiving end of that apology. Forever.

I can tell you this: I will NEVER vote for Jim Clyburn again (he is my representative). He engaged in WILLFUL race-baiting, and completely manipulated what Bill Clinton said about Obama’s “fairy-tale” Iraqi War stance. I will never forgive him for the way he acted toward President Clinton.

And I will never forgive Obama for demeaning our only two-term Democratic President in four decades, a president who brought this country into fiscal responsibility, and prosperity. For whatever his faults (and they PALE in comparison to Bush’s, or even Pretender Obama), Clinton cared about the people of this country. He DID hear us, and acted accordingly.

Here is the video of President Clinton on GMA.

(H/T to TalkLeft for the video link. Big Tent Democrat had a GREAT piece on this yesterday. The link is HERE.)

It just makes me ill that this man, this great president, has been reduced by the likes of Obama and Axelrove, to defending himself against charges of racism. Bush really has made this the un-reality based community. It is nothing short of reprehensible on the part of the Obama campaign. Yet another reason for which I have no respect for Obama. That is another reason why he, too, will never get my vote, which I own.

Let’s not forget our good friends at memeorandum.com for Up-To-Date stories!

Barack’s looking real tired on the campaign trail. He forgets how many states we have. He says the problem in Afghanistan is that we don’t have enough Arabic speakers. Well, I guess if anybody actually spoke Arabic in Afghanistan, that might be a problem. I guess with a ‘mic’ in his hand, sans teleprompter, he doesn’t do so well. All Hillary’s fault.

“Can’t I just eat my waffle?” “You’re wearing me out, brother.” “Come on, guys. I just answered, like, eight questions.” “My uncle helped liberate Auschwitz” – uhh, well, no, he didn’t. Sorry if FISA is a deal breaker for you guys , but, you know, where else you gonna go? “…Get over it!” he said, at a meeting of the Congressional Black Caucus. Rep. Diane Watson warned Barack not to use that particular phrase …

Hillary’s fault!

Let him eat his waffle! Where did that sixty-year-old woman get the energy to go meet plant workers at shift change at 5:30 a.m.? Obama, 14 years her junior, was constantly exhausted and exasperated.

Primary going on too long. Creating a fissure in the party. Hillary’s fault.

Heaven forefend the American people, all of them in all 50 states – yes, Barry, that’s 50, not 57 – should actually have a say in who we choose as the standard bearer of our party.

Remember when Obama called Hillary supporter, PA Gov. Ed Rendell in early April saying “You know I’m going to be the nominee, right? You’re not going to do anything to make that difficult, right?” Barack must have been real pissed that he actually had to look like he was working for it.

Remember Barack’s piss poor debate performance on ABC in April – Hillary’s fault. She went after him too hard. He didn’t have time to do his homework. Yes, they really said that. Whatsamatter, Barry, can’t handle it without Campbell Brown fluffing your pillows?

I guess not, because Howard Dean forbade any more debates after that. Why? Afraid the citizenry would actually see the truth? That the inexperienced Senator Obama was and is in over his head. He could not even explain what a Capital Gains tax is – or that it is a tax.

How encouraging for us, considering that IndyMac just collapsed and the stock market is tanking and people are losing their homes. He has not addressed any of this. Friday, on talk radio, the endlessly entertaining Arianna Huffington suggested Barry give a speech on the subject. Just what we need – another speech from Barack Obama. Who will write it for him, since, clearly, he does not understand the economy – or appear too worried about it. But when millionaire Michelle thinks you’re going to take your rebate check and buy a $600 pair of earrings with it, what does that say?

Damn that white witch in a pantsuit, not just crumpling up like so much tissue paper. Damn her always being ready and en pointe with policy. Damn those great debating skills. Damn her that she actually has a solid point of view and isn’t afraid to tell you what it is. Damn her toughness, her record, her resilience, her compassion, her experience, her smarts and most of all, damn the fact that she actually gives a fig about regular working folks. Damn her for making Obama look pale – yes, I said pale – by comparison.

Didn’t she know the DNC had already fixed this for him???

No kidding. Donna Brazile with her plotting little Slate article dated Nov. 5, 2004, “Why Americans Hate Democrats—A Dialogue – Tapping into the Obama factor.”

Setting the stage.

The all but unprecedented move by John Kerry to hand pick a State Senator from Illinois – no, not a U.S. Senator, but someone in the Illinois State Senate – you know, the guys who are in session 55 days out of the year — to give a huge speech at the Democratic Convention in ’04.

Setting the stage.

How long ago was the date for the 2008 Democratic Convention chosen? The last week in August is pretty late in the calendar, no? I know it has occurred to more than a few out here that it is the 45th anniversary of the Rev. Martin Luther King’s “I Have A Dream” speech. Gosh, I wonder whose candidacy that is supposed to coincide with? How long do you think Dean, Pelosi, Brazile, Kerry & Co. have been rubbing their paws together plotting that one.

Setting the stage.

So if anyone wondered why Florida and Michigan delegates were given the death penalty way back when, in contravention of the Rules & By Laws Committee actual rules, which decree they can only be penalized by half, now you have your answer. If those two delegate rich states actually had even half their delegates when it counted for something, since Hillary was 20 points ahead in both, by the end of January, she would have won 4 out of 6 contests. Those wins, coupled with her momentum and important victories on Super Duper Tuesday would have sealed this thing up – for her.

Why do you think 3 other states were allowed to move their primaries up beyond the legal limit with no penalty? South Carolina, for one – a state with a very large African American population. Hmmm. Makes a girl think. Remember, Hillary was also supposed to lose New Hampshire by double digits – and won. Interesting that Jesse Jackson, Jr. and Donna Brazile were suddenly talking about tears for Katrina and the Bradley effect. Hmmm.

Even with his sweetheart ride in the press, backstabbing DNC party elites, all the money on the planet – probably sent from everywhere on the planet, dear Barack still couldn’t close the deal. Damn that Hillary.

Now that he has been ‘selected’ as the nominee, it seems he can’t raise funds the way he, and The Huffington Post, were bragging he could. I guess that’s Hillary’s fault, too.

Well, if Joan of Arc in a pantsuit is that all-powerful, then the weaker man should step aside, bow out for the good of the party, and let her do the job she is clearly ready, willing and more than able to do.

And she doesn’t even care if she gets to eat her waffle.

Hell, way back in 2005, even Senator McCain admitted she would make a good President – and got into hot water with his own party for doing so.

Tell you what, Senator Obama, you just high tail it back to Illinois and you can have all the waffles you want. Hillary will take the job. She actually knows how to help the ailing economy. If you doubt this, take a look at Hillary Clinton’s exclusive April 3rd interview with Jim Cramer of CNBC’s Mad Money, and Alegre’s “Unemployment Rising.”

And Senator Clinton actually has correct positions on Iraq, Iran and Afghanistan and has had them all along.

Senator Obama, what will happen if your Sunday pander to NASCAR fans fails?

Since you have so upset the Democratic base and many of your own supporters by reneging on FISA, public financing, womens’ rights, gun control, Iraq, Iran, not to mention endlessly angering Hillary’s supporters with your extremely disrespectful behavior toward her and them, where will you go? And who will you blame? Who is left?

Please. Tell me, Senator Obama. If the stress of your chickens coming home to roost grows a boil on your behind, will that be Hillary’s fault, too?