But then, my fellow NQ writer/friend, LisaB, alerted me to a story I missed in my own home town paper while I was out of town, which she found at Michell Malkin’s site. Now, you may recall that I have no love lost for this man who repeatedly stabbed the Clintons in the back before our primary last year, painting them as racists for stating actual facts (like that it takes a president to sign a bill into law - one would THINK a US Representative would be aware of that, but apparently, Rep. Clyburn does not know that). So, I was not at all surprised that he claimed in a recent Post and Courier article that Michelle Obama won’t come to SC because we’re all a bunch of racists and too hostile. Oh, how I wish I was making this up:

U.S. House Majority Whip Jim Clyburn said Friday that a conversation with White House staff left him with the sense that a hostile environment in South Carolina is keeping the first lady from visiting.

The high-ranking South Carolina Democrat said he has received more than 100 invitations for Michelle Obama. But this summer when he brought one of those requests to her staff on behalf of his alma mater, South Carolina State University, Clyburn said her security was an issue.

The conversation came after former Richland County GOP activist Rusty DePass suggested on Facebook in June that an escaped zoo gorilla was not harmful because it was probably one of Mrs. Obama’s ancestors. DePass’ comment was coupled with a remark in July from U.S. Sen. Jim DeMint, a Republican. DeMint said that beating the president’s health care plan would be a ‘Waterloo’ moment for Obama.

Congressman Joe Wilson’s ‘You lie!’ outburst during Obama’s joint address on health care reform last month didn’t help either, Clyburn said.

‘A lot of it has to do with the fact that the climate in South Carolina just is not good, and that’s a shame,’ Clyburn said at a roundtable discussion at his Columbia office.

‘I do believe it is keeping her away from this state,’ he said.

The congressman said the first lady’s family connections in South Carolina and her fond childhood memories from Georgetown County left many excited at the possibility that the Obamas would vacation on the coast here. Her security must be guaranteed before that could happen, Clyburn said.

DePass said Clyburn’s comments were off base.

‘The idea that people in South Carolina are hostile to the Obamas is poppycock,’ he said. ‘That’s utterly ridiculous.’

I concur. Just more race baiting from Rep. Clyburn. Oh, I am so proud that he speaks for me - NOT. But there’s more:

DePass apologized before the South Carolina Conference of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People for his Facebook comment, and reiterated that apology

Friday. He also said that his history with the Republican Party included reaching out to minority voters and trying to remove the Confederate battle flag from the Statehouse dome.

Wilson’s office also said Clyburn was wrong.

‘Congressman Wilson respectfully disagrees with Congressman Clyburn’s assumption,’ Wilson spokesman Ryan Murphy said in a statement. ‘He believes the people of South Carolina would welcome the president and the first lady should they decide to visit our great state.’

Neither the first lady’s press office nor the Secret Service provided comment for this story. DeMint’s office also did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

Pat Caddell of Hanahan, an expert on public opinion polls and a Democratic strategist, said South Carolina surely has racists among its residents, but racism isn’t the prevailing sentiment. ‘The Democratic Party will blow itself up if it keeps assigning things as racist,’ Caddell said. (Reach Yvonne Wenger at 803-926-7855 or ywenger@postandcourier.com.)

Sigh. I have to tell you, I am pretty damn sick and tired of being called a racist because I live in South Carolina for starters, but for any, ANY, questioning of President Obama’s policies (or lack thereof). For Rep. Clyburn to claim that the First Lady isn’t coming here, even though she has FAMILY here, because it’s “hostile” just makes me, well, “hostile!”

I had to read some of the comments at the end of the article to see what some of my fellow Palmetto State residents had to say. Three in particular caught my attention. The first is obviously in response to another comment:

treasured wrote:

regulardude…Please give us a break!

Was Obama’s negative remarks about the US to other countries patriotic?You get respect when respect is earned.

Just because he is the President does not mean that we have to agree with him and like you, we can voice our opinions and our concerns.

There have been many concerns about this President and they have not just been from SC.You are just reading articles from a SC paper.What is the difference in your remarks accusing us of not respecting the President and you obviously not respecting your own state that you insist on living in?Must be something you like about it.

I have grown children and I have a young child. As it stands right now, they and their children will have to pay back for many years all the money that Obama has dished out in his so called stimulus plans.

Now, if you want to sing his praises, well and good, but don’t call the rest of us unpatriotic if we don’t agree with what he is doing.That is our right as Americans.

And this one:

caberchucker wrote:
Yeah, that makes sense that she’s “scared” of the hostility in SC. Oh wait, didn’t the Obamas and Oprah have to move their rally to USC’s stadium while campaigning, so they could accomidate all the people? Nevermind, I guess that never actually happened.

Uh yeah, evidently not.

And finally, this one, which I think really hits at the core of this charge by Rep. Clyburn:

wonderdog wrote:
Clyburn is embarrassed because he got snubbed by the Obamas, so he made up this nonsense to make it appear that it’s somebody’s fault. If he can get enough people to buy into that BS, maybe he can convince himself, too.

Now that the Obamas have no more use to them after he played his role as patsy during the campaign, why should they deign to do anything that might help him in some way? But yes, so much easier - for Rep. Clyburn, that is - to blame it on the very people who sent him to D.C. Nice, really nice. Can’t wait to see what he calls us next!

What a welcome relief was this story in my local paper, about an Air Force officer who stepped in to handle a critical situation, and who sought no accolades for her actions. It took some time to actually determine her identity, and I’ll get to that. But first, what happened and what she did:

Bad day on highway? Call in the Air Force

Monday was a day of bad wrecks in North Charleston, but there was at least one angel wearing Air Force wings. She also was in full-speed running mode.

An unidentified Air Force officer helped clear more than a mile of stopped traffic on the Don Holt Bridge so an ambulance could get to the scene of an 18-wheeler wreck. (Photo by Peter Waters)

Then she left as suddenly as she came, without leaving a name. However, the image of that officer clearing cars, one by one, at a time when no one else was doing much, stayed with witness Peter Waters of Mount Pleasant.

“Everyone was sitting in their cars with no clue what to do,” said Waters, who was among the hundreds of drivers stuck for hours during the morning rush. People did nothing even as the ambulance’s lights and sirens flashed and blew, he said, trying to get through clogged lanes.

But things changed once the officer stepped forward.

“One by one, she directed each individual driver to move their car” so that the ambulance could gain a few feet, Waters said.

By prompting each car to inch into a more strategic spot, she opened a path until the ambulance finally made it to the scene, he said.

“Basically in about 10 to 15 minutes she cleared a mile of traffic,” said Waters, who served in the Air Force during the Vietnam War.

What was equally impressive, he said, was that once the ambulance got through all those cars, the officer turned and went all the way back to her car at a full run.

Wow - good for her! That is mighty impressive, but even more so when you read on:

“As she jogged by me, I held out my hand, said ‘great job.’ She said, thank you, and went jogging on back to her car,” Waters said.

“I just thought it was pretty impressive that she did it,” Waters said.

Even more impressive was that she did her run in full uniform, including blue pants, short-sleeve shirt and black standard military dress shoes.

Dang. How’d she do it? Judging from the photo, pretty easily, it seems.

Just to fill in the details, this is what happened to cause the accident in the first place:

The wreck was part of a string of collisions Monday that produced North Area gridlock. The first reports came from the Interstate 26 construction zone. Wrecks there caused a traffic backup nearly eight miles long involving at least three wrecks and 11 cars in the eastbound lanes of I-26, near Remount Road.

The other bad site was a three-car wreck that took place in the eastbound lanes of the Mark Clark Expressway at the Don Holt Bridge. That wreck had eastbound traffic stopped.

The driver of the 18-wheeler, who was assisted by the Air Force officer’s deeds, became involved as he was traveling in the outside and westbound lane of the Mark Clark. He wrecked after slamming on his brakes to avoid rear ending several vehicles stopped in front of him watching the wreck on the other side, police said.

The truck driver was thrown from the cab of the vehicle and landed in the outside “eastbound” lane. Authorities think the fact that traffic was stopped in the eastbound lanes probably saved the truck driver’s life. He was treated for non-life threatening injuries. His identification was unavailable.

Waters said Monday that the Air Force officer deserves a lot of individual credit for doing something when most everyone else on Monday sat dumbfounded in their vehicles.

“This is a perfect example of our military at work, doing a job that needed to be done and taking charge when no one asked,” he said. “There had to be a couple of thousand people on that bridge and she was the one that stepped up. There are unsung heroes out there every day.”

Mighty impressive. She acted like an officer, stepping in where there was a need, and showing real leadership, without wanting any acknowledgment for what she did - helping an ambulance get through to take care of an accident victim.

Well, turns out someone knew who she was, and this headline says a whole lot about her, too, “Captain Says She Did Not Act Alone.” Even after they find out who she is, she doesn’t want the spotlight totally on her. And here is a little bit about this Captain:

The Air Force captain who calmly took control of a traffic snarl and cleared a path for an ambulance to reach a Don Holt Bridge accident site is a C-17 pilot.

Capt. Kari Fleming is the officer who got out of her car during Monday’s morning rush hour and, one by one, prompted a line of halted drivers to move out the way.

Fleming confirmed to The Post and Courier she directed cars at the scene, but she declined to say much more. The Charleston Air Force Base public affairs office later released a statement attributed to her.

“If someone I loved were in the same situation as the gentleman in the accident, I’m sure someone else would have gotten out and done the same thing,” she said. “Besides me, there were two civilian gentlemen that also directed traffic.”

Fleming is a member of the 15th Airlift Squadron and has served more than six years in the Air Force, including the past four in Charleston. She declined to release any other biographical information, including her age or hometown. But government records indicate Fleming is no stranger to command.

She’s a 2003 graduate of the U.S. Air Force Academy who by 2008 had amassed more than 1,200 flying hours, including 900 in the C-17 and in combat missions. She also was one of several Air Force members discussed in a 2008 statement to a Senate committee by US Air Force Chief of Staff Gen. T. Michael Moseley.

Holy smokes - that is mighty impressive. In case you don’t know what a C-17 looks like, here it is:

(Photo by Ned Harris)

They are freakin’ HUGE planes - I see them often flying in the skies here, and never get over just how immense they are. Just the other day, while driving toward the airport, queried how in the world these planes stay up. Amazing. As is the rest of the story:

“Her missions have included, not only delivery of equipment and cargo, but aeromedical evacuation for a fallen airmen (sic) and operational airdrops. I was having a chat with her the other day and I asked her the last time she landed a big airplane in the dirt, and she says she’s done that quite often, landing it on dirt roads and riverbeds. So sir, that’s Capt. Kari Fleming, from Charleston Air Force Base.”

During Monday’s string of North Area traffic accidents, Fleming cleared about a mile of traffic in about 15 minutes. Afterward, she jogged back to her car, dressed in her Air Force blue uniform and shoes.

The driver of the 18-wheeler involved in the wreck, Stephen Fratwell of North Charleston, was treated at the scene for non-life-threatening injuries after being ejected from his rig.

This story does my heart good. An officer who does what needs to be done without being asked, and when identified, shares the spotlight, not wanting it to reflect upon her alone. How refreshing from what we have been experiencing so much of recently - people demanding the spotlight, taking others policies to get the spotlight, saying outlandish things to have the light turned on them. But not Captain Fleming. Not only does she fly a massive airplane, cool in and of itself, and has gone on all kinds of missions, but she dealt with a situation with calm, courtesy, and efficiency, running back a mile to her car in her dress shoes, which couldn’t have been comfortable.

Like I said above, what an impressive person. And what a nice change of pace. Job well done, Captain Fleming!

Update on Captain Fleming HERE (and photo credit).

I wonder where in the world God was when Governor Sanford was cheating on his wife with his “soul mate”?? Or how about the OTHER women with whom Governor Sanford had “dalliances“??

Seems to me that Governor Sanford has some mighty selective listening going on. I bet God is none too happy about having Sanford use Him/Her/It as an excuse to stay in office, either. At least that’s what God told ME! Ahem.

There are a few things that are issue here. Let’s start with this whole “soul mate” thing, shall we? Bear in mind that Sanford is MARRIED, and he is NOT saying this about his WIFE, but his MISTRESS. Then he has the unmitigated gall to say he is going to try and “fall back in love” with his wife? Holy smokes, what kind of moron IS he?? I’m sorry, but your wife tells you, and all the nation, that she is willing to forgive you, take you back, even though she is angry at you, and work on the marriage, and you dis her like that? Around these here parts, that will garner you a “sumabitch,” and well deserved, too. But Jenny is going with him and their four boys on a vacation to Florida. If I were her, I wouldn’t let him get in a boat by himself, but that’s just me.

Then there is the whole matter of what happens if the governor DOES resign, you know, if he misunderstood what God actually said to him(maybe there was another call coming in or something, or he hit a dead spot with his cell phone). See, here’s the problem for the people who would all move up: the Senate Pro Tempore President, Glenn McConnell, would move up to Lieutenant Governor:

If Sanford steps down and is replaced by Lt. Gov. Andre Bauer, then the state’s constitution appears to call on McConnell to replace Bauer as lieutenant governor.

In effect, the Charleston Republican would be demoted from his top Senate leadership post to a part-time constitutional officer, and it’s a change he doesn’t want.

Uh, yeah, because he would give up a whole TON of power:

“I don’t think any resignation by the governor is imminent, at least based on the latest stuff I’ve heard,” McConnell said Wednesday. “It does present problems for me, there’s no question about that.”

First elected President Pro Tem in 2001, McConnell said he began looking at this question a few years ago and actually wrote a resignation letter effective upon the lieutenant governor’s position becoming vacant. He since has torn it up.

“Right now the prevalent thinking in the legal circles is that if something like that were to happen, I could refuse it,” McConnell said. “There’s some that question that.”

McConnell said he wouldn’t want to give up his Senate seat and 28-plus years of seniority, and resigning his President Pro Tem post would leave the Legislature unable to return to session this year should lawmakers have to deal with a budget crisis or another urgent matter.

“It would leave the state in the precarious situation where if we have a budget shortfall, there would be no way for the General Assembly to get back,” McConnell said. “It starts to become legally entangled.”

I guess it’s good for HIM that God is talking with Mark these days.
Besides Jenny Sanford being willing to forgive her diarrhea mouth cheating husband, Gov. Sanford had some other good news. You may recall that a whole BUNCH of folks down here were upset about the possibility of his using state money and resources for his trysts. Turns out, he didn’t:

Gov. Mark Sanford used his own cash and connections to pay for secret hook-ups with his Argentine mistress, including one New York rendezvous the night before his wife was to arrive, authorities said Thursday.

A State Law Enforcement Division review of travel records found no criminal wrongdoing or evidence to suggest that the governor misused public funds during his affair with Maria Belen Chapur, SLED Director Reggie Lloyd said.

Sanford visited his lover twice in Argentina and three times in the Big Apple, Lloyd said. Sanford used his money or private funds to pay for everything but a June 2008 trip to Argentina.

You may not know that Sanford is known for penny pinching - that was his big thing when he was a State Representative, cutting out spending (he also self-imposed a term limit). So, ya know, that says a whole lot about just how much he was jonesing to see his “soul mate.” Sigh.

Hopefully, with the First Family of SC out of the state for their vacation, Governor Sanford will get some Pepto Bismol, and SHUT UP already about his Argentine mistress, the other women with whom he had dalliances, and get more even keeled. And hopefully, Jenny Sanford won’t take any more BS from this guy, and insist he tread the straight and narrow (teehee - that’s kinda funny for ME to say). And maybe, just maybe, the next time Governor Sanford feels compelled to “share” that he can die knowing he met his soul mate (I am not making that up: Link), he’ll be talking about his WIFE, and not his lover. I imagine that’s what Jenny hopes for, too…

Sen. John Kerry (D-Mass.) would like to amend that little joke he made earlier this week about Sarah Palin when he said he wished it had been the Alaska governor who had gone missing instead of South Carolina Gov. Mark Sanford.

“Too bad, if a governor had to go missing, it couldn’t have been the governor of Alaska. You know, Sarah Palin,” Kerry told a group of civic and business leaders on Tuesday, according to the Boston Herald. That, of course, was before he and the rest of us learned Sanford had lost himself in Argentina with his secret mistress.

Conservative women rushed to Palin’s defense after the Kerry joke. Ethel Fenig at American Thinker wrote, “Tee hee! Letterman, Kerry — all afraid of strong, independent women! Kerry should find a job with David Letterman — who would miss him?”

Heaven knows, they DO have a point - who even knew he was speaking to a group? Ahem.

But then, the Kerry people decided to comment further on the “joke”:

Kerry’s spokeswoman now tells The Sleuth the senator really didn’t mean what he said, though his clarification would hardly qualify as an apology.

“We stand corrected, the truth is every Democrat hopes Governor Palin is in the public eye for a long, long time, especially on the 2012 presidential ballot,” Kerry spokeswoman Jodi Seth says. “Lately it’s been Vice President Cheney that everyone hopes would lose the cameras and go for a long leisurely hike on the Appalachian Trail. And good grief, if anyone thinks John Kerry is afraid of strong, smart women, they sure haven’t met his brilliant wife and two independent daughters. It sounds like getting crushed these last two election cycles cost some of these Republicans their sense of humor.”

We’ll see how funny Palin finds this.

I see. So, apparently, they are planning to recycle all of the vicious rumors they trotted out this past time around, like how Sarah Palin banned a whole bunch of books while Mayor of Wasilla - which was quite prescient of her since some of them hadn’t even been WRITTEN yet. Or how about this one - and this was a GOOD one - it got all the anti-feminist feminists (you know the ones - the only liberated women can be liberals) in a tizzy: that she tried to charge rape victims the cost of the rape kits. According to Palin Rumors: Explorations, that us untrue:

No, she didn’t try to charge rape victims personally for rape kits. This is one of those complicated ones with a tiny hint of truth behind it. First, the Chief of Police in Wasilla (not Palin) did apparently have a policy of asking a victim’s health insurance to pay for the rape kit as part of the ER visit. This, it turns out, is policy in a number of states, including Missouri and North Carolina. Second, the way this became an issue was after the then-governor of Alaska signed a bill forbidding it; this law was signed before Palin was Governor and no one tried to reverse it while she was Governor. Third, what the CoP in Wasilla wanted to do was charge the perpetrator as part of restitution.

Or this one, that Palin believes dinosaurs walked the earth with Adam and Eve:

No, Sarah Palin doesn’t think that dinosaurs walked the earth with Adam and Eve 4000 years ago, In fact, this was a purposeful satire that comes from a post actually entitled Fake Governor Palin Quotes. This has, however, kept neither Matt Damon nor Maureen Dowd from propagating them as fact.

There are EIGHTY-FOUR such rumors about Sarah Palin at the Palin Rumors site, some true, but many false. Yet it seems to be the FALSE ones that get all the press, even when the press knows they are a bunch of hooey. Because that’s just how they roll these days.

And that is what makes me think that, hell yes, Sen. John Kerry is afraid of her, whether he has strong women around him or not. Because if he wasn’t, why start on her now? Yeah. He’s scared. And he’s also galvinizing people FOR her with such stupid comments. That just serves him right, if you ask me.

By the way, speaking of REAL comedians, if you ever get a chance to see Kathleen Madigcan’s special, “In Other Words,” she has a bit on John Kerry that is freakin’ hilarious (she, like many of us who voted for him, was a bit put out by the way he conducted himself while running against Bush. Speaking for myself, his blatant lie of counting every vote was a biggie - made me regret the money I sent him, and the vote I gave him since he couldn’t uphold even THAT promise. Sheesh.). Anyway, it is hysterical. She really captures his essence.

Oh, and Senator Kerry? Leave the jokes to the professionals, would ya??

I realize that title pretty much says it all, but here are some of the details to fill it in (from the AP article linked above):

South Carolina first lady Jenny Sanford sat in her oceanfront living room Friday, recalling how her husband repeatedly asked permission to visit his lover in the months after she discovered his affair.

“I said absolutely not. It’s one thing to forgive adultery; it’s another thing to condone it,” Jenny Sanford told The Associated Press during a 20-minute interview at the coastal home where she sought refuge with their four sons. They were her first extended comments on the affair.

She said that when her husband, Gov. Mark Sanford, inexplicably disappeared last week, she hoped he was hiking on the Appalachian Trail, as his staff told those who inquired about his absence. That he had dared to go to Argentina to see the other woman left her stunned.

“He was told in no uncertain terms not to see her,” she said in a strong, steady voice. “I was hoping he was on the Appalachian Trail. But I was not worried about his safety. I was hoping he was doing some real soul-searching somewhere and devastated to find out it was Argentina. It’s tragic.”

The Sanfords had separated about two weeks ago. The first lady said her husband told the family that he wanted some time away to work on writing a book and clear his head. “I had every hope he was not going to see her,” she said.

“You would think that a father who didn’t have contact with his children, if he wanted those children, he would toe the line a little bit,” she said.

The governor, who is staying at the official residence in Columbia, returned Wednesday to end days of speculation on his whereabouts, publicly confess his cheating and emotionally apologize.

Jenny Sanford, a Georgetown-educated, former Wall Street vice president, was not with her husband Wednesday during his pained public confession.

I have to say, it was mighty surprising to read that even SHE thought he was hiking on the Appalachian Trail. See, now, given what’s coming next, I can say I would have had a hard time believing that one:

Sanford said she discovered her husband’s affair early this year after coming across a copy of a letter to the mistress in one of his files in the governor’s mansion. He had asked her to find some financial information, she said, not an unusual request considering her heavy involvement in his career.

She would not comment on what was in the letter, except to say “enough to figure out an affair was going on.”

She felt “shocked and obviously deeply hurt. I didn’t think he had it in him,” she said. “It’s hard to find out your husband is not who you thought he was.”

The first lady said she confronted her husband immediately, and he agreed to end the affair. She said she wasn’t sure Friday whether he had done so.

“I guess that’s what we will have to see. I believe he has,” she said. “But he was down there for five days. I saw him yesterday and he is not staying here. We’ll just see what kind of spirit of reconciliation he has himself.”

The governor declined to discuss details of the letter and how he handled it with his wife.

Gee, really?? Can’t imagine why he would decline discussing the salacious details of his love letters to his paramour. Ahem:

“This goes into the personal zone,” Sanford said Friday. “I’d simply say that Jenny has been absolutely magnanimous and gracious as a wonderful Christian woman in this process.”

Jenny Sanford cried at the end of the interview, and said the couple have been to counseling.

“When I found out in January, we both indicated a willingness to continue working on the marriage, but there’s not room for three people in a marriage,” she said. “I’ve done everything in my power possibly to keep him from going to see her and to really make sure she was off the table, including asking him to leave.”

Told you this woman was no pushover, no wallflower, she. It is astonishing that the governor kept asking her to allow him to see his lover, isn’t it?? He’s damn lucky, it seems, that she didn’t throw him out on his keister long before this. Especially when he says crap like this:

About an hour after Jenny Sanford talked of her pain and feelings of betrayal, her husband brushed aside any suggestion he might immediately resign, citing the Bible and the story of David, who continued to lead after sleeping with another man’s wife, Bathsheba, having the husband slain, then marrying the widow.

“What I find interesting is the story of David, and the way in which he fell mightily — fell in very, very significant ways, but then picked up the pieces and built from there,” Sanford told members of his Cabinet in a session called so he could apologize to them in person and tell them the business of government must continue.

And he said all of that with a straight face?? REALLY??? That takes some kind of disconnected, De Nile, kind of hubris, doesn’t it? Seems like there are others, beside his wife, who aren’t buying that kind of hooey:

Some Republican leaders have called for Sanford to resign, and some lawmakers and watchdog groups are pressing for investigations into whether he improperly used state money.

Uh, yeah - those of us who pay taxes in SC would like to know that, too. Thanks for asking.

While the First Lady may care about that, too, it is not her overriding concern:

For Jenny Sanford, the focus is the couple’s four sons. During her interview, she wept as she displayed the stellar report cards earned by her eldest two sons at their private school in Columbia.

On the coffee table was a collection of devotional books, including a book of commentary on the Bible’s Book of Job, the story of a man whose faith God tests to the extreme.

“Parenting is the most important job there is, and what Mark has done has added a serious weight to that job,” she said.

I think most people would agree with that, even if we are uncomfortable with this level, or type, of religiosity. But hey - that’s this woman’s faith perspective, and apparently the place from which she draws strength. Whatever sustains her during this difficult time.

There was another article about First Lady Sanford in Friday’s paper, “Tough, Astute Jenny Sanford Let Her Man Stand By Himself.” It makes an interesting point right off the bat:

To those accustomed to watching betrayed first ladies smile stiffly through their husbands’ public confessions, the absence of Gov. Mark Sanford’s wife at the soul-baring news conference where he admitted to an affair with a woman in Argentina was striking.

Instead, she issued a tough-minded statement saying she had thrown her cheating husband out and told him to stop speaking to her while she tries to deal with his infidelity.

That came as no surprise to those who know this independently wealthy, Georgetown-educated former Wall Street executive. Around the state, Jenny Sanford is regarded as a strong-minded figure, accomplished and politically astute.

Jenny Sanford doesn’t have it in her to play the “namby-pamby Tammy Wynette,” said Donald Aiesi, a political scientist at Furman University in Greenville, the governor’s alma mater.

“She has very strong faith, very strong family values,” said Marjory Wentworth, a family friend who was appointed South Carolina’s poet laureate by the governor in 2003. “There’s no gray area about the things that matter to her.”

Many of Jenny Sanford’s counterparts have stood beside or behind their spouses for similar moments of scandal: When New Jersey Gov. Jim McGreevey outed himself as gay. When former New York Gov. Eliot Spitzer acknowledged he was the client of a call-girl ring. When Idaho Sen. Larry Craig denied trying to elicit sex in an airport men’s room.

Some of these political wives were bitterly criticized for subjecting themselves to such humiliation, as was Hillary Rodham Clinton, who stood by her husband, figuratively, if not literally, during some of the most fraught moments of the Monica Lewinsky scandal.

You know, I wonder how these women would have conducted themselves had they not been BLINDSIDED by their husbands’ infidelities, had they not been in shock at the time of these “confessions”? If they had had five or six months to hash this out with their husbands the way First Lady Sanford did, they may have chosen differently, too. I don’t know that much about many of the women listed above, but Hillary Clinton and Elizabeth Edwards were also successful women in their own right. They may have chosen to be absent from those press conferences, too. Instead:

Kendra Stewart, a political science professor at the College of Charleston, said Jenny Sanford was wise not to appear at her husband’s side.

“The women receive a lot of criticism and even mocking on ‘Saturday Night Live’ skits, criticism from woman’s groups and other folks,” she said. “People doing a lot of speculation about their expressions, what they were thinking. And by not being present, she removes all of that speculation.”

As for whether Jenny Sanford’s absence hurt her husband, Stewart said: “I’m not really sure any more damage could be done.”

In fact, the political scientist suggested that the 49-year-old governor might have helped himself somewhat by taking his lumps by himself, and not making his wife stand there the way other politicians in peril have done.

“In a way, I think the husbands took even more flak for their actions,” Stewart said, “because everyone had to watch their wives humiliated while they apologized.”

Uh, yeah - no kidding. Because they hadn’t already been humiliated enough, of course. But the matter was different with the First Lady:

During the painfully frank news conference, the governor said the first lady had known about the affair for five months. In her own statement, Jenny Sanford said: “We reached a point where I felt it was important to look my sons in the eyes and maintain my dignity, self-respect, and my basic sense of right and wrong. This trial separation was agreed to with the goal of ultimately strengthening our marriage.”

Unlike other political wives, “she is laying down conditions at the outset and being very specific and emphatic that he’s got to toe the line,” Aiesi said. “The other wives sort of stood there like submissive somehow. She didn’t take that approach. She said, ‘I love him. I want him back. But it depends on him.’ She’s holding the cards.”

On Thursday, Jenny Sanford spent part of the day with her husband at their coastal home. Later, she left with some children in her car for what she said was dinner and a boat ride. Asked if she would be staying with her husband, she said: “It’s a goal.”

“I’m going to do my best to work on my marriage,” she said. As for her husband’s political future: “His career is not a concern of mine. He’ll have to worry about that. I’m going to worry about my family and the character of my children.”

Yes, that does seem to be the prevailing them for her - her children. But she, like many partners who have been cheated upon, still loves her husband. I’m guessing he’s going to be doing a whole LOT of work to keep her, though. As mentioned above, the First Lady pretty much has it going on all by her own self:

Born Jennifer Sullivan, the first lady grew up near Chicago. Her grandfather founded the Skil Corp., a power tool manufacturer. She graduated from Georgetown University in 1984 with a degree in finance, then worked for the Wall Street investment banking firm Lazard Freres & Co., where she was a vice president in mergers and acquisitions. Mark Sanford was also working on Wall Street.

The couple have four school-age sons.

This will continue to be an unfolding saga, no doubt. And it is hard to deny the pain this woman, and her children are going through. But as many have pointed out, while all of this “Peyton Place” drama has been playing out all over the nation, there have been a whole bunch of things going on in Washington. Add in the deaths of three major cultural icons, and I would check my bank account balance were I you (you know, because the Prez and Congress have been left on their own in DC to do as they wish).

No doubt, some of my esteemed fellow writers will be dealing with just some of those goings-on, so for now, I can say that the First Lady may be a woman scorned, but she sure isn’t taking it lying down. Too bad these other women didn’t have the “luxury” of knowing about THEIR husbands affairs beforehand, too - maybe SNL wouldn’t have heaped more insult to the injury. Yeah, right.

(Photo above by National 9/11 Memorial)

And it has gotten worse with The State printing a whole bunch of emails sent between Sanford and his paramour. Emails that they have had in their possession for FIVE MONTHS. That’s kind of curious, isn’t it? They claim they were trying to “authenticate” them. Amazingly, they seemed to have done that in just a few days. Huh - that’s not the least bit coincidental, is it? Ahem.

Here is a good overview of the whole situation, including some of those emails:

Wow. It is astonishing how people can just implode, destroying their families, their careers, and their integrity, all in one fell swoop. Shocking.

And one of those people most affected is his wife, Jenny Sanford. The video above briefly alluded to her statement about the situation in the video above. I think given what she has gone through over the past 5 months, she deserves the space to have her version told in her own voice, “I Believe Mark Has Earned A Chance To Resurrect Our Marriage,” and here it is: South Carolina first lady Jenny Sanford issued the following statement Wednesday:

I would like to start by saying I love my husband and I believe I have put forth every effort possible to be the best wife I can be during our almost twenty years of marriage. As well, for the last fifteen years my husband has been fully engaged in public service to the citizens and taxpayers of this state and I have faithfully supported him in those efforts to the best of my ability. I have been and remain proud of his accomplishments and his service to this state.

I personally believe that the greatest legacy I will leave behind in this world is not the job I held on Wall Street, or the campaigns I managed for Mark, or the work I have done as First Lady or even the philanthropic activities in which I have been routinely engaged. Instead, the greatest legacy I will leave in this world is the character of the children I, or we, leave behind. It is for that reason that I deeply regret the recent actions of my husband Mark, and their potential damage to our children.

I believe wholeheartedly in the sanctity, dignity and importance of the institution of marriage. I believe that has been consistently reflected in my actions. When I found out about my husbands infidelity I worked immediately to first seek reconciliation through forgiveness, and then to work diligently to repair our marriage. We reached a point where I felt it was important to look my sons in the eyes and maintain my dignity, self-respect, and my basic sense of right and wrong. I therefore asked my husband to leave two weeks ago.

This trial separation was agreed to with the goal of ultimately strengthening our marriage. During this short separation it was agreed that Mark would not contact us. I kept this separation quiet out of respect of his public office and reputation, and in hopes of keeping our children from just this type of public exposure. Because of this separation, I did not know where he was in the past week.

I believe enduring love is primarily a commitment and an act of will, and for a marriage to be successful, that commitment must be reciprocal. I believe Mark has earned a chance to resurrect our marriage.

Psalm 127 states that sons are a gift from the Lord and children a reward from Him. I will continue to pour my energy into raising our sons to be honorable young men. I remain willing to forgive Mark completely for his indiscretions and to welcome him back, in time, if he continues to work toward reconciliation with a true spirit of humility and repentance.

This is a very painful time for us and I would humbly request now that members of the media respect the privacy of my boys and me as we struggle together to continue on with our lives and as I seek the wisdom of Solomon, the strength and patience of Job and the grace of God in helping to heal my family.

The pain the First Lady is in just pours off the page. How sad, for her, and for her family, especially to have their personal issues played out across the screen and page all across the nation. Unfortunately, Jenny Sanford has joined an exclusive club, one which includes members Hillary Clinton and Elizabeth Edwards. Her personal pain has been writ large. She, like the others, is handling it with grace. She, like the others, was successful in her own right, and helped her husand to be successful, as well And like the others, it seems she is willing to give her husband another chance, which is her CHOICE. As much as it might upset some of us that people stay with partners who cheat, the reality is that the women mentioned above are FAR from alone.

Bottom line, this is a sad situation insofar as this one man’s selfish actions have had a rippling affect far greater than the man himself, who is only a man after all (meaning he is just a human being), for himself, his family, his position, and his party. People are people, and sometimes, okay, a lot of times, that means they do stupid, short-sighted things, and think with a different part of their anatomy than their brains. Most, though, don’t have it played out on a national stage, nor do their wronged partners. THAT is the hard part, especially for those most closely affected: Jenny Sanford and her sons.

Bless your heart, First Lady Sanford, you didn’t deserve this public humiliation you are having to endure, nor do your children. Whatever your choice ends up being about your marriage, you have every right to make it, even if it is to “stand by your man.” Every relationship is different, and no one knows what the day-to-day nitty gritty aspects of that relationship are. So, no matter HOW it looks to us on the inside, WE are not the ones living it - you are. I hope you can discern what is truly best for you and your family without the clamoring voices influencing you too much. It is YOUR life, and your children’s lives. Do what’s best for y’all, and don’t let all of the nosey Nellies influence you. All the best to you as you and your family work this out, whatever the end results of that work may be…

No one knew where he was. No one. Not his wife. Not his security detail. Not the lieutenant governor, no one. To say it’s raised more than a few eyebrows in these here parts is just a bit of an understatement.

To give you a bit of a backstory, Governor Sanford has had a few defeats here recently. There was the whole not wanting any federal stimulus money - the Legislature said, “yes we do.” And he had a big string of defeats when the Legislature overturned every single one of his vetos, ten in number. So, according to the story in the Post and Courier (linked above):

He told his staff he might go hiking.

“But I said ‘no’ I wanted to do something exotic … It’s a great city,” he said during an interview at the Hartsville-Jackson International Airport.

Sanford said he was alone on the trip and declined to give any additional details other than to say he drove along the coastline.

He told the reporter he didn’t know why his staff told reporters he was on the Appalachian Trail.

Uh, yeah- because Buenos Aires is hardly the Appalachian Trail…

All manner of folks are weighing in on this, including our former (Dem) governor, Jim Hodges. Republicans and Democrats alike think it was irresponsible for him to call off his security detail, and provide NO means of communicating with him, especially as Gov Hodges said:

“You never know when a crisis is going to strike the state or the country; you can’t afford to be out of touch when that happens.”

He makes a good point, especially given Gov. Sanford had, as I said, no security detail at all. Even Republicans are upset with him, with one of our representatives, the House Speaker, Bobby Harrell, weighing in:

“If a governor is going to go off by himself where he cannot be reached and without his security, then he should have to transfer that authority during that period of time,” Harrell said. “But the real answer is a governor shouldn’t do those things.”

Yeah, probably not. But here’s the thing: apparently, Governor Sanford did not violate the State Constitution. According to the article:

Nothing in the state constitution requires the governor to announce his travel plans, or even to declare when he is out of state.

In fact, beyond the line of succession, the constitution is vague on many of the movements surrounding the governor, though it does allow for the lieutenant governor to take over in the governor’s absence during an emergency.

Article 4, Section 11 covers only the “removal of the Governor from office by impeachment, death, resignation, disqualification, disability, or removal from the State, (that) the Lieutenant Governor shall be Governor.”

It reads that “In the case of the temporary disability of the Governor and in the event of the temporary absence of the Governor from the State, the Lieutenant Governor shall have full authority to act in an emergency.”

Temporary absence and temporary disability are not defined further.

An attorney general’s opinion from the 1970s concluded that the lieutenant governor possesses authority to extradite prisoners in the governor’s absence. The lieutenant governor can determine when an emergency exists, it said.

Was it smart? No. Irresponsible? Yes. Mind-boggling? You betcha. But it wasn’t illegal. It just doesn’t make much sense. And what it did was make a governor who has been seen as a fair governor look like a nutjob. And don’t think the Post and Courier didn’t point that out. From here on out, Governor Sanford is going to be linked with the following governors: A LOOK AT ODD BEHAVIOR BY U.S. GOVERNORS

South Carolina’s chief executive isn’t the first to earn headlines for acting odd.

A look at governors’ unusual behavior:

EARL LONG; GOVERNOR OF LOUISIANA, 1939-1940, 1948-1952, 1956-1960: Long had an affair with a stripper, Blaze Starr. In 1959, Earl got into arguments with legislators at the State House and his wife at the mansion. He was committed to the State Hospital for the Insane but released after using his authority as governor. He removed the hospital director and replaced him with a doctor who was his ally.

JIMMIE DAVIS; LOUISIANA GOVERNOR, 1944-1948 and 1960-1964: Well known as the “Singing Governor,” Davis gained international fame with his version of the song “You Are My Sunshine.” Even while serving as governor, he kept his hand in show business and set a record for absenteeism during his first term with trips to Hollywood to make Western “horse operas.”

LESTER MADDOX; GEORGIA GOVERNOR, 1967-1971: Maddox was known for quaint sayings, such as calling constituents “little people,” and outrageous gestures such as riding a bicycle backward.

JESSE VENTURA; MINNESOTA GOVERNOR, 1999-2003: Ventura traded his pinstriped suits for referee stripes when he took part in a WWE “SummerSlam” event in Minneapolis. Later in his term, he moonlighted as a football commentator for the failed XFL. He also tried to make Capitol reporters wear press credentials dubbing them “Jackals.”

ROD BLAGOJEVICH; ILLINOIS GOVERNOR, 2003-2009: After his ouster from office, Blagojevich joined the Second City comedy troupe for a performance of its show “Rod Blagojevich Superstar.” He also planned to appear on NBC’s “I’m a Celebrity … Get Me Out of Here!” until a judge ruled that he couldn’t leave the country while awaiting trial on federal corruption charges.

ELIOT SPITZER; NEW YORK GOVERNOR, 2007-2008: Elected on an anti-corruption platform, Spitzer resigned after becoming embroiled in an investigation into a high-end prostitution ring. Referred to in court papers as “Client-9,” Spitzer spent tens of thousands of dollars to arrange visits with prostitutes, law enforcement officials said. Prosecutors ultimately declined to file criminal charges.

Oh, joy. Like this state doesn’t have enough to deal with in terms of education (the state sucks at it), hurricanes (we get a lot of them), tons of mercury in the water (maybe that’s the problem, and not the education - people eating mercury tainted fish), and now a Runaway Governor to go along with those (and many other) problems. Sigh.

Well, at least we have the Tall Ships arriving in Charleston from around the world to take our minds off of Governor Waldo. Though, I gotta tell you, those Russian sailors aren’t too used to our heat and humidity. To add insult to injury, they had to limp into harbor with a broken foremast. Imagine fixing that mast, when you’re from Russia, in mid-90 degree heat, and probably 150 degree humidity (okay, okay, that’s a slight exaggeration…). But they aren’t facing as much heat as Governor Sanford is, and at least they get that nice breeze off the water…

UPDATE: H/T to American Girl in Italy for the heads up that Governor Sanford has admitted he was having an affair. Yep. For a YEAR. He went off to see his lady friend. Holy smokes - WHEN will these people EVER learn??? Here’s the skinny:

In an emotional news conference, Sanford said his relationship with the woman in Argentina would not work, but would not say if it was over. He did not name the woman, but said he met her eight years ago, although their casual friendship evolved into a romantic relationship about a year ago.

“The bottom line is this: I have been unfaithful to my wife,” the two-term governor said before a mass of press in the State House outside the governor’s office. “Let me apologize to my wife Jenny and my four boys … for letting them down.”

Asked directly if he and first lady Jenny Sanford are separated, Sanford said: “I don’t know how you want to define that. I’m here and she’s there. I guess in a formal sense we are not.”

Sanford acknowledged he misled his staff earlier this week when he lead them to believe he was hiking the Appalachian Trail.

Sanford said he would resign as chairman of the Republican Governor’s Association — a platform he has used over the past few months to broadcast his opposition to President Barack Obama’s economic stimulus package and fueling speculation that Sanford was considering a 2012 run for president.

But Sanford did not respond when asked if he would resign as governor.

Sanford fought back tears several times during a 20 minute news conference, especially when he mentioned his marriage counselor and his long time personal and political friend Tom Davis, Sanford’s former chief of staff.

Sanford’s relationship with the woman in Argentina became more sexually charged about a year ago, but Sanford’s wife did not learn of the affair until about five month sago. The Sanfords have since been in counseling.

In his apology, Sanford acknowledged not only all South Carolinians, but people of faith, people in his own party as well as his family.

He denied he had ever had other extramarital affairs.

“I’ve spent the last five days of my life crying in Argentina,” Sanford said. “I am committed to trying to get my heart right.”

Good grief. It raises a whole bunch of questions, of course, like one pointed out by AGII, who made such a big issue of this on the national stage? I might add, maybe he was hoping for the John Edwards’ treatment. You know, the MSM looks the other way for over a year until some gossip rag exposes him…

There were a number of interesting comments at this article, including some along this line:

EIG4 :Dear ‘ol Mark should have also apologized to the many gay folks around South Carolina for denying them the right to marriage citing the destruction of its “sanctity”…excuse me?! I do believe committing ADULTERY kind of makes you a hypocrite! Looks to me like marriage between a man and a woman is still quite full of sin. Thanks!

Uh, yeah, there’s that.

Anyway - Mystery solved. Governor Waldo was simply having a romantic tryst. No wonder he didn’t tell anyone, ESPECIALLY his wife. Ahem…

Wow. I imagine teachers everywhere just cringe when they hear about stories like this. Parents, too, I expect. And especially the latter when the child who was sexually assaulted says things like this:

The victim asked the judge not to give him the maximum sentence because he was a nice man.

Holy smokes. “A nice man.” Hardly. Her father didn’t think so, either. This was his response:

Her father then told the judge that his daughter was emotionally and psychologically scarred and that Judy had a power over her, Strickland said. (Strickland is the spokeswoman for that court district.)

I think we can agree that it goes without saying that the child is “emotionally and psychologically scarred…”

At least Judy acknowledged what he had done:

Judy admitted during the hearing to having sex with the girl, who was 14 at the time, and said he knew what he did was wrong, Strickland said.

I suppose that’s something. Better than him insisting the girl was lying, I guess.

Here’s the thing - this man COULD have gotten up to 20 years in prison. He has affected this child’s life in ways the extent of which cannot possibly known for years to come. Here are the legal particulars:

Tracy Lee Judy, 38, pleaded guilty to criminal solicitation of a minor and two counts of second-degree criminal sexual conduct with a minor during an emotional hearing that included testimony from the 15-year-old victim and her father.

Circuit Judge Perry Buckner sentenced Judy to five years in prison and two years probation upon completion of the prison sentence. He also will be on the sex offender registry for life.

Five years in prison, two on probation. That just does not sound like enough to me. And yes, I know he will have a tough time in prison. No doubt, he will be in Protective Custody. That may, or may not, save him. Inmates have their own codes, after all (I worked with prisoners, both men and women, and had the Protective Custody Unit as part of my duties, so I do actually have some experience with that. I just didn’t want you to think I was writing, “words, just words.” Ahem.).

Oh, and there is one other little piece of this:

Judy tried to kill himself by overdosing on painkillers on May 10, the night before his trial was to begin. In a four-page suicide note, Judy described himself as a mentally ill Gulf War veteran struggling with “panic anxiety disorder, depression, agoraphobia and other undetermined social disorders.”

As part of his sentence, Judy must receive counseling through Veterans Affairs, Strickland said.

Let me say right off the bat that I have no doubt whatsoever Judy is experiencing those symptoms. No doubt. And it is terrible the long-lasting effects too many of our men and women in uniform carry with them after their service is done. Too many denied or ignored or minimized by the very entity that sent them in. That being said, it is NOT an excuse for this man to sexually assault this child. Good that he is going to get counseling - clearly he needs it, as the list above indicates, as does the “undetermined social disorders,” though I think we have a BIT of a clue as to what ONE of those is, and it is no longer “undetermined”: child sexual molestation.

That girl is going to need therapy, too. Probably her parents will also have to participate. Even still, that girl’s life will never, never be the same again. Never.

How does this happen? The paper the next day had an article announcing that “Violent Crime Is Down 12%,” but rape is up. I’m sorry, but when, exactly, did rape not qualify as a “violent crime”???

This can happen because this kind of mindset is cumulative. You rank rape below, say, bank robbery; have a president make a huge speech abroad in which he minimizes women’s rights and human rights (”Yo, Bitches, Wear That Hijab,” and “Cairo: The Emptiness Of Obama’s Rhetoric” address that issue nicely); and a teacher who gets all of 5 years for repeated sexual molestation of a 14 year old girl. That is some message here in the Good Ol’U.S. of A. to women, isn’t it? (I have also written about the use of rape as war tactic, and the treatment of women in other countries numerous times before, but this time, my focus is closer to home.)

Judy gets 5 years in prison, probation, and on the Sex Offender Registry for sexually assaulting this child. And the girl gets life without parole.

Wow. So Ellen and Portia are still A-okay, it seems, along with 18,000 other people. And how about the rest of the people there?

This is disconcerting, to be sure, though not unexpected, I have to say. I wish it was different, but it isn’t.

What I do find incredibly curious is that NO ONE talks about Amendment 2 in Florida, which is equally as bad, if not worse. Why is that? It passed during the 2008 election, too, yet it is completely ignored. This was the concern in FL (and note the state that also has a ban mentioned in the following):

But opponents say the Florida Marriage Protection Amendment isn’t a gay issue, but rather a measure that could negatively affect many heterosexual couples as well.

They point to particular wording in the amendment that they say could lead to unmarried couples — gay and straight — losing hospital visitation rights, the ability to make emergency medical decisions, and domestic partner health benefits provided by employers.

The proof, they say, is what has happened in other states where similar amendments have passed.

Since Michigan voters approved a ”marriage protection” amendment in 2004, the state Supreme Court has struck down domestic partner benefits, including health insurance and pensions. A battle is also under way in Kentucky to eliminate domestic partner benefits for employees of state universities because of similar legislation.

”This amendment says that because marriage is between a man and a woman, nothing else counts,” said Derek Newton, campaign manager for Florida Red & Blue, the bipartisan organization running the SayNo2 campaign to defeat the amendment. “It could take away existing rights and benefits of Floridians.”

Wow - Michigan, too. And Virgina. South Carolina. A total of forty-one (41) states have defined marriage between a man and a woman.

I know we are supposed to be all excited that a whopping FIVE states consider LGBT people to be equal, but it seems with every step forward, there’s at least one step back. I guess all we can do is keep fighting for equal rights for all people. One day at a time, I reckon…

Here is how the AAPOR defines the Bradley effect on page 53 of the report:

the tendency for respondents to report a preference for a black candidate (Obama) but vote instead for a white opponent.

And here is what their extensive and rigorous report found (pages 53-54):

Several compelling pieces of evidence suggest that the New Hampshire estimation errors were probably not caused by the “Bradley effect” – or the tendency for respondents to report a preference for a black candidate (Obama) but vote instead for a white opponent. A meta-analysis by Hopkins (2008) indicates that while the Bradley effect did undermine some state-level polls in previous decades, there is no evidence for such an effect in recent years. In the 2008 general election, the very accurate final poll estimates of Barack Obama’s fairly decisive victory over John McCain dispelled suspicion that the Bradley effect was at play during the final weeks of the fall contest. There is also a conspicuous lack of evidence for a Bradley effect in the primary contests outside of New Hampshire. Of the 81 polls conducted during the final 30 days of the Iowa, South Carolina, California, and Wisconsin contests, the vast majority (86%) over-estimated Clinton’s relative vote share, while just 14% over-estimated Obama’s relative vote share. This finding is based on the signed direction of A for each survey.26 Furthermore, as reported in Table 3, poll estimates of Obama’s vote share in New Hampshire were quite accurate – it was only Clinton’s share that was consistently underestimated.

Here is Table 3 (page 14):

In poll after poll Hillary Cinton’s support was undersampled while Obama’s support was correctly sampled. It was not that her supporters lied to pollsters; they were simply not contacted.

Pollster.com offers this summary of the report:

• Given the compressed caucus and primary calendar, polls conducted before the New Hampshire primary may have ended too early to capture late shifts in the electorate’s preferences there.
• Most commercial polling firms conducted interviews on the first or second call, but respondents who required more effort to contact were more likely to support Senator Clinton. Instead of continuing to call their initial samples to reach these hard‐to‐contact people, pollsters typically added new households to the sample, skewing the results toward the opinions of those who were easy to reach on the phone, and who more typically supported Senator Obama.
• Non‐response patterns, identified by comparing characteristics of the pre‐election samples with the exit poll samples, suggest that some groups who supported Senator Clinton–such as union members and those with less education–were under‐ represented in pre‐election polls, possibly because they were more difficult to reach.
• Variations in likely voter models could explain some of the estimation problems in individual polls. Application of the Gallup likely larger error than was present in the unadjusted data. The influx of first-time voters may have had adverse effects on likely voter models.

Hillary’s base of women, blue collar workers, union members, single mothers and the elderly were simply too difficult to contact, while young Obama supporters were always available by telephone. It was not racism or the Bradley Effect that enabled Hillary to win New Hampshire; it was that the pollsters never spoke to her base.

But the media and the Obama campaign had to accuse New Hampshire Democratic Primary voters of racism in order to minimize Hillary’s victory and racialize the race before the South Carolina primary, where the majority of Democratic voters are African-American.

Here is Mickey Kaus of Slate on January 9, 2008:

1. Bradley Effect: It seemed like a nice wonky little point when Polipundit speculated on the Reverse Bradley Effect–the idea that Iowa’s public caucuses led Dem voters to demonstrate their lack of prejudice by caucusing for Obama. Now this is the CW of the hour. Polipundit wrote:

I suspect that Obama may have scored better than he would have in a secret-ballot election, and benefited from a Reverse Bradley Effect.

New Hampshire, of course, is a secret ballot election. Voters might have told pollsters one thing but done another in private.** New Hampshirites I ran into Tuesday night mentioned that the state was very late ratifying the MLK Holiday.

Here is Andrew Kohut in the New York Times on January 10, 2008:

To my mind all these factors deserve further study. But another possible explanation cannot be ignored — the longstanding pattern of pre-election polls overstating support for black candidates among white voters, particularly white voters who are poor.…

Poorer, less well-educated white people refuse surveys more often than affluent, better-educated whites. Polls generally adjust their samples for this tendency. But here’s the problem: these whites who do not respond to surveys tend to have more unfavorable views of blacks than respondents who do the interviews….

In New Hampshire, the ballots are still warm, so it’s hard to pinpoint the exact cause for the primary poll flop. But given the dearth of obvious explanations, serious consideration has to be given to the difficulties that race and class present to survey methodology.

Here is David Kuo of the Huffington Post as votes were counted during the New Hampshire Primary:

Tonight, despite all the talk of how little race matters in this campaign, it is clear that race is still a big deal in bi-racial campaigns. And it has showed up for the first time, in a measurable way, in the 2008 presidential race.

It means that every poll — from exit polls to tracking polls — are absolutely suspect from here on out.

Here are excerpts from MSNBC on the night of the New Hampshire Primary:

ROBINSON: Well, I‘ll tell you what some people will suspect. Here you have polls, you know, the day before the primary showing Obama way ahead. And he finishes, you know, 15 points lower than that. A lot of people will suspect a “Bradley effect.”

You know, Tom Bradley…

SCARBOROUGH: Oh, Tom Bradley. You‘re…

(CROSSTALK)

ROBINSON: Not the Bill Bradley effect. We were talking about Bill Bradley‘s endorsement being, you know, not necessarily the greatest thing. I‘m talking about Tom Bradley, the mayor—African-American mayor of Los Angeles years ago, ran for governor of California. Polls showed him on election eve that he was going to cruise to victory and he lost. And Doug Wilder of—the first…

SCARBOROUGH: Wait, wait, wait, but are you really saying right now that the people of New Hampshire may have—I won‘t say, be racist, but are you saying that they did not want to go in that booth and vote for a black man? …

BRIAN WILLIAMS, NBC ANCHOR: I was just going to say, I‘ve been listening to the panel. Number one, the “Bradley effect,” whether people are going to decide it was in effect in this case is very real and talked about among people in the political business. Let‘s not forget the Gantt race in North Carolina few years ago.…

CHUCK TODD, NBC NEWS POLITICAL DIRECTOR: Well, look, you can only go back—you know, and I go back in recent history and you try to find races where you had these gigantic poll shifts, where the final pre-election polls differed so dramatically from the actual result.

And the one thing they all have in common is something that Eugene Robinson brought up earlier, and that is race.

It was Tom Bradley in California governor‘s race in 1982. The polls had him ahead—ahead by a fairly healthy margin over George Deukmejian. He ended up losing.

And Virginia governor, 1989, Doug Wilder had a double digit lead going into the final—in the final weekend. He won by a very narrow 1 point margin.

Harvey Gant, the 1990 Senate race with Jesse Helms—one of the most divisive races, frankly, that this country had on race. That was, again, pre-election polls had Gant ahead, Helms wins.

So you can‘t help but look at that—and particularly you‘ve got to wonder what this sends—the message that this could send to African-American Democrats, who may look at this and say, well, of course, that‘s what happened. You know, a lot of times when I‘ve noticed this and when you talk to African-American Democrats, they sat here and they‘ll see this race stuff a lot quicker than us in white America. And I think that this is—it‘s at least, you‘ve got to explore it. You‘ve got to look at it. History has taught us this—recent history—when it‘s come to dealing with African-American candidates.

Here is Carol Costello, Andrew Kohut and Professor Charles Ogletree on CNN’s Situation Room on January 11, 2008:

I’m Wolf Blitzer.

You’re in THE SITUATION ROOM.

Is the U.S. ready for an African-American president?

Senator Barack Obama’s strong showing so far in this campaign has many saying absolutely, yes. Others, though, say it’s too soon to tell.

Carol Costello has been looking into this story for us — you’ve been talking to a lot of people supposedly knowledgeable on this very sensitive subject.

What are they telling you?

COSTELLO: Well, it is a sensitive subject, isn’t it?

You know, most I talked with today say it is too soon to tell.

Obama seems to have transcended race, but can he in the long run?

Already, critics say Obama’s opponents are trying to create this subtle narrative of racial division. They deny it, but it illustrates how hard it is in this country to take race out of the equation.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

COSTELLO (voice-over): The Iowa caucus created all kinds of excitement surrounding Barack Obama. His win in a predominantly white state and a strong showing in another seemingly proves it — Obama can transcend race. It’s something Obama has always believed could happen.

SEN. BARACK OBAMA (D), PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: If I have your support, if I have your energy and involvement and commitment and ideas, then I am here to tell you yes, we can in ‘08.

COSTELLO: Maybe. But there are those who feel while Iowa and New Hampshire prove Obama can certainly get white votes, it doesn’t mean he can continue the trend — that Obama’s second place finish in New Hampshire, despite polls that had him coming in first, illustrates the undercurrent about race that exists in this country.

Andrew Kohut, in charge of Pew Research, has a theory. He says many of those inclined to vote for Hillary Clinton in New Hampshire were poor, uneducated whites who don’t participate in polls and who often don’t vote for blacks.

ANDREW KOHUT, PRES., PEW RESEARCH CTR.: At least race should be considered because we know that the kinds of people drawn to Mrs. Clinton are always the kinds of people who turn down surveys at pretty high rates. We don’t know much about whether the people who we don’t get are like the people that we do get.

COSTELLO: Polls about race are notoriously difficult to analyze. Take this ABC/Washington Post poll conducted before the Iowa caucus. A whopping 88 percent of Americans said race would not matter in choosing a president. But pollsters say you have to take this result with a grain of salt. Few people are willing to tell a pollster they’re racist. It reflects the Bradley effect, after Tom Bradley, a black man who ran for governor in California in 1982. Most polls showed him leading but he lost to a white male candidate.

PROF. CHARLES OGLETREE, HARVARD LAW SCHOOL: Ask Tom Bradley when he ran for governor in California. Black man, thought he could win, he didn’t. Ask Harvey Gant in North Carolina. Ask Harold Ford, Jr.

COSTELLO: Look at the stats. There is one black governor in the United States. They are nine women governors. They are 16 senators who are women. And one black man, Barack Obama.

Still, Barack Obama got plenty of votes in New Hampshire and in Iowa, which are both 95 percent white.

You could say that trumps the poll, but there are many more people yet to vote and racial under currents that are so hard to predict.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

And here is the Obama campaign as discussed in an article by Ryan Lizza in the January 21, 2008, edition of the New Yorker:

Did Obama experience a similar fate in New Hampshire? The evidence is murky, but his campaign believes the question is important enough to warrant study. When I asked a senior Obama adviser whether the Bradley effect was a possible explanation for the gap between the final poll numbers, which showed Obama leading by an average of eight points, and the ultimate outcome, he replied, “Definitely.” He added, “If so, then the question is: what’s different between Iowa and New Hampshire? It could be that the socially acceptable thing in front of your neighbor at a caucus could be different than what you do in a secret ballot. Obviously, that’s something we’re going to be trying to figure out as we go forward, primarily through polling. I know people are working on ways of asking questions about getting at people’s attitudes about race. We’re working on this.”

In other words, the Obama campaign cited the Bradley Effect in order to explain a loss, and the sycophantic media repeated the notion again and again and again. Apparently they received the memo from David Axelrod as votes were counted in New Hampshire. Too bad real analysis reveals that the Bradley Effect had no impact on the New Hampshire Primary.

Will CNN apologize? Will MSNBC apologize? Will the New York Times apologize? Will Slate apologize? And is it not a coincidence that after the Obama campaign decided race was the reason he lost the NH primary that the Clintons were accused of racism by the Obama campaign during the South Carolina primary? All of it was debunked in the report released today by the AAPOR. Will Obama and Axelrod apologize to Hillary and Bill Clinton?

I doubt anyone will apologize, for no one in the Obama administration or in the Obamamedia cares about facts. But at least all of us know that those of us who voted for Hillary during the New Hampshire primary and during the other primaries are not racist. Will they apologize to us?

You know - we ragged on Bush constantly for his little jaunts and vacations. Funny, I don’t hear any of the Democrats talking smack about OBAMA already having taken TWO weekends away in less than a MONTH. Oh, right - Obama can do no wrong. I forgot. My bad. Ahem.

Getting back to the Porkulus Bill - once Obama signs it, the SECOND his hand finishes the signature, not only will we be in the hole for that $787 Billion, but we will have to borrow ONE TRILLION DOLLARS. Yes, I said one (1) TRILLION buckaroos. Yep! And where will we get that money? Who will lend it to us? Excellent question! Stu Barney said this morning that Japan is our biggest lender, but they are in the midst of a Depression, with a big “D.” So, don’t know how they will be able to pony up any more for our poor fiscal management.

And, the Stock Market has PLUNGED this morning as the Porkulus Bill is about to become law. Great. Way to stimulate the economy!

Oh, CRAP - maybe this IS their idea of “stimulus”!! To send it DOWN, not UP!! We are so screwed…

By the way, did you know that whole light rail thing in there is to have a high speed train go between Los Angeles and Las Vegas? Gee - I wonder who would have worked to get THAT in there. Hmm. Let me think. It couldn’t be the Mormon, Senate Majority Leader, REID who pushed for the Sin Express, could it?? Oh, no - I’m sure not.

While my senator, Lindsey Graham, is raising some eyebrows with his “Nationalize the Banks” cry, he gets it right in the following video when speaking back to Seantor Chuck “Chattering Class” Schumer:

Bottom line? We’re screwed. We’re screwed because the Party in Power is taking advantage of US because they can. We are going to be in debt for ages to come because of this Porkulus Bill, and the ADDITIONAL $1 Trillion we are going to have to borrow on top of that. The kicker is that this bill will do very little to actually stimulate the economy. That has nothing to do with Bipartisanship per se - it has to do with the Democrats taking advantage in a massive way, with little regard for restoring our economic security. That there was no bipartisanship of which to speak is unfortunate - yet another promise broken by The One. Not surprising though.

The bottom line is that this bill, soon to be a law, will do nothing to kick-start our economy, certainly not any time soon. Hey, I’m not the only one who thinks so. Go look at the freakin’ Dow - that tells the tale. And the tale it tells is a sad one - we’re screwed.

A “Savior-based” economy. Well, Heaven knows, Obama has certainly been set up as The Messiah, so it makes sense that this would be the kind of economy he would want. Ahem. (If you want to read the text of Gov. Sanford’s interview, please click HERE.) Bear in mind that SC has a very high unemployment rate right now, so we most definitely have a horse in this race. Gov. Sanford is not being a PollyAnna here. Rather than continue the band-aide mentality and prolong the agony like Japan did, Gov. Sanford wants to deal with the issues up front. The recovery would come sooner through the natural course of events (a bit of Darwinism, if you will), rather than prolonging it by continuing with the Stimulus Package that doesn’t do enough for job creation. It is an interesting take by the governor.

And another Southerner has spoken up, too. Rep. Heath Shuler, former NFL quarterback who is in his second term, represents the Western part of NC. And he supported Hillary Clinton for president. Well, he is taking Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid to task for their “failed leadership” in drafting this stimulus package. He claims they have failed by not engaging in a bi-partisan manner in detailing this package. He said in this AP article:

“In order for us to get the confidence of America, it has to be done in a bipartisan way,” Shuler said in Raleigh following an economic forum. “We have to have everyone - Democrats and Republicans standing on the stage with the administration - saying ‘We got something done that was efficient, stimulative and timely.’”

He continued:

“I truly feel that’s where maybe House leadership and Senate leadership have really failed,” Shuler said.

Wow. A Democrat who actually cares about fulfilling the promises made by Obama (though honestly - why did anyone believe him? There were NUMEROUS examples of Obama failing to work across the aisle during his exceedingly brief time in the Senate, unlike, say, CLINTON, who did actually work in a bi-partisan manner.).

Oh, and get this - Shuler thinks the package should actually be about job creation through infrastructure spending, though he was very concerned about the amount of debt the current package would create. Huh. What a concept. Shame that didn’t occur to any of these other bozos who allegedly represent us.

And I am sure you have heard by now about what else has been hidden in this package. Oh, this is a DOOZY. Seems there were some, um, INTERESTING little health care tidbits in the package the Senate is trying to ram through. Turns out there are three very odd components in there: 1. ration health care for senior citizens; 2. limit medical research; and 3. and monitoring doctors’ treatment decisions. You should hear the hooey being spewed by some of the senators I have seen today on how stuff like this got in there, and how they didn’t know if it was really there or not BECAUSE THEY HAVEN’T HAD TIME TO READ IT ALL!!!! Yet, they are VOTING on it this morning! As I have previously reported, there is all KINDS of pork built into this package, and now this on health care. Reports are that Tom Daschle got these items put in - which begs the question, HOW? He is not an elected official, and I am pretty sure he had already canned himself for the Health and Human Services job because he, too, is a tax evader (on a MASSIVE scale). Here is Megyn Kelly talking to Senator Arlen Specter about this add-in:

So, how did it get in there, then??? And, how are we to know if it is taken out? Since, as Senator Specter kept saying, this package is hundreds and hundreds of pages long, it seems to me that maybe, just MAYBE, SOMEONE could have taken the time to read the damn thing before they decided to vote on it. Oh, but that would mean “CATASTROPHE!!!!” to the country for them to actually take a day or two for them to have committee meetings and know what the hell is in there. How could I forget?? Pathetic. What a pathetic bunch of legislators they are. And Specter should be ashamed of himself for keeping his “commitment” to pass this package. His “commitment” SHOULD be to the people of the country. Funny how these senators and representatives keep forgetting that…

On a different note, wild fires continue to rage in Australia in an area beset with drought for a decade. Now they believe the fires were the work of an arsonist. Sadly, almost 200 people have died, some in the most horrific ways imaginable (trapped in their cars). Many people have lost their homes in these fires. It is a senseless tragedy, and if I may, let us just take a moment and remember that we are all connected. Even in the midst of the frustrations with our political leaders, our own economic or health concerns, let us remember that others are suffering, too, or have lost their lives, through no fault of their own. Rather, through an act, deliberate in nature, that has affected so many. And continues to do so, with thousands of firefighters working to squelch these flames. We are, all of us, connected.

My thoughts and prayers go out for those lost, and for those who have lost so much…May these fires be contained quickly, and with no more loss of life…

Well, golly gee willikers. What a surprise! It’s not like many of us have not been yelling this from the top of our lungs for MONTHS. Which is also why, not for nothing, many of us will never see Obama as legitimately elected. Heck - he wasn’t even nominated legitimately - why should his election be any different? But I digress. Ahem.

So, many of us have been writing, saying, talking about, the rampant voter registration fraud, and voter fraud that marred this election. It seems it may have occurred here, too:

As Charleston County’s Board of Elections and Voter Registration recently discussed the Nov. 4 election, board member June Smith noted the heavy turnout of college voters and observed, “They could just as easily have voted here and voted absentee in their own state.”

She’s right, election officials say, but it’s unclear how many, if any, did vote twice.

As states begin analyzing what changes would improve the voting process the next time around, they will decide if such duplicate voting is worthy of their attention.
(Previous Story: Registration rate for ages 18-24 double that of other age groups in S.C., published 10/12/08)

I’m sorry, WHAT?? They are trying to see if it is WORTH their attention?? When Georgia had over ONE HUNDRED THOUSAND intrastate votes (FL and OH from GA), is it really possible that they wondered if it was “WORTH” it to pursue the matter? I dunno, but that kinda seems like an affront to our very democracy. Oh, and illegal. Whatever.

And speaking of duplications:

State Election Commission public information officer Chris Whitmire said he hasn’t seen any recent analysis about duplicate voting, but two years ago, the state compared its voter registration rolls with those of Kentucky and Tennessee. It discovered about 14,000 South Carolina voters also were registered in one of those two states.

Of those, the state struck 5,659 from its rolls because their other registration appeared to be more current. It also sent a letter to them, and a handful wrote back that they needed to remain registered here, Whitmire said.

Kentucky later examined voter turnouts and discovered no one had voted there and in another state, according to Kentucky Secretary of State Trey Grayson’s office.

“Just because we have not seen this type of fraud in previous elections does not mean we should rest on our laurels,” Grayson said at the time. “We will be looking for other voter fraud prevention techniques, as well as other states with which we can compare data.”

Were you people REALLY not paying attention to ANYTHING that went on this year??? Does the name ACORN ring a bell?? Maybe you could take a little look-see at ACORN for rampant voter registration fraud, which resulted in ACORN being investigated in over 16 states (including South Carolina). That might just give you a little clue into possible “prevention” areas. I’ll spell it out for you: voter registration fraud, and voting in two states. Just a suggestion.

As a little reminder, check out some of the shenanigans of ACORN:

But hey - they are being really proactive:

This week, Grayson said Kentucky would continue to compare its most recent list of voters with lists from neighboring states, particularly the presidential battleground states of Ohio and Indiana.

Grayson said he became interested in the duplicate voting issue a few years ago after his parents offhandedly suggested that they could vote for him. This was after they moved from Kentucky to South Carolina.

“I said, ‘Wait a minute. You’re a South Carolina resident. You can’t vote for me. It would look really bad,’” he said. “I saw that they could have, if they wanted to, voted and probably would have gotten away with it.”

Well, that’s just jake! The Kentucky Secretary of State just acknowledged that there is pretty much a voting free-for-all. You can now vote in more than one state at the same time! Whee!!! Or maybe it is because it does not seem to be a problem everywhere:

Even though Kentucky didn’t find any case of duplicate voting, Grayson said it’s still a good idea to check with other states because dead weight on the voting rolls creates a potential for fraud and because both campaigns and states want the lists as accurate as possible.

All I can say is, I would certainly hope so! Sheesh, that seems like the LEAST they can do!

Now, the following I found to be of interest, and would love to see their data, how they obtained it, and what their methodology was:

That no duplicate voting was uncovered is not necessarily surprising.

A national 2007 study of election fraud done by the Brennan Center for Justice at the New York University School of Law concluded that double voting is rare.

“The scarcity (of double voting) is expected, given the severity of the penalty (criminal prosecution) and the meager nature of the payoff (one incremental vote),” its report, titled “The Truth About Voter Fraud,” said.

And it makes me question their conclusion. Do they think the 100,000 over-votes from GA, just GA, not even including the documented cases from, say, OH, don’t blow their conclusion out of the water? Then again, their report was SO 2007 - and from the Pre-Obama days, so hey - they may have been right then. Doesn’t seem so right now, though - maybe they want to re-do their study and include 2008? Just a thought.

Especially because of this next point:

Grayson said some in Congress are asking if the federal government should help out.

“Some people are asking the question should we go to a national system?” he said. “We’re probably in the ‘Is there a problem stage?’ and it may be that there’s not a solution to this.”

Whitmire said South Carolina has considered joining with Georgia and North Carolina to compare registration lists and voter turnout, but the idea never got beyond the discussion stage.

In Georgia’s case, attorneys advised the state not to participate because of a pending lawsuit involving Social Security numbers.

“The voter registration system is not Fort Knox,” Whitmire said. “Someone who wants to commit voter fraud could probably do it.”

“Some people may feel in their mind they should be allowed to vote in more than one place,” he added. “If there is a risk for being caught and prosecuted for that crime, you would weigh that against casting one vote in another state for president. Is it worth the risk? I would say no. I hope most people would think the same way.”

Reach Robert Behre at 937-5771 or at rbehre@postandcourier.com.

Sadly, in this past election, many people thought it was worth the risk. But what I find most troubling is this quote:

“Someone who wants to commit voter fraud could probably do it.

“Some people may feel in their mind they should be allowed to vote in more than one place,” he added.

Is he kidding me? Again, was he out of the planet during the course of this past election?? We saw rampant, MASSIVE, caucus fraud, in state after state after state (and explored in depth in the “We Will Not Be Silenced” documentary). We had freakin’ Marshall scholars ADMITTING to voting in two states. Oh, they admitted it from England - a bit far from the arm of the law. And their wealthy parents paid for wealthy attorneys, so they got off with a slap of the wrist. US Justice at work.

All of that is to say, I do not know in which universe Whitmire and Grayson live, but it sure isn’t the same one many of us endured this year. Because I tell you what, those thugs who bullied women in caucuses, as well as intimidated people from voting at all, and those who faked registrations do not seem like the type to worry all that much about duplicate voting. Hey, don’t take my word for it, take this guy’s:

And his:

So, yeah - I think it is time to take a little closer look at duplicate voting, and trying to ensure it does not happen - AGAIN. Oh, and intimidation and caucus fraud while you are at it. Just looking out for you, Mr. Grayson and Mr. Whitmire. And the rest of Americans who care about democracy.

Obama told MTV he believes marriage is “between a man and a woman” and that he is “not in favor of gay marriage.”

At the same time, Obama reiterated his opposition to Proposition 8, the California ballot measure which would eliminate a right to same-sex marriage that the state’s Supreme Court recently recognized.

“I’ve stated my opposition to this. I think it’s unnecessary,” Obama told MTV. “I believe marriage is between a man and a woman. I am not in favor of gay marriage. But when you start playing around with constitutions, just to prohibit somebody who cares about another person, it just seems to me that’s not what America’s about.”

In other words, he will triangulate on the backs of gay men, lesbians, transsexuals and Others in a vain attempt to curry favor with Christian conservatives and other assorted homophobes who will never vote for him. Some will call Obama’s heteronormativizing discourse nuanced, while those of us who are LGBT will view it for what it is: unrestrained and untempered homophobia couched in subtle but nonetheless injurious terms. Besides, his personal opinion on the matter is irrelevant. Indeed, it is a constitutional problem, a Civil Rights problem, not a problem of Barack Obama.

Barack Obama has a long and elaborate history of homophobia, while Sarah Palin, the Republican Vice Presidential candidate, has a record of vetoing homophobic legislation and of defending the rights of same sex couples. I revive an article I wrote on this subject last month:

——————————–

BARACK OBAMA’s COMPULSIVELY REPEATED GAY BASHING RISKS THE LOSS OF A KEY VOTING BLOCK

Obama never had the support of the LGBT community. Indeed, 63% of LGBT Democrats supported Hillary Clinton during the California primary, while a paltry 29% cast their votes for Barack Obama. I imagine LGBT support for Clinton was equally strong in other states, for according to a poll conducted last November, this constituency favored Clinton by a staggering 41 point margin.

There are reasons the LGBT community supported Clinton over Obama: Obama refused to be photographed with Gavin Newsom in 2004, when the San Francisco Mayor was the center of a national uproar for his support of gay marriage; Obama participated in a gay bashing “Gospel Tour” in South Carolina with Donnie McClurkin, an African-American minister who views homosexuality as a disease Jesus Christ can cure; Obama cites his Christianity when he mentions his opposition to gay marriage in his text entitled The Audacity of Hope; Obama stigmatizes and minoritizes gay marriage when he refers to it as such in his political speeches and texts; Obama admits to seeking spiritual counsel from a certain Rev. James T. Meeks, a homophobic minister in inner city Chicago who was named by the Southern Poverty Law Center as one of the “10 leading black religious voices in the anti-gay movement;” Obama refuses to march in gay pride parades; and Obama will not allow himself to be interviewed by the LGBT press. Because Obama has a record of homophobic speech, actions and affiliations, the LGBT community rallied behind Hillary Clinton. And they may rally behind McCain-Palin, for Obama’s continued disrespect for this constituency will compel many LGBT voters to reconsider their support for the homophobic Democrat.

Obama, according to The Advocate, will launch a gay bashing “Faith, Values and Family” tour with homophobic Catholic legal scholar Douglas Kmiec. I quote with added emphasis:

The Christian Broadcasting Network is reporting that the Obama campaign next week will kick off “Barack Obama: Faith, Family, and Values Tour,” designed to woo the votes of left-leaning Catholics, progressive Evangelicals, and some conservative mainline Protestants. If LGBT people find the tour eerily reminiscent of the South Carolina gospel tour the campaign arranged last year with antigay “ex-gay” gospel singer Donnie McClurkin, their instincts may not be far off.

CBN names Catholic legal scholar Douglas Kmiec as one of the religious surrogates who will hit the road stumping for Obama. Kmiec wrote a June 13 op-ed for the San Francisco Chronicle supporting California’s Proposition 8, the ballot measure to ban same-sex marriage, titled “On Same-Sex Marriage: Should California Amend Its Constitution? Say ‘No’ to the Brave New World.” Kmiec’s first two sentences in the piece read, “The California ballot initiative intended to set aside the state supreme court’s judicial invention of same-sex marriage deserves public support. Maybe it is enough to say, as many do in conversation, that it merely re-secures a millennia of tradition and common sense.”

Obama, in other words, will campaign with a legal scholar who believes “a millennia” of “tradition,” “common sense” and homophobia should be preserved. Kmiec, by the way, is the former constitutional legal counsel to Presidents Ronald Reagan and George H. W. Bush. Republican jurisprudence is the change in which the LGBT community can believe, I guess.

But it gets worse, for Kmiec writes the following in his 13 JUN op-ed for the San Francisco Chronicle. I quote with emphasis added again:

Separating marriage from procreation may also have other remote, but frightening, ill consequences. Society should be skeptical of wider use of asexual procreation. An earlier dark moment in U.S. history employed eugenics to forcibly sterilize the mentally disabled. The push for artificial wombs and the genetic manipulation of intelligence already peppers scientific literature - a push that would no doubt grow, accommodating even the minimal same-sex desire for simulating natural child birth - claimed to be of interest for 20-30 percent of same-sex couples. When carefully assessed, the acquisition of unnatural reproductive means often advances the interests of the very affluent through a libertarian exercise that would threaten all hope of democratic equality.

According to Kmiec, gay marriage is a harbinger for a social eugenics that manipulates the human genome in the name of maintaining social hierarchies. A threat to democracy, the LGBT community in Kmiec’s warped mind is attempting to eliminate the heterosexual population. Raising specters gleaned from science fiction novels, Kmiec stokes the fires of a fear of a queer planet.

For some reason Barack Obama finds this entirely acceptable. Indeed, Barack Obama desires to use the campaign funds he has collected from Democrats and from members of the LGBT community to give this Catholic legal scholar of the lunatic, Republican fringe a platform in Colorado, Indiana, North Carolina, Georgia, Michigan, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Missouri, Florida, New Mexico, Virginia and Wisconsin. If we witness a spike in hate crimes against the LGBT community in any of these states before votes are cast in November, we will only have Barack Obama and Douglas Kmiec to blame.

We also know who to blame if Barack Obama loses the general election. For the LGBT community does not take too kindly to gay bashing in the name of garnering votes from Evangelicals and other conservative Christians. Barack Obama never had our votes, and he certainly will not gain them if he continues to terrorize devout Christians with the specter of a queer planet.

Obama, by the way, refuses to attend LGBT Democratic events: Michelle Obama was the one who addressed the Gay & Lesbian Leadership Council of the Democratic National Committee in New York City in June, and she was the one who headlined the lunch for LGBT delegates in Denver during the August convention. Barack Obama was nowhere to be found. But then again, the man who has received spiritual guidance from homophobic ministers probably fears that the audience would try to genetically clone him into a gay man.

How odd it is that the Democratic Presidential candidate is a gay basher and the Republican Vice Presidential candidate is a woman who vetoed anti-gay legislation. While Obama is routinely criticized in the LGBT press for his homophobia, Sarah Palin receives accolades from Gay.com for joining the cause of the ACLU and nine homosexual couples employed by the state of Alaska and by the city of Anchorage. Perhaps the LGBT community is one of those constituencies Barack Obama and Donna Brazile believe they can shed as so much toxic waste from the Democratic Party’s past. If this is the case, then I guess the LGBT community should consider supporting the McCain-Palin ticket. After all, Palin supported the community while Obama was bashing it with Donnie McClurkin and Reverend James T. Meeks.

And now Obama will bash the community with the former legal counsel to the Bush and Reagan administrations in 12 states. While this may yield one or two Evangelical votes for Barack Obama, Obama’s continued and unrestrained gay bashing will also result in tens if not hundreds of thousands of LGBT votes for John McCain and Sarah Palin. For similar to the Evangelicals and conservative Christians Obama and Kmiec will court, the LGBT community votes “ALL our values.”

Also see Reverend Amy’s essay on Barack Obama’s second gay bashing tour.

—————————————–

Read Rabble Rouser Reverend Amy’s essays for more compelling reasons to reject and rebuff Barack Obama on the grounds that he is a raging homophobe who has a long record of bashing and exploiting the LGBT community.

Because Obama has a pattern of demonizing the LGBT community in a vain attempt to gain the support of Christian conservatives and others who will never support him, I ask the LGBT community to cast their votes for McCain/Palin or for a third party candidate who actually supports the community.

A vote for Obama aids and abets the gratuitous gay bashing of a representative of a Party that has traditionally defended our rights and freedoms. If we desire to ensure LGBT will have a voice in the Democratic Party, we will reject Barack Obama. It is really that simple.

In the Palmetto State, a new poll by the Charleston Post and Courier finds Senator McCain leading Senator Obama by 22 points, 59% to 37%. McCain leads among men by almost 2 to 1 and among independents in South Carolina, McCain leads by a 18 point margin.

A new poll shows that Republican John McCain might win South Carolina as handily as George W. Bush did four and eight years ago.

McCain had a 59 percent to 37 percent lead in this state over Democratic rival Barack Obama, according to a recent American Research Group poll. Four percent remained undecided.

McCain’s support was stronger among male voters and older voters, but 13 percent of Democrats also indicated they would vote for McCain. Only 2 percent of Republicans indicated they would vote for Obama.

Bush had a strong showing in South Carolina in 2000 and 2004, when he won by margins of roughly 3-2.

Some wondered if this year’s presidential race here might be closer because not only did Obama receive two times more votes than McCain in this state’s presidential primaries in January, but more voters cast ballots in the Democratic primary than in the Republican one.

But in recent weeks, the presidential campaigns have begun to focus more on the familiar battleground states such as Ohio and Florida.

While it’s unlikely that any candidates will visit — or even advertise much in — South Carolina,

Obama supporters have been conducting an aggressive voter registration push.

Also, the Obama campaign is opening up its Lowcountry campaign office today at 4925 Lacross Road in North Charleston.

Independents favored McCain by a 55-37 margin, with 7 percent undecided.

It appears that neither Libertarian candidate Bob Barr, who is visiting Charleston on Sept. 30, or independent candidate Ralph Nader will be a factor. Only 1 percent of independents said they would vote for someone other than McCain or Obama.

Meanwhile, McCain led Obama by a 54-42 margin among voters younger than 49, but that margin opened to 65-30 among voters over 50.

The poll also showed a sharp racial divide, with 80 percent of white voters favoring McCain and only 16 percent favoring Obama, while black voters here favor Obama by an 84-11 margin.

The poll sampled 600 voters between Sept. 14 and 17 and has a margin of error of 4 percentage points.

South Carolina has eight Electoral College votes. The state lasted voted for a Democrat in 1976.

From my blog, By The Fault.

You know, I was so happy when you endorsed and supported Senator Clinton. I thought you were a pretty decent guy, and seemed to make some good decisions. But I started to get an idea of how you really operate from the report of tax scandals, for starters, but then the way you could not WAIT to throw Hillary Clinton under the bus for Obama. That said a whole helluva lot to me about you and your character, none of it good. To recap, Rep. Rangel, you were a bit snarky. And now this - what the hell is the matter with you?

I swear, it is like respected members of the Democratic Party are taking on the thuggish, ill-mannered behavior of many of Obama’s minions. I expect better from them than this. A lot better.

Along those lines, to be bi-partisan, what the hell is wrong with CHUCK HAGEL? He, too, made some stupid, ill-informed comment about Gov. Palin, the VP candidate for his own PARTY. Yes. First he said he doubted she had the experience to be vice president, especially in terms of foreign policy. Well, okey dokey - way to be a team player, there Chuck! Oh, don’t think that’s all - he also made fun of her claiming she said she could see Russia from her house. Really, Chuck? Did you not SEE the whole interview?

I have to say, it kinda makes me wonder about Chuck considering his relationship to Obama and the voting machines-formerly-known-as-Diebold. You know, that he is saying this kind of crap about his party’s VP candidate. Just coincidence? Maybe, but it makes me a tad suspicious. And I noticed that Chuck hasn’t made any kind of similar statements about OBAMA’S lack of experience in foreign policy! Does he think that being on that little junket with Obama this summer is sufficient “foreign policy” experience??? But Palin’s going to Kuwait and Germany, plus having to be on constant alert because of the proximity of Russia doesn’t count for ANYTHING? Some double standard that.

And while we are talking about experience, I would like to bring the national down to the local. As some of you may know, Charleston had a horrible fire not too long ago, in which a number of fire-fighters were killed. It was the largest number since 9/11 of firefighters killed in one situation. As it turned out, there were things that could have been handled better. To make a long story short, the fire chief stepped down, and they have narrowed down their list of candidates. Wanna know what the main thing was on which they focused on the news last night and in the paper today? Experience. They list the name, the location in which the person is currently serving, and the length of time they have been in fire service. The LOWEST number of years is 30 - that’s THIRTY years. To be a fire chief. In a medium sized city. I am the first to say, I WANT my fire chief to be experienced - hell to the YES, I do. Lives depend on that level of experience. And I am sure you see where I am going with this. I want my PRESIDENT to be experienced, too. I want him/her to have experience delegating, fixing, maintaining, reforming, creating whatever needs to be delegated, fixed, maintained, reformed, and created. Being smart doesn’t hurt. Yes, Senator CLINTON fits the bill - and had the DNC not acted so immorally and unethically, she would be the hands down winner. But they did, and she isn’t. I will never forgive them for destroying the Party of the People the way that they have.

But, what real-life executive experience does Obama bring to the table? None. Well, unless you count trying to strong arm state senators to do his bidding in IL, against the wishes of their own constituents, as indicated here(H/T to alert reader at NQ - Freedom Eagle? Sorry -can’t remember for sure):

And the story doesn’t end with Obama’s support for set-asides. A Chicago Defender story of 1999 features a front-page picture of Obama beside the headline, “Obama: Illinois Black Caucus is broken.” In the accompanying article, although Obama denies demanding that black legislators march in perfect lockstep, he expresses anger that black state senators have failed to unite for the purpose of placing a newly approved riverboat casino in a minority neighborhood. The failed casino vote, Obama argues, means that the black caucus “is broken and needs to unite for the common good of the African-American community.” Obama continues, “The problem right now is that we don’t have a unified agenda that’s enforced back in the community and is clearly articulated. Everybody tends to be lone agents in these situations.”

Speaking in reply to Obama was Mary E. Flowers, an African-American state senator who apparently broke black caucus discipline and voted to approve the casino’s location in a nonminority area. Said Flowers: “The Black Caucus is from different tribes, different walks of life. I don’t expect all of the whites to vote alike.  .  .  .  Why is it that all of us should walk alike, talk alike and vote alike?  .  .  .  I was chosen by my constituents to represent them, and that is what I try to do.” Given Obama’s supposedly post-racial politics, it is notable that he should be the one demanding enforcement of a black political agenda against “lone agents,” while another black legislator appeals to Obama to leave her free to represent her constituents, black or white, as she sees fit.

Oh, what the hell - here’s a bonus quote:

When the 2000 census revealed dramatic growth in Chicago’s Hispanic and Asian populations alongside a decline in the number of African Americans, the Illinois black caucus was alarmed at the prospect that the number of blacks in the Illinois General Assembly might decline. At that point, Obama stepped to the forefront of the effort to preserve as many black seats as possible. The Defender quotes Obama as saying that, “while everyone agrees that the Hispanic population has grown, they cannot expand by taking African-American seats.” As in the casino dispute, Obama stressed black unity, pushing a plan that would modestly increase the white, Hispanic, and Asian population in what would continue to be the same number of safe black districts. As Obama put it: “An incumbent African-American legislator with a 90 percent district may feel good about his reelection chances, but we as a community would probably be better off if we had two African-American legislators with 60 percent each.”

Someone want to tell me again how Obama sitting in the pew at TUCC for over 20 years was NOT affecting his politics??

But I digress - experience. Obama is sorely lacking in it, and it would behoove both Charlie and Chuck to keep their yaps shut lest the glaring jackass in the room is actually discussed by, oh, I don’t know, the MEDIA?!?!?! Just a thought. In any event, you “gentlemen” do not reflect well on your respective parties, or on your chosen (apparently, for Chuck, definitely for Charlie) candidate. Try a bit of decorum, would you? It couldn’t hurt, and elevating the gutter politics in which Obama and his minions have engaged would be a blessed relief. Just sayin’.

if we pull out a 4% spread on election day, I’ll be very pleasantly surprised. It’s much more likely that we are going to see the same result as in ‘04 and ‘06, a tie or 2% lead. That’s it.

A tied race is particularly bad place for Obama. The Obama campaign planned on putting McCain on the defensive in Western states and overwhelming him with money in the key battleground states. The selection of Palin will probably nullify any Obama inroads in the West and the Republicans are suddendly at financial parity with Obama. Bloomberg News reports:

With an increase in fundraising following McCain’s choice of Alaska Governor Sarah Palin as his running mate, Republicans say they are no longer in danger of being swamped by Democratic presidential nominee Barack Obama’s campaign cash.

“The money game is essentially off the table now,” said Eddie Mahe, a former deputy chairman of the Republican National Committee.

In addition to the financial boon brought on by Palin, the attempted swiftboating of Alaska’s governor has created a situation where the public overwhelming perceives the media as being biased for Obama. Armstrong suggests that the attacks on Palin will actually strengthened McCain:

The media has been busy digging a grave for us this past week, by following up on the vicious personal smears that have been pushed by prominent liberal blogs into the mainstream. Not only did they mostly backfire by not being true, but they confirmed the popular opinion that the media favors Obama. It’s become conventional wisdom. This presents two huge problems.

First, McCain can basically wield whatever attacks he’d like, and not have to worry about the critique of the media. They are not seen as objective judges in the matter.

Second, the only way that the media can change this public opinion is to go overboard the other way, by attacking Barack Obama with multiple feeding frenzies.

To date, the media has been unwilling to investigate or critique Obama, so a feeding frenzy is unlikely; there’s nothing to suggest that this will change. The public’s understanding of this bias gives McCain the opportunity to define Obama and link him to the media’s elitism and the D.C.-establishment culture. Obama’s selection of Joe Biden makes McCain’s task much easier. McCain/Palin now own the Change narrative. As Bob Somerby says:

That “maverick” narrative is deeply entrenched—and this planet is driven by narrative. (If we might borrow a bit from Lord Russell: It’s novels, all the way down.)

The Associated Press is reporting that Palin’s speech (and perhaps McCain’s as well) was viewed by more viewers than Obama’s, and her critiques of Obama appear to be taking a toll on the Democratic nominee. Obama seems rattled and is now defending his mysterious work as a “community organizer.” Carolyn Lockhead of the SF Chronicle (h/t Paul Villareal) writes:

Sen. Barack Obama ditched his normal languid cool today, punching back at Gov. Sarah Palin as he spoke with reporters in York, Pa, hotly defending his work as a community organizer. He said he assumes Palin “wants to be treated same way guys want to be treated, which means their records are under scrutinty [sic]. I’ve been through this for 19 months. She’s been through it, what four days?” (emphasis added)

Lockhead seems to be approving of Obama as the political pugilist, as Obama “punches” at his rival’s VP pick. Instead, by saying that Palin “wants to be treated same way guys want to be treated,” Obama is drawing attention to her gender and implying that if she complains of his tactics that she’s not as tough as the “guys.” This is classic Obama sexism: it’s the condescending put-down meant to disempower his female opponent by playing into stereotypes.

In the next sentence, however, Obama comes across as defensive:

Obama’s hackles were clearly raised by Palin’s dismissal of his community organizing –a response to his earlier dismissal of her record as a small-town mayor. “Why would that kind of work be ridiculed?” Obama said. “Who are they fighting for?” The idea that community organizing is not relevant to the presidency, he said, just shows why Republicans “are out of touch and don’t get it.”

The McCain Team should be wary of a cornered Obama. In a similar situation in January, on the heels of back-to-back defeats in New Hampshire and Nevada, Obama, sensing defeat, began to sound rattled. In a column titled “Now or Never,” David Broder described Obama’s desperation in psychological terms:

But all that is down the road from South Carolina. For now, Clinton and her husband, the former president, have gotten inside Obama’s head and rattled his composure. Obama seemed unusually defensive in his speech here Sunday evening, launching the final burst of campaigning in the state

Obama’s firewall in South Carolina, as has been well-documented, was the despicable use of racial politics against the Clintons.

McCain’s selection of Palin has shifted the narrative of this race away from Obama’s Hope message and back to the familiar Marverick narrative. While McCain/Palin own Change, Obama/Biden are the verbose Washington insiders. Independents and women voters are swinging back to McCain, and the electoral map projections will change the “inevitable” narrative. The McCain Team should be wary. In times like these, when Obama is feeling down, he lashes out.

In order to “save” the Democratic Party, Brazile resolved back in 2003 that she might have to destroy it first. And who better to help her in this lofty pursuit than her new best friend, the man neoconservatives call “The Architect”.

…………………………..

BY ROSEMARY REGELLO

It’s not every activist politico who gets to write a post in the Washington Times that begins like this: "As I sat by my window and staring out at the wonderful Washington, D.C., landscape, my office announced a phone call from Air Force One."

Evidently, Donna Brazile was reminding all the little people on Capitol Hill that she had friends in high places. In summer of 2007, Bush senior advisor Karl Rove wasn’t answering any subpoenas from Congress, but he didn’t mind talking to Brazile. From his perch at 20,000 feet, he informed her that this was probably a good time for him to get out of Dodge.

“Mr. Rove’s resignation is not a retirement,” Brazile reassured readers of the right of center newspaper. “It’s just another opportunity for him to create that lasting Republican majority he envisioned years ago and to spend his waking days doing what he so enjoys — beating Democrats in the alleys and gutters. Just ask Sen. Hillary Clinton, Mr. Rove’s target when he called in to speak to Rush Limbaugh. He couldn’t help it. Mr. Rove just had to take one last shot before riding out of town. More to come, Team Clinton.”

Brazile’s breezy account confirms what many have long since suspected. Rove’s claim to be sitting out the 2008 race is hogwash. The mastermind of today’s unraveling U.S. constitution is in no position to kick back, down gin fizzes and watch the country collapse under an Administration he put into office twice. The list of crimes that Bush’s top henchman could potentially be charged with - everything from fraud to war crimes - should be enough to keep him and his fellow Sopranos in hair-trigger mode until the next president gets sworn in. And the notion that he’d leave the choice of commander-in-chief in less capable dirty hands than his own requires more than the willing suspension of disbelief. It requires medication.

That’s why the Rove-Brazile tryst merits further exploration. They first hooked up some time in 2002, according to a New York Times article. The connection might have been a means for Brazile to expand her clientele, but she dismissed that angle in an interview, implying she had bigger fish to fry. It was the Democrats’ lackluster relations with African Americans and poor track record in elections, she said, that led her to start trailblazing new frontiers. To put it in a Brazile nutshell, the Republicans had a better machine.

”The idea is to re-energize the African-American electorate and revive the Democratic Party at the same time,” she told Times reporter Katharine Seelye, ”I want to revitalize the party from the grass roots up. We’re losing voters.”

With that noble cause in mind, she and Rove began to "chirpily exchange e-mail, chat on the phone and write letters, indulging in their shared zeal for the inner workings of politics," Seelye wrote.

Rove said he’d sometimes call Brazile before a press appearance to get feedback on various Bush policy angles he planned to discuss. In exchange, he furnished Brazile’s clients with access to White House social events.

"People think I’m crazy talking to Karl Rove," the strategist confessed to the Washington Post a month after the Times story appeared, "but there’s something about this guy."

Yes, there certainly is something about Karl Rove. In consultation with Vice-President Cheney’s office, it was Rove who outed Valerie Plame’s C.I.A. identity over a flap about uranium in Niger. Three years later, those subpoenas were overflowing his in-box because he’d told Alberto Gonzalez to fire nine U.S. Attorneys who refused to do his bidding. Rove is also under investigation for an entrapment scheme that put Alabama Democratic Governor Don Siegelman in prison for two years.

Those Republicans sure do know how to close the deal in politics. In addition to basking in The Architect’s dapper charm and irresistible company, Brazile opened diplomatic ties across town with archconservative Grover Norquist. Norquist heads one of Jack Abramoff’s favorite charities, Americans for Tax Reform, and is famous for his remark that he’d like to see federal government crippled to the point where he can take it home and drown it in his bathtub. For a brief window of opportunity, he set aside that morbid fantasy to help one of Brazile’s closest friends, D.C. Congresswoman Eleanor Holmes, push some legislation to increase revenues in her district.

According to the same Times article, “Mr. Norquist said he and Ms. Brazile, both Washington residents, were devising a plan to urge Congress to allow the city to raise the height limit on buildings as a way to broaden the tax base and improve schools.”

Brazile served as Holmes’ chief of staff and press secretary during the nineties. In that same action-packed year, her old boss teamed up with other D.C. officials to schedule an unauthorized, nonbinding earlybird presidential primary for 2004. DNC chair Terry McAuliffe sent sent out calls to the candidates to boycott the affair, but Howard Dean didn’t heed the directive. The former Vermont governor swept into D.C. and gobbled up almost as many endorsements as another candidate, Rev. Al Sharpton. Who needed those arcane DNC rules, anyway?

The Brazile Factor

At the time of these contentious political developments, Brazile chaired the DNC’s Voting Rights Institute, a program set up after the Florida recount debacle in 2000. During that earlier episode, she’d experienced firsthand Karl Rove’s unscrupulous knack for snatching victory from the jaws of defeat. Now she was tasked with brainstorming new strategies to prevent any future gaming of the electoral system.

In 2004, Dean ended his presidential bid after the Wisconsin primary and Kerry lost the general election. This time, Rove generated thousands of extra Bush votes in key Ohio precincts where only a few hundred Republicans lived. Not surprisingly, Brazile remained unimpressed with her party. That winter, she submitted an essay for the left-leaning website Slate.com, which was running a series called “Why Americans Hate Democrats – A Dialog”.

Hard as it must have been to top that inspirational title, the political strategist managed with her piece “Tapping the Obama Factor”. The Chicago politician had just been elevated to the U.S. Senate, but instead of offering an introduction to him, she mostly dwelled on her own life story - rising up from poverty in Louisiana, listening to her grandmother read scripture, etc. etc. Eventually, the essay worked its way back to the stated topic.

"This is a new moment to identify and recruit better messengers," she wrote. "Perhaps it’s time to tap into the ‘Obama’ factor: Scour statehouses for young, energetic, inspiring, and emerging leaders with the ability to connect the head and heart. Too many of the old Democratic guard have stayed in Washington, D.C., too long to fully recognize how most Americans live their lives."

It was a novel way to spin the Illinois election. Obama did score a landslide victory that year, but it had little to do with his age, energy level or the obsolete nature of the Democratic Party establishment. His campaign manager David Axelrod ran the classic Rovian smear campaign, first accusing Obama’s top primary contender of sexual impropriety. After disgracing Blair Hull out of contention, Axelrod used the same device against the G.O.P. primary winner, Jack Ryan.

Of course, this is where things get interesting. House Speaker Dennis Hastert decided he must stick his oar into the battle, calling on Ryan to end his senate bid. The candidate dutifully bowed out, and in his stead, the Illinois Republican Party fielded an unknown, African American bible-thumper from Maryland named Alan Keyes. Clearly, the G.O.P. wanted Obama to win that election. No other explanation can account for the party sacrificing a senate seat to a (supposedly) liberal Democrat who’d (supposedly) spoken out against the Iraq War in 2002.

A Hollywood script writer couldn’t have come up with this storyline. Within a year of arriving in Washington, Brazile’s rising star – the product of a globe-trotting Kansas woman and a philandering tribal leader in Kenya - had launched his presidential exploratory committee. The Internet fundraising team of Howard Dean signed on for the ride. So, too, did some of Wall Street’s biggest investment banks, corporate law firms, and energy giants. By the end of 2007, Obama would post a record-breaking haul of $100 million in campaign contributions. And all while he was still "introducing himself", as Brazile and other analysts put it, to the American public.

Who exactly brought the banks and oil companies to the table still remains to be ferreted out, but it wasn’t Dean or Brazile, or even the man who placed Obama on the speaker’s list at the 2004 Democratic Convention, John Kerry. It’s more likely that Karl Rove huddled with top Bush fundraisers to set that gravy train in motion. Among the candidate’s money bundlers were George Kaiser and Robert Cavnar, both oil industry executives. Other Bush campaign pioneers joined the bandwagon soon afterward.

Now Brazile was impressed. Judging from another My Day installment penned in 2005, following Hurricane Katrina, she sounded like a woman who had been born again:

“While my family was hurting, when they were on the edge feeling left to fend for themselves, the last thing I wanted to do was whine. I got into the groove quickly and contacted Ken Melhman, Chairman of the Republican National Committee and an old friend, Karl Rove, Deputy Chief of Staff for the White House.”

Then she started tossing out the cupcakes: “President Bush, who promised to rebuild the Gulf coast in a speech at Jackson Square, invited some African American leaders over to the White House on December 7th to discuss a broad range of issues…To my great surprise, the meeting with President Bush was cordial and candid. The President listened intently and reassured us that his Administration would not drop the ball.”

Funny how such innocuous fluff takes on a new and sinister meaning when read in hindsight. Yet even from the perspective of a contemporary audience, those claims were a stetch. For people living in New Orleans, the Katrina ball had already been dropped. When the levees broke, Sec. of Homeland Security Michael Chertoff was attending a conference on bird flu, the President relaxing on his Crawford ranch. Back in Brazile’s home state, over a thousand people drowned during three days of waiting for rescuers to reach their homes. Several million homeless residents survived, homeless, only to a second disaster called FEMA.

But Brazile didn’t let facts on the ground spoil her picnic. Continuing her upbeat dispatch, “Since then, I have met once more with President Bush and other leaders who are committed to working together to restore the lives and the communities devastated by these two hurricanes…I can tell from the meetings that the rebuilding of Louisiana remains high on his list of priorities.”

Preparing for Battle

One can only speculate on Brazile’s motives in streaming out that hallucination. As she would mention in the Washington Times article two years later, her “old friend” Rove had hit the ground running with the start of the 2008 election cycle, appearing on talk shows to bash frontrunner Hillary Clinton. Behind the scenes, G.O.P. rank and file activists were organizing crossover voting drives to knock Clinton out of the race before November. In the red states, they could easily outnumber Democrats at the caucuses, enriching Obama’s delegate count and allowing him to boast later “I’ve won more states.”

To recruit additional foot troops for this effort, New Hampshire G.O.P. leader Stephen DaMaura started the Facebook website “Stop Hillary Clinton (One Million Strong AGAINST Hillary).”

On the Democratic side, it became Brazile’s job to smooth over Obama’s path to the nomination. That required manipulating the primary calendar. Picking up on the diversity argument of Eleanor Holmes and the D.C. coalition, she pressed for an earlybird South Carolina primary and a Nevada caucus to augment the Iowa and New Hampshire dates.

While the advantages of South Carolina were obvious, by necessity the second contest required a less obvious, more covert action plan to avoid any accusations of stacking the deck. Although the Clinton camp didn’t realize it at the time, a caucus in Nevada (like a caucus anywhere) would naturally benefit Obama, since her base of blue-collar, older and non-English-speaking supporters would not be driving across town to attend some meeting run by disorganized volunteers. On the other hand, motivated Republicans could be counted on to show up, especially if the G.O.P. candidates could be persuaded not to campaign in the state. (They didn’t.)

Nevertheless, the reason for adding more earlybird contests in the first place centered on ethic diversity, so selling the DNC (and the public) on Nevada required some tweaking of those caucus parameters. That’s why arrangements were made to allow the state’s casino workforce of some 60,000 predominantly Latino workers to attend specially set up caucus sites just for them.

But wouldn’t this huge Hispanic voting block put Clinton over the top in Nevada? Not necessarily. It turns out that the union representing casino employees, S.E.I.U., would be backing Obama, just as they had supported Dean in his presidential bid. So those voters could now be added to the Obama column.

Thus, with caucuses scheduled in Iowa and Nevada, a primary in South Carolina with its near majority African American demographic, and the New Hampshire Republican brass on the job in that state, the chance of Clinton heading into Super Tuesday at cruising altitude had spectacularly diminished.

“Including two more states will not only be good for our country, it will be good for our party and good for our nominee," Brazile told the Los Angeles Times in August 2006.

Sounding an early portent of doom, the South Carolina delegate on the rules committee said in the same article, “If you campaign in a state that is outside the rules, then you’re not entitled to delegates from that state."

A year later, that scenario unfolded like a bad dream for the DNC. Over the objections of Florida’s state Democratic Party, a Republican-controlled legislature moved its primary to January 29, 2008, one week before the official February 5^th cusp adopted by both the Republican National Committee and the DNC.

On August 25, 2007. the DNC rules and bylaws committee met to adjudicate this unspeakable crime. State party chair Karen Thurman testified at the meeting, walking the committee through the chronology of her long and fruitless battle to overturn the date switch. The Republicans had attached it as a rider to another bill, one authorizing the replacement of electronic paperless voting equipment with more traditional optical scanners. Unable to defeat the rider on a partyline vote, the Democrats begrudgingly approved the larger measure.

Anyone who has watched the re-broadcast of those DNC proceedings on CSPAN can’t help but be dumbfounded by the discussion that followed Thurman’s presentation. A slam-dunk case for a rule waiver turned into a shameless bout of piling on, as committee member Brazile and several others accused the state party of not trying hard enough to change the date. (One also noticed from the broadcast the unusually high number of African Americans on the 30-member committee, as opposed to near zero representation for other minorities.)

When asked by Brazile why she hadn’t made any plans to hold a caucus in place of the primary, Thurman balked. The logistics and $8 million price tag, she said, were beyond comprehension, given that Florida boasts 4 million eligible Democrats.

"I understand how states crave to be first,” Brazile blustered in a Washington Post interview the next day, as if none of what Thurman told her had registered. “I understand that they’re envious of the role that Iowa and New Hampshire have traditionally played, The truth is, we had a process . . . We’re going to back these rules."

Later, the head of the DNC Voting Rights Institute published an op-ed in the same newspaper, this time under the combative heading, “Why We Stood Up to Florida”. With the cockiness that was fast becoming her trademark, Brazile griped, “It was hardly an extraordinary act, although you wouldn’t know it from the furious reaction that ensued in some quarters…Why the uproar? It’s simple: state envy.”

She went on to list all the economic benefits coveted by states vying to hold early primaries, again diverting from the core issue of Republican meddling in Democratic affairs. Inexplicably, the press coverage of the showdown also overlooked the G.O.P.’s role in moving up the primary date.

The same week the rules committee stripped Florida of all its convention delegates, Michigan’s state legislature voted to move up its primary to January 15th. Both states could have easily been pegged as Clinton strongholds, making their exclusion from the election cycle suspect. Michigan is an industrial blue-collar enclave with few of the upper-middle-class voters and college students that represent Obama’s base. Florida’s Hispanic population is huge, and combined with an abundant supply of New York retirees, would likely also resist the Obama "surge".

Moreover, using Republican crossover voting to shave points off Clinton’s victories posed problems in both states. In Michigan, native son Mitt Romney had a significant campaign apparatus in place, while Rudi Giuliani was expecting to draw his line in the sand in Florida. Where these battleground territories were in play, neither gentleman would appreciate Rove siphoning away their voters. Better just to invalidate the primaries on the Democratic side. That way, Clinton’s delegate lead could be held in check on Super Tuesday.

"Seeds of Doubt"

With the votes of the country’s fourth and eighth largest states thus consigned to the junk heap, Brazile turned to other pursuits. Hired as a paid election analyst for CNN, she carried on a double life - one as an official DNC spokesperson, the other as a partisan campaigner for Barack Obama. In February, when best-guess estimates gave Clinton the support of two-thirds of the superdelegates, she declared, "If 795 of my colleagues decide this election, I will quit the Democratic Party."

If party leaders were as worried about negative fallout and damage control then as they claimed to be a month later, they might have reeled in their contract employee at this point for a heart-to-heart chat. That didn’t happen. Brazile just reloaded her pistol and repeated her empty threat to all who would listen. On another occasion, she accused former President Bill Clinton of being a racist. It was inexcusable, she said, that during a speech Clinton referred to Obama as a "kid" and suggested his presidential bid amounted to little more than a "fairy tale".

"And I will tell you," Brazile bristled with emotion, "as an African American I find his words and his tone to be very depressing."

To be sure, Clinton said Obama’s evolving position on the Iraq War was a fairy tale, not his candidacy. As for alluding to his youth, Brazile and other cheerleaders for the Illinois senator had been doing it themselves for the past four years. It was a classic example of the Mark Twain quip that a lie can travel halfway around the world before the truth has put its shoes on. Only CNN’s presence in the equation gave the adage literal meaning. Surely, the DNC would intervene now that Brazile had insulted a former Democratic president on national television. But nothing.

Notwithstanding the character smears and 24/7 swiftboating by the American media, Sen. Clinton persevered, scoring big wins in the Texas, Rhode Island and Ohio on March 4^th. On March 5th, she was accused of engaging in a “negative” campaign designed to "destroy" her adversary.

“Despite Obama’s impressive victories in February, Clinton’s comeback is based on sowing political seeds of doubt,” Brazile informed the Associated Press that day, “If these attacks are contrasts based on policy differences, there is no need to stop the race or halt the debate. But, if this is more division, more diversion from the issues and more of the same politics of personal destruction, chairman Dean and other should be on standby."

(ABC’s Jake Tapper went Brazile one better, claiming Clinton was exercising the "Tanya Harding option".)

In response to the call to arms, Dean promptly petitioned Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi to intervene in the protracted race, while Senators Dodd, Richardson and Leahy demanded that Clinton end her candidacy for the good of the party.

Now this sounded familiar. Jack Ryan must have been chuckling to himself from his perch inside a bar, drinking rot-gut whiskey. In Washington, meanwhile, Reid promised that “things will be done” to determine a nominee before the convention. Pelosi told George Stephanopolis on his Sunday talk show that the superdelegates should not overturn “the will of the people”, but denied rumors that she was telling members of Congress that Clinton, if nominated, would be a "drag" on their own campaigns. As the Democratic Party version of the Adams Family was thus occupied in their hand-wringing, chest-beating and sharing of apocalyptic visions, Clinton pressed ahead, picking up 9 out of the final 13 primaries. Three of them she won by more than 30 points.

But no sooner had the daylight begun to shine at the end of the tunnel when another Rove-Brazile shoe dropped. For some reason, her triumph in the popular vote was not matched proportionally by delegates earned, and it had something to do with Obama’s phenomenal gains in the caucus states of Idaho, Nebraska, Kansas, etc. One would not have expected an African American liberal to clobber his opponent by a two-to-one margin as he did in many cases. More importantly, her delegate gains in the primaries involving millions of voters seemed to pale in comparison. This made no sense.

In late May, a disability activist named P. Cronin appeared on scene to sort out the Twilight Zone phenomenon. Cronin, who like most disabled people is not a big fan of caucuses, spent some time in late May analyzing the tallies from the 2008 Democratic contest, comparing the impact of the two different voting methods on the race.

According to Cronin’s study, nearly all of Obama’s 138-delegate lead over Clinton could be traced to 12 red state caucuses. In most of these contests he routinely won by 2-1 margins, even though polls in those states showed the candidates much closer. In Idaho, for instance, with its scant African American population, few colleges and relatively few Starbucks outlets, he captured 15 of the state’s 18 delegates.

Something fishy was going on here. Did Dean’s so-called 50-state strategy include the recruitment of pro-Obama activists to organize on the candidate’s behalf in caucus states? Did the number of DaMaura’s G.O.P. crossover voters wildly exceed expectations? Or was there just downright lying in the computation of the vote tallies?

The case of Washington state underscores the mystery of this Bermuda Triangle for Clinton delegates. On February 9^th, Obama earned a whopping 52 of the Washington’s 78 delegates after a 36-point victory in the party-run caucus. Over 240,000 allegedly eligible voters cast ballots in that contest. But a week later, just ahead of a state-run certified primary, the polling data showed that Clinton might actually win the election. On February 19th, after 650,000 ballots were counted Obama eked out a 5-point victory, hardly the 2-1 margin responsible for his 26-delegate net gain in the state. Unfortunately, the primary was non-binding.

Cronin notes in the study that those states that furnished the newcomer’s vast delegate booty contribute a grand total of 69 electoral votes in the general election. Few of these territories have voted Democratic since 1964.

It also appears that the votes of those lucky caucus-goers counted for 5-10 times more than the traditional Democrats who attended primaries. Obama netted more delegates in his Idaho win, for instance, than Clinton in her entire Ohio-Texas-Rhode Island romp on March 4th. The following table illustrates the questionable validity of these dispersements. Notice that the last column shows the delegate gain for the winner:

2008 Democratic Presidential Preference Election © 2008 P. Cronin
—————————-

Even in the Navada caucus that Clinton won, Obama was awarded more delegates. The New York senator couldn’t seem to win for winning. There, the S.E.I.U. endorsement dissolved into wishful thinking when the casino workers broke for Clinton two to one, giving her a 6-point victory. A few months later, Obama left the state convention with 3 more delegates.

While there’s no evidence implicating Dean in Obama’s caucus routs, the DNC had maintained staff on the ground in all 50 states since 2005, when he first became the chair. In August 2007, a few weeks before his rules and bylaws committee stripped Florida of its delegates, he announced in a press release that his 50-State Strategy project, the Voting Rights Institute and another DNC division known as the National Lawyers Council were collaborating on a nationwide survey of voter databases, registration procedures and other "election mechanics". According to the release, DNC staff would work with local election boards in gathering information in advance of the 2008 presidential election. "Protecting the right of every eligible American to vote is a top priority for our party," Dean and Brazile said in a joint statement. "Every eligible American deserves the confidence that when they go to the polls to cast their ballot they can do so without fear of intimidation or harassment, and that their vote will be counted fairly and accurately."

Throwing Mama Under the Bus

On May 31, 2008, the rules committee reconvened to discuss those "eligible Americans" living in Florida and Michigan. A week before the meeting, the Democratic Party tried to attach an air of legitimacy to the proceedings by having legal counsel weigh in on the dispute. Although by Brazile’s own account, the Supreme Court gives political parties wide latitude for determining how they pick their nominees, the lawyers claimed it would be unlawful to fully honor the certified votes of January 15^th and 29^th . The committee could do no more than restore half the nearly 350 convention delegates up for grabs.

Always amenable to compromise, the Clinton campaign accepted that limitation but rejected a proposal for Obama to receive some of her Michigan delegates, plus those of all the other candidates in the Michigan primary. After all, the Illinois senator voluntarily withdrew his name from the ballot, then vetoed a re-do primary which Clinton donors raised $10 million to fund. In a sane world, one could argue that he forfeited the state and therefore deserved no delegates.

Former Governor of Michigan Jim Blanchard didn’t present that line of attack, however. The Clinton spokesman stuck to the modest request that the candidate receive delegates in proportion to the votes cast for her. A few minutes later, it was Brazile’s turn to speak, and the CNN analyst first took the opportunity to congratulate herself for displaying restraint in the meeting up until that point. Then she repudiated Blanchard as if he were a child.

"My mama taught me to play by the rules and respect the rules…When you decide to change the rules, especially, in the middle of the game, it’s called cheating."

Dispatching the governor to go stand and in a corner and contemplate the error of his ways, Brazile’s committee allocated the Michigan delegates according to a fruitcake-like recipe involving exit polls, alleged write-in votes for Obama, the palm-reading of a psychic (just kidding) and the actual tally. In the end, Clinton gained a mere 4.5 delegates from the contest.

Any masochist following the 2008 election knew by then that Brazile had disregarded her own mother’s counsel long ago. Neither she nor her co-horts have lost any sleep over the thousands of complaints filed about the conduct of the caucuses, including some 2,000 submitted in Texas alone. Voter intimidation, stacks of fabricated sign-in sheets slipped in with the legitimate records, phony declarations from Republicans about their intention to switch parties, votes delayed until deep into the night, inaccurate tallies called in by phone, and other dirty tricks have yet to warrant even a cursory investigation by those who preach that playing by the rules represents a core value of the Democratic Party.

Even in the aftermath of her power grab, Brazile continues to denigrate those who challenge the authority of the party’s new African American leadership. In a July 22nd post on Daryl Cagle’s website, she groaned, "How many ways do these Hillary delegates, voters and supporters need to hear it before they get it? Sen. Barack Obama is the party’s nominee. He won. He will get to choose his running mate. Obama sets the agenda for the convention, and, while I understand their passion in wanting Hillary to be on the ticket and to have a prominent role at the convention, it’s not her decision… As much as we all would have loved to see a woman in the Oval Office, it wasn’t Hillary’s time. Period."

It’s ironic when you think about it. The DNC’s Voting Rights Institute was created to stop exclusionary practices and increase participation at the polling booth. Now its chairwoman is presiding over one of the most hostile and fraudulent campaigns since those newspaper delivery trucks ran over the boy scouts in Mr. Smith Goes to Washington.

"Mr. Rove proved you can win elections with rumors, fear, division and manipulation." Brazile wrote back in 2007, after that friendly exchange with Air Force One. "But you can’t win hearts that way."

No, you can’t. But then, this influential political fixer no longer appears to have use for that particular organ. Which may be why she finds men like Karl Rove and Grover Norquist so appealing.

- Rosemary Regello editor@thecityedition.com

(For more on the G.O.P. manipulation of the Democratic Primaries, see our in-depth report Bamboozling the American Electorate Again)

Copyright 2008 TheCityEdition.com

Clyburn, rather than getting the back of the president titled America’s first black president by none other than Toni Morrison, suggested he “chill out,” never ONCE acknowledging that what Bill Clinton said was TRUE!! And he just went down from there as the primary season continued, concluding with throwing his superdelegate support to Obama (now THERE was a surprise - it doesn’t take a genius to see that was where he was heading. His “neutral” stance was JUST as “neutral” as Donna Brazile’s, and we ALL know how THAT went…).

Clyburn’s support of Obama is considered quite the big deal since Clyburn is the Chair of the Black Caucus, the House Majority Whip, and is quite influential in the Congress. Hence what made his comments about Clinton all the worse, in my opinion (how DO the Clintons sleep at night with all the knives sticking out of their backs?!).

So why am I bringing up Jim Clyburn (besides the opportunity to say HE will never get my vote again, either)? Because our local paper, the Post and Courier, just had a VERY interesting story about him on Monday. Here’s the title, and this should give you a big ol’ clue: “Rep. Clyburn Draws Fire For Earmarks.”

Now, I will say that I often look at these pieces with a critical eye because FAR too often, Democrats have gotten more scrutiny on their budgetary requests than Republicans. But when I read it, I could see that maybe, just maybe, they have a point. The research was done by the Myrtle Beach Sun Times (and I’ll go ahead and spare you the suspense - Clyburn’s office would NOT return their calls on these matters).

All statistics below come from the above-referenced Post and Courier article. For starters, Clyburn had $38.8 million in earmarks budgeted, compared to the $45.5 million in earmarks of ALL other SC elected officials COMBINED.

But wait- it gets BETTER!!! Guess who were some of the beneficiaries of his budgetary largesse? Just guess! Did you guess CLOSE FAMILY MEMBERS??? If so, you WIN!! That’s right!! Here we go: Clyburn got $784,000 for the design and planning of the African American Museum in Charleston. And one of the lead architects WAS? His NEPHEW!!! But, of COURSE!!!! The same one for whom he had $145,000 set aside for a community center in 2005. Yep! This one is good, and another two-fer: Clyburn set aside $990,000 for a Wellness Center in 2003, and has appropriated $229,000 for this year.

Coincidentally (cough, choke), his daughter is the Marketing and Membership Director there! Next up, the South Sumter Resource Center. This year, it got $282,000. That is in addition to the $670,000 it has gotten in the past.

His sister-in-law is the Housing Coordinator for the Community Development Division. How CONVENIENT!!!!

Wowie zowie, no WONDER Citizens Against Government Waste once named him “Porker of the Month!” Know WHY he got that “distinction”? Because he earmarked $3 million, that is $3 MILLION, from MILITARY spending for a golf course named for him! Yes, he did. His “logic”? Military people would get good use of it. HAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!! Isn’t that a RIOT?!?! Military people would be using the GOLF course so instead of appropriating the money for, oh, I dunno, BULLET PROOF VESTS or something, he puts it into a GOLF course named for him!!!! Holy freakin’ COW!!!

So, this is the man, the backstabbing turncoat, who is one of Obama’s BIG supporters!! Hmmm - seems like much of the other company Obama keeps to me.

Oh, one last thing about all of these earmarks. SC has one of the WORST educational systems in the COUNTRY. (Hey, don’t look at me - I grew up in NC when public schools were still really, really good!)

So, it makes PERFECT sense that money should be going to all of these family-related projects rather than toward the HORRIBLE educational system here. Right? Yeah. Sure. Right. So proud of my representative - not hardly. (OK, ok, I am sure these projects help some people OTHER than his immediate family, but really…)

Once again Obama’s supporters and surrogates are colluding with neoconservative men, namely Bob Novak, the man who exposed Valerie Plame’s identity. I quote:

Close-in supporters of Sen. Barack Obama’s presidential campaign are convinced he never will offer the vice presidential nomination to Sen. Hillary Clinton for one overriding reason: Michelle Obama.

The Democratic front-runner’s wife did not comment on other rival candidates for the party’s nomination, but she has been sniping at Clinton since last summer. According to Obama sources, those public utterances do not reveal the extent of her hostility.

Michelle Obama has not already revealed her hostility? Where do we begin with this statement: with the video of Michelle Obama “returning to her south side roots” as she denigrates Hillary Clinton for her husband’s improprieties before an African-American audience;

with her unwillingness to uphold Party unity on February 4, 2008, in the wake of the coordinated and unfounded race baiting in which she and her husband engaged when they willfully distorted President Bill Clinton’s statements at the Trumpet Awards on January 13, 2008 and on the campaign trail in South Carolina on January 23, 2008;

with her avowal of a desire to “rip Bill Clinton’s eyes out” while campaigning in South Carolina; with the complete and utter disdain she expressed twice in one day for the country that has offered her and her husband so much;

with her hostility toward those who are wealthy, who she believes should “give [her] something here;” with her unrestrained animus for Americans, who she refers to as “cynics, sloths and complacents;” or with her failed attempt to mock Hillary Clinton before college students at the elite Haverford College after her husband insulted blue collar workers who tote guns and practice religion in Pennsylvania, Kentucky, Montana, South Dakota, Oregon and West Virginia? Where does one begin with Michelle Obama? Where does one begin to analyze this woman’s hostility?

I ask these questions, for one can only assume Michelle Obama is profoundly disturbed. Some would say she loathes herself. Indeed, her inability to contain her rage has been a liability to the Obama campaign, or at least this is what some political commentators postulate. Perhaps this explains the new feminine role in which Axelrod has attempted to cast Michelle. I quote an article on a speech Michelle Obama delivered at a fundraiser for Rep. Jan Schakowsky at McCormick Place in Chicago, Illinois, on May 10, 2008:

Obama suggested that if she were to become first lady, she would take on women’s and family issues, prompted by the stories she has been hearing from females on the campaign trail.

“And if I have the honor of becoming the next first lady, I want to continue these conversations like the ones I’ve had with these incredible women across the country. I want to ensure that their voices don’t get drowned out ever again in Washington.”

Michelle, according to the script penned by Alexrod, will now be the caring, nurturing, feminine First Lady who will champion the issues of women and children. No longer will she be the race baiter she has been in North Carolina and in other states with large African-American populations, and no longer will she issue derisive comments about women whose husbands may be unfaithful; Michelle, now tamed by her male handlers, will be a woman relegated to the margins, to the realm of domesticity. Women, I guess, will not be liberated in the twenty-first century.

But how will Michelle become a paragon of domesticity? How is a woman who exhorted working class women in Zanesville, Ohio, to relinquish opportunities to earn large incomes in the name of working in the “helping industry” possibly prepared to address the rights of women and children? How is a woman who believes working class women of Zanesville, Ohio, can afford to spend $10,000 on piano lessons, ballet lessons and summer camp aware of their plight? How is a woman whose home was financed by a questionable deal involving indicted political fixer named Antoin “Tony” Rezko receptive to the concerns of single and married women who cannot afford to pay their subprime mortgages?

How is a woman whose Rezko mansion is maintained by a housekeeper and a landscaper sensitive to the time constraints of working women? How is a woman whose only legal experience is corporate law aware of the impediments women and children must surmount in order to attain equal and fair representation before the law? How will David Axelrod manage to transform a mound of excrement into a bag of gold?

None of this will matter, for Axelrod has a history of turning political figures into that which they are not. And in the case of Michelle Obama, he necessarily has to cast her as a champion of women, for white women have abandoned the Obamas in droves. I imagine the racially charged speech Michelle Obama delivered at the Ovens Auditorium in Charlotte, North Carolina, on May 5, 2008, did not endear her or her husband to white women. I quote:

But Mrs. Obama, the star attraction, is taking no chances. Walking onstage to chants of “Yes, we can!” and “Fired up — ready to go!” she quickly gets to the heart of her message: There are forces out there who are trying to take away everything Barack has worked for. They — she doesn’t mention anyone in particular but does refer to one “brand name politician” — are trying to win this election for themselves and thereby deny Obama the opportunity to move America to the mountaintop of hope. And they must be stopped.

“We’ve learned that we’re still living in a time and in a nation where the bar is set, right?” she tells the crowd.

“That’s right.”

“They tell you all you need to do is do these things and you’ll get to the bar — ”

“Uh-huh.”

“So you go about the business of doing those things — ”

“Yes — ”

Her husband has been doing just that, Obama explains — raising money, building an organization, winning caucuses, winning primaries, and amassing a large number of delegates. And yet he still hasn’t won, because nothing is ever enough for those unnamed adversaries.

“You start working hard and sacrificing, and you think you’re getting closer to the bar, you’re working and you’re struggling, you get right to that bar, you’re reaching out for the bar, and then what happens?”

“They raise the bar!”

“They raise the bar. Raise the bar. Shift it to the side. Keep it just out of reach.”

“Yes!”

“And that’s just what’s been happening in this race.”…

Even Michelle Obama herself. “I’m not supposed to be here,” she tells the crowd. “I am a statistical oddity. As a black girl raised on the south side of Chicago, I’m not supposed to be here. I wasn’t supposed to go to Princeton. They said my test scores were too high” — surely a verbal slip, because in the past she has said she was told her test scores were too low — “I wasn’t supposed to go to Harvard Law School, because they said it might be a little too hard for me. And I certainly am not supposed to be standing here with a chance to become the next first lady of the United States of America.”

But here she is, in just that position — only to find that they, as always, are trying to raise the bar a little higher, just out of her and her husband’s reach. Still, she asks the crowd “to close your eyes and do some dreaming…to dream of the day that a man like Barack Obama is standing in front of the Capitol with his hand on the Bible.” With that, the audience erupts into shouting and applause. They’re fired up and ready to go, and all those who love the Lord and will vote for Obama say “Amen.”

According to Michelle Obama, a Caucasian woman named Hillary Clinton, a woman for whom she has an immense amount of hostility, is the “brand name politician” who is responsible for “raising the bar” on her and her ostensible African-American husband. A Caucasian woman, in other words, has made it impossible for her and her putative African-American husband to seize the reins of power. Caucasian women are the enemies of African-Americans, and they must be stopped. Women who believe in self-determination, even or especially those who are African-American, are somehow responsible for the oppression of African-American males. No wonder why a staggering number of African-Americans in North Carolina voted against their economic interests and cast their ballets for Barack Obama: Michelle’s hostility toward women is contagious.

And no wonder why Axelrod attempted to recast Michelle Obama five days later into an exemplar of domesticity during a fundraiser for a female politician who happens to be Caucasian. Now that Michelle believes she has thoroughly destroyed the only chance a woman may have to become President of the United States during many of our lifetimes, she must now try to rise from the ashes left in the wake of her incendiary race baiting and misogynistic rhetoric as the phoenix of women’s rights. No wonder why she is hostile toward Hillary Clinton: in order to become Hillary, she must destroy Hillary. But Hillary, our true feminist mother, will never be destroyed. And Michelle, a woman who exploits misogyny for electoral gain, will never approximate Hillary.

Happy Mothers’ Day, Hillary. And Happy Mothers’ Day to all those who respect their mothers.

I dedicate this essay to all the mothers whose sons and daughters, both literal and metaphorical, never learned to respect them. Let us hope they finally will on Mothers’ Day 2008.

[UPDATE]: Watch this video on Michelle Obama compiled by Fox News. Michelle is a liability for Democrats in the general election. Do Democrats seriously believe ordinary Americans will respect this woman?