The Shame Of The Democratic Left, Part II

The Democratic Left is increasingly proving itself to be a misogynistic anti-gay coalition. The words are “progressive”. The actions contradict the words. We know actions speak louder than words.

In Part I, we quoted Ralph Nader and his disdain of “gonadal politics“. It was Congresswoman Shirley Chisholm who dared place sexism and misogyny at center stage of American politics, not a sideshow in the fight for equality.

“I ran because somebody had to do it first. I ran because most people thought the country was not ready for a Black candidate, not ready for a woman candidate. Someday–it was time in 1972 to make that someday come.”

She also knew the challenges of being a woman in politics.

“I’ve always met more discrimination being a woman than being Black,” she said. “When I ran for the Congress, when I ran for president, I met more discrimination as a woman than for being Black. Men are men.”

Decades after Congresswoman Chisholm declared she was discriminated more on the basis that she was a woman than because she was African-American the Democratic Left castigates sexism and misogyny (and homophobia) only when it is convenient and safe. All the talk against sexism and misogyny (and homophobia) is just that – talk.

During the 2008 election cycle the leading lights of the Democratic Left, writers and party officials, remained quiet while sexism and misogyny ran as rampant as Reagan era AIDS. The Democratic Left was mostly silent. In fact the historical record will show that they were complicit in the sexism and misogyny. Many in the Democratic Left still deny the historical record and condemn those of us that will not forget and continue to break the silence.

During this election cycle, Chairman of the Dimocratic Party Howard Dean remained silent on sexism and misogyny but any “racial” statements were quickly condemned even if the “racial” statements were merely hoaxes set up by the Obama campaign. The condemnation of “racist” statements however were not made against the Obama campaign when the barely veiled racism benefited Obama.

When Obama called Hillary in anonymous memoranda the Senator from Punjab only the East Asian community (and Big Pink) took offense. The Democratic Left which condemned the turbaned stereotypes of Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom did not denounce this particular baiting by the Obama campaign.

Howard Dean attributed his silence on sexism and misogyny to ignorance because he did not get cable television. The Chairman must have missed the sexism and misogyny on broadcast television, in Obama statements, in newspapers, magazines and every conceivable Big Media outlet. The Hillary Clinton “nutcrackers” and the “Bro Before Ho” merchandise must also have escaped the Democratic Chairman from the Democratic Left. The good German did not know what was going on – he did not smell the furnaces burning.

Now that it is convenient, in a forum of only men the Democratic Chairman from the Democratic Left, is attempting to rehabilitate his legacy and excuse his complicity. Asked by a woman at the forum about the lack of discussion of women, in an historic campaign that featured a woman candidate, the men on the panel made more excuses and the Democratic Chairman from the Democratic Left outdid himself in hypocrisy. [Dean begins to speak 3 minutes, 45 seconds into the video]

Let me talk about this for just a minute, and without disrespect for Ken, it is not… the answer that Geoff just gave is not unrelated to the fact that there are no women up here. Washington doesn’t get it. They always get it last. This is the most underwritten story of this campaign… by the press… by the media. Let me explain this.

Women, I have a small disagreement with you. Women my age, in my generation felt this really acutely. Because they were the ones that suffered all of the indignities that you suffer when you fight to win the battle for equality. As they did. I tell this story alot because young people don’t understand. When my wife graduated in the class of 1971 from Roslyn High School in suburban New York, they had two playing fields. A boys playing field and a girls playing field for the sports. They had a construction project. They simply shut down the girls playing field, closed off women’s sports for the year and that was the end of that so they could do the construction project and open it up the next year.

You could not do that today. And the reason you cannot do that is because people like Hillary Clinton fought to make sure that could happen. Now, here is why this is an underwritten story.

This was one of the most painful parts of my Chairmanship was being the referree. Naturally of course the Barack people thought I was with Hillary the Hillary people thought I was with Barack. That just goes with the territory.

But nobody understood the agony that women, particularly of my generation, were undergoing about this issue and to this day it has been swept under the rug and forgotten because she didn’t win. I would love to see some people really look at this seriously. Here we are. This is inexcusable – having five guys up here. And with all due respect to schedules we don’t do that. If you are going to have diversity you are going to have diversity and you make damn sure you have diversity. We have not learned about that. The underwritten story about this campaign is not just about the first African-American president it’s what happened to the first woman.

We thought we were past all this stuff and we weren’t. We weren’t surprised about the degree of racism or lack of it or whatever, that was endlessly examined. We did not examine the fact that we didn’t get, we haven’t gotten nearly as far ahead as we thought we were about equality between the sexes. And that ought to be revisited as a result of what happened.

And it happened to Sarah Palin too. All the stuff that happened to Sarah Palin, and I know God knows I don’t have a lot of sympathy for her political points of view, but a lot of the stuff that happened to her, as she pointed out, would not have happened had she been a man.

So that is a serious issue that this country has not yet dealt with. And that was the sore that was unroofed by what went on, on the cable television stations especially regarding Hillary Clinton’s campaign.

Words. Just words. The Democratic Chairman from the Democratic Left was silent when it mattered and now he wants to polish himself as an enlightened man ready to fight for liberation. The Democratic Left was also complicit and silent.

Marie Cocco was not silent. Marie Cocco condemned the silence and the silent. She wrote about the sexism and misogyny in the 2008 election cycle:

Most of all, I will not miss the silence.

I will not miss the deafening, depressing silence of Democratic National Committee Chairman Howard Dean or other leading Democrats, who to my knowledge (with the exception of Sen. Barbara Mikulski of Maryland) haven’t publicly uttered a word of outrage at the unrelenting, sex-based hate that has been hurled at a former first lady and two-term senator from New York. Among those holding their tongues are hundreds of Democrats for whom Clinton has campaigned and raised millions of dollars. Don Imus endured more public ire from the political class when he insulted the Rutgers University women’s basketball team.

Would the silence prevail if Obama’s likeness were put on a tap-dancing doll that was sold at airports? Would the media figures who dole out precious face time to these politicians be such pals if they’d compared Obama with a character in a blaxploitation film? And how would crude references to Obama’s sex organs play?

The silence on sexism and misogyny (and homophobia which we will discuss in a later installment) is the shame of the Democratic Left.

The shame of the Democratic Left must be exposed.

The shame of the Democratic Left will not be forgotten.


The Shame Of The Democratic Left, Part I

The misogyny, sexism and gay-bashing by Democrats that occurred in the 2008 election cycle is an open sore that will not heal. The leadership of the Democratic Left increasingly proved itself to be a misogynistic and anti-gay coalition. The words are “progressive”. The actions contradict the words. We know actions speak louder than words.

Ralph Nader in 2004 claimed once again that he is the best presidential candidate on gay rights. But as the gay newspaper from the District of Columbia, the Washington Blade noted:

Nader hasn’t always been so supportive of gay rights issues. In 1996, when Nader was asked by New York Times columnist William Saffire for his views on gay issues, he said he wasn’t going to get into “gonadal politics.”

At the time, the comment prompted an open letter from gay Rep. Barney Frank (D-Mass.), criticizing Nader’s remarks.

“Your desire to avoid what you deride as ‘gonadal politics,’ and I think of as the fight for gay and lesbian rights, has been consistent. Having been actively involved in the fight against gay and lesbian bias in Congress since 1981, I cannot remember ever hearing from you on this subject.”

The Democratic Left and the leadership of the party have not abandoned their disdain for “gonadal politics”.

* * *

In the 2008 election cycle the contempt of the Democratic Left for “gonadal politics” was center stage. The “gonads” this year belonged to women.

Hillary Clinton, more than once this past year was said to possess the biggest gonads, far surpassing the shriveled orbs cradled by the male candidates. When a union leader endorsed Hillary Clinton because “I truly believe that that’s going to take an individual that has testicular fortitude.” Hillary responded “I do think I have fortitude. Women can have it as well as men.”

Hillary Clinton was not the only woman this year who carried a big pair filled with testicular fortitude. We recall the courage of Congresswoman Stephanie Tubbs Jones and Congresswoman Sheila Jackson Lee who as African-American leaders faced down their critics while respected Congressman John Lewis became flaccid in the face of opposition.

Another great Congresswoman from an earlier age, also African-American, was Shirley Chisholm. Congresswoman Chisholm, was the first Black woman elected to Congress and the first Black to seek a major party’s nomination for the U.S. presidency.

Shirley Chisholm was a “first” many times. Shirley Chisholm also dared speak the truth.

Shirley Chisholm, who should know, said she was discriminated more on the basis of being a woman than on the basis of being black. Shirley Chisholm was a true Democrat. Shirley Chisholm would not fit in today’s Dimocratic Party.

“I ran because somebody had to do it first. I ran because most people thought the country was not ready for a Black candidate, not ready for a woman candidate. Someday–it was time in 1972 to make that someday come.”

She also knew the challenges of being a woman in politics.

“I’ve always met more discrimination being a woman than being Black,” she said. “When I ran for the Congress, when I ran for president, I met more discrimination as a woman than for being Black. Men are men.”

African-American Congresswoman Chisholm and her eyewitness, first hand experiences were dismissed by the Democratic Left.

Democratic Left male writers such as Hendrik Hertzberg at the New Yorker belittled the struggles of women (not to mention African-American women) in comparison to African-Americans and ignored the testimony of people, women, such as Congresswoman Shirley Chisholm. Hertzberg wrote Competitions among grievances do not ennoble, and both Clinton and Obama strove to avoid one; but it does not belittle the oppressions of gender to suggest that in America the oppressions of race have cut deeper.

The misogyny is so deep and rooted that even writers like Hertzberg, that we long ago respected, are unaware of what they are writing. It does indeed “belittle the oppressions of gender”, and we will add the oppressions of sexual orientations, to so denigrate “gonadal politics”.

After the Thanksgiving holiday we will continue our exploration into the shameful truth about the Democratic Left: the Democratic Left mouths progressive words on gender and sexuality but the Democratic Left is misogynistic and anti-gay.


In Praise Of Hillary Clinton

Among Hillary Clinton supporters and even among the Obama Hopium denizens opinion is divided on the question of Hillary as Secretary of State.

Some true blue Hillary Clinton supporters believe that the country is in such dire need of genuinely qualified and experienced leadership that Hillary should tutor the unqualified and inexperienced Obama and that Hillary can save the world.

Some droopy-eyed Obama supporters are upset that Hillary Clinton will lead the massive State Department apparatus and have control over American foreign policy and that Hillary and Bill Clinton loyalists will also control domestic economic policy – a de facto 44. The droopy-eyed denizens of Hopium alley are asking themselves “this is change?”

Some Hillary supporters are upset with Hillary for falling into a trap. Some Hillary supporters are upset with Hillary for not fighting the nefarious Obama. Some Obama supporters are upset with Obama for falling into a trap (or lying to them). Some Obama supporters are upset with Obama for not fighting the very intelligent Hillary.

We advise a much more cold-eyed, pragmatic approach.

We respect and admire Hillary Clinton but we have read the Psalmist (146.3) Put not your trust in princes. We respected and admired and defended Hillary Clinton during the primaries quite simply because she was and is the best, not a god, simply the best. On universal health care, economic policy and foreign policy Hillary is simply the best. However, when Hillary made her November 4 election recommendation we respected her yet did not follow her recommendation.

We are not worshippers at a Hillary shrine but we do recognize a remarkable jewel when we see one. We respect Hillary and listen with respect to what she says – but we do not genuflect. We do not bow and scrape and burn incense and chant – like those doopy-eyed commemorative plate and coin buyers in the Hopium dens.

On the Secretary of State situation – we will support Hillary’s decision, whatever it is, because it is a personal decision which requires balancing tests which Hillary herself is best positioned to weigh – even as we advise against Hillary placing herself inside a gilded cage. Of course, Hillary is a fabulous bird who has the capacity of pushing aside the bars and barriers of any cage.

* * *

There is a faction within Big Media Hopium dens who foolishly denigrate Hillary Clinton at every turn. This faction even questions Hillary Clinton’s ability in foreign policy. We have no doubt that Hillary’s many experienced talents include foreign policy. Unlike those who dwell in Hopium dens we have history, facts, to support our beliefs.

To succeed at modern diplomacy, it helps to take the long view. As word trickled out that President-elect Barack Obama was considering Hillary Clinton for Secretary of State, Clinton was on the phone with the President of Pakistan. Asif Ali Zardari was calling with a long-overdue thank-you. Back in 1998, when Zardari’s late wife Benazir Bhutto was powerless and out of favor with the United States, the then First Lady had received her at the White House, over the objections of both the State Department and the National Security Council. Bhutto eventually regained her influence, and before her assassination last December, became an important U.S. ally. But she had never forgotten that act of graciousness, Zardari told Clinton on Nov. 14. “To be treated with such respect was very important.”

Perhaps Hillary served tea at her meeting with Benazir Bhutto. In Hillary’s hands, even a teacup is a potentially potent weapon in foreign policy. Obama is too unqualified and inexperienced to understand that type of power. During the primaries Obama denigrated Hillary’s foreign policy credentials as having tea with ambassadors.

* * *

At a great moment during the civil rights struggle of the last century, Dr. King said unearned suffering is redemptive. For decades Hillary has been lashed and verbally beaten by the right wing of American politics. During this election cycle we witnessed the Democratic left decompose into Hillary Haters worse than Republicans and the right-wing.

Earlier tormentors like Richard Mellon Scaife who spent tens, if not hundreds, of millions of dollars to destroy Bill and Hillary Clinton this year endorsed her presidential bid. Even the far fringe of the far fringe – Ann Coulter – declared that in a general election race with Hillary Clinton as the Democratic candidate Coulter would not only endorse Hillary – she would campaign for Hillary.

The Dimocratic Party and Dean/Brazile/Pelosi/Kennedy selected Obama and gifted him the nomination. Hillary was hounded by Dean/Brazile/Pelosi/Kennedy to get out of the race for the nomination even as Hillary won primary after primary. The right-wing was watching and gained respect for Hillary.

How did the feminist wife of Bill Clinton, demonized as a fiend during much of his tenure, end up as the Great Right Hope of the party they bested? The race changed her, and it, beyond all expectations. [snip]

Conservatives watched, with surprise, with some awe, and with some bemusement. Perhaps this was her all along.

In the spring, conservatives found themselves pulling for Clinton, in the interests of keeping the Democratic feud going. But as time passed and she refused to dissolve in the face of adversity, a strategic alliance based on convenience became infused with a Strange New Respect. How tough she was. How relentlessly viable. How she resisted the pressure of Obama obsessives, who were trying to show her the door. And how right she was, at least from their viewpoint, and at least upon foreign affairs. “Hillary became the sane one in the race, at least from Republicans’ perspectives,” as Jennifer Rubin observed as the race ended, noting that she was the one who had ridiculed Obama’s plans to meet unconditionally with the leaders of terrorist governments, who had defied her party to vote to classify the Iranian National Guard as a terrorist outfit, who had “looked at George Stephanopoulos with a look of incredulity” when he asked why, if Iran attacked Israel, she would bomb Iran into rubble, or at least smithereens.

The Dimocrats were watching too:

This shift in the Hillary Clinton persona did not go unobserved on the left, which commenced to tear her apart in the same terms of endearment it would later unleash upon Sarah Palin, and had used before on George W. Bush and Joe Lieberman., founded ten years ago by liberal Democrats to defend the Clintons against impeachment proceedings, now assailed her with the savage ferocity they had once reserved for Ken Starr. As a result, perhaps, Hillary later refused to attack Sarah Palin, and treated her, and McCain, with personal courtesy throughout the campaign.

Our right-wing enemies and opponents agree with us that history is a teacher:

As for the conservatives, many of those who began 2008 willing to do anything to defeat her tended to end it feeling sorry she lost. They began to tell themselves and each other they would sleep better at night if she were the nominee of her party, for reasons having to do with the now-famous three a.m. phone call. She would not, they said, have gone to Berlin and said that the city was saved by the world coming together; she would have known that the Air Force had something to do with it. As thoughts turned later on to possible cabinet picks, the thought of Hugo Chavez and Vladimir Putin staring into the clueless eyes of John Kerry and/or Bill Richardson roused still more anxiety. Better the steely gimlet-eyed stare of a Hillary Clinton. They feared Iran now, not the former First Lady. The days when they feared her now seemed far away.

Hillary Clinton deserves our respect and has earned our admiration.

Like a lighthouse in the dark, Hillary stands alone, casting a light to bring us home. Shine on Hillary.


Disgusting And Extreme: NutKooks And Big Media Post-Election

In short, post-election we are getting Big Media futile confessions and NutKooks carping.

The latest, and surely not last, Big Media confession of pro-B.O. bias comes from Mark Halperin of Time Magazine:

Media bias was more intense in the 2008 election than in any other national campaign in recent history, Time magazine’s Mark Halperin said Friday at the Politico/USC conference on the 2008 election.

“It’s the most disgusting failure of people in our business since the Iraq war,” Halperin said at a panel of media analysts. “It was extreme bias, extreme pro-Obama coverage.”

During the two years of the primary and general election Mark Halperin said close to nothing about Big Media pro-Obama bias that now, post-election, Halperin rightly and hypocritically denounces as “EXTREME” bias and a “DISGUSTING” failure.

Those of us who denounced the extreme and disgusting Big Media bias during the primary and the general election were not only ignored we are still mocked as somehow delusional. We were and still are correct. The Hopium addicts will live to regret their alliance with corrupt Big Media. Big Media power elected its stooge Barack Obama.

Mark Halperin has a position of great influence in the Big Media world. Yet Mark Halperin stood by silently as Big Media bias was disgusting and extreme.

Halperin continues:

Halperin, who maintains Time’s political site “The Page,” cited two New York Times articles as examples of the divergent coverage of the two candidates.

“The example that I use, at the end of the campaign, was the two profiles that The New York Times ran of the potential first ladies,” Halperin said. “The story about Cindy McCain was vicious. It looked for every negative thing they could find about her and it case her in an extraordinarily negative light. It didn’t talk about her work, for instance, as a mother for her children, and they cherry-picked every negative thing that’s ever been written about her.”

The story about Michelle Obama, by contrast, was “like a front-page endorsement of what a great person Michelle Obama is,” according to Halperin.

Excuses that Obama was “new” and more interesting (and black) are not a credible excuse. Usually a “new” political figure gets the “not experienced” vetting which is deserved. With Obama, Big Media did not vet. Big Media protected Obama and savaged Hillary Clinton. Big Media is still savaging Hillary Clinton. Benign Big Media excuses for the pro-Obama bias do not comport with the facts.

Halperin’s “disgusting” and “extreme” comments were met with little resistance by other Big Media figures. “I think it’s incumbent upon people in our business to make sure that we’re being fair,” he said. “The daily output was the most disparate of any campaign I’ve ever covered, by far.”

Big Media never vetted Obama and still continues to protect and deify Obama.

* * *

Big Blogs, which advertised themselves as balance against Big Media bias have instead become part of the problem. The nutroots kook sites became soiled unpaid prostitutes for the Obama campaign. The nutroots kook sites (and yes that now includes Josh Marshall’s TPM and Arriana’s Huff n’ Puff) walked the streets for their Obama but like aged street walkers the pimp is no longer interested in them.

“With its congressional majority, the Democratic Party has refused to seriously try to end the war, to stop the bailout and to stop the trampling of civil liberties, just to name a few off the top of my head,” wrote David Sirota on the popular liberal blog OpenLeft, decrying the serial betrayals of Obama and the congressional Democratic majority. The Democratic Party, he wrote, has “faced no real retribution” for its manifold heresies, something that Sirota believes he and his band of angry bloggers must change. “We better understand why this happened,” he fumed.

Allow me to provide an answer. You don’t matter.

Sirota and his ilk are irrelevant fools. Big Pink has more respect and influence at the Obama campaign than these boobs.

The nutroots nutkooks are learning their idol is a Backstabber.

That the Netroots – the fabled bloggers who, in 2004, carried Howard Dean from being an unknown governor of a small state to a Democratic presidential front-runner – are not the potent political force that the media portrays was confirmed this past week when Senate Democrats resisted their “demand” that Connecticut Sen. Joe Lieberman be punished for endorsing John McCain for President (Lieberman was reelected as an independent in 2006 and caucuses with the Democrats). Ever since Nov. 4, when Democrats increased their majority beyond the point that Lieberman’s allegiance was necessary for them to maintain control over the Senate, punishing Lieberman has been the primary goal of liberal bloggers. For weeks, they pounded their keyboards, huffed and puffed on their Internet radio shows and called on their readers to flood the offices of Democratic senators with phone calls and e-mails demanding that Lieberman be stripped of his chairmanship over the Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee. Yet on Tuesday, Democrats voted an overwhelming 42-to-13 to let Lieberman keep that chairmanship.

“He wasn’t sanctioned,” seethed Markos Moulitsas, founder of the Daily Kos. “And Senate Democrats trying to make that claim are dishonestly trying to cover up the extent of their betrayal of the American people’s vote for change.”

We do not pity these loser Big Blogs. Big Blogs have sold their souls and whatever credibility they once had in order to walk the streets and now the pimp is dumping them. The Backstabber is stabbing Big Blog backs.

Given the intensity of blogger rage over Lieberman, one can understand how their defeat at the ends of their own party would lend itself to hyperbole, but when did the “American people” appoint Markos Moulitsas their spokesman? And while there are many ways to interpret the outcome of this year’s presidential and congressional elections, that voters across the country wanted Joe Lieberman to be stripped of his committee chairmanship is not one of them. [snip]

Most Americans probably recognize Lieberman as the guy who ran with Al Gore in 2000. But to the Netroots, Lieberman is an obsession, an individual who inspires mania. He is the worst thing possible: not only someone who disagrees with them about foreign policy, but a liberal who disagrees with them on foreign policy.

“No matter what Joe Lieberman does,” wrote Jane Hamsher, proprietor of the popular liberal blog Firedoglake, “the people who are protecting him hate you much more than they hate him.” The Netroots are all about hate; its denizens are incapable of seeing shades of gray. (And Ms. Hamsher knows a thing or two about hate, having doctored a photo of Joe Lieberman in blackface during his primary battle against Netroots favorite Ned Lamont two years ago.)

We happen to agree with Jane Hamsher when she states “the people who are protecting him hate you much more than they hate him.” What Hamsher and Big Blogs ignore, which we do not ignore, is that it is Obama who protected Lieberman. And we do think Barack Obama hates Big Blogs much more than he hates Joe Lieberman.

Lieberman lucked out. In any other election cycle, he’d be doomed. It wasn’t so much that the former Democratic and now independent senator from Connecticut supported John McCain. That was forgivable. But blasting Barack Obama at the Republican convention was crossing a bridge too far, a bridge to nowhere. Right after the election, it looked like good ole Joe would be getting his pink slip as chairman of the Senate homeland-security committee. But word went out from Chicago that the president-elect was not interested in recriminations, and the lions laid down with the lambs, and Sen. Joe Lieberman was once again back in the good graces of his fellow Democrats.

Obama has the same level of respect for Big Blogs (like Arriana) that supported him that a pimp exhibits towards dried up street walkers.

The Big Blogs, the nutroots, have been and continue to be a disaster with disasterous effect. The sexism and misogyny of Big Blogs along with extreme and disgusting Big Media pro-Obama bias has helped elect the inexperienced and unqualified Barack Obama.


The Backstabber

Obama simply cannot be trusted. Obama cannot be trusted on any issue. Obama cannot be trusted by his friends. Obama cannot be trusted by his enemies. Obama cannot be trusted.

The “friends” are whining:

Antiwar groups and other liberal activists are increasingly concerned at signs that Barack Obama’s national security team will be dominated by appointees who favored the Iraq invasion and hold hawkish views on other important foreign policy issues.

The activists are uneasy not only about signs that both Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-N.Y.) and Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates could be in the Obama Cabinet, but at reports suggesting that several other short-list candidates for top security posts backed the decision to go to war.

“Obama ran his campaign around the idea the war was not legitimate, but it sends a very different message when you bring in people who supported the war from the beginning,” said Kelly Dougherty, executive director of the 54-chapter Iraq Veterans Against the War.

The “plums” are not going to the fools that thought they were “friends” of Obama.

The activists — key members of the coalition that propelled Obama to the White House — fear he is drifting from the antiwar moorings of his once-longshot presidential candidacy. Obama has eased the rigid timetable he had set for withdrawing troops from Iraq, and he appears to be leaning toward the center in his candidates to fill key national security posts.

The president-elect has told some Democrats that he expects to take heat from parts of his political base but will not be deterred by it.

Aside from Clinton and Gates, the roster of possible Cabinet secretaries has included Sens. John F. Kerry (D-Mass.) and Richard G. Lugar (R-Ind.), who both voted in 2002 for the resolution authorizing President Bush to invade Iraq, though Lugar has since said he regretted it.

“It’s astonishing that not one of the 23 senators or 133 House members who voted against the war is in the mix,” said Sam Husseini of the liberal group Institute for Public Accuracy.

The “friends” are discovering what we have known: Obama can’t be trusted.

Activists note that Vice President-elect Joe Biden, also expected to be a leading voice in the new administration’s foreign policy, voted for the 2002 war resolution.

Another possible contender for the diplomatic post, former U.S. diplomat Richard C. Holbrooke, also backed the Iraq invasion.

Kevin Martin, executive director of the group Peace Action, said that although Obama had campaigned as an agent of change, the president-elect is “a fairly centrist guy” who appears to be choosing from the Democratic foreign policy establishment — “and nobody from outside it.”

So, in the short term, we’re going to be disappointed,” he said. “They may turn out to be all pro-war, or at least people who were pro-war in the beginning.”

They will be “disappointed” in the short term and the unwitting fools will also be “disappointed” in the long term. Obama can’t be trusted.

Watch out! or you “friends” will be “racists” too:

Martin said that his group was concerned about Gates and Clinton as well as Rahm Emanuel, Obama’s choice for White House chief of staff. He also said his group was trying to mobilize its grass-roots supporters with e-mail alerts, but recognized that it must approach the subject delicately because of public euphoria over Obama’s historic victory.

“There’s so much Obama hero worship, we’re having to walk this line where we can’t directly criticize him,” he said. “But we are expressing concern.”

Peace Action urged in a letter for its members to speak up because “we can be sure that the Obama team is under pressure to dial back plans to withdraw from Iraq.”

Despite concerns, some groups are trying to remain conciliatory.

Tom Andrews, national director of Win Without War, said that although he finds Sen. Clinton’s views “very troubling,” Obama should be given the benefit of the doubt.

I take him at his word that he is committed to ending the occupation of Iraq in 16 months and that he’s going to assemble a team that’s committed to that goal,” Andrews said.

Obama campaigned on a promise to remove all combat troops from Iraq in 16 months, or roughly one brigade a month.

Since winning the White House, Obama has affirmed his pledge to remove the troops but has left himself some flexibility on the withdrawal timetable.

Get ready to be “disappointed” you scared “friends”. Obama can’t be trusted.

Backstabbing is an Obama family value. Michelle enjoys calling hubby “stinky”. Now Michelle is calling Barack on his lies.

During his latest star turn on “60 Minutes” Michelle Obama humiliated Barack, calling him out on two clear-cut, self-agrandising lies. Obama in his fictional “autobiographies” puffs himself up to create the impression that he has actually done something in his life other than promote himself. The Obama books are admittedly creative and filled with “composite” characters. The events in Obama’s books have also been strongly disputed by eyewitnesses and participants in the actual non-fictionalized events. Now we have Michelle Obama disputing, to his face, Obama’s revisionist history.

Mr. Obama: Well, I’m not sure it’s sunk in yet.

Michelle Obama: I guess I’m sort of like him. I’m not sure if it has really sunk in. But I remember, we were watching the returns and, on one of the stations, Barack’s picture came up and it said, ‘President-Elect Barack Obama. ‘ And I looked at him and I said, ‘You are the 44th President of the United States of America. Wow. What a country we live in.’

Mr. Obama: How about that?

Michelle Obama: Yeah.

Mr. Obama: Yeah. Yeah. And then she said ‘Are you gonna take the girls to school in the morning?’

Michelle Obama: I did not. I didn’t say that.


Kroft: You told me that when you went off to Washington and made the decision to live there and when you came back to Chicago you had certain chores that you had to perform. You had to wash the dishes and make your bed.

Mr. Obama: Yeah.

Kroft: Are you free now on that front?

Mr. Obama: Well, I…

Kroft: Certainly there’s gonna be somebody else to wash the dishes and make your bed.

Michelle Obama: Yes.

Mr. Obama: There sometimes it’s soothing to wash the dishes.

Michelle Obama: You? Since when was it ever soothing for you to wash the dishes?

Even on simple matters like washing dishes and taking kids to school, Obama’s version of the truth cannot be trusted. Obama can’t be trusted.

Even Michelle knows that Obama “facts” are as accurate as George W. “facts”.

More Obama “friends” are learning Obama can’t be trusted:

President-elect Barack Obama promised the voters change but has started his Cabinet selection process by naming several Washington insiders to top posts.

Obama is enlisting former Senate leader Tom Daschle as his health secretary. Hillary Rodham Clinton, a well-known Washington personality, seemed more likely than ever to be his secretary of state. Clinton is deciding whether to take that post as America’s top diplomat, her associates said Wednesday

Obama is ready to announce that his attorney general will be Eric Holder, the Justice Department’s No. 2 when Clinton’s husband was president. Rahm Emanuel, Obama’s chief of staff, is another veteran of the Clinton White House.

All the primary talk from Obama about lobbyists? Forget it. Obama can’t be trusted:

In fact, Daschle stayed in the capital city after his defeat, becoming a public policy adviser and member of the legislative and public policy group at the law and lobbying firm Alston & Bird. Daschle isn’t registered as a lobbyist. He advises clients on issues including health care, financial services, taxes and trade, according to the firm’s Web site.

Health care interests, including CVS Caremark, the National Association for Home Care and Hospice, Abbott Laboratories and HealthSouth, are among the firm’s lobbying clients.

Daschle’s appointment was not formally announced, but Democratic officials said the job was his barring an unforeseen problem as Obama’s team reviews his background. One area of review will include the lobbying connections of his wife, Linda Hall Daschle, who has worked mostly on behalf of airline-related companies over the years.

Obama simply can’t be trusted by his friends (nor by his foes). The friends are whining about the backstabbing:

When is Obama going to appoint someone who reflects the progressive base that brought him to the White House?

He won the crucial Iowa caucuses on the strength of his anti-Iraq War stance, and many progressive peace and justice activists worked hard for him against John McCain.

So why in the world is he choosing Hillary Clinton to be Secretary of State when she was one of the loudest hawks on Iraq and threatened to obliterate 75 million Iranians?

And it’s not just Hillary.

Obama’s OMB pick, Peter Orzag, is a Clintonite disciple of Robert Rubin.

Obama’s AG pick, Eric Holder, is a Clintonite who represented Chiquita Bananas.

And Larry Summers’s name is still being bandied about for Treasury, even though Summers, while Clinton’s Treasury Secretary, forced the deregulation of our financial markets and imposed disaster capitalism on Russia.

Worse still, heading Obama’s transition team on intelligence matters are two former deputies to George Tenet, of all people. (See Amy Goodman’s great story about this on Democracy Now!)

It is rather sad to see “progressives” who stabbed Hillary in the back whining about Obama backstabbing them. It is rather humorous for Obama “friends” to think they will get anything from Obama. Keep those lists of unicorns coming, guys. Obama can’t be trusted:

Look, there are a lot of talented progressives who could be in an Obama cabinet.

Joseph Stiglitz is a Nobel Prize-winner in economics and a critic of corporate globalization. He should be Treasury Secretary.

Senator Russ Feingold is a champion of civil liberties. He should be Attorney General.

Robert Greenstein is head of Center on Budget and Policy Priorities. He would make a much better OMB director.

Arlene Holt Baker, executive vice president of the AFL-CIO, would be a tremendous Secretary of Labor.

And if Obama really wanted change, if he really wanted to honor progressives who backed him early on and then did the grunt work against McCain, he’d nominate Dennis Kucinich as Secretary of State. [snip]

But at this point, progressives are getting absolutely nothing from Obama.

Keep dreaming guys. You will get less than the little you still expect from untrustworthy Obama. Obama has a history of doing nothing. Obama will only “manage expectations”:

They know they must manage and lower those expectations, CBS 2 Political Editor Mike Flannery reports.

A top economic advisor to Obama had a glum warning for the rest of us Thursday morning: Neither the job market nor the stock market will be turning around any time soon.

“This might be a long haul,” said Robert Reich, who was President Bill Clinton’s secretary of labor. “2009 is going to be a very hard year. Some economists say we won’t be out of this for two years, others are saying it may be three, or four, maybe five years.”

Now on Obama’s transition team, Reich worries about what happens after the new president is sworn in Jan. 20.

“We all have to be very careful about the expectations that we are putting on this man, our president-elect,” Reich said. “If we all assume it’s going to be the first 100 days, we’re going to be disappointed.”

The man who was Obama’s chief campaign strategist is moving to lower expectations, too.

“We are inheriting an array problems unlike any president has faced, maybe since Franklin Roosevelt in 1932,” David Axelrod said. “It’s not gonna be easy, not gonna be quick.”

Expect to be disappointed.

Obama’s history is simple: Obama helps himself.

Obama history is prologue. Obama will help himself and “manage expectations” of others.

Obama can’t be trusted by friend nor foe.

Obama’s foes can expect to be blamed for his failures and/or be called “racists”.

Obama’s friends can expect an efficient backstab.


Hillary Clinton – The Change We Need

Let Rome In Tiber Melt – We’ll discuss Hillary Clinton.

The Washington Post acknowledges, as we have been writing, that Hillary Clinton is once again the belle of the ball (there is only one MAJOR story out there).

Let’s commence today’s festivities with a rousing song. We’ve called Hillary Clinton a lifeline (a la Who Wants To Be A Millionaire?) for the bereft Barack and his unqualified, inexperienced self – so let’s sing along with the Clara Ward singers.

* * *

As the stock markets contiinue their declines and Obama prepares to bankrupt Washington, D.C. in order to pay for his coronation – Bill Clinton again has become the central target of the Hopium addicted.

There is plenty of good reason for the thurifers in the Church of Obama to be concerned when it comes to Bill Clinton. Big Pink non-favorite Donna Brazile (remember when Donna made it her priority to-do to call and write to Hillary to complain about our naughty commenters?) plays a typically minor role in this biased telling:

The former president had amassed an 81-page list of all the unfair and nasty things the Obama campaign had said, or was alleged to have said, about Hillary Clinton. The press was still in love with Obama, or so it seemed to Clinton, who complained to pretty much anyone who would listen. If the press wouldn’t go after Obama, then Hillary’s campaign would have to do the job, the ex-president urged. On Sunday, Jan. 13, Clinton got worked up in a phone conversation with Donna Brazile, a direct, strong-willed African-American woman who had been Al Gore’s campaign manager and advised the Clintons from time to time. “If Barack Obama is nominated, it will be the worst denigration of public service,” he told her, ranting on for much of an hour. Brazile kept asking him, “Why are you so angry?”

Send us the list Bill or else write that book you promised to write this January. Keeping that 81 pages out of publication will likely become the next “sticking point” in the continued vetting of Bill and Hillary.

That Bill and Hillary need to be vetted at all is a red flag for those who suspect that untrustworthy Obama is pulling another one of his untrustworthy stunts. Howard Wolfson, yesterday craftily clued all in on how bogus is the “vetting” of Bill.

Given the media attention on this issue I thought it would be useful to set out what we know about the Clintons’ finances:

The total amount the Clintons have made since leaving the White House, delineated by year.

Each of the sources of that income, including all of President Clinton’s business income, and the amount.

Speeches the President was paid to give since leaving the White House.

How much he was paid for each speech, who paid him, and when and where he gave it.

The amounts that the Clintons each made on their books.

The property they own.

The investments they own.

The interest income they have made.

Contents of their bank accounts.

The liabilities they have held.

The charitable contributions they have made through the Clinton Family Foundation.

What we know about the Clinton Foundation:

Revenue and assets of the Clinton Foundation.

Stocks held and grants and allocations made by the Foundation.

Commitments made at the Clinton Global Initiative.

Number of children who now have access to pediatric medicines through the Clinton HIV/AIDS Initiative’s partnership with UNITAID:

Number of Rwandan children who have modern sanitary facilities for hand-washing because of the Foundation.

Number of countries in which the Foundation helped to secure lower priced AIDS/HIV drugs.

Percent reduction in the price of an effective malaria drug because of the Foundation’s efforts.

Number of people in Asia with access to safe drinking water because of the Foundation.

Millions of tons of greenhouse gas emissions avoided or reduced because of the Clinton Climate Initiative.

Bill and Hillary Clinton have been vetted as few others have ever been vetted and come out clean. Obama, of course, has never been vetted. Obama is still protected by his Big Media masters. Obama might never be vetted by Big Media until and unless Big Media decides to yank his chain. Adolf Hitler, a monorchic, is still getting vetted years after his self-slaughter. Obama, not vetted.

* * *

The rest of the Hillary-Makes-The-World-Go-Round news:

Hillary is considering her options on how best to make the world a better place:

Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton of New York has reservations about accepting an appointment as secretary of state in the Obama administration, an adviser to Mrs. Clinton who is familiar with her thinking said on Tuesday.

The adviser described Mrs. Clinton as flattered by President-elect Barack Obama’s interest but said she was agonizing over the decision. Mrs. Clinton likes being her own boss and is reluctant to give up the independence that comes with that, said the adviser, who spoke on condition of anonymity because the process was at a delicate stage.

“If you are secretary of state you work for the president,” the adviser said in an e-mail response to questions from The New York Times. “If you are a senator, you work for yourself and the people that elected you.”

It was unclear if Mrs. Clinton’s stated hesitation was part of a bargaining tactic as the Obama team weighs whether to appoint her secretary of state, a genuine moment of indecision or, perhaps, a signal that she was preparing to withdraw from consideration.

Like the Tarantino movie “Kill Bill” the demands on Bill Clinton continue:

Former President Bill Clinton has offered to submit future charitable and business activities to strict ethics reviews if his wife, New York Sen. Hillary Clinton, were nominated as secretary of state, according to Democrats familiar with the deliberations. He has also agreed for the first time to disclose many of the previous donors to his efforts. [snip]

Mr. Clinton would also seek clearance from two separate entities — the White House counsel and the State Department’s ethics chief — on all donations to his charitable foundation, the William J. Clinton Foundation, which includes his presidential library and the Clinton Global Initiative. He would follow the same procedure before agreeing to any paid speeches, according to people close to the talks. Additionally, Mr. Clinton would step away from his foundation’s daily operations — all significant concessions for his wife, one person added. [snip]

At the same time, Sen. Clinton’s aides say she hasn’t decided to take the secretary of state job even if the vetting hurdles were cleared. She is weighing whether she’d rather stay in the Senate to pass the universal health-care program that has been a centerpiece of her public career. After being “excited” about the prospect raised by Mr. Obama, said one adviser, Sen. Clinton is now grappling with the pros and cons in discussions with her husband, daughter Chelsea and close aides. As the adviser said, she would have to be subordinate to other personalities, rather than having her own voice as New York’s senator.

Thoughtful Hillary:

So the question facing her is whether she can make a mark as one of 100 and as a senator that lacks a specific jurisdiction over the issues she cares most about vs having a set turf (in the state dept) and platform from which she can command a spotlight.

Although plenty of other political stories are sure to come and go over the next few days, there is only one MAJOR story out there: Will New York Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton be secretary of State in President-elect Barack Obama’s Administration?

Hillary Clinton – The Change We Need. No matter her lack of seniority in the U.S. Senate, Hillary has strong supporters who know she is experienced and has a long history of actually accomplishing goals which benefit Americans as well as the entire world. Hillary because of her achievements and all her wonderful and rare qualities is a force to contend with regardless of formal titles:

Just in case Hillary Clinton is NOT to be the next Secretary of State…

…Senate Democratic leader Harry Reid is working on ways to increase Mrs. Clinton’s power and stature in the US Senate. He began discussing various options with Senator Clinton “about a week ago,” according to a senior Democratic leadership aide.

They are discussing two options: 1) Crafting a new leadership post that would give Senator Clinton a prominent policy role; and, 2) Giving Senator Clinton an additional plum committee assignment.

Currently, Senator Clinton is, of course, a relatively junior Senator and, as such, has little formal power in an institution that is largely run by seniority. Her biggest formal title is chair of an environmental subcommittee. She made a move a couple weeks ago to become chair of a health care policy subcommittee which would/could have taken the lead on health care, but Ted Kennedy blocked the move (he’ll be the lead on that, thank you very much). Senator Kennedy, however, yesterday announced that Senator Clinton will be one of three Senators with a key role in helping him craft health care legislation.

None of this is to suggest she is not going to be Secretary of State, but it is an indication that she is keeping other options open.

Also: Regarding the Secretary of State post, a key Democratic Senator who is close to Obama told me yesterday, rather emphatically, “It’s not a done deal, I can tell you that.”

More vetting and more Tarantino “Kill Bill 2” type nonsense:

What seems more potentially problematic is not revealing what’s happened in the past — but what the Obama Team wants to do about the future.

The view from Camp Clinton is that the Obama Team would too severely restrict what Bill Clinton is able to do to simply make a living. One source says the Obama Team seems to think it can demand that the former president abide by the restrictions put on a general government official, which just isn’t tenable.

There has even been talk of the Obama White House wanting to approve every speech the former President Gives gives, or any new source of income. [snip]

George H.W. Bush had no similar restrictions when he [sic] son was President, Clinton advocates say. Why would Bill Clinton have to stop doing what former presidents do — traveling the world, giving speeches, raising money for charitable works — when his wife is a mere Cabinet official?

The view is that this is the portfolio of a former President; to eliminate it — especially when Hillary Clinton still has more than $6 million in debt from her campaign — is unreasonable.

Darn that Bill Clinton doing charitable work, unlike other former presidents who enrich themselves.

No matter the obstacles, Bill and Hill keep on keeping on:

Bill Clinton has also indicated, according to sources, that he would be willing to step down as the functional leader of his foundation for the duration of his wife’s tenure in the Obama administration. He would readily agree, these sources say, to disclose any new sources of income and submit his speaking schedule — and his speeches — to State Department officials in advance. [snip]

She would be Secretary of State in an administration dominated by other foreign policy heavyweights. She will wonder where Joe Biden fits in to all of this; the two senators are collegial and competitive. There is some angst with Joe Biden’s circle of confidants about Clinton’s serving as Secretary of State. It is not clear whether Biden himself shares the angst.

Clinton’s every utterance would have to be prescreened; she would not be able to pick and choose her battles; she might be delimited by the State Department’s bureaucratic imperatives. On the other hand, it is conceivable that President Obama would hand Sen. Clinton a ticket with the words “Middle East Peace” printed on it, and say: “Go,” giving Clinton the flexibility and transitive authority to secure her place in history.

Hillary Clinton is ready on Day 1. Hillary Clinton is the Change We Need. Joe Biden has already warned American about the disasters to come with a B.O. administration.

Hillary is the change we need. Hillary should fight for change in the U.S. Senate and in her travels throughout America.


Ream Of Rivals

Such joy! Hillary Clinton constantly in the news.

Such joy! Bill Clinton constantly in the news.

Hillary and Bill Clinton constantly in the news is a buzz-kill for those high on Hopium. For us, it’s ambrosia.

* * *

What are the latest developments in the Hopium buzz-kill story, otherwise known as Secretary of State Hillary Clinton?

The Huffers and Puffers, the Farkers and gafters are all staring at each other in bewilderment, buggin’, because Obama thinks Hillary Clinton is the change we need. Well, at least Obama is saying he thinks Hillary is the Change We Need – the distinction being what Obama says and what Obama does. What Obama says versus what Obama does (hey, don’t forget FISA, or Alice Palmer).

Once off the Hopium, the realization strikes that Obama cannot be trusted by friend nor foe. He simply can’t be trusted.

Here’s today’s news in the wonderful world of Hillary:

It’s not a done deal, Hillary just might return the Obama snubs in kind:

Hillary Rodham Clinton isn’t certain she would accept the Secretary of State post even if Barack Obama offers it to her, several people close to the former first lady say.

Press reports that portray Clinton as willing to accept the job – once the Obama transition team vets Bill Clinton’s philanthropic and business ventures – are inaccurate, one Clinton insider told Politico.

“A lot of the speculation and reporting is out ahead of the facts here,” said the person, who requested anonymity. “She is still weighing this, independent of President Clinton’s work.”

Clinton, the person said, remains deeply “torn” between the possibility of serving in Obama’s cabinet and remaining in the Senate to “help pass health care and work on a broad range of domestic issues.”

Stay in the Senate Hillary and fight for healthcare. Fight Barack Obama’s 15 Million Lies. Fight for genuine and true UNIVERSAL health care, not the mess Obama proposes. Hillary, remember what Paul Krugman wrote about Obama’s destructive health care plan:

I recently castigated Mr. Obama for adopting right-wing talking points about a Social Security “crisis.” Now he’s echoing right-wing talking points on health care.

What seems to have happened is that Mr. Obama’s caution, his reluctance to stake out a clearly partisan position, led him to propose a relatively weak, incomplete health care plan. Although he declared, in his speech announcing the plan, that “my plan begins by covering every American,” it didn’t — and he shied away from doing what was necessary to make his claim true.

Now, in the effort to defend his plan’s weakness, he’s attacking his Democratic opponents from the right — and in so doing giving aid and comfort to the enemies of reform.

We need you in the Senate Hillary, to fight for universal health care. As a go-to voice in the health care debate you will be able to derail Obama’s destructive health care plans which give aid and comfort to the enemies of reform no matter what your formal title may be (one reason Obama fears you and wants you out of the Senate where you are only answerable to citizens of New York State).

Ted Kennedy, added to today’s Hillary-centric news:

Senator Edward Kennedy named fellow Democrat Hillary Clinton to lead a working group on insurance coverage in the effort to write health-care legislation.

Kennedy, chairman of the Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor and Pensions, said in an e-mailed statement today that Clinton will head one of three groups developing ideas for health system changes. Senator Tom Harkin of Iowa will lead a group on prevention and public health, and Senator Barbara Mikulski of Maryland will work on improvements in medical quality.

It will be interesting to see if Ted Kennedy remains part of the Obama cabal of Dean/Brazile/Pelosi or if he is stabbed in the back by Obama on universal health care – an issue Ted has long advocated. Why Ted chose today to name Hillary to a working group on health care is a mystery possibly solved by invoking the names Kerry and/or Richardson.

On the “we must help Obama succeed” front, Chris Matthews was caught not napping but rather, snorting Hopium:

Matthews, who once opined that men who supported Clinton were “castratos in the eunuch chorus,” forgot the cardinal rule for those who are often mentioned on Page Six – he didn’t take a good look around on the Acela train from Philadelphia to Washington Saturday before he started bad-mouthing the New York senator.

An avowed Clinton lover who was sitting next to Matthews reports: “He was in business class wearing a red baseball hat that said Penn on the back, and the fat [bleep] fell asleep on the train and snored with his mouth open.”

During the ride to DC, Matthews awoke from his nap. A fellow passenger asked him, “What’s the news tomorrow?” – to which Matthews loudly started talking about President-elect Barack Obama possibly picking Hillary as his secretary of state.

“I don’t understand it,” Matthews bellowed. “Why would he pick her? I thought we were done with the Clintons. She’ll just use it to build her power base. It’s Machiavellian. And then we’ll have Bill Clinton, too. I thought Obama didn’t want drama. He’s already got [chief of staff Rahm] Emanuel and [transition team leader John] Podesta. He’ll have even more drama with her.

She’s just a soap opera. If he doesn’t pick her, everyone will say she’s been dissed again, we’ll have to live through that again.”

“I though we were done with the Clintons” moans Chris Matthews. Poor Chris, a lot of Hopium eaters are groaning the same thing. For us it’s ambrosia.

Here’s Chris and “I am not obsessed” Hitchens, obsessing last night:

If there is a strong case for Hillary as Secretary of State it is to watch Hitchens and Matthews and Kerry and Richardson combust in rage after hearing such an announcement.

The Guardian last night said it was a done deal. Bill Clinton and all his good works is being set up as the fall guy by the Hopium pushers from Chicago. Bill is reported to be supportive of Hillary joining him in his world travels as Secretary of State.

Bill is happy but Chris is not and the Hopium addicts are getting “bummed out”.

Barack Obama’s serious flirtation with his one-time rival, Hillary Clinton, over the post of secretary of State has been welcomed by everyone from Henry Kissinger to Bill Clinton as an effective, grand gesture by the president-elect.

It’s not playing quite as well, however, in some precincts of Obamaland. From his supporters on the progressive wing of the Democratic Party, to campaign aides of the soon-to-be commander-in-chief, there’s a sense of ambivalence about giving a top political plum to a woman they spent 18 months hammering as the compromised standard-bearer of an era that deserves to be forgotten.

“These are people who believe in this stuff more than Barack himself does,” said a Democrat close to Obama’s campaign. “These guys didn’t put together a campaign in order to turn the government over to the Clintons.”

Poor creatures. Only now are they realizing that Obama needs a lifeline called Hillary.

Only today, on the anniversary of the Jim Jones Cult of Death suicides, do the Hopium eaters shake slightly awake.

Obama trashed Hillary (and Bill) during the primaries, but that was just talk. For Obama, talk is cheap.

An overlooked theme in Obama’s primary victory was his belief that the Clinton legacy was not, as the Clintons imagined, a pure political positive. The Obama campaign had no compunctions about poking holes in that legacy and even sent out mailings stressing the downside of the last “8 years of the Clintons” – enraging the former president in particular. [snip]

“The other question is the old rule – never hire somebody you can’t fire. What happens if her views and his views don’t mesh?”

“The silver lining, for those of us who are skeptical, is that it drastically limits the number of other Clinton administration alums that he can appoint, and that’s a blessing,” Kuttner said.

Robert Kuttner, a Clinton hater, said Hillary’s appointment would block more Clinton alums even as yet another Clinton alum (Eric Holder) was rumored to be the next Attorney General (this was a job poor Johnny Edwards had his eye on).

The poor Hopium addled are confused, wandering the streets, bumping into walls:

“During the campaign there was a lot of agreement and correspondence about how the grassroots felt about the Clintons and how the Obama leadership felt,” he said. “There’s a bit of a divergence now. They’re confused that the guy they elected . . . because we need to go in a different direction on the world stage” might choose a secretary of state with whom he had some of his sharpest foreign policy disagreements during the primary campaign.

It’s great to have Hillary in the news. Still, Obama cannot be trusted by friend nor foe.

It is possible that the entire alleged Secretary of State offer was a complete feint by untrustworthy Obama. We’ve discussed the pros and cons of Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and still think – Obama cannot be trusted. As we have written previously, Obama wants to squeeze the life from his rivals, remove the threat posed by his rivals – to ream his rivals.

We’ll support ready on Day 1 Hillary whatever her decision is on this matter. But we do think Hillary should remain answerable only to the people of New York State as a U.S. Senator.


Team Of Rivals

The latest claptrap served by Big Media at the behest of the Obama campaign (nothing’s changed, it’s still a bamboozle campaign) is the Team of Rivals fatuity. This fatuous narrative is supposed to explain why Hillary Clinton might become Secretary of State. Hillary should be careful however.

All Americans wish that new administrations succeed and responsible public officials want to help a new administration succeed. After all, a boob for a president, hurts the U.S. and all of us. Therefore logic dictates that we all hope and wish for the best for any new administration because it is in our best interests. However, history is a teacher. If you elect a boob expect boobery.

Big Media however wants us to ignore history and accept the worship Obama narrative. The Big Media propaganda this time derives from the Doris Kearns Goodwin book on Abraham Lincoln called Team of Rivals. The premise of the Goodwin book is Lincoln’s political genius by examining his relationships with three men he selected for his cabinet, all of whom were opponents for the Republican nomination in 1860

The last time Big Media tried to sell us a fatuous concept of this size and ridiculousness was in 2000. Back then George W. Bush and Karl Rove were the geniuses. Rove and Big Media pushed all sorts of intertwined, well read, crap. Back then Karl Rove:

invoked Franklin Roosevelt’s supremacy in the 1930s and suggested that something similar was at hand: “We’ve laid out an agenda, we’ve laid out a vision, and now people want to see results.”

One of the goals of any ambitious president is to create a governing coalition just as Roosevelt did, one that long outlasts your presidency. It’s the biggest thing you can aim for, and only a few presidents have achieved it. As the person with the long-term vision in the Bush administration, and with no lack of ambition either, Rove had thought long and hard about achieving this goal before ever arriving in the White House, and he has pursued it more aggressively than anyone else.

Rove has always cast himself not merely as a campaign manager but as someone with a mind for policy and for history’s deeper currents—as someone, in other words, with the wherewithal not just to exploit the political landscape but to reshape it. At the Christian Science Monitor lunch, he appeared poised to do just that. It was already clear that Social Security privatization, a longtime Rove enthusiasm, was the first thing Bush would pursue in his second term. When things are going well for Rove, he adopts a towel-snapping jocularity. He looked supremely sure of his prospects for success.

But within a year the administration was crumbling.

This all sounds sickeningly familiar. Rove and Big Media peppered their gruel with references to Mark Hanna and McKinley in the same way that today the Obama Hopium Eaters regurgitate Lincoln and his Team of Rivals.

We’ve been debunking the Obama as Lincoln narrative since May 1, 2007 (Obama’s Log Cabin). Unlike Obama, Lincoln argued on a national level for years about issues such as the Mexican War, tariffs, abolition, Texas annexation, the Wilmot Proviso, economic development in the relatively new nation, and of course Lincoln pretty much founded the Republican Party.

When Lincoln ran for President in 1860 he addressed the question of a house divided at the Cooper Union in New York and ran a campaign of important ideas in an increasingly divided nation. In contrast, Obama’s entire campaign was yelping for undefined “change” and tarring opponents, via surrogates and anonymous memos, as racists.

As Lincoln was sworn in as president in March 1861 seven states had already left the Union and the issues of confederacy versus central government, agrarian society versus industrial society, new states as slave or free states, and abolition of slavery were joined. The attack by the rebel states on the Union’s Fort Sumter in Charleston on April 12, 1861 started the cascade towards Civil War.

The very able Lincoln realized the then much smaller nation needed a unity government and so Lincoln created a unity government – a Team of Rivals.

Obama however needs a lifeline. Obama knows he is not experienced enough nor qualified to be president -so very much like an earlier Saturday Night Live skit – Obama is placing a 3:00 a.m. call to Hillary Clinton. When we wrote The Obama/Biden Game Show we did not realize it would be a remake of Who Wants To Be A Millionaire? featuring a hapless Obama desperately asking Hillary Clinton for assistance. That Obama and his campaign bizarrely derided Hillary as “inexperienced” in foreign affairs (not to mention racist) during the primaries makes the calls of “Hillary HELP” that much more humorous.

Big Media will persist in hawking the realignment theories of November 2008 in the same way Big Media hawked the realignment hogwash in 2000. Big Media will also, whatever happens, blame Hillary – and Bill, for anything that ever goes wrong for Obama. So Hillary, watch out, life in a gilded cage is not much of a life.

John McCain is also now drawn into the vortex of flim-flammery too. Responsible John McCain is promising Obama assistance and cooperation too. According to Big Media reports, John McCain and B.O. have some possible areas of agreement:

Obama and McCain were expected to discuss ways in which they could collaborate over the next four years, perhaps on issues including climate change, ethics reform and national service, aides said.

McCain knows very well that Obama cannot be trusted. McCain know history is a teacher. McCain knows Obama has a history which demonstrates Obama cannot be trusted. February 2006:

Republican Sen. John McCain on Monday accused his Democratic colleague Barack Obama of “partisan posturing” on the issue of lobbying ethics reform — a charge Obama called puzzling and regrettable.

The exchange, made in letters between the pair, was the latest sign of trouble as the two parties try to come up with legislation governing relations with lobbyists.

Based on past Obama statements, “I concluded your professed concern for the institution and the public interest was genuine and admirable,” McCain, R.-Ariz., wrote in a letter to Obama, D-Ill., Monday. “Thank you for disabusing me of such notions.” [snip]

Aides to McCain confirmed that McCain saw Obama’s first letter as partisan. “I’m embarrassed to admit that after all these years in politics I failed to interpret your previous assurances as typical rhetorical gloss routinely used in politics to make self-interested partisan posturing appear more noble,” McCain wrote.

History teaches that if you assist Obama you will be used and abused. Alice Palmer learned that a long time ago, in Chicago.

What Obama wants is not a Team of Rivals.

Obama wants to ream his rivals.


Barack Obama Resigns

Having done absolutely nothing in the U.S. Senate ever, not having served even 1 full term in the U.S. Senate, never even bothering to convene a meeting of the subcommittee he chairs – Barack Obama will resign this Sunday from the U.S. Senate.

Once again, as his history shows over and over and over again, Obama will flick off the burden of responsibility in order to advance himself, yet again.

The historical record, which we look to for guidance, demonstrates that Obama himself said he was a believer in knowing what you are doing when applying for a job. Obama also said, he would not run for President because “I would essentially have to start now before having served a day in the Senate.”

So, having served not one day in the U.S. Senate, Obama started running for President. And now, Obama is again running out on responsibility and his constitutents.

Is there work to do in the U.S. Senate? Yes. As a matter of fact there is a lot of work to be done this month and next month in the U.S. Senate. But Obama does not care. Obama got what he wanted. So once again, Obama will screw his constituents. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid will open a lame-duck session of the U.S. Senate this very Monday – so Obama will dump his responsibilities on Sunday.

Is there work to do in the U.S. Senate? Yes. Emphatically Yes.

The prospects of a government rescue for the foundering American automakers dwindled Thursday as Democratic Congressional leaders conceded that they would face potentially insurmountable Republican opposition during a lame-duck session next week.

At the same time, hope among many Democrats on Capitol Hill for an aggressive economic stimulus measure all but evaporated. Democratic leaders have been calling for a package that would include help for the auto companies as well as new spending on public works projects, an extension of jobless benefits, increased food stamps and aid to states for rising Medicaid expenses.

But while Democrats said the stimulus measure would wait until President-elect Barack Obama takes office in January, some industry experts fear that one of the Big Three automakers will collapse before then, with potentially devastating consequences.

Obama claims to support the bailout of automakers as well as new spending on public works projects, an extension of jobless benefits, increased food stamps and aid to states for rising Medicaid expenses. But an Obama claim of support is worthless… Obama can’t be trusted. Obama this time is not even bothering to vote “present“. Obama will this time vote “MIA“.

Passing any legislation to aid the auto companies would require 60 votes in the Senate. Democrats now control 51 of those votes, but Mr. Obama has said he will resign his Senate seat on Sunday, and Vice President-elect Joseph R. Biden Jr. is not expected to attend the lame duck session, meaning Democrats would need the support of at least 11 Republicans.

Hopium eaters will denounce us as being unfair. Their Caligula has work to do they will argue. But Obama’s absence is rather extraordinary.

Obama’s Senate resignation is, by far, the earliest resignation by an incoming President or Vice-President, looking back to 1920. (And with the March inauguration dates then and earlier, it’s unlikely we missed any earlier November resignations.).

It’s the only November resignation, and, in fact, there have been only three other pre-Christmas resignations, Bush on Dec. 21, 2000, Clinton on Dec. 12, 1992, and Kennedy, the previous earliest Senate resignation, on Dec. 22, 1960.

Update: Biden probably won’t resign his seat until after the new Senate takes office in early January, as he was also elected to a new Senate term.

Here’s the full list of Senate, House and Governor resignation dates of all President and Vice-President-elects back to 1920.

Senate Resignation Dates:
Gore, January 2, 1993
Quayle, January 3, 1989
Mondale, December 30, 1976
Humphrey, December 30, 1964
Johnson, January 3, 1961 (Johnson was also elected to a new Senate term in 1960).
Kennedy, December 22, 1960
Nixon, January 1, 1953
Barkley, January 19, 1949
Truman, January 17, 1945
Curtis, March 4, 1929 (Presidential Inauguration Day)
Harding, March 4, 1921 (Presidential Inauguration Day)

House Resignation Dates:
Garner, term ended March 4, 1933 (Presidential Inauguration Day)

Governor Resignation Dates:
Bush, December 21, 2000
Clinton, December 12, 1992
Agnew, January 7, 1969
Roosevelt’s term ended December 31, 1932.
Coolidge’s term ended January 6, 1921. (VP-elect).

In fairness, we will concede to the Hopium eaters that Obama did do two things in the U.S. Senate. Obama managed to acquire two rather nice houses. The first one was acquired with financing assistance from Obama’s slumlord friend and convicted felon, Antoin “Tony” Rezko.

A former Illinois real estate specialist says FBI agents have questioned him about a Chicago property that had been bought by convicted felon Tony Rezko’s wife and later sold to the couple’s next-door neighbor, Sen. Barack Obama.

The real estate specialist, Kenneth J. Conner, said bank officials replaced an appraisal review he prepared on the property and FBI agents were investigating in late 2007 whether the Rezko-Obama deal was proper.

“Agents and I talked about payoff, bribe, kickback for a long time, though it took them only a short number of minutes of talking with me while looking at the appraisal to acknowledge what they already seemed to know: The Rezko lot was grossly overvalued,” Mr. Conner told The Washington Times Monday.

“Rezko paid the asking price on the same day Obama paid $300,000 less than the asking price to the same seller for his adjacent mansion,” he said. “This begs the question of payoff, bribe, kickback.” [snip]

The complaint also said the grand jury wanted information on Mrs. Rezko’s checking account and loan file and whether the Federal Deposit Insurance Corp. (FDIC) had audited the Rezko file.

It said Mutual Bank officials could be guilty of making false statements, willfully overvaluing property, bank fraud, witness retaliation, willful violation of a lawful subpoena, FDIC violations, and state banking regulations.

The second Obama “accomplishment” was the acquisition of a beautiful white house in Washington, D.C.

To acquire that beautiful white house, Obama got the assistance, not of Rezko, but of Dean/Brazile/Pelosi/Kennedy. Obama then bamboozled desperate Americans to acquire that beautiful white house, but Obama is not qualified, nor experienced enough to occupy that beautiful white house.


Ali-Bama And The Forty Thieves

Not since Maria Montez played a Bagdad beauty in the 1944 screen adaptation mess of A Thousand And One Nights has there been so much irrelevant commotion. We refer of course to the rumors of Hillary Clinton as a potential Secretary of State.

As we wrote yesterday,

In upcoming weeks and months many will exhaust their energies discussing Obama appointments. Is this one good, is that one bad, what does this name mean, what does that mention portend? We remember that in the George W. Bush White House only one appointment mattered – Karl Rove.

The Obama “political” office will, like the Bush political office, run things. 

Hillary Clinton will do what Hillary Clinton will do and we wish her Godspeed. As history teaches us, Hillary’s “responsibility gene” might influence her into taking a position she is more than able to do well in.  Hillary is aware that the country is in peril and that she is ready on day 1, whereas Obama has only bamboozling words. 

However, the “responsibility gene” should listen to the “reality gene“. The bottom line is that in this retelling, Hillary should beware of falling in with Ali-Bama and his Forty Thieves. And these are his thieves.

So beware Hillary.

Obama might not want Hillary to be around when he kills health care or else proposes a non-universal health care plan that will eventually doom any hope of ever achieving genuine universal health care in the United States.

Already we have seen how Obama allies like Ted Kennedy want to keep total control over the health care process and intend to freeze Hillary out. We’ve already heard one of the forty thieves, Nancy Pelosi, in her first post election news conference declare that Dimocrats have to “manage expectations” and that many promises made during the campaign will have to at least wait if not be completely abandoned.

Obama might also want to humiliate Hillary and force her to meet with the rogue leaders he had promised to meet without preconditions in his first year. Irrelevant theories abound:

The best reason for Obama to be looking for a place in his cabinet for Clinton is simple: to get her out of the Senate. Just ask George W. Bush, Bill Clinton, and Jimmy Carter what it was like to have a once or future presidential rival in the Senate serving as a one-person Roman tribunal. Remember how easily the press gravitated to John McCain in ’01 or Bob Kerrey in ’93 or Ted Kennedy in ’77 to allow them to be one-senator judge/juries on Administration proposals? The upside for Obama putting Clinton at State (or even the Pentagon) is that it gets her out of the Senate and gets her out of the domestic policy debates. Also, one other thing to keep in mind if Clinton does end up at State, she’ll be off the political circuit; it’s considered unseemly to practice politics while serving in one of the big cabinet posts, especially at State or Defense. So this would mean no more Hillary on the stump for candidates, no more Hillary raising money, no more Hillary collecting chits.

Yon Obama has a lean and hungry look when he observes Hillary’s popularity. Yesterday, CBS News released an analysis of the exit polls. The result of the CBS News analysis:

As voters left the polls on Election Day, many were asked how they would have voted if the election match-up were between Hillary Clinton and John McCain rather than Barack Obama and McCain. 52 percent said they would have backed the former Democratic candidate; 41 percent would have voted for McCain, wider than Obama’s 7-point margin over McCain.

Interestingly, 16 percent of McCain voters said they would have voted for Clinton, the Democrat, if she had been her party’s nominee.

Obama knows Hillary is more experienced and won more primary votes and would have won more general election votes than he. 

Obama also does not want Hillary watching and protesting as he loots the American economy for his friends, in the same way George W. looted the American economy for his friends. And there is no question, the American economy is being looted.

Yet for all this activity, no formal action has been taken to fill the independent oversight posts established by Congress when it approved the bailout to prevent corruption and government waste. Nor has the first monitoring report required by lawmakers been completed, though the initial deadline has passed.

“It’s a mess,” said Eric M. Thorson, the Treasury Department’s inspector general, who has been working to oversee the bailout program until the newly created position of special inspector general is filled. “I don’t think anyone understands right now how we’re going to do proper oversight of this thing.”

In approving the rescue package, lawmakers trumpeted provisions in the legislation that established layers of independent scrutiny, including a special inspector general to be nominated by the White House and a congressional oversight panel to be named by lawmakers themselves.

The Republican gang of 40-plus thieves will soon be leaving Washington.

The Dimocratic gang of 40-plus thieves will soon be taking over all of Washington.

The Dimocratic gang of 40-plus thieves don’t want Hillary around – watching.