In case anyone missed it, this is what Larry Johnson wrote to him at No Quarter after Andrew started the rumors about Bristol Palin being the mother of Trig:

Fuck You Andrew Sullivan

You piece of human scum. Pick the time and date. I will kick your ass. You are despicable. There is one indisputable fact–Sarah Palin gave life to a baby boy who has Down’s Syndrome. And you dare to suggest that this was an illegitimate birth by her daughter. You have no sense of decency or honor. You deserve to be beaten in every manner conceivable. You and your cohorts spread this vicious lie. You are a spineless coward. There is only one truth. Sarah Palin’s Down’s Syndrome baby has more humanity and intelligence than you will ever achieve in your pathetic life. You are a synonym for asshole. I will fight you with one arm tied behind my back and destroy you. Please, accept the challenge.

In other words, Sullivan’s a tool.

Here’s the thing - by spreading rumors, and posting unsubstantiated “comments” of Palin’s time in Wasilla (I have seen other comments that were more favorable by the people who lived there, as well as in a BIG article about her in Time.com), it weakens the argument against her. The amount of time she was governor is a slippery slope for Democrats since Obama has spent very little time in the Senate - he has missed almost HALF of the Senate votes, and started campaigning almost as soon as he got in. So, Democrats need to be mighty careful on that one - especially since she is not at the top of the ticket and Obama is. It just sets them up, is my point. I have tried to find independent, reliable verification of this story, but have not been able to do so. Huffington Post is the main source for this story, and they are notoriously slanted. Oh, and Palin has the highest approval rating of any governor in the COUNTRY. Which is why I say those who want to slam her must have documentation to support their claims against her.

Along those lines - NO ONE in the Obama camp should follow up on Palin allegedly “biting the hand” that got her where she is given what he did to Alice Palmer, and the NUMEROUS people he has now thrown under the bus. (By the way, did you know that Bill Ayers lives about 1 1/2 blocks away from Obama? And the Farrakhan compound is right up the street from Ayers? H/T to Truthteller for this info! Coincidence?? Hahahahaha.) So, yeah - I’d let that one lie if I was him…

Even more than that,though, the Obama people should NEVER chastise anyone else for not being “vetted.” Obama has NEVER been fully vetted, certainly not by the MSM. Had he, he would not be the nominee now. He has too many shady associates (add Kilpatrick to that list), too few legislative accomplishments, too little experience, and no paper trail at ALL. NONE. (How can that be? Hell, I have a paper trail, and I’m not running for president! I have old date books - I even know where they are! I have files, for cryin’ out loud!! With papers in them! Really! And Obama doesn’t?? Uh, sure.)

Frankly, this is the kind of thing Bush supporters did to Al Gore and John Kerry. It is disturbing to me that the Left Wing has started acting so much like the Right Wing in its actions. Perhaps it learned too well from the Bushits. But this is not the Democratic Party I knew - maybe I was/am naive, but I expect my Party to act ethically and with integrity. It has lost out on both counts in a major way this year. I don’t recognize it any more - well, not as Democratic anyway. And bear in mind, I was clinging to the far left corner of the DNC before this. Not a centrist am I. The sexism and misogyny ALONE this year has been nothing but shocking and unprecedented. Women are the BACKBONE of the DNC, and it has treated us like pure shit. Now, it is starting on Palin. I never thought I’d see this day. I am truly dismayed by this. McCain came out FORCEFULLY against the media and DEMOCRATS attacking Palin for not staying home and taking care of her babies! What is this - 1958??? The DEMOCRATS are saying this, and the REPUBLICANS are the ones standing up for women! I feel like I am living in upside-down world. Bush and Obama claim to be Uniters, and both have divided this country more than anyone else I can remember. Friends end friendships, families are fighting - what the hell is going ON???? I guess “Uniter” is supposed to be defined as “divider” now…

Bottom line is this - go after Palin’s POLICY positions, and there are certainly ones that are 180 degrees from many Progressives. But the Swift-Boating will backfire, I think. It infuriated us when it happened to our candidate because it was based on lies and innuendo. I hardly think we should be using the same tactics now.

Sigh. I am passionate about this, as you see. I am sad, sad that the DNC has acted so immorally, so unethically, and engaged in flat out fraud. Maybe this kind of thing has been going on for years and I just didn’t see it or know it, but if so, it sure wasn’t this blatant. Not by half. I cannot stand to see the Democrats engaging in such sleazy politics. And I am furious at the way they are treating women. What does it say when the RNC and McCain come out guns BLAZING about the sexist treatment of Sarah Palin, when Obama ENGAGED in sexist treatment of Clinton, and the DNC supported it, said nothing, and its leaders engaged in it. Now they are turning it on Palin. That is simply unacceptable to me. Completely, and utterly unacceptable. I will not condone that kind of treatment of women. And let me say this - if this is how Obama is treating Clinton and Palin now, you cannot claim he will watch out for women if president. If he treats women like this, over half the population, what hope do members of the GLBT community have? And so it goes down the line. How incredibly, disturbingly, sad…

I’ve been thinking about Liz Phair’s response to the rockin’ but boorish Rolling Stones after reading Jacob Weisberg’s If Obama Loses: Racism is the Only Reason McCain Might Beat Him in Slate. Unlike Phair, I won’t attempt a point-by-point rebuttal; Weisberg’s piece is so riddled with distortions and hyperbole that a laundry list argument cannot summarize my feelings.

Weisberg’s article is so bad on so many levels that it’s amazing it was published at all, but it does fit with the media’s love affair with Obama. It’s a deceptive piece of writing and it relies on faulty logic, which I show below. But of course that is not an accident. A strident media partisan like Weisberg cannot rely on facts. So let’s start from the beginning:

John McCain, a sub-par Republican nominee with a list of liabilities longer than a Joe Biden monologue. Obama has built a crack political operation, raised record sums, and inspired millions with his eloquence and vision. McCain has struggled with a fractious campaign team, lacks clarity and discipline, and remains a stranger to charisma. Yet at the moment, the two of them appear to be tied. What gives?

Weisberg overstates the effectiveness of Obama’s operation. The trip to Europe, the faux presidential seal, his many policy reversals, and his disastrous debate performance at Saddleback are not mentioned.

Now notice how Hillary’s name is not mentioned. Nor the fact that 18 million voters chose her, approximately 200,000 more than chose Obama. Obama did not win a decisive victory. He was pulled over the finish line by Reid and Pelosi.

In fact, Obama as a brand has actually been declining — if you look at primary results and polls — since March. McCain, on the other hand, has actually run a surprisingly nimble operation, releasing ads which deflate the self-important Obama.

He continues:

If you break the numbers down, the reason Obama isn’t ahead right now is that he trails badly among one group, older white voters. He does so for a simple reason: the color of his skin.

This would be a shocking conclusion if it were true. Older white voters, Weisberg is telling us, are racists. What’s his evidence?

Five percent of white voters acknowledge that they, personally, would not vote for a black candidate.

Five percent? Repeat. Five percent. Is Weisberg innumerate or does he think we’re stupid? That means 95 percent will not take race into consideration. Does this satisfy Weisberg? Of course not.

Five percent surely understates the reality. In the Pennsylvania primary, one in six white voters told exit pollsters race was a factor in his or her decision. Seventy-five percent of those people voted for Clinton. You can do the math: 12 percent of the Pennsylvania primary electorate acknowledged that it didn’t vote for Barack Obama in part because he is African-American.

Here he assures us that the number he just cited is wrong. Why did he cite the five percent to then just swat it down? Because it doesn’t serve the necessary condition of his argument; in fact, it refutes his thesis. Weisberg’s logic is not just twisted, it’s fabricated. Furthermore, just because Pennsylvania voters said race was a factor does not mean they view it as a problem. Indeed, the language of the polling is so vague that the race factor may have been Pennsylvanians voting for Obama because of his race. Does Weisberg mention Obama’s victory in lily-white Iowa ?, a state which is less diverse than Pennsylvania. No. Nor does he mention any of the deep-red and very white caucus states where Obama won. Because, as he says with a bit of sarcasm, “Obama may be too handsome, brilliant, and cool to be elected.” You see, Obama is really so wonderful that it must be racism.

Not once does Weisberg mention the sexism and misogyny directed at Hillary. Not once does he mention Hillary’s decidedly blue-collar appeal, her populist economic message, and the older, white female voters who fell hard for her. No, these ladies (and men) must be racists.

Except for health care, Weisberg does not consider issues important to older white voters:

You may or may not agree with Obama’s policy prescriptions, but they are, by and large, serious attempts to deal with the biggest issues we face: a failing health care system, oil dependency, income stagnation, and climate change.

He is silent on national security and terrorism, international relations, the solvency of Social Security and Medicare, job creation, and fuel prices. Weisberg’s litany, like Obama’s, is a distinctly Whole Foods Nation brand of liberalism, and it fails to address the economic insecurities of the poor and middle class. The blogger Anglachel writes:

Where has Obama lost ground among Democratic voters? In the populations most endangered by the faltering economy and the long term erosion of socio-economic standing. He did not address what mattered most to them, which was their increasing vulnerability to the ordinary dangers of life - insurance, health care, retirement, wages, job security, housing. To fail to do this was what makes Obama come across as elitist.

McCain is talking about drilling to reduce gas prices, and charging Obama with wanting to raise taxes. This message is gaining traction with many working Americans. As Anglachel puts it:

The [Obama] wing is all too enamored of its own moral superiority on race, too contemptuous of the Bubbas and the Bunkers, to make the slightest move to win back and thus defend this constituency.

Weisberg utterly fails to prove that the race is tied because of racism.

So let’s talk about what a vote for Obama actually signals: voting for Obama is condoning a culture that hates women (Keith Olbermann’s idea for Beating Hillary: Literally Beating Hillary). It’s a tacit acceptance for the media and the Democratic establishment giving preference to a far less qualified man over a much more qualified woman. It’s telegraphing to our daughters — to all women — that a man is rightfully at the front of the line, regardless if he lost nearly every important state and the popular vote. It’s telling our daughters — and all women — that violent imagery against a female candidate is acceptable if it benefits the male candidate. It is the familiar salt-in-the-wound for millions of women, the majority of the Democratic Party, that bullying and force — by the media, the liberal blogs, by the Democratic Party — is the way to crush a woman who tries to achieve too much.

Voting for Obama is to support a candidate who listens to and publicly references music which celebrates the degradation and abuse of women.

Voting for Obama is condoning race-baiting, like Weisberg’s. It’s accusing Hillary of suggesting that she was waiting for Obama to be assassinated because she mentioned RFK’s assassination in reference to the length of past campaigns when the media was trying to force her out; it’s having your surrogates imply that President Clinton’s remarks about Obama’s Iraq statements was racist (even producing a memo describing the plan), and it’s using coded language like “bamboozled” to mostly African Americans audiences in order to dislodge their support from the Clintons.

Voting for Obama is to embrace using race as a divisive strategy in a Democratic campaign.

Voting for Obama is being party to a rigged election. It condones voter intimidation, caucus fraud, and gaming your opponent’s states. It’s voting for outright bias by Party leaders like Dean, Pelosi, and Brazile. It’s an intentional violation of the one person, one vote ideal.

Voting for Obama is embracing intentional voter disenfranchisement.

Weisberg insists that Obama has a progressive agenda. But there’s nothing in the way Obama conducts his campaigns that would give us that idea. Many of us, Hillary supporters like myself, will vote for McCain because Obama’s treatment of Hillary goes against everything we believe in. And I want the Democratic Party to repudiate his tactics, and their own. Obama’s supporters must, some day, listen carefully to the very real reasons of why we’re angry, and they need to examine their consciences over their silence on the sexism towards Hillary and Obama’s race-baiting strategy.

Weisberg is wrong: Obama may lose because he conducted a despicable primary campaign, and he failed to offer a compelling economic message during the General Election.

The Internet has also given voice to “citizen journalists”. Some are fantastic writers and dogged investigators. Others, well, not so much. The downside is that any idiot with a modem and an account can post his or her “views”, irrespective of the validity or accuracy of their “reporting”. All of which can make for good sport, sure, but I find that as I get older my patience for this sort of nonsense wanes. Particularly when it comes to politics.

Consider, if you will, this Huffington Post “column” by Rebecca Curtis.

I’m too tired to analyze all the inaccuracies and poorly arrived-at conclusions in Curtis’s screed. One part at the very beginning, however, bears mentioning since reading it accomplished the same end as a plank with nails piercing a car’s tires. If you’re going to deal the race card, might as well make it an Ace:

The Rasmussen Report and Zogby/ATV poll found that Obama’s lost major ground with women, independents, Democrats, even young voters. Polls are just that; they could change. But we might ask: why the dip? If it reflects the fact that Obama acted “uppity” and met state heads in Europe, or that McCain ran ads comparing Obama to amateur porn star Paris Hilton (implying black people are good at sex and celebrity, and not-so-good at intellectual endeavors), then perhaps race is in play after all.

Again:

McCain ran ads comparing Obama to amateur porn star Paris Hilton (implying black people are good at sex and celebrity, and not-so-good at intellectual endeavors)…

OK, so Rebecca Curtis supports Obama. Fine. That’s her choice. But let’s remember, for roughly the billionth time, that NOT ALL POLL NUMBERS INDICATING THAT OBAMA’S SUPPORT IS ERODING CAN BE ATTRIBUTED TO RACE. Some people, unlike Rebecca Curtis, see Obama not as a symbol but as a flesh-and-blood man running for the highest political office in the United States. We’ve already seen what happens when an inexperienced non-entity is elected to the Presidency and aren’t much looking forward to another go-around. We don’t believe that a candidate should be granted this office because “it’s time for America to elect a (woman, African-American, fill in the blank) for President”.

But here’s another thing. This Curtis column demonstrates how irrational and desperate Obama supporters are when it comes to any and all criticism of their man. Black people are good at sex and celebrity? What sane person would interpret the McCain ad that way? I’m guessing a person obsessed with race. It looks like she’s the one who needs help, not Obama opponents.

Intrigued by the flabby reasoning, laughable conclusions and arch, self-riteous tone of this article, I looked up her bio:

Rebecca Curtis received a B.A. from Pomona College, an M.A. in English from New York University, and an M.F.A from Syracuse University. Her first book, Twenty Grand and Other Tales of Love & Money (Harpercollins 2007) was a New York Times Notable Book of the Year, an L.A. Times Best Book of the Year, and a San Francisco Chronicle Best Book of the Year. It won the New Hampshire Literary Award for Outstanding Work of Fiction, 2006-7, and was a finalist for the Pen-Hemingway Award and the L.A. Times Art Seidenbaum Award for First Fiction. Curtis’ fiction and essays have appeared in The New Yorker, Harper’s, Esquire, Jane, Harper’s Bazaar, McSweeney’s, N+1, and elsewhere. Her stories have been performed by New York’s Symphony Space and Chicago’s Stories on Stage and have been anthologized in The O’Henry Prize Stories 2007. She is the recipient of a Rona Jaffe Foundation award, and a Saltonstall Grant. She has taught in the graduate and undergraduate writing programs at St. Mary’s College of California and the University of Kansas. She now teaches in the Graduate Writing Program at Columbia University and lives in Brooklyn.

Impressive qualifications, no doubt - FOR A BOOK REVIEWER OR ENGLISH PROFESSOR. But when it comes to writing about politics, maybe Rebecca Curtis should stay out of the deep end of the pool until she learns how to do something other than dog paddle.

……………..

Cool picture from florian.b who also features this quote…

“Restriction of free thought and free speech is the most dangerous of all subversions. It is the one un-American act that could most easily defeat us.” — Supreme Court Justice William O. Douglas

NOTE: I’ll be appearing as a guest tonight on Erin Kotecki Vest’s Sunday Inquisition show talking about the Edwards scandal and the media at 7pm Pacific time. Erin also wrote this piece about me getting banned.

About a week ago, I posted a piece on the Huffington Post called Say It Ain’t So, John. I didn’t think it would have much more impact than my usual posts…maybe a dozen comments or so, a couple of people linking to it. I cross posted on DailyKos, which is probably the best known and biggest progressive blog. I’ve been posting at Kos for a long time. As more news about Edwards has come out, I followed up with more posts which were also the subject of a large number of comments. All of them looked at the Edwards situation from my point of view; that is, a liberal who is concerned about the implications this story may have in November.

Now I’m banned. I can’t write about ANYTHING at Kos. Can’t comment, can’t post a non-Edwards piece. Nothing.

And I stand by my title - it’s largely John Edward’s fault that I’m banned. I’m now personally a small piece of fallout from the scandal. That’s because Edward’s defense is shoot the messenger, not answer the questions. The rabid response of the people on Kos is directly related to Edwards and his own response. That’s exactly why I’m saying this has the potential to hurt the Democratic brand.

So answer the effin’ questions already, John. For everyone’s sake.

I’m not sure if the DailyKos is going to take down my writing and make me a complete un-person there. Of course, real progressives are against censorship so Maryscott O’Connor’s blog MyLeftWing is my new community home. (Maryscott was the lead actress in my film Breathing Room about 13 years ago, by the way.)

Here are the pieces I wrote on Kos that caused the problems…if you look, I’m not writing about anything that isn’t being written about already.

Say It Ain’t So, DailyKos

Dissent, Disloyalty, And Disappointment

Irrefutable Proof Of The John Edwards Scandal

But, wait - I’ve called George W. Bush arrogant - does that mean I was actually being racist in some subconscious sort of way?? Huh - my (chosen) brother, Patrick, calls HIMSELF arrogant, but he’s FRENCH. Maybe he has internalized racism then. I should talk to him about that - maybe do an intervention…Heck, there are any number of people who have been called arrogant on tv, in print, in conversation, whatever, previous to Obama being on stage, and no one ever even acknowledged they were being racists! Good grief!!

Thank heavens we have FINALLY been alerted to our racist language - all of these centuries we have been using “arrogant” or other variations without realizing how offensive we were being!! Oh, Obama - if it were not for you, there is no telling the depths to which we would sink!! Oh, crap - now I’m making my own self sick.

Okay - this is just getting ridiculous, and completely out of hand. First, you have Obama telling the House that, finally, our prayers have been answered - he has RISEN. Halle-damn-lujah. Then, any word used to describe him is all of a sudden RACIST and demeaning. Unless one is singing his praises to the high heavens, any remotely negative statement about his behavior, his - dare I say it? - ARROGANCE, his lack of policy, his lack of EXPERIENCE, is all RACIST!!!! Now, he has taken to accusing the McCain campaign of racism when they haven’t said word ONE that was racist. He is setting the stage, just like he did with Hillary Clinton. He tells his followers how evil the other person is, what they are GOING to say, not what they HAVE said, then these people believe that is EXACTLY what they said. No amount of evidence to the contrary can sway them. The McCain Campaign is racist, and that’s all there is about it. It doesn’t help that Obama’s aides claim HE is not introducing race into the discussion, despite his very clear statements of doing just that. Obamessiah said it, so it MUST be true, and if you don’t see it, then you are a racist, too!!

One of Obama’s lines was that he doesn’t look the same as the other presidents on our money. Well, FIRST of all, Barry - YOU AREN’T THE FREAKIN’ PRESIDENT!!!!!!! Second of all, YOU KEEP INJECTING RACE INTO THE RACE!!! Ahem. Sorry - he’s pissing me off. Oh, but WAIT!! Breaking news: Obama Aide Concedes ‘Dollar Bill’ Remark Referred to His Race!! Well, there’s a newsflash from The Department of DUH!!! Those of us still capable of thinking knew that already, but nice of the aide to finally ADMIT it!!! (Feel free to go read the article, if you can stomach all of the excuses and accusations from the Obama camp.)

Obama is just wearing me out. And the constant race-baiting is making me pissy.

So, while he is pronouncing himself King of the Universe and trying to paint McCain as a racist, what has the good Senator of the Great State of New York, Hillary Clinton, been doing?

As one would expect, she’s been doing her JOB!!!! She has been fighting for people, like she always does! The following Press Release is her latest accomplishment:

July 31, 2008

Many New York Communities Face Health Risks Due to Exposure to the Dangerous Carcinogen

WASHINGTON, DC – Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton today welcomed approval by a key Senate committee of her legislation to require the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to set tougher regulations to protect the public from exposure to the carcinogenic chemical Trichloroethylene (TCE), which is one of the most widespread industrial water contaminants in the nation and is found at many sites across New York. The Senate Environment and Public Works Committee today approved Senator Clinton’s TCE Reduction Act, which will now go to the Senate Floor for consideration by the full Senate.

“New York cannot wait any longer for the administration to take action on the dangerous TCE contamination across our state. A growing number of communities are facing the serious health risks caused by exposure to TCE, including cancer, damage to the nervous and immune systems, and developmental problems in children. And yet, despite these dangers, the Bush EPA delays and delays. My legislation will force the administration to finally take steps to address this pressing issue. I welcome the committee’s bi-partisan approval of this important measure and urge the Senate to pass it promptly,” Senator Clinton said.”

Senator Clinton introduced the TCE Reduction Act in 2007 after earlier efforts to convince the EPA to address the growing TCE contamination crisis in New York. Of the 86 federal Superfund sites in New York alone, more than 30 have been found by the EPA to have TCE contamination. Endicott, Franklin Square, Garden City, Hopewell Junction, Ithaca, Norwich and Victor are a few of the communities throughout New York that are known to be contaminated with TCE. Senator Clinton’s bill follows lengthy delays by EPA in setting a new standard in the face of growing scientific evidence and contamination that is more widespread.

A draft EPA Risk Assessment in 2001 found TCE to be as much as 40 times more carcinogenic than previously thought, but rather than using EPA science to set a more protective standard for TCE in drinking water, the Bush administration called for more study. The National Research Council (NRC) was directed to conduct an in depth study the health studies involving TCE. Far from repudiating EPA’s 2001 findings, the final NRC report, issued in 2006, found that “the evidence on carcinogenic risk and other health hazards from exposure to trichloroethylene has strengthened since 2001.” The report went on to say, “The committee recommends that federal agencies finalize their risk assessment with currently available data so that risk management decisions can be made expeditiously.”

Senator Clinton has previously pressed the EPA to set a standard based on the latest science, but the EPA has failed to act or set a timeline. According to the EPA’s website, EPA does not plan to release a revised standard until the end of 2010.

The “TCE Reduction Act” would require EPA to:
Issue a revised health advisory for TCE within 6 months of enactment.

Issue revised draft health standards for TCE in drinking water within 12 months of enactment, and final drinking water standards within 18 months.

Issue a health advisory standard for TCE vapor intrusion within 12 months of enactment.

Establish an Integrated Risk Information System (IRIS) reference concentration (RfC) of TCE vapor within 18 months of enactment.

Ensure that all standards set under the bill fully protect susceptible populations (including pregnant women, infants, and children) from the adverse health effects of TCE.

Wow. Let me make sure I understand this: Obama is going around, in speech after speech, accusing John McCain of being a racist presumptively! And claiming that He Is The One For Whom We have Been Waiting! And prancing around Europe. MEANWHILE, the person who SHOULD be the Democratic nominee is working her heart out for us. Okey dokey.

WAKE UP, SuperDelegates and Delegates!!! WAKE UP!!!! Let’s go, people - vote for the one who WILL GET THE WORK DONE!!!!!

Once again, go to IOwnMyVote.com and take the survey for the Platform issues to be taken to the Democratic Party.

JustSayNoDeal.com is asking all of us to go to the article and write positive comments about Ricki.

Here are two more musts you’ll want to know about Ricki, besides her article, “Electability,” posted here yesteday:

• Yesterday, the Wall Street Journal published a very positive article about Ricki’s efforts: “McCain Surrogate Fiorina Meets With Clinton Supporters”
• Sign up to receive Ricki’s daily “Electability Watch” by sending an e-mail to rrlieberma@gmail.com. Ricki is associated with the Together4US group.

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

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

Hillary’s fault!

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Setting the stage.

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

Setting the stage.

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

Setting the stage.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Then Ostertag warns his readers away from the “PUMA movement” because it “may indeed be a Republican troll operation.” No, Mr. Ostertag. Granted, there are a few groups out of HUNDREDS in the Just Say No Deal coalition that are pro-McCain, but that occurs with any large coalition and we here at No Quarter, as do most, strongly disagree with the few’s emphasis solely on McCain. We are pro-Hillary.

However, some of us are “sticking it to” the Democratic party at the moment for its ill-advised recent behavior, just as YOU are doing to Obama by withholding donations. You’re employing a tactic. So are we.

Frankly, I think you know that too, Mr. Ostertag, and perhaps you are worried that Obama’s supporters may take a look at JustSayNoDeal.com.

We support Hillary Clinton, who voted to protect MoveOn’s right to speech against Sen. John Cornyn’s amendment while Obama, although he was on site, hid away and didn’t vote. The irony: MoveOn has never been a friend to Sen. Clinton and has embraced Obama, who didn’t have Sen. Clinton’s courage to stand up for his own benefactors.

We support Hillary Clinton who has the endorsement of over 30 flag officers who want to get out of Iraq just as badly as you, but who know Hillary has the REAL knowledge of military and foreign affairs to carry it off, and who can speak coherently without having to hold two press conferences within two hours to clarify a clarification.

We support Hillary Clinton because she is for truly universal health care, the protection of Social Security, and saving Medicare (currently under frightening assault), while Mr. Obama’s advisers are pro-partial privatization. And Mr. Obama?

Mr. Obama seems more interested in wooing the religious right with an expansion of Bush’s faith-based initiatives rather than strengthening our existing, essential federal safety nets. I found a passionate statement at Sen. Clinton’s senate site on the pending cuts to Medicare — which have alarmed every health care provider across our nation — but not one word at Mr. Obama’s senate or campaign sites. We support Hillary because she knows much more, but also because she shows her convictions. Update: I note that Sen. McCain is being pressured by physicians’ groups to break the Republican minority stranglehold on the Medicare cuts, which will dramatically affect health care for senior citizens, who are reliable voters. (The Hill has a detailed article.)

Below, a video clip from last night’s CNN AC360 on “Hillary’s Holdouts”:

Transcript:

So, beyond those poll numbers, there’s the cash factor. Clinton supporters, from rank-and-file Democrats to major donors, don’t seem to be ponying up the money that the Obama campaign had hoped to see.

Up close tonight, why they’re holding out. Here’s 360’s Joe Johns.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

JOE JOHNS, CNN CONGRESSIONAL CORRESPONDENT (voice-over): Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton, the picture of Democratic unity, they are scheduled for three fund-raisers together in New York this week. But when it comes to campaign cash, this political kumbaya might have its limits.

Some fund-raisers for Hillary Clinton are pressuring the Obama campaign to honor her policy positions and her campaign debt. They want her name placed in nomination at the Democratic Convention. And they are balking at writing checks for Obama.

LYNN FORESTER, MAJOR CLINTON DONOR: I certainly know there are lots of people who are withholding their money.

JOHNS: Businesswoman Lynn Forester launched a Web site bringing Clinton supporters together to pressure Obama. She is one of the so- called HillRaisers, who brought in at least $100,000 each to Clinton. She hasn’t given money to Obama, and hasn’t decided whether she will.

FORESTER: This is a hard decision for me personally, because, frankly, I don’t like him. I feel like he is an elitist. I feel like he has not given me reason to trust him.

JOHNS (on camera): It’s hard to say how many big donors might balk when it comes to Obama. Some political observers expect gushers of money by Election Day. But, if you were looking for early leading indicators that most of Clinton’s deep-pocketed supporters are throwing open their wallets for the presumptive nominee, we’re not seeing them.

(voice-over): The Center for Responsive Politics and “The Wall Street Journal” crunched the numbers from May, when Obama was wrapping up the primary. About 115 people who donated at least $1,000 to Senator Clinton were making their first big donations to Obama.

But here’s the twist. Roughly the same number of former Clinton donors were making large donations to John McCain.

(on camera): So, what’s the problem? Some say Obama is shifting positions. Some say Hillary Clinton should get a large role in both the convention and the fall campaign. And some of those die-hard Clinton supporters say they are angry because of the perceived sexism in the coverage of their candidate.

REP. DEBBIE WASSERMAN SCHULTZ (D), FLORIDA: So we need to address that issue, but we need to not take it out on Barack Obama, because it was not his fault.

JOHNS (voice-over): Congresswoman Debbie Wasserman Schultz of Florida spent the last two days in New York, talking to disaffected Clinton supporters. She says the answer is simple.

SCHULTZ: It’s not unexpected that they count just automatically shift over to Obama, because they’re not the typical Democratic supporters that just automatically shift over. They need to be wooed. They need to be, you know — they need to be, um, won over.

JOHNS (on camera): Barack Obama needs to show them some love?

SCHULTZ: He does.

JOHNS (voice-over): The Obama campaign says it fully expects the Hill-raisers to come around and won’t comment on the charges of sexism in the primary race. Needless to say, John McCain isn’t exactly cooling his heels here. He’s trying to lure Clinton supporters into his camp. He needs all the help he can get.

Joe Johns, CNN, Washington.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

NOW, the statement from Sen. Clinton’s senate Web site on the Medicare cloture vote. There is no statement from Sen. Obama’s senate or campaign site.

June 27, 2008

Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton on Vote on the Medicare Improvements for Patients and Providers Act

WASHINGTON, DC—Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton today issued the following statement on the failure of the Senate to pass a Medicare bill that would have stopped a cut in payments to physicians and provided other improvements to Medicare:

“Once again, Senate Republicans have stood in the way of improving health care for some of our nation’s most vulnerable citizens. The bill blocked last night would not only have prevented a 10.6 percent cut in payments to physicians who care for the 44 million seniors and people with disabilities on Medicare, but also would have made improvements in preventive care and for low-income beneficiaries. The bill also contained important provisions that I have long championed to advance electronic prescribing and our ability to measure the quality of care that patients receive. As the Senate begins its efforts to ensure that every American has access to high quality, affordable health care, it is critical that Republicans put politics aside to make the necessary improvements in the healthcare system. Passage of this Medicare legislation is an important first step and one that I hope my colleagues will support in the future.”

###

I’m a little confused. And it’s starting to bother me. Just when I think I am beginning to understand who Obama is the guy just up and changes. As easy as putting on a new pair of socks. But forgetting that your feet still stink. So I’ve been wondering if it is possible that Obama stands for anything at all. Or if he wasn’t kidding about all that change stuff. Maybe that is why the rest of us need hope so bad. Because we sure as hell can’t count on him to show any backbone. But worms are like that.

I mean you gotta figure that a politician will change from time to time. Especially when they talk about working across the aisle. The art of compromise requires a little give and take. And call me silly, but I actually think that people willing to evolve their perspectives are the kind of folks we need in politics. If someone is incapable of learning and growing then they sure as hell don’t need their hands around the reigns of power.

But that doesn’t appear to be what is happening with Barky Obama. No, I think he has a bad case of the I have no core values syndrome. AKA I will be whatever people want me to be as long as it allows me to gain power over them. And what gets me is that he has the audacity to call this a new kind of politics. It’s such a shame that a Harvard graduate wouldn’t know that slimeball I’ll pretend to be on your side politics has been around for ages. Hardly a new phenomenon.

And I am not the only one scratching their head over these sudden transformations. Even some on the fringe left are starting to question Obama’s positions. Or should I say the lack of them. But most are making excuses for him. WORMs for the Worm. An army of them.

One such WORM is Stephen Ducat who writes for the Huff and Puff Huffington Post. The dude is a true believer. That’s for sure. But at least he has accepted that Obama is not divine. One of the fortunate few. So maybe there is hope after all.

Understanding Obama’s Recent Right Turn

To see Barack Obama behave like any other invertebrate Democrat is an especially painful blow.

You see what I mean? Ducat actually realizes that Obama is a Worm. And he sees clearly that this talk of a new politics is just a ruse, a fancy slogan that sounds good and people hope is true.

Obama’s resort to the triangulation of the old politics is an admission of a much more serious limitation. It tells us that he does not believe in his own ability to reframe certain key issues in a way that makes a progressive stance the one that is obviously the most moral. It shows that he does not feel up to the task of rendering some liberal principles intellectually clear and emotionally compelling.

Ducat recognizes that Obama is not a real leader after all. Which is actually kind of comforting. Maybe he has been laying off the Cult-Aide for a few days.

His limited ability to exercise moral leadership leaves him with no choice other than to accept Republican frames on issues. So, on the FISA bill, for example, loss of privacy and immunity for criminal telecom companies become a trivial price to pay for protection from unfathomable and pervasive Evil.

But just when I thought I had some hope Ducat goes ahead and spoils it for me. Because even though he realizes that Obama is all hype and doesn’t even believe his own bullshit, he can’t help himself but to come to Obama’s defense. He has a game plan. A strategy that he believes will make everything all better. And if it wasn’t so absolutely ridiculous it might be funny.

Ducat is of the mind that all Obama needs to do is create a commercial. He can make the fallout from his nasty little flip flops go away by adopting that tried and true strategy: Divert attention away from yourself by blaming the other guys for the things you support.

The 30-second ad opens on a scene in a middle class suburban kitchen. A mother is speaking on the phone. Her voice is muffled and is drowned out by an intermittent electronic beep, along with the sounds of someone frenetically striking a computer keyboard. The screen quickly splits in half to reveal the woman’s nine-year-old daughter speaking by cell phone to inform her mother that she is ready to be picked up from the school bus stop. The screen is then split in thirds to reveal a man wearing headphones sitting in front of a computer typing notes, obviously monitoring the mother-daughter conversation. Behind him is a massive warehouse filled with computers and scurrying NSA technicians. This image then takes up the entire screen. The voiceover says, “Republicans, like George Bush and John McCain, have taken away our freedoms, invaded our private lives, and made us less safe.” We then quickly see a succession of images — a scene from Iraq that features a burning American tank, a scene of grenade launchers being placed into a packing crate, a scene of an unguarded American port where uninspected shipping containers are being off loaded, and finally a scene of a car with blacked out windows slowing down in front of an unsecured nuclear power plant. A window rolls down. A hand holding a camera reaches out to snap photos. Then the car speeds away. The voice over then concludes, “Protecting America means preserving our rights [cut to an image of the Constitution in which the camera scrolls down the Bill of Rights section], along with defeating terrorists.” The last image is a scene of Barack Obama standing up and pointing toward a large map of some unidentifiable part of the world. Below him is a large conference table of twenty or so advisors who are listening with rapt attention. (Emphasis mine)

And the sad part is that this strategy might just work. Because it focuses on fear. The very thing that Obama claims is the old politics. We are to ignore the irony that this is being presented as a “progressive” plan. Obama’s lack of moral principles extends down to his followers. Worms all.

Not only is he attempting to con Evangelicals, but he has made The Big Step. Yes, that’s right. Barack Obama says he is going to continue George Bush’s Faith Based programs. I have no doubt that he means it. He plans to provide money to anybody who worships the Highest Of High Lords: Himself. Most of it will go to Reverend Wright though. That new mansion is already too small for his big head. He wants to rebuild. What’s left of the grant will go to his Faith-Based Goddamn AmeriKKKa program. Here, I envision Reverend Wright being in full charge of the Goddamned Faith Based Initiative. I envision this much in the same way as I envision a pardoned Tony Rezko taking charge of HUD and Bill Ayers in charge of the Department of Education.

I find it interesting that Obama would applaud George Bush’s unwillingness to separate church from state, but I do not find it shocking. As time moves on, we are seeing that Comrade Obama bears a striking resemblence to George. In fact, I would go so far as to say that Obama is the Democratic Party’s George Bush Redux.

He’s inept just like George Bush. He lies to get what he wants, just like George Bush. He’s arrogant, just like George Bush. He disinfranchises entire blocks of Americans, just like George Bush. He uses people, just like George Bush. He’s arrogant, just like George Bush. He refuses to be vetted, just like George Bush. He gets his sycophants to attack people, just like George Bush. He rigs things, just like George Bush. He’s a thug, just like George Bush. He’s impressed with himself, just like George Bush. He cheats, just like George Bush. He has unsavory friends, just like George Bush. And he has a middle east conflict, just like George Bush.

And now, we are watching Barack Obama refuse to separate Church from State, just like George Bush.

There are a few differences though. At least George Bush can make up his mind what he believes, even if it’s the wrong thing.

I know you might find this hard to believe, but I think what Comrade Obama is doing is fun to watch. For one thing, it’s an absolute blast to watch HuffPo, DKos and Moveon have minor strokes watching Barky shove it up their noses. It really is fun to watch them come to the realization that Comrade Obama was using the whole boatload of them. First it was FISA and now the…..gasp…..evangelicals. I bet they all feel Hoodwinked. Bamboozled. Led Astray.

God, I love poetic justice, don’t you?