Whoopsie—The Democratic National Committee’s hood ornament got ..er..unscrewed and bounced into the street. Of course, it was loosened up a long while back when the DNC moved itself mostly to Chicago two months before the Democratic Convention. That right there tells you a lot about the DNC. (I think the “D” should be removed—it doesn’t belong there any more.)

Kirsten Powers concludes that DNC Chair, Howard Dean, was helpful to Obama for one reason—staying out of the way.

Dean had high level detractors. Rahm Emanuel, Obama’s new Chief of Staff, publicly feuded with Dean over how to spend funds for House races, asserting that Dean was wasting money by spreading it around to all 50 states.

James Carville described Dean’s leadership as “almost Rumsfeldian in its incompetence.”

Paul Begala charged that Dean was “apparently . . . just hiring a bunch of staff people to wander around Utah and Mississippi and pick their noses.” (More here.)

Then there was Dean’s decision to strip Florida and Michigan of their delegates for holding their primaries early, only to give both states a reprieve after it was too late for Hillary Clinton to have an honest shot at the nomination.

And Dean gets an “F” for remaining silent while sexism and misogyny ran rampant within the Democratic Party. (Sorry, Howie, the weak admission after it was all over didn’t cut it for anyone.).

But Obama and company should be very grateful to Howard Dean for pushing that 50 state strategy, one that probably helped account for Obama’s win in some previously red states. Whether Dean gets rewarded or stays flopping about in the street as the DNC limo speeds off remains yet to be seen.

This was a topic of conversation last night on the excellent “Patsy and Sugar” show on No Quarter Radio (Thursday nights at 9:00 pm). We have heard this before - that’s what was going to happen at the DNC Convention, too, had they not broken all of their roll-call rules.

Please, will you remind me again how this is Democratic?? Because, frankly, I resent being threatened with violence if I do not vote for a particular candidate, ANY candidate. And what does it say about Obama and his minions that this is an ACCEPTABLE tactic?? Like so many other of Obama’s tactics, this is despicable.

One of the other tactics being employed to garner Obama the win is voter fraud. Nope, not voter REGISTRATION fraud (or should I just say, ACORN??), but actual fraud.

It seems some college kids involved in “Vote From Home” have committed fraud by voting in OH, even though they are not residents of Ohio. The laws are quite clear on this: people who do not actually live in Ohio, who are there for a short time, or are on vacation, are NOT allowed to vote. But there is a group of young people who rented a house with the sole purpose of engaging in voter fraud. Yep. Here’s the report:

Oh, dear. This is but the tip of the iceberg, though.

Wait until you see THIS video:

I am practically speechless. To steal someone’s vote is criminal. And morally bankrupt. But to do it right in front of them? “Shameless” doesn’t begin to cover it.

I guess this goes right along with voting for someone who is no longer with us. As in, they have passed away. Dead. Yes, imagine the surprise when Linda Hill’s family found out she was still voting - two years after her death.

Then there is ACORN, the voter registration arm of the Obama Campaign. The number of investigations into ACORN, for example, are widening, now in 14 states. You may notice that I have never mentioned them being here in SC. There is a reason for that. Two years ago, ACORN was faced with attention from State Law Enforcement Division (SLED):

opened an investigation into its registration efforts in the Columbia area two years ago.

That investigation is ongoing, a SLED official said, declining further comment.

Yeppers. So, it isn’t that ACORN has not tried its creative (!!!) registration here in the state of SC this year, it is that it DID try, and flags went up immediately. Two years ago. Wowie zowie.

Kinda makes me wonder what took these other states so long to catch on, you know?

Hopefully, those other states have caught on in time, though that might not help in Ohio. It seems the Supreme Court decided it was A-Okay for Ohio to NOT have to verify almost 200,000 new registrations.

Almost a THIRD of the new registrations for that state are considered fraudulent, but they don’t have to verify them, courtesy of the Supreme Court. What, are they trying to make up for the 2000 Florida fiasco by allowing another in 2008? So much for justice, right, and the American Way, I guess.

Here’s the thing. To “win” an election by stealing votes, by voting fraudulently, through the use of falsified voter registration, and/or the threat of violence should a particular candidate not win, is not democratic, not Democratic, not the American Way, and anathema to any moral or ethical person, Republican,Democrat, Independent, or Undecided.

If Obama “wins” by voter fraud, Carville might be partially right - there might still be people taking to the street, not to riot, but to protest the diminution of our most sacred right: to lawfully cast (ONE) ballot for the candidate of our choice without fear of tampering, fraud, or theft. Now THAT would be worthy of protest.

started running the “stages of grief” trope on Hillary supporters way back in February—you know, from anger, through denial, bargaining, depression, to acceptance. It’s an easy riff to run, even for bad writers, so it’s been all over the Obama blogs

Of course this “stages of grief” narrative oozed with sexism and condescension. The subtext implied that Hillary’s female supporters, emotional at the loss, had to be given post-partum recovery time, but then they would come around and, for those hold-outs, a few reminders about Roe v. Wade would get them in line. That was the strategy throughout the summer.

McCain’s selection of Palin as vice president, exquisitely timed to halt Obama’s bounce, has dominated the news for more than two weeks. It has also radically re-shaped the race. By most reports, Obama is slightly behind McCain in national polls and, more importantly, McCain has taken the lead in the electoral college.

The panic from the Obamabots in palpable.

Let me suggest that there are 3 levels of panic.

1. Wunderwaffen.

During World War Two, Hitler forced his beleaguered arms manufacturers to produce “miracle weapons,” strange armaments which he believed would turn the war in Germany’s favor.

Like armchair generals in a losing battle, losing political campaigns have supporters who desire the Wunderwaffen, a magical weapon which can sink the other side or a proven winner who can take the reins of the campaign and guide it to victory. In 2004, while Kerry was being hammered by Bush, many pleaded for James Carville to take over Kerry’s war room and provide the message discipline from 1992. From the Democratic Underground, August 27, 2004:

I have been saying this for over a month now…I wrote Mr Carville the following email:

Mr. Carville, please save the Kerry campaign!
He is throwing out sound bites that are perfect ammo for Rove and his evil crew. You can train this man.You can save this campaign and this country. We need you Mr. Carville.

In 2008, as victory becomes increasingly uncertain, Obama supporters are banking on voter registration and the belief that cell phone users are not accounted for in national polls. The same theories were trotted out in 2004 but the polls then fairly predicted the actual vote. However, there are even stranger ideas floating around Obama-land. At TalkLeft, there’s an armchair general named mmc9431 who believes that Obama should announce part of his cabinet now and turn them into roving ambassadors for the campaign:

Obama needs to come out with something very bold on his own if he’s going to have any chance of regaining the advantage.
Maybe he should announce ahead of time, 3 of his cabinet choices that would motivate his base. Sec of State, Attorney General and Sec of Treasury. These 3 could then go out and campaign of their platform. We’d have three people out there constantly pounding on issues rather than personalities.

Likewise, over at Daily Kos, Ursa Majority’s Wunderwaffen is one good television ad that will convince all the “low information” rubes to vote for Obama:

Yes, you heard it right. We need a killer ad (radio and TV) to get back onto message while shrinking McCain. And, with middle and low information swing voters, you’ve got to try to tie it all together in one digestible message. So, let’s get back to our effective messages of the post “Obama as Britney” era (i.e., McCain isn’t taking the issues seriously) and use McCain’s words and actions against him.

2. Denial

Obama supporters are now somewhere between searching for the magic bullet and denying that anything is wrong. The Kerry campaign is also rich with similar examples at a similar time in the campaign.

On September 17, 2004, almost exactly four years ago, Cartooner, at Democratic Underground, predicted that John Kerry would win in a landslide:

Call it an epiphany; call it crazy, and it’s just a hunch; but hey, A HUNCH made Quasi Modo famous…

~snip~

The economy, health care, jobs, LIES,

the messages are FINALLY STARTING TO RESONATE …

Ok… Maybe I’m an optimist; but I think Kerry will win on a
LANDSLIDE …

This campaign is also filled with delusion. A poster on Craig’s List gives Obama odds I’d like to take to Las Vegas:

Date: 2008-09-12, 12:32AM EDT
Location: new haven

He’s definitely going to win. No question.

What chances would you give him? I’d give him 100%.

3. Acceptance

The last stage is filled with sadness and recriminations.

Lentinel writes:

my heart sinks.
I lay some of the blame at Obama’s door.
As soon as he was assured of the nomination he turned South, figuratively speaking.
He voted for FISA.
He disowned public financing.
He went on preaching to evangelicals.
He waffled on his commitment to withdraw troops from Iraq.
He waffled on his commitment to the right of women to an abortion.
And, of course, he went on to treat Hillary Clinton and her supporters like dirt.

And Daily Kos’ DaveinSiliconValley has a diary titled: “Why (Sadly) Obama Will Probably Lose”

A few days ago I had a conversation with a mid-fifties nonreligious, pro-choice, Caucasian, suburban mother who thinks the Iraq war was a terrible mistake, that Bush was a terrible president, and is concerned that McCain may get us into another war, but she is “seriously thinking” about voting for McCain. I will give you a clue. She is absolutely going to vote for McCain.

I asked, given the way she feels on the issues, why isn’t she voting for Obama? She said “I don’t know.” I pressed her. She said, “I don’t trust him.” I asked why and she said “I don’t know.”

Obama can hit this lady with a thousand commercials explaining his stand on the issues and why his plans for the country are better than McCain’s plans and it will have no effect whatsoever on her vote. Zero. She is issue-proof.

What’s going on? Is it just subliminal racism? It’s not that simple.

After the 2004 election, Democrats became obsessed with psychoanalyzing the electorate. I engaged in some of this myself. Searching for answers, we read What’s the Matter with Kansas? but failed to find the answer. Believing, like DaveinSiliconvalley, that Republicans controlled the electorate with subliminal powers, we read George Lakoff’s Don’t think of an Elephant, but we found that framing issues is only one small part of winning elections. Framing can come across as patronizing, e.g., you’re pushing your agenda on the electorate instead of listening to their needs.

In 2006, as I began thinking about the next presidential cycle, I finally got around to reading Hillary’s Living History and President Clinton’s My Life. The Clintons, both policy wonks, believe that winning campaigns put forward good policies which appeal to the electorate’s aspirations. The voters do not need to be cajoled or hypnotized into voting for a candidate. The voters decide the issues and the politicians offer solutions.

The Clintons taught Democrats how to win elections. Remember, Bill Clinton was the first Democrat elected to a second term since 1936. Also, let’s not forget the magnitude of Hillary’s victories; she won Florida, Texas, Ohio, Pennsylvania, and Kentucky; she won West Virginia by 40%. A few caucus states and Obama’s delegate stealing in Michigan made the difference. Let’s not pretend that Obama was the people’s choice. The primary campaign was not a decisive win by either candidate, and millions of Hillary supporters will never forgive the way she was treated by those within the Party, to say nothing of the media.

The Clintons win by offering proposals to make people’s lives better. On the campaign trail, they talk incessantly about helping working people, and they both have an unwavering commitment to the nation’s defense. The Clintons reject flowery rhetoric and use a clear communication strategy. Their strategy is effective; they know how to build winning coalitions. I have no doubt that Hillary would now be locking down battleground states on her march to the White House.

Hillary won the popular vote and nearly all the important states. She was positioned to win the General Election. Hillary, like President Clinton, built a coalition based on economic opportunity and national renewal. Obama took the nomination because he controlled much of the Party’s infrastructure: his supporters controlled the hierarchy of the Democratic Party, specifically the Rules and Bylaws Committee, and he was funded and fueled by the activist base, by groups like MoveOn.org, and he was supported by the netroots and the media.

Now that the General Election is in peril, these groups, who failed to provide the base of the Party with any reason to vote for Obama other than habit, scramble to connect with the very voters they demonized during the primary as “low information” and hopelessly bitter. No one television ad or high paid adviser can turn the tide. Let them panic.

Tonight I have the honor of interviewing Bob Shrum. His book, No Excuses, is just out in paperback and it’s candy for the political junkie. If you love politics, you’ll love this book. I’ll be asking him about his political war stories. I also want to get his thoughts on this recent primary campaign and the concerns expressed by Hillary’s supporters. We’ll take some calls. I hope you’ll tune in to hear this very special guest. The show begins at 9 p.m. EST.

Senator Obama, on his Rockapalooza tour of the Middle East and Europe, is now taking time out from photo ops and playing hoops (you know, while Afghani women were being executed) in order to issue a ‘fatwa’ of his own: He is forbidding the press corps to wear green.

From Politico:

Mohamad Bazzi, a professor of journalism at New York University and former Middle East bureau chief for Newsday, called the instruction “very strange.”

“I guess green is the ‘Hamas color’ — but it’s also the color of Islam!” Bazzi said in an email from Beirut. “That’s one way for the Obama campaign to alienate 1.4 billion Muslims worldwide.”

Why stop now, Senator. You’ve already alienated ‘bitter’ voters, Asian voters, Italian voters, rural voters, women voters, gay voters, FL, MI, WV, KY, OH, to name a few… but wait, there’s more!

James Zogby, president of the Arab American Institute, said:

“I’ve never heard of that before,” he said, adding that nobody had ever suggested avoiding the color on his satellite television show, which airs weekly in the Arab world. “This is an overreach on somebody’s part,” he said. “It’s not going to insult anybody, nor is it going to offend them if somebody does wear green.”

“Our folks in Jerusalem and the USA have no idea what this is about,” said an official of one major American Jewish organization. “We have not ever suggested that people not wear the color green.

Is Obama afraid of being associated with being a Muslim? Why? He’s a Christian, no? Why the abundance of caution? Doesn’t he realize this could be construed as him protesting too much – again?

Just as he did with his faux “outrage” at the New Yorker cartoon of he and Michelle…

I mean, if there’s really no smoke, why make a fire? But this is not the only fire…

We recently had the Obama campaign ‘uninviting’ Senator Max Cleland from a campaign event. You remember Max – the man who lost three limbs in the Vietnam war and fights to help other veterans’ recovery; one of the icons of the Democratic Party. Well, the Obama campaign says he’s technically a “lobbyist” and they wouldn’t want to open themselves up to criticism. Uh-huh.

OK, now that he’s offended all veterans. What else do we have…

Throwing Jesse Jackson under the bus. Why worry? I mean, Jesse Jackson hasn’t earned his stripes in the civil rights movement or anything, has he?

Throwing – actually, hurling General Wesley Clark under the bus. By the way, at the Netroots Convention this weekend, I think the General got a little of his own back – but I’m not sure the crowd got the reference. In thanking the Netroots Nation for sticking up for him after being skewered for his comments about John McCain, Clark said:

I was at a Washington dinner with James Carville, … I said, “James, …how are we going to convince the American people that just because we’re in a time of war that they don’t have to vote Republican? How are we going to get them to understand that Democrats have a pretty good national security record?”

[Carville] said, “You’ll never get the American people to believe that Democrats will defend them until Democrats stand up and defend each other.”

The Netroots crowd cheered, not realizing General Clark was probably criticizing Obama for not defending him.

Obama also threw Hillary Clinton’s 18 million supporters under the bus and then told us to “get over it,” with his inimitable groupie, Nancy Pelosi echoing his every turn of phrase. You remember Nancy – the House Speaker with the 14% approval rating – once again unable to keep her foot out of her mouth insulting Hillary’s voters re the possibility of her being selected for the VP slot…tossing out Gov. Kathy Sebelius’ name in the same breath – cause you know, all us gals are interchangeable.

Then there’s his audacity at wanting to campaign in front of the Brandenburg Gate in Germany. No offense there.

I now understand Senator Obama thinks our military isn’t enough and wants to employ a civilian national security force? Can you say Blackwater? Does this scare anyone else?

And now he may be offending all Muslims, too?

This is odd considering none other than Senator John Kerry said that Senator Obama is uniquely positioned to bridge the gap between us and the Muslim community. Not so much now, huh, John?

By the way, Senator Kerry, how did it feel to see your friend Max Cleland kicked to the curb by your favorite wunderkind, Obama? Are you going to make a public statement about that one and speak out for your dear old friend, Max? Or is your new friend, Barack, more important?

And then there is the good relationship Obama’s says he’s going to build up with Europe over the next eight to ten years. Ten years? Did the length of the presidential term just increase while I was out for dinner or something? How about eight years? Never mind, eight, ya gotta make it to the first four, Barack…or is that just a technicality?

Right now, considering how damaged the Republican brand is, with Obama’s enormous financial and press advantage, how is it that he’s in a dead heat with Senator McCain? I mean, he should be 20 points ahead, shouldn’t he?

Hank Sheinkopf, a respected political consultant, was interviewed on Lou Dobbs radio show last week, and said Obama ‘just needs to keep his head down and his mouth shut till the Conventioin and then he’ll get a bump.’ Wow. I thought we wanted to hear Senator Obama speak. I thought his strength was his communication skills. Maybe the first term is not such a sure thing after all.

Perhaps that is why Obama is terrified to face John McCain at a town hall meeting.

Hell, he won’t even meet with his own press corps. You know, the ones who aren’t allowed to wear green.

From Andrea Mitchell on Hardball, July 21st:

Let me just say something about the message management. He didn’t have reporters with him, he didn’t have a press pool, he didn’t do a press conference while he was on the ground in either Afghanistan or Iraq. What you’re seeing is not reporters brought in. You’re seeing selected pictures taken by the military, questions by the military, and what some would call fake interviews, because they’re not interviews from a journalist. So, there’s a real press issue here. Politically it’s smart as can be. But we’ve not seen a presidential candidate do this, in my recollection, ever before.

Don’t complain Andrea – you vomited all over Hillary at every turn so you could help this guy get the nomination. Happy now?

Maybe if the press corps asks Senator Obama what his favorite color is and wears that, they’ll actually be granted a real press conference and get to ask, you know, like eight questions or something?

And now the ultimate insult. Senator Obama has put his logo on a plane that is flying overseas instead of the American flag. We have troops risking their lives every day. He is there representating our country and by America’s leave, with America’s protection. We fly our colors.

Does he think he is bigger than the United States of America?

I find this man and his campaign so deeply offensive, words fail at his latest act of hubris and disrespect. So I will simply end here.

While many have said that the nominating process will not run past June 3, Carville hints that may not be the case after all. He says there may be a split decision with Obama having more delegates and Hillary having more votes. He also says Clinton has a superior moral position because various party leaders offered compromises on MI and FL that were rebuffed by the Obama campaign.

But, he goes on to say the Obama campaign really screwed up by pressing the vitriol regarding the South Dakota interview.

When Diane replied that Obama publically didn’t say anything about HIllary’s RFK statement, Carville, laughing, said:

“Diane, I’m not a journalist, I’m a political operative, I don’t fall for that. I mean, come on, please.”

Then he resumes talking about how the Obama campaign hyped up the RFK story.

Diane presses him on the possibility that a convention fight will ensue. Carville presses the case that Hillary may well have the popular vote by June 3, with Obama having more delegates.

He later mentions South Dakota again and says he was personally hurt by it. He says Obama “tried to pull a clever political trick and it backfired on him.”

He laid the RFK story down as a marker (several times - even Obama dementors should get this) and hinted that the fight will continue. Very interesting.
————————

Regarding the McClellan book, Carville says, rightly, that more books will come out, more people will ask questions and the questions about the Bush administration will occupy many people for a long time.

He said: “I think this is gonna be the rest of their lives.”

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QzXMMuYILA0[/youtube]

Let’s begin with a little history.

On March 24, 2007, SEIU and the Center for American Progress Action Fund sponsored a Presidential Health Care Forum in Las Vegas. All of the Democratic candidates showed up but one candidate stood out from the rest of them. But not in a manner he would have preferred. Yes, Barack Obama bombed big time at this forum. He was unprepared. He stammered a lot and generally received terrible reviews. And on March 28th in CNN’s The Situation Room, Democratic strategist James Carville gave his opinion of the race merely repeating what everyone already knew.

The Situation Room

CARVILLE: But what’s happening [...] to Senator Obama is, he has had a couple of less-than-impressive performances at a health care forum out in Las Vegas and things like that.

(CROSSTALK)

CARVILLE: [H]e’s a very talented guy. And he’s very effective. [H]e started out pretty good. I mean, it’s pretty remarkable he is where he is, in terms of somebody…

STEELE: Right.

CARVILLE: … new, and — and burst on the scene like that. But I think that what might be a little troubling, if I was running Obama’s campaign, is, is that he seems to get up — need to get up to speed on a couple of these issues.

Shortly thereafter CNN began receiving phone calls from the Obama campaign complaining that Carville was a Hillary partisan and couldn’t be considered as unbiased political analyst. Then the blogosphere caught wind of the Obama camp’s concerns …

“Respected” bloggers like Stoller and Kos chimed in. First was Stoller, arguing that Carville is just like a Politico hack. Stoller implied that Bay Buchanan, despite her work for Tom Tancredo, was more ethical than Carville.

Stoller: “James Carville’s Blogger Ethics Problem”

James Carville is identified as a CNN Political Analyst, and here he is spreading conventional wisdom about Obama that is worthy of the Politico. That’s fine, since that seems to be what political analysts on the TeeVee do. Carville blathers about how Obama is thin on the issues, isn’t performing well as of late, etc.

What CNN doesn’t mention is that Carville is also sending out fundraising solicitations for Hillary Clinton’s campaign for President and is an advisor for her campaign.

This is crazy. It’s just crazy. When CNN commentator Bay Buchanan took over the Tancredo campaign, she resigned from the network. This isn’t exactly the same situation, but the lines are thin. Carville isn’t getting money from Clinton, but there are other ways of compensation in politics and everyone knows that.

Not to be outdone, Kos jumped in. First, of course, he reminded people of his importance by pointing out that he worked on Dean’s failed Presidential bid. Then he claimed that ordinary Americans have no idea who James Carville is.

Pull out the waders, folks. It starts to get deep.

Kos: “The Carville/CNN ethics dilemma”

Bullshit. When I was a consultant for the Dean campaign, I had a big-ass disclaimer, where the most expensive ad on Daily Kos is placed, disclosing my role. Sure, in his cocktail party circuit, everyone knows Carville is a Hillary partisan, but that can’t be assumed for the general public.

But the biggest culprit here is CNN, which should put up that disclaimer whether Carville agrees to it or not. It’s their responsibility to ensure they remain a “trusted name in news”, and refusing their audience full disclaimers of their guests conflicts of interest is beyond the pale.

Yeah, like no one recognizes Carville’s massive shiny dome. And he is such a humble person that he is quite easily mixed up with any number of people. Yes, it is unlikely that anyone outside of the cocktail party circuit recognizes James Carville. Sure, Kos, whatever you say. Since you are so important. But I assure you, when you describe yourself and use the words big ass in the same sentence, I find you entirely credible.

But what about the message Carville delivered? Was it accurate? Was it partisan? According to most of the people that watched the forum, James Carville was not only correct in his observations of Obama, he nailed it. The well-respected Ezra Klein stated that Obama appeared overwhelmed.

Ezra Klein: “A Lack of Audacity: How Obama’s health care plan resembles the candidate himself”

The first stumble of Barack Obama’s presidential campaign came last March, at the SEIU health care forum in Las Vegas, Nevada. Until then, the Illinois senator’s explosive charisma, preternatural ease on the stump, and inspirational back story had dominated the coverage, pushing down vague concerns about his inexperience and the precise ratio of sizzle to steak. But standing on the podium, Obama seemed, for the first time, unprepared and overwhelmed. He stammered before the surprisingly tenacious grilling of 23-year-old Morgan Miller, who asked, simply, why his web site had more specificity on lead poisoning than health reform. After lamely questioning whether she had visited his campaign or Senate web site, Obama pleaded, sensibly, for more time. “Keep in mind,” he said, “that our campaign now is, I think, a little over eight weeks old … If we have another forum in a couple of months and it’s still not there, I’ll be in trouble.”

If Carville and Klein are not good enough political observers, perhaps the reviews Here, Here and Here will serve as satisfactory unbiased observers of fact.

Despite all of these observations, it was decided that James Carville and Paul Begala had to go. Even Bill Richardson’s campaign got into the act. Richardson’s spokesperson, Tom Reynolds told CNN:

A Clinton Friend’s Role Sets Off Intense Criticism of CNN and a Re-examination

“What you saw last night lacked full disclosure. The average viewer out in middle America may not know the inside-the-Beltway connection.”

With pressure mounting, CNN president Jonathan Klein made a decision that under the circumstances he apparently felt he must. From the way the decision was reached, the chattering masses concluded that CNN was doing the ethical thing.

“He’s not on the Hillary payroll, but he’s on the Hillary bandwagon, and that should be disclosed as much as we can,” Mr. Klein said. “I wasn’t comfortable with it myself as I watched it.

“He has disclosed all of this previously and repeatedly on our air,” he continued. “He happened not to last night, and it’s an unfortunate omission.”

CNN was redeemed. Or so one would think.

While watching a recent installment of CNN’s Sound Off, I listened to CNN’s recently hired contributor Roland Martin. Mr. Martin comes across as an affable gentleman with a long resume designed to impress people. But once he starts speaking, it is clear that he is hardly an unbiased examiner of facts. He has a specific agenda, and it is evident that CNN has given him a platform from which to preach his point of view.

It is important to begin by disclosing that Roland Martin is a member of Reverend James Meeks’ Salem Baptist Church where he is a fellow congregate with Jesse Jackson Jr. It should also be pointed out that Mr. Martin is a firm supporter of Senator Obama. Of course, CNN doesn’t disclose Mr. Martin’s affiliations. We are left to rely upon “resume” information to judge Mr. Martin instead of the FACTS that clearly demonstrate that he has alliances and an axe to grind.

During this show, Martin made it clear that he believes that we need to move on from the Wright and Farrakhan controversy and get back to discussing the issues. Ok…. but in explaining why we should return to “discussing the issues,” his real agenda is revealed. According to Martin, the Trinity United Church of Christ has been given a bum rap.

Controversy [Roland Martin]

The church did not give Minister Farrakhan an award. The Trumpet magazine which used to be a part of the church. It is no longer a part of the church although according to Reverend Otis Moss III they do provide him with some financial assistance. The magazine gave him the award. The church didn’t vote to give Minister Farrakhan an award, the magazine did.

Is this twisted logic from Martin? Does he expect us to believe that everything is “cool” now that Wright has “retired” from the church and that a new pastor has taken over just in time to turn the page? And that these events occurred at the same time that Obama has been scrutinized for his associations?

We are to be assured that everything is “cool” now because Wright isn’t there any more and Obama wasn’t there when Wright said those horrible things? Uh huh… yep, that sure is a good reason to move on. NOT!

Let us examine this Trumpet controversy and then gauge the credibility of Martin’s argument. The most amazing thing about Trumpet Newsmagazine is that it appears to have been disappeared from the Web. All links of which I am aware lead to a page that has NOTHING to do with the magazine. That is no small feat, even for the most Web savvy. Web pages don’t just disappear. There has to be a deliberate action to scrub the information, and the people performing the “scrubs” have to know what they are doing. And in this case it appears that they have done their homework well because nothing exists that I can find. Isn’t it convenient that this would happen at the exact same time that Senator Obama is under increased scrutiny because of his association with his church and his pastor?

Fortunately, not all traces of Trumpet Newsmagazine have been disappeared. For example, we have the original mission statement of the magazine heralded on the Trinity Church’s Web site:

Trumpet Mission Statement

In fulfilling our church motto, “Unashamedly Black, unapologetically Christian” and the mission of the pastor to educate, nurture and empower the people of God, the Trinity Trumpet is committed to honoring our African roots and traditions, to giving voice to our deepening faith in God and to serving the ethnic diversity in the global Christian community as well as those outside the church by highlighting journalistic issues that impact, address and speak to our shared human experiences and beliefs in a racially oppressive society.

So what this does tell us is that Roland Martin was misleading us when he said that Trumpet Magazine was not affiliated with the Trinity United Church of Christ. It may not be now but it sure was until very recently. Could it be that Trinity decided that since there was so much controversy and even an IRS investigation into them that they should probably make all the traces of this go away? Or did they decide that the general public, already repulsed by Wright’s racist and anti-American rants, would go over the edge to learn that in the last issue Wright added another title to his resume: BIGOT.

In referring to the Italian people in general Wright, in the same issue that praised Louis Farrakhan, called the whole of the Italian people “garlic noses.”

Garlic noses

“(Jesus’) enemies had their opinion about Him,” Wright wrote in a eulogy of the late scholar Asa Hilliard in the November/December 2007 issue. “The Italians for the most part looked down their garlic noses at the Galileans.

“From the circumstances surrounding Jesus’ birth (in a barn in a township that was under the Apartheid Roman government that said his daddy had to be in), up to and including the circumstances surrounding Jesus’ death on a cross, a Roman cross, public lynching Italian style. …” Wright wrote.

Not exactly the words of praise one would expect from a pastor. If Wright were Shakespeare, he might have said: “I come to give Caesar a breath mint, not to praise him.” Seriously, this is outright bigotry and such bigotry doesn’t develop overnight. It isn’t a five-minute outburst that occurs incidentally once every 20 years. It is a deep-seated resentment that one has carefully cultured for years. His bigotry isn’t something that someone accidentally just happened to catch on tape some Sunday. And it is clear that the Trinity Church financed the written vehicle for Wright to spread his gospel of bigotry, hatred and racism even if they have disappeared all traces of the evidence for now.

But back to Roland Martin… It is clear that he is an advocate for Wright and Obama. And it is also clear that he is very willing to distort the truth to make it seem like his guys are just fine. But who else is Roland Martin? What makes him tick? Just what other strong beliefs does he have that his viewers should be aware of?

One of the more controversial beliefs that Roland Martin espouses is his solidarity with Reverend James Meeks that homosexuality is an “evil sickness.” In fact Martin takes Reverend Al Sharpton to task for his attempts to make the “black” clergy more accepting of homosexuals.

Faith - not social pressures - must govern church on issue of homosexuality

What leaders of this effort must come to understand is that the fundamental issue is that gays and lesbians want to be accepted and embraced by the church, and not acknowledge that they are engaged, in the eyes of the church, in sinful behavior. This, regardless of what Sharpton or anyone else has to say, is the reason there will never be a happy medium on this issue.

~snip~

As individuals, gays and lesbians - those claiming to be born this way and others who say they have evolved to live a homosexual lifestyle - are naturally going to want to live their life as they see fit. And yes, the last thing they want to do is sit in a church and listen to someone from the pulpit castigate their way of life. I get that.

But someone who is living with a member of the opposite sex while not married also doesn’t want to hear that being preached. And surely the man or woman cheating on their spouse prefers not to hear their behavior cast as being sinful and unGodly.

So Roland Martin believes that homosexuality is both sinful and ungodly. How absolutely fundamental of him. Martin firmly holds this belief. And like the members of Wright’s church, he isn’t apologetic.

That isn’t being homophobic. It’s being a Christian. And no one should have to apologize for that.

Besides being a homophobe, oh sorry… I mean Christian, just who is Mr. Roland Martin? Well one thing about Roland Martin is obviously true. He is intensely focused on “black” issues for “black” Americans. He seems to share the afrocentric belief system of people like Reverend James Meeks and Reverend Jeremiah Wright. And we are expected to accept that it is just a happy accident of fate that he shares the same beliefs as Jesse Jackson Jr. and Barack Obama.

In his resume, Mr. Martin claims to have been the former founding news editor for Savoy magazine. This magazine aspired to be a “black Vanity Fair.” New Savoy Magazine Goes on “Hiatus” The first issue featured an article on Barack and Michelle Obama. But it wasn’t financed well from the start and ceased publication. Another of Mr. Martin’s business adventures is much more revealing because this one is still in publication. Martin was the former founding editor of BlackAmericaWeb.com, another black-focused news source. In fact an interesting article appeared in their most recent issue concerning the controversy surrounding Barack Obama and Jeremiah Wright. True to form, they decided that rather than take a stance about Obama and Wright’s positions, they would instead attack Hillary.

To counter the statement that Hillary made in Philadelphia Tuesday concerning the Wright controversy, BlackAmericaweb put out a distorted article featuring the pastor of the church the Clintons belonged to when Bill Clinton was President.

Clinton’s Pastor During White House Days: Whites ‘Would Do Well to Listen’ to Rev. Wright

The pastor of the Washington, D.C., church attended by Bill and Hillary Clinton during their days in the White House says whites in America can learn from listening to the sermons of the Rev. Jeremiah Wright, Sen. Barack Obama’s retired pastor, who has been criticized recently for statements about race and American foreign policy.

The Clintons are no longer members of Foundry UMC, but have deep roots in the denomination.

According to an article published in the Christian Science Monitor, Sen. Clinton’s mother Dorothy Rodham taught Sunday school at First United Methodist Church in their hometown of Park Ridge, Illinois. That’s also the church where a young Hillary began to grow spiritually and participate in community service.

In Arkansas, Bill and Hillary Clinton affiliated with the First United Methodist Church, Little Rock. According to published reports, the Clintons maintain their membership at that church.

And yes, if what was stated in this article was true it would seem to damage Hillary in some respect. Because if her spiritual advisor feels this way, then she must have some credibility problems since she claims to be very spiritual. But that is the rub to this. Because this story is only half true. And the part that isn’t true is the most important part. But fortunately there are other sources of information to get at the truth, which our media has apparently developed a severe allergic reaction to.

The view from Clinton’s former church

But the senior minister at Clinton’s former church — who took over the pulpit there after the former first lady left — has come out in defense of Barack Obama’s provocative former pastor, chastising white Americans for succumbing to fear in their reaction to his fiery sermons. Read more….

Clinton has not returned to services at Foundry since 2001, her spokesman said, but both Bill Clinton and his wife have thanked Foundry for providing a refuge during the most difficult hours of his administration — particularly his impeachment trial at the height of the Monica Lewinsky scandal.

While the Foundry pastor who closely counseled the Clintons retired soon after they left the church, his successor has stood in solidarity with Obama’s pastor since controversy first erupted over videotapes of incendiary sermons delivered by Wright. One widely played clip shows Wright sermonising against racism and urging parishioners to sing “God damn America”.

Notice the words in bold? They completely contradict the headline from BlackAmericaweb, that publication of which Roland Martin was the founding editor. This helps determine the legitimacy of his credentials despite how impressive they appear at first glance.

But just in case you got the mistaken impression that journalism was alive and well in other parts of the world this article goes on to distort what really took place and who was involved.

The Clintons bid a highly personal farewell to Foundry in 2001, reading from the Bible and delivering a ermon as a family. The former president suggested they would remain active in the church, telling the congregation that “this is not really a goodbye, but the beginning of a new chapter of our lives with Foundry”.

Asked yesterday whether the New York senator would consider returning to Foundry in light of Snyder’s support for Obama’s pastor, a spokesman for Clinton distanced her from the church.

“I think not being a member of or attending a service there for the past seven years speaks for itself and renders the hypothetical moot,” Philippe Reines, a longtime Clinton aide, said in an email response to Guardian America.

Again, the bolded words highlight the inaccuracy. Because you see, it was Bill Clinton alone that delivered an address to the Foundry church at the end of his Presidency. And he very specifically thanked the pastors there who helped him and the Clinton family during their darkest hours.

Remarks at the Foundry United Methodist Church - Bill Clinton - Transcript

Especially, I would like to thank Reverend Wogaman for being my pastor and friend, my counselor and teacher. Most of you know that for more than 2 years now, he and two other minister friends of mine have shared the burden of meeting with me on a weekly basis. It has been an immense blessing to me and to my service as President.

Rev. Wogaman also serves as a spiritual counselor to the President, along with Rev. Gordon MacDonald and Rev. Tony Campolo.

That clears that up quite nicely.

So where does that leave us? Clearly it has been demonstrated that Roland Martin is a known associate with people that are very close to the Obama campaign and that he has a propensity to distort the facts in such a light that is beneficial to his candidate. So where is the outrage? Why aren’t Stoller and Kos writing about this clearly unethical decision by CNN to put an Obama partisan on the payroll with no disclosure at all? None. Zip. Nada. Just where is Bill Richardson’s outrage? Or is he too busy counting his thirty pieces of silver to care about something so trite as ethics and fairness? Yes it seems quite obvious that the people that were so adamant about causing Carville and Begala to lose their jobs don’t really care about ethics at all. But if I am wrong let them prove me wrong, and join with me in demanding that CNN fire Roland Martin immediately. It’s the ethical thing to do.