This was the best laugh I had all day, until one of the creative readers at No Quarter, Obama Is A Fraud, posted this:

Please join us for this historical Inaugural Celebration for President Barrack Hussein Obama. It will be a day of great events for all!

Midnight - Fidel Castro and Hugo Chavez drink champagne toast to their brother in communism Comrade Obama. Burning of the Constitution and Declaration of Independence and fireworks display. Long live the US of Hussein!

It’s an Open Thread - how was YOUR day?

However, I’m thinking that being made fun of when you are deadly earnest and feeling your self-importance is not so positive. THAT means you’ve jumped the shark and now EVERYONE knows it. Heh. Keith has been feeling very good about himself for quite some time now. His “special comments” took off when he blasted President Bush some time ago, and Keith has since become agitated by Katie Couric, Hillary Clinton, and Geraldine Ferraro - all who have merited a “special comment.” (I’ve kindly provided a list below, of SOME of the Olbermann-related posts here at NQ.)

Trying very hard to imitate if not channel Edward R. Murrow, Olbermann, sees himself as a cable tv truthteller. His rants are actually truth-optional. Watching his “news” show is indulging in the television version of caveat emptor. Just try to find the objective facts.

Read the rest ->

Anyway, SNL finally got Olbermann on both his style and pomposity. The sketch was a bit long, but if you’ve ever watched Keith lose his mind on tv, you’ll recognize every bit of posturing, spitting, snarling and tortured phrasing usually found on his show. His faux intellectualism is capped only by the ridiculous historical references during the sketch. Yep. That was KO all right.

Here’s what eonline said about the sketch:

Forget Gigli, Ben Affleck, all is forgiven. Brilliantly skeweing partisan windbag Keith Olbermann on Saturday Night Live last night, Affleck did a dead-on impersonation of the sputtering, hyper-rhetorical MSNBC anchor, with the SNL writing staff serving up a devastating satirical critique. Yo, Keith, good night and good luck!

Olbermann, himself, crashed the closed-set rehearsal to watch Ben Affleck tune up his impersonation, as Politico mentioned on Halloween.

Ben Affleck, who’s hosting “Saturday Night Live” this week, was rehearsing a skit this afternoon mocking Keith Olbermann when Olbermann himself got past security to watch, according to a source with knowledge of the incident.

A source described the skit as “savage,” in portraying Olbermann as a deranged person living at home with his mother. Affleck, said a source, became uneasy with Olbermann in attendance at the 3 p.m., closed-set rehearsal.

Ben does a pretty good job capturing the “real Keith.” But he doesn’t quite reach the level of pomposity. He can’t. Keith is in a league of his own on that.
Here you go:

NQ Keith-related articles:

MSNBC moves Keith Olbermann from sober news chair to color commentary. Wait, he was doing “news?”

MSNBC Goes Off the Rails

Olbermann v. Milbank: The Back Story

Keith Olbermann Declares: Off with Dana Milbank’s Head

Keith’s Traintrum
Keith’s demand for a first class train ticket to attend Russert’s memorial.

Keith Olbermann - Useless
Keith makes Katie Couric “worst person in the world” for saying HRC got sexist treatment

Special Comment for Keith Olbermann
A NQ response to Keith’s “she’s a killer” rant against HRC

A Special Commentary

A website devoted to all things Keith: Olbermannwatch.com

I commend the readers and commentators at No Quarter for helping make this piece possible. So here goes.

First up, surprise of surprises, Keith Olberman’s interview of Barack Obama. I haven’t seen that much man on man love action since I watched Brokeback Mountain. Critical difference–nobody dies in Keith’s version (Hat tip, OhVoter). Check this out:

OLBERMANN: This is more about campaign tactics to start with rather than issues. But it seems sometimes like tactics have replaced issues altogether. “He fights pork barrel spending,” said this new McCain/Palin ad, “she stopped the ‘Bridge to Nowhere.’”
I mean, it sounds a little like “Remington Steele,” but I’m confused otherwise. As late as October of 2006, Mrs. Palin insisted to voters in Alaska that not only would she defend that infamous bridge, but she also said — and here’s the quote — “She would not allow the spinmeisters to turn this project or any other into something that’s so negative.” What are Sen. McCain and Governor Palin doing in this new commercial, do you think?

OLBERMANN: And Governor Palin hired a lobbyist to get earmarks to the tune of $27 million for a 6,000-person town which is — in its own scope, is kind of a neat trick, but it does seem to counterbalance the basic platform of the Republican Party. You said that they’re not telling the truth here, but when the stuff is a gross distortion, whether it’s about their own positions or yours, or facts in your history or whatever, what can you do about it? And why do people hesitate to use the word “lie” about these things? And Governor Palin hired a lobbyist to get earmarks to the tune of $27 million for a 6,000-person town which is — in its own scope, is kind of a neat trick, but it does seem to counterbalance the basic platform of the Republican Party. You said that they’re not telling the truth here, but when the stuff is a gross distortion, whether it’s about their own positions or yours, or facts in your history or whatever, what can you do about it? And why do people hesitate to use the word “lie” about these things?

OLBERMANN: To something from your own convention, maybe the most compelling moment of your acceptance speech in Denver was that one strongly voiced word, “enough.” A lot of people who have felt angry about what has been done to this country in the last seven or eight years have that same sense of urgency and simplicity to it. Have you thought of using on the campaign trail and in your speaking engagements, more exclamation points? Have you thought of getting angrier?

OLBERMANN: But clearly it must not be fully on their minds because the race is as close as it is. And nobody’s burst into laughter at the latest Republican ad, at least not many Republicans have. Have the Republicans succeeded in muddying up this election in kind of overcomplicating it so the point is not as simple as you just made it. Sixty years ago Harry Truman went out and campaigned very simply, looked out at people in trouble because of a Republican Congress at that point and the impact it had on their lives and he said, “How many more times do you have to be hit over the head till you figure out who’s hitting you?” I mean, has your campaign in some way not kept it that simple?

OLBERMANN: You pointed out last week how little time at their convention Republicans spent talking about the economy. I think the time might have been zero, zero, zero. I’m not sure. We weren’t running a clock. But if the election does, in fact, hinge on the economy, on how Americans are doing, has there been thought given to breaking this down to its simplest element, in much the way one of the Republican icons, Mr. Reagan did during the 1980 campaign, and ask the voters if today, are you better off now than you were eight years ago?

OLBERMANN: In terms of getting that and other messages out, Rachel Maddow wanted me to ask this question, so I’m doing this on her behalf, because her new show is starting tonight. Given — given the tone that the campaign has taken, I mean, this Georgia congressman last week, Mr. Westmoreland, who called you and your wife, quote, “Uppity.” In that context, do you regret putting the brakes on the 527 groups who would have produced or could have produced hard-hitting ads that would have been sharing your sympathies?

OLBERMANN: One more campaign question. It pertains to not knowing someone or something. This is a question I have not really heard asked directly of anybody in a position perhaps to answer it, let alone answered. In your opinion, is Governor Palin experienced enough and qualified enough to become president of the United States in the relatively short-term future?

Unfortunately, Keith is not alone. How about Katie Couric, ankle biter extraordinaire? Thanks to Mimi and McHope we have the record of Katie teeing off on Sarah Palin while giving Joe Biden everything but a Thailand “Happy Ending.”

COURIC V OBAMA (July 23, 2008) After more than a year campaigning - ALL FOREIGN POLICY

1) Sen. Obama, first of all, you have not been to Iraq since 2006. What did you learn on your recent visit that surprised you? Or what was new?

2) You and Prime Minister Maliki (are) on the same page when it comes to a troop withdrawal by 2010. Why do you believe that the Iraqi security forces, which have taken so long to get up to speed, will be equipped to protect the country at that point?

3) You talk about a residual force remaining in Iraq, but you’ve been hesitant to really give a number to people. You haven’t been specific, though some of your advisors have said it could be tens of thousands of troops. Why can’t you be more specific as to what you envision?

4) Having said that, if General Petraeus or the chairman of the joint chiefs, Admiral Mullen, say to you, “Hey, President Obama …” if that comes to pass, “you cannot take out the final complement of combat troops. You need them in theater,” you would say?

5) And base your decision still on conditions on the ground as well?

6) Before the surge, as you know, Senator, there were 80 to 100 U.S. casualties a month, the country was rife with sectarian violence, and you raised a lot of eyebrows on this trip saying even knowing what you know now, you still would not have supported the surge. People may be scratching their heads and saying, “Why?”

7) All that may be true. But do you not give the surge any credit for reducing violence in Iraq?

But talking microcosmically, did the surge, the addition of 30,000 additional troops … help the situation in Iraq?

9)(more of a comment) But yet you’re saying … given what you know now, you still wouldn’t support it … so I’m just trying to understand this.

10) And I really don’t mean to belabor this, Senator, because I’m really, I’m trying … to figure out your position. Do you think the level of security in Iraq …would exist today without the surge?

11) If you believe, Senator, Afghanistan is, in fact, the central front in the war on terror, why was this your first trip there? And why didn’t you hold a single hearing as chairman of the subcommittee that oversees the fighting force there?

12) You reportedly chaff when your foreign policy expertise is questioned. If foreign policy is not your weakest area of expertise, what is? (Obama said disorganization)

13) But what area do you feel least comfortable with?

14) We have a lot more ground to cover. You’re heading to Israel after Jordan. And according to a recent poll out of Jerusalem, Israeli Jews favor John McCain for President 43 to 20 percent, with one-third undecided. Why do you think that’s the case?

15) There is some speculation, there is skepticism there because they’re concerned about your previously stated notion of having talks with Iranian leaders, that somehow that signals to them that you won’t be tough enough to Iran. What’s your response to that?

16) If they reject negotiations, how likely do you think a preemptive military strike by Israel against Iran may be?

17) Two more questions. You said not too long ago that Jerusalem should remain undivided. And then you backtracked on that statement. Does that play into the argument that some believe that someone more experienced would not have made that kind of mistake?

18) Finally, you’ll be going to Germany and to France and Great Britain. And according to German press reports, as many as a million people may be gathering to hear your speech in Berlin. Do you worry at all, Sen. Obama, that this kind of crowd in Berlin may be slightly off-putting to the guy in Columbus, Ohio, who’s just lost his job?

http://www.electionspeeches.com/barack_obama_katie_couric.htm

SUBJECTS covered: Iraq trip, surge, Afghanistan why he did not hold a committee hearing, What is Obama’s weakest area, Israeli Jews support for McCain, negotiations with Iran, divided versus undivided Israel, what people in Ohio will think of his trip to Europe

COURIC V. PALIN Sept. 24, 2008 (3 weeks after receiving the VP nomination)

PART 1 - Domestic issue

1)(Couric Asked Palin about Rick Davis’ firm having received money from Fannie Mae)

2)But he still has a stake in the company so isn’t that a conflict of interest?

3)Why do you say that? Why are they waiting for John McCain and not Barack Obama?

4)(more of a comment)But polls have shown that Sen. Obama has actually gotten a boost as a result of this latest crisis, with more people feeling that he can handle the situation better than John McCain.

5)If this doesn’t pass, do you think there’s a risk of another Great Depression?

6)Would you support a moratorium on foreclosures to help average Americans keep their homes?

7)So you haven’t decided whether you’ll support it or not?

8)What are the pros and cons of it do you think?

9)You’ve said, quote, “John McCain will reform the way Wall Street does business.” Other than supporting stricter regulations of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac two years ago, can you give us any more example of his leading the charge for more oversight?

10)(more of a comment) But he’s been in Congress for 26 years. He’s been chairman of the powerful Commerce Committee. And he has almost always sided with less regulation, not more.

11)But can you give me any other concrete examples? Because I know you’ve said Barack Obama is a lot of talk and no action. Can you give me any other examples in his 26 years of John McCain truly taking a stand on this?

12) I’m just going to ask you one more time - not to belabor the point. Specific examples in his 26 years of pushing for more regulation.

PART 2: FOREIGN AFFAIRS

13) As we stand before this august building and institution, what do you see as the role of the United States in the world?

14) In preparing for this conversation, a lot of our viewers … and Internet users wanted to know why you did not get a passport until last year. And they wondered if that indicated a lack of interest and curiosity in the world.

15) Gov. Palin, you’ve had a very busy week. And you’re meeting with many world leaders. You met with President Karzai of Afghanistan. I know the McCain campaign has called for a surge in Afghanistan. But that country is, as you know, dramatically different than Iraq. Why do you believe additional troops, U.S. troops, will solve the problem there?

16) The United States is deeply unpopular in Pakistan. Do you think the Pakistani government is protecting al Qaeda within its borders?

17) You’ve cited Alaska’s proximity to Russia as part of your foreign policy experience. What did you mean by that?

18) Have you ever been involved in any negotiations, for example, with the Russians?

19) When President Bush ran for office, he opposed nation-building. But he has spent, as you know, much of his presidency promoting democracy around the world. What lessons have you learned from Iraq? And how specifically will you try to spread democracy throughout the world?

20) You met yesterday with former Secretary of State Henry Kissinger, who is for direct diplomacy with both Iran and Syria. Do you believe the U.S. should negotiate with leaders like President Assad and Ahmadinejad?

21) You recently said three times that you would never, quote, “second guess” Israel if that country decided to attack Iran. Why not?

SUBJECTS covered in Part 1: Rick Davis’ firm and Fannie Mae, Economic crisis, will there be a Depression without the bailout, does she support the bailout, what are the pros and cons of the bailout, moratorium on foreclosures, McCain’s record on regulation as it relates to mortgage crisis

SUBJECTS covered in Part 2: US role in the world, why she did not have a passport until last year, a surge strategy (additional troops) in Afghanistan, whether or not Pakistan is harboring al Qaeda in its borders, why she said Alaska’s proximity to Russia gives her foreign affairs experience, has she ever negotiated with Russia, Bush and nation-building and whether or not she will spread democracy in the world, does she agree with Kissinger that there should be direct negotiations with Iran and Syria, why she wouldn’t second-guess Israel, if it decided to attack Iran

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/09/24/eveningnews/main4476173.shtml

COURIC V BIDEN - September 22, 2008

1) Polls show that Sen. McCain and Sarah Palin are making inroads among white female voters who are less educated…

2) How is it preparing for the debates?

3) Are you worried that you’re going to have to pull your punches a bit because of her gender and you don’t want to seem like you’re bullying her? It’s a different dynamic when it’s a male/female thing, isn’t it?

4) Are you disappointed with the tone of the campaign? The ‘lipstick on the pig’ stuff, and some of the ads - you guys haven’t been completely guilt-free making fun of John McCain’s inability to use a computer.

5) Why did you do it then?

6) Did Obama approve that ad?

SUBJECTS covered: whether or not McCain was making inroads with women voters, how are preparations for the debate, will he have to adjust how he debates because his opponent is a woman, negative campaigning, did Obama approve of the ad about McCain’s inability to use a computer

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/09/22/eveningnews/main4470063.shtml

Oh wait! Dammit!! Katie forgot to ask Biden whether he preferred puppies or kittens.

The double dealing of CBS was not limited to Sarah Palin, check out VinceP1974’s contribution–the CBS interviews of Michelle Obama and Cindy McCain respectively:

CBS interviewing potential First Lady Michelle Obama

MS. RODRIGUEZ: Finish this sentence.

MS. RODRIGUEZ: “I wish I was more” —

MS. RODRIGUEZ: “I wish Barack” — “I wish Barack wasn’t so” —

MS. RODRIGUEZ: I knew you’d say that. Who cooks at home?

MS. RODRIGUEZ: Yeah.

MS. RODRIGUEZ: Are you a good cook?

MS. RODRIGUEZ: If he’s had a long day and he just wants to come home and have Michelle’s what — what’s the best meal you make that he loves?

MS. RODRIGUEZ: Is there ever a time, at the end of the day, when you and Senator Obama are home and you just think, “What have we gotten ourselves into?”

MS. RODRIGUEZ: (Laughs.) Which doesn’t happen?

MS. RODRIGUEZ: What do your girls say they want to be when they grow up?

MS. RODRIGUEZ: Favorite romantic movie. And can you recite a line from it?

MS. RODRIGUEZ: Best spontaneous romantic gesture from your husband.

MS. RODRIGUEZ: How many years?

MS. RODRIGUEZ: Wow.

MS. RODRIGUEZ: Where do you see yourself in 16 years?

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

CBS interviewing potential First Lady Cindy McCain [Questions only]

(CBS) CBS News anchor Katie Couric talked one-on-one with Cindy McCain about her husband’s selection of Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin to be his running mate. They also discussed social issues, such as abortion. Couric began by asking McCain if the governor has been rattled by the intense media scrutiny

Katie Couric: When did you and your husband first discuss her as a possibility?

Couric: Do you feel confident, Mrs. McCain, that the vetting process which is getting a lot of attention was as thorough as it needed to be and that Sen. McCain knew everything he needed to know?

Couric: The scuttlebutt, if you will, behind the scenes is that Sen. McCain really wanted Joe Lieberman to be his running mate, but social conservatives would have found him unacceptable because of his position on abortion.

Couric: Some, even Republicans, seemed surprised that Sen. McCain picked a running mate who opposes abortion even in the cases of rape and incest, and believes creationism should be taught in schools. And I’m just curious, do you agree with that?

Couric: Where do you stand on abortion?

Couric: So do you oppose it even in cases of rape and incest?

Couric: So that’s where you two differ in terms of your position on that.

Couric: And do you believe Roe V. Wade should be overturned?

Couric: No. Why not? Your husband does.

Couric: He believes it should be overturned. That’s what he told me, and that it should go to the states.

Couric: So, you believe it should be overturned or shouldn’t be overturned.

Couric: How do you feel about creationism? Do you think it should be taught in schools?

We could keep this up all night but I think you get the picture. There is a media bias and they are out to destroy McCain and Palin. Pure and simple.

1)The NYPost talks about Joe the Plumber today. It calls Obama’s “economic plan” a wealth redistribution scheme.

Obama’s plan isn’t about sinking hooks into Wall Street CEOs and other fat cats, as he usually says. Fact is, there’s not enough of them to raise the cash necessary to finance his other grand plans.

No, to do that, he’ll have to go after ambitious working-class guys like Wurzelbacher - who’s been a plumber for 15 years and is looking to better himself and his family while just maybe creating a few jobs.
————–
Heretofore, Obama has sought to paint himself as a tax-cutter - claiming he’ll slash taxes for 95 percent of Americans.

As we noted yesterday, that’s a flat-out lie - not least because nearly half of all tax filers pay no income tax at all. So how can he “cut” their taxes if they don’t pay any to begin with?

Answer: tax “credits.”
To wit, in part:
* A $1,000 “make work pay” credit.
* A $4,000 college-tuition credit.
* A $6,000 child-care credit.
* A $1,100 bump in the earned-income tax credit.

These aren’t to be income-tax deductions - which would be worthless to those who pay no income taxes.

These are to be checks from Washington - with the subsidies expected to grow to more than $1 trillion in 10 years.

That’s a massive transfer of wealth.

How does Obama justify it?

“Fairness,” he says.

But that’s an absurdly radical view of what’s “fair.”

Read the rest ->

“Fair” has nothing to do with it. But, luckily or not, depending on how you look at it (gallows humor there), our economic situation may make this “plan” go the way of Obama’s principled stands on NAFTA, FISA, etc. etc.

2)Today’s IBD has an article about Iran and a potential natural gas cartel - featuring Iran and Russia - to function somewhat like OPEC. Except a forward thinking elected official is taking steps to nullify any effect of such a gas carte. Sarah Palin.

Energy: Iran resurrected its idea of a “gas cartel” to control gas markets like oil. But even if it succeeds, the U.S. won’t be vulnerable. If you wonder why, look to the governor of Alaska.

That’s right, Gov. Sarah Palin took a powerful preemptive step in August to shield the U.S. from a coming gas cartel. Palin’s effort to create the Trans-Canada Alaska gas line — which would provide a vast new trove of natural gas each day to the U.S. — effectively nullifies the emerging gas cartel’s potential impact on America.

If OPEC strikes you as a bad group, the new cartel for natural gas, led by Russia and Iran, will be even worse.

Russia has made standoffish statements about the plan, but won’t repudiate it. “A gas OPEC is an interesting idea,” then-President Vladimir Putin declared last year. Based on Russia’s moves since, the Heritage Foundation’s Ariel Cohen believes it’s a stealth move from the Kremlin to keep buyers unperturbed as the cartel slowly forms.

He’s right. This week in Tehran, Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad quietly drew up the organization’s charter and will take it to Moscow next week.
—————–
. . . The market is changing fast. Global trade in liquified natural gas, or LNG, which requires no pipelines, will grow sharply. The U.S. will see a 58% increase in LNG imports in just two years, according to the Energy Department.

As the U.S. uses more natural gas, Iran’s Gas Exporting Countries Forum is taking off. Instead of the tough task of controlling prices right away, the group will first gain control of reserves through state firms in 14 countries, including hostile states such as Venezuela and Bolivia.

The next step will be “cooperative” ventures to strengthen the network. The final goal is to control production.

It’s nothing but a scheme to carve up monopoly spheres of influence that can tell customers whom they can buy from. That will kill competition and create incentives for meddling. Russia, which readily cuts off gas to neighbors over political disputes, has signaled that it will keep using gas as a political weapon.
—————–
As for U.S., already fairly self-sufficient in natural gas, we will be in a more solid position to defy the coercion. Palin’s pre-emptive step to foil Ahmadinejad’s scheme is in the Alaska gas line. In an Amazonian move, Palin effectively beat back the ambitious petrotyrants 10 years early with her $40 billion, 1,715-mile gas pipeline across Canada that will bring 4.5 trillion cubic feet of gas a day — nearly one-fifth projected needs — to the lower 48 within a decade.

Almost entirely off the news radar, Palin mowed down 30 years of legislative squabbling in the Alaska statehouse and then triumphantly signed off on the pipeline in August, stating her aim was energy independence.

“Alaska should be the leader of an energy policy that gets us there,” she told IBD over the summer.

————–

Her gas line shows . . . foresight, this time aimed at neutralizing enemies that will otherwise grow in strength. Palin’s pipeline will be a critical strike for energy security against petrotyrants intent on extending their influence. It will come online at precisely the moment the gas cartel could develop into a power.

This isn’t to say petrotyrants will go away, that the U.S. won’t be in the crossfire. U.S. self-sufficiency in natural gas will be roughly equivalent to Brazil’s in oil. The South American country which sees few problems from petrotyrants in the wake of its oil independence based on its willingness to drill. The U.S. likely will have the same strength in natural gas.

Energy security is a peculiar concept. Conventional wisdom holds that the U.S. has too few resources to bother drilling. But a nation need not have massive oil reserves for independence; all it needs are competitive alternatives — such as natural gas. Heading off the gas cartel is an important move, and Palin deserves recognition.

Palin’s foresight is a major contribution to U.S. energy security that will reverberate well beyond the election, no matter how it turns out.

In a couple of years when it is clear how the economic mess will fall out and whether or not the US works to change its energy use patterns, this pipeline will probably be one of very few examples of foresight. And hopefully I’ll be around to remind MSM idiots this is the official they said couldn’t walk and chew gum at the same time. That’s our press - always fighting the last war.

3)The San Diego Union-Tribune has an op-ed saying Obama’s truthfulness should be questioned.

Any day now, I expect Barack Obama to call a news conference, wag his finger to the cameras, and announce with all the sincerity he can muster: “I did not have a substantive relationship with that Weatherman, Mr. Ayers.”

Of course, the way things are going, Obama may not have to lift a finger, let alone wag one. He might be able to run out the clock and avoid comment on continuing questions involving his involvement with a Hyde Park neighbor and unrepentant domestic terrorist, William Ayers.
————–

. . . here is what the voters should care about: Obama’s truthfulness, which is now in question. Over the last few months, we’ve learned that Obama and Ayers had more than just a “flimsy” relationship that included Ayers hosting a political gathering at his home for Obama when he was running for the Illinois Senate and the two serving together on various panels and boards. Ayers was also a founder of the Chicago Annenberg Challenge, a school-reform group. Obama served as chairman of its board from 1995 to ‘99, using the position to launch his political career.

Recently, Obama pulled back the curtain an inch. He told reporters that, during his association with Ayers, he had heard about the English professor’s radical past but assumed Ayers had been rehabilitated. Ayers’ ghoulish comments about not setting enough bombs suggest otherwise.

I put no stock in the politics of guilt by association. And even associating with ghouls should not hurt someone’s bid for the presidency. But lying about it is another story. It could be a warning of things to come.

Yeah. Kinda late, dude. Wish you had been there earlier. Then your op-ed might have been meaningful.

4)At the Boston Globe, another op-ed saying something quite similar. It begins by talking about other public figures who have been “guilty by association” such as Ronald Reagan (using the phrase “states’ rights” in MS). Then he goes here:

In none of these cases was there anything like the long relationship that Barack Obama had for so many years with the Rev. Jeremiah Wright, the incendiary, America-damning pastor he described for years as his mentor, his sounding board, and his friend. In none of them was there anything comparable to Obama’s significant involvement with William Ayers, the domestic-terrorist-turned-extremist-professor with whom Obama worked closely at the Chicago Annenberg Challenge, channeling more than $100 million into radical education projects.

Nor was anything in the Reagan, Bush, or Alito episodes akin to Obama’s highly profitable relationship with Tony Rezko, the crooked Chicago businessman and political fixer who was convicted in June on multiple counts of fraud, corrupt solicitation, and money laundering. In the course of their 17-year relationship, Rezko directed hundreds of thousands of dollars to Obama’s political war chests; he also facilitated the Obamas’ purchase of a $1.6 million mansion by agreeing to buy the adjoining lot from the same seller.
————

But it isn’t ridiculous to question the values of a candidate whose political career got its start in the Chicago living room of violent traitors like Ayers and his wife, Bernardine Dohrn, who have never expressed remorse for the brutal crimes they committed in the Weather Underground. There is nothing unfair about wondering how Obama could have worshipped for 20 years in Wright’s church, yet never objected to the fanatic pastor’s virulent messages: that AIDS was created by the US government as an instrument of genocide, that America is the “US of KKKA,” that the 9/11 slaughter was “America’s chickens coming home to roost.”

Guilt by association? Not when the associations have such deep roots or raise such troubling questions about Obama’s character and judgment. It was only in the heat of a presidential campaign that Obama finally repudiated his alliances with Ayers, Wright, and Rezko. It isn’t irresponsible to ask what those associations tell us about a man poised to be the next president of the United States. It would be irresponsible not to.

What two of these editorials now? Think some MSM are issuing these “just in case” or what? Yeah, thanks for this insight dude. Should have been around, what, oh - months ago.

5)Fox had a roundtable on the John Lewis spew and how race-baiting has worked this election cycle. Charles Krauthammer explained how it works - just as we’ve been talking about here at NQ all along.

CHARLES KRAUTHAMMER, SYNDICATED COLUMNIST: When John McCain runs an ad with a white woman, Paris Hilton in it, he is accused of racism. He runs an ad with Franklin Raines, the former head of Fannie Mae in it, who is African-American, and that’s racist. And then he runs an ad with William Ayers, who is a white male in it, and that’s racist.

If it weren’t so comical, these promiscuous accusations of racism, it would be tragic.

The Obama campaign has been playing the race card over and over again. Look, this is a campaign that in the primaries succeeded in painting Bill Clinton as a racist.

Now, Clinton, with all of his flaws, this is a man who throughout his career from Governor of Arkansas to president of the United States and beyond, has been a great and sincere friend of African-Americans who shared and tried to advance their aspirations. So if you can pull off a trick like that on Bill Clinton, you can pull it off on Republicans.

And look what Obama has said. He’s the one who raised the Barack Hussein Obama a year or two ago in which he said the Hussein is actually an asset and would be an asset in dealing with Muslims abroad.

He’s the one who openly said that the Republicans will say I’m black, they will say he’s scary. They will say he’s different. They will say he doesn’t look like the guy on the dollar bill.

That is Obama preemptively accusing McCain of racism, which is a scurrilous charge. Racism is a serious charge in our country, and a false accusation is doubly serious. As we saw in the Duke lacrosse case, it can destroy lives. Given our history, it ought to be used with great care.

And to accuse preemptively McCain of racism even before there is any evidence of it, and there has not been any evidence of it before or since, is scurrilous.
They say patriotism is the last refuge of the scoundrel. Accusations of racism is the last refuge of the liberal scoundrel, and it has been used again and again on the part of the Obama campaign.

You’ve got to admit, it’s been a neat trick to race-bait an entire race from start to finish AND get away with it too. Of course, Jesse Jackson already warned that electing an “AA” president (Obama’s not REALLY AA - he’s white, African and Arab) won’t come close to shutting down the “race question.” So sorry if you think this will show that America has “come a long way.” I think the Obama campaign just naturally assumed race would be his “problem” because, you know, ALL WHITE PEOPLE ARE RACIST and so they devised a way to make it “work for him.” Cynical and not at all hopey changey. Think this will continue into an Obama admin? Stay tuned. I kind of think not.

6)Commentary has an opinion piece that reminds us of what we used to say about “questionable associations” before it became a racist thing if used to question Obama. “If you lie down with dogs, you’re going to get fleas.”

Still, in our wiser moments, we have always understood that character, broadly defined, is important to possess for those in high public office, in part because it tells us whether our leaders warrant our trust, whether their word is dependable, and whether they are responsible. And one of the best indicators of character is the people with whom you associate. This is basic, elementary-school level common sense. The odds are your parents wanted you to hang around with the “right” crowd instead of the wrong crowd because if you hung around with the latter it meant its members would be a bad influence on you, it would reflect poorly on you, and you’d probably end up getting into trouble.

What applies to 10-year-olds also applies to presidential candidates.
Over the years, Barack Obama hung around with some pretty disturbing characters, and what we’re talking about aren’t isolated incidents. It has happened with a slew of people on a range of issues. He has connected himself with domestic terrorists (William Ayers and Bernadine Dohrn), with an anti-American and racist minister (Jeremiah Wright), and with corrupt people (Antoin “Tony” Rezko) and organizations (ACORN). What we see, then, is a pattern.
—————-

For those who say that these associations don’t matter, that they’re “distractions” from the more urgent problems of our time and an example of “Swift-boating,” consider this: if John McCain had sat in the pew of a pastor who was a white supremacist and launched his political career at the home of, and developed a working relationship with, a man who bombed abortion clinics or black churches and, for good measure, was unrepentant about it, McCain’s political career would be (rightly) over, and he would be (rightly) ostracized.

A political reference point may be helpful here. Senator Trent Lott was hounded out of his post as Majority Leader because of a few inappropriate comments — made in bad taste but in jest — at Strom Thurmond’s 100th birthday party. Much of the media and the political class were outraged. Yet we have a case in which Obama has had close, intimate relations with some really unsavory folks, and we’re told it doesn’t matter one bit.

This is the crux of the “associations” argument. Obama has, throughout his life, chosen to work with, pal around with and otherwise promote and be promoted by people whose background is unsavory at best. And this pattern of behavior is not apparently relevant to people. That says a lot about him as a person, but it says more about his supporters. The bar has been lowered for him.

7)And lastly today, don’t expect to see THIS story anywhere but here today.

The agent in charge of the Secret Service field office in Scranton said allegations that someone yelled “kill him” when presidential hopeful Barack Obama’s name was mentioned during Tuesday’s Sarah Palin rally are unfounded.

The Scranton Times-Tribune first reported the alleged incident on its Web site Tuesday and then again in its print edition Wednesday. The first story, written by reporter David Singleton, appeared with allegations that while congressional candidate Chris Hackett was addressing the crowd and mentioned Oabama’s name a man in the audience shouted “kill him.”

News organizations including ABC, The Associated Press, The Washington Monthly and MSNBC’s Countdown with Keith Olbermann reported the claim, with most attributing the allegations to the Times-Tribune story.

Agent Bill Slavoski said he was in the audience, along with an undisclosed number of additional secret service agents and other law enforcement officers and not one heard the comment.
————
He said the agency conducted an investigation Wednesday, after seeing the story, and could not find one person to corroborate the allegation other than Singleton

So, a reporter claims he heard someone in the crowd say this. The Secret Service, no slouches when it comes to protecting US Presidents and wanna-bes, conducts an investigation and finds nada, zip, zero and nothing at all.

But the reporter “stands by his story.” Yep. That’s our media these days. And don’t look for any retractions or revisions from the national lapdogs either. Think that “reporter” was Jayson Blair?

Uh, that would be “political analyst.”

MSNBC tried a bold experiment this year by putting two politically incendiary hosts, Keith Olbermann and Chris Matthews, in the anchor chair to lead the cable news channel’s coverage of the election.

That experiment appears to be over.

Read the rest ->

After months of accusations of political bias and simmering animosity between MSNBC and its parent network NBC, the channel decided over the weekend that the NBC News correspondent and MSNBC host David Gregory would anchor news coverage of the coming debates and election night. Mr. Olbermann and Mr. Matthews will remain as analysts during the coverage.

This means they won’t be gone. They’ll simply slide to another chair. However, it is clearly a demotion and a recognition that these boys weren’t getting the job done.

The success of the Fox News Channel in the past decade along with the growth of political blogs have convinced many media companies that provocative commentary attracts viewers and lures Web browsers more than straight news delivered dispassionately.

“In a rapidly changing media environment, this is the great philosophical debate,” Phil Griffin, the president of MSNBC, said in a telephone interview Saturday. Fighting the ratings game, he added, “the bottom line is that we’re experiencing incredible success.”

“Incredible success.” Huh. Well, apparently not entirely. You know, I think MSNBC has fundamentally misunderstood something. While shows like Hardball and Countdown may attract viewers, they do so because they are entertaining, not because they are NEWS shows. They are the snark shows people watch because they want to feel their point of view is heard. But they aren’t news shows.

And many people think we need old-school dispassionate news right now. News shows used to function as referees in political mud fights. Not any more. MSNBC has a mud cache just like politicians and operatives. While that is entertaining in an opinion-based format, it is NOT entertaining at a political convention or when pursuing news.

Keith somehow doesn’t understand that. Referring to yet another kerfluffle over Keith’s runaway mouth, he said:

In an interview on Sunday, Mr. Olbermann said that moment — and the perception that he is “not utterly neutral” — restarted months-old conversations about his role on political nights.

“I found it ironic and instructive that I could have easily said exactly what I did say, exactly when I did say it, if I had been wearing a different hat, and nobody would have taken any issue,” he said.

“Ironic and instructive?” Dude, that’s the POINT! You’re not supposed to say the same thing when you are supposed to be filling a different function!!!!! Snark all you want on your opinion show, but leave it on the floor when you’re supposed to be a news man! Jeeeeeeeezzzz. How hard is it to get that????

Of course, it’s all about Keith:

Some staff members said the tension led to the network’s decision to keep Mr. Olbermann in New York for the Republican convention, after he ran the desk in Denver during the Democratic convention. MSNBC said that he stayed in New York to anchor coverage of Hurricane Gustav. But some workers say there were other reasons — namely, that Mr. Olbermann was concerned about his safety in St. Paul, given the loud crowds at MSNBC’s set in Denver.

Concerned about his safety. Heh. Apparently he thinks he’s a genuine muckraker and not just a loudmouth who can’t tell news from opinion.

NBC Universal executives are also known to be concerned about the perception that MSNBC’s partisan tilt in prime time is bleeding into the rest of the programming day. On a recent Friday afternoon, a graphic labeled “Breaking News” asked: “How many houses does Palin add to the Republican ticket?” Mr. Griffin called the graphic “an embarrassment.”

While executives also said it was “grossly unfair” that other NBC “news” people were being lumped with Matthews and Olbermann (such as Andrea Mitchell), I think many viewers would point to “partisan tilt” “bleeding into the rest of the programming” and its people.

The WaPo has a tidbit that further explains the internal fight at NBC/MSNBC.

In May, MSNBC President Phil Griffin said in an interview that during live events Olbermann and Matthews “put on different hats. I think the audience gets it. . . . I see zero problem.”

But NBC News journalists, who often appear on the cable channel, did see a problem, arguing behind the scenes that MSNBC’s move to the left — which includes a new show, debuting tonight, for Air America radio host Rachel Maddow — was tarnishing their reputation for fairness. Tom Brokaw, the interim host of “Meet the Press,” said that at times Olbermann and Matthews went too far.

Looks like the NBC uber-journalists have won this round. We’ll see. Keith, though, claims it was HIS idea:

Olbermann and Matthews will remain as analysts during major political events, and officials at both networks, who declined to be identified discussing personnel moves, said Olbermann had initiated the discussions to clarify his role. They said Olbermann’s influence at MSNBC would in no way be diminished and that the shift would enable him and Matthews to offer more candid analysis during live coverage. Olbermann confirmed yesterday he had initiated the discussions.

“Phil and I have debated this set-up since late winter/early spring (with me saying, ‘Are you sure this flies?’ and him saying, ‘Yes, but let’s judge it event by event’) and I think we both reached the same point during the RNC,” Olbermann said by e-mail.

So, we’ll continue to get more of the Keith and Chris show and with an even smaller nod to objectivity. Of course, some cooler head will, presumably, anchor, but will it make any real difference? Tune in to find out or wait to see it on YouTube. I recommend YouTube.

(At the bottom of this post, you’ll find some “classic” NQ stories related to Keith Olbermann. Please enjoy as we all reflect on Keith the man, the journalist and the legend in his own mind.)

2) The Australian has a veeerrrrryy interesting story today. While other stories have circulated about Hillary speaking against McCain, this story focuses on her “refusal” to attack Palin.

HILLARY Clinton may be the most obvious choice to throw into the ring against the new darling of American politics, Sarah Palin, but the failed Democratic presidential candidate is refusing the job.

“We’re not going to be anybody’s attack dog against Sarah Palin,” a Clinton insider said yesterday.

This story is not sympathetic to Hillary, casting her as selfish and not working for her party.

Her refusal to roll up her sleeves against Palin, who describes herself as “a pit bull with lipstick”, has already come under questioning by Democratic apparatchiks. “The strategic imperative right now is to do something about Palin and prevent her cutting through the race,” said Democratic strategist Tad Devine. “She is practising the same slash-and-burn politics of division of the Bush years. Hillary Clinton can make the charge that Governor Palin represents the far Right.”
——————-

. . . [Hillary] will be joining the roster of prominent women deployed by Obama to such good effect against Clinton herself during the primary campaign. Politicians such as Kansas Governor Kathleen Sebelius and Missouri senator Claire McCaskill have made the case that women could in good conscience vote for Obama rather than Clinton.

Now they are using the same tactics against Palin.

If Clinton is uncertain about going for Palin’s jugular, she may like to recall the words of a woman delegate at the Republican convention who described Palin as “more of a woman than Hillary and more of a man than Hillary”.

We knew this would happen if Hillary did not come out strong for Obama. We also knew that Obama would “up the ante” and require her to do even more at some point. Well, it’s “some point” now. Pathetic - and particularly so if Hillary is required to use anti-Hillary tactics herself.

3) A writer at Counterterrorism blog says the MSM is taking reporters off counter-terrorism stories to put them on political “investigations” like those running on Sarah Palin.

I see one after another of the mainstream media outlets which have made important contributions to the factual underpinnings of the counter-terrorism effort dropping off that beat. Editors in the print media are shifting terrorism experts on their staffs towards investigations of political candidates. At least three such reporters at three major papers are now chasing Sarah Palin stories. . .

4) Well, for those Obama supporting Democrats still flogging the Roe v. Wade angle, here’s this. The NYT is reporting today that Joe Biden believes life begins at conception.

WASHINGTON — Senator Joseph R. Biden Jr., the Democratic nominee for vice president, departed Sunday from party doctrine on abortion rights, declaring that as a Catholic, he believes life begins at conception.

While Mr. Biden’s views may not be new to Democrats in his circle, his comments, in an interview on “Meet the Press” on NBC, came at a time when his party is confronted with a new face: Gov. Sarah Palin, the Republican vice-presidential nominee, whose anti-abortion stance and decision to give birth just five months ago to a baby with Down syndrome have revved up the conservative base of her party.

Hmmmmmm. OK, VP’s don’t matter that much. I’ve said so before. So, any chance we’ll stop hearing about Sarah Palin’s view on this?

5) Financial Times has a story on media in this election cycle. (You may need to register to read the entire thing.)

Democrats speak up for the less prosperous; they have well-intentioned policies to help them; they are disturbed by inequality, and want to do something about it. Their concern is real and admirable. The trouble is, they lack respect for the objects of their solicitude. Their sympathy comes mixed with disdain, and even contempt.

Democrats regard their policies as self-evidently in the interests of the US working and middle classes. Yet those wide segments of US society keep helping to elect Republican presidents. How is one to account for this? Are those people idiots? Frankly, yes – or so many liberals are driven to conclude. Either that or bigots, clinging to guns, God and white supremacy; or else pathetic dupes, ever at the disposal of Republican strategists. If they only had the brains to vote in their interests, Democrats think, the party would never be out of power. But again and again, the Republicans tell their lies, and those stupid damned voters buy it.

It is an attitude that a good part of the US media share. The country has conservative media (Fox News, talk radio) as well as liberal media (most of the rest). Curiously, whereas the conservative media know they are conservative, much of the liberal media believe themselves to be neutral.

Their constant support for Democratic views has nothing to do with bias, in their minds, but reflects the fact that Democrats just happen to be right about everything. The result is the same: for much of the media, the fact that Republicans keep winning can only be due to the backwardness of much of the country.
———-

For days, the derision poured down from Democratic party talking heads and much of the media too. The idea that “this woman” might be vice-president or even president was literally incomprehensible. The popular liberal comedian Bill Maher, whose act is an endless sneer at the Republican party, noted that John McCain’s case for the presidency was that only he was capable of standing between the US and its enemies, but that should he die he had chosen “this stewardess” to take over. This joke was not – or not only – a complaint about lack of experience. It was also an expression of class disgust. I give Mr Maher credit for daring to say what many Democrats would only insinuate.
——————-

If only the Democrats could contain their sense of entitlement to govern in a rational world, and their consequent distaste for wide swathes of the US electorate, they might gain the unshakeable grip on power they feel they deserve. Winning elections would certainly be easier – and Republicans would have to address themselves more seriously to economic insecurity. But the fathomless cultural complacency of the metropolitan liberal rules this out.

The attitude that expressed itself in response to the Palin nomination is the best weapon in the Republican armoury. Rely on the Democrats to keep it primed. You just have to laugh.

The Palin nomination could still misfire for Mr McCain, but the liberal reaction has made it a huge success so far. To avoid endlessly repeating this mistake, Democrats need to learn some respect.

It will be hard. They will have to develop some regard for the values that the middle of the country expresses when it votes Republican. Religion. Unembarrassed flag-waving patriotism. Freedom to succeed or fail through one’s own efforts. Refusal to be pitied, bossed around or talked down to. And all those other laughable redneck notions that made the United States what it is.

Sounds about right to me.

A partial list of NQ Olbermann-related articles

Special Comment for Keith Olbermann [with Video Update]

The Madness of Keith Olbermann

Keith’s Traintrum

A Special Commentary

Keith Olbermann: Useless

Keith Olbermann’s BO Problem

Chris Matthews Leg Tingling Nearly Official But Olbermann’s Blatant Sexism Is

Olbermann v Milbank - The Back Story

John Lennon, Meet Hillary Clinton and Sarah Palin

Tracy Flick My Ass

MSNBC Goes Off the Rails

Jesse W/O Invitation, FISA Sell-out, Untethering the Mayer, Wrestling with Pigs, New Spies and redstateupdate

And one of the people who foisted Obama on us, who backed him but claimed he wasn’t until the beginning of June, is none other than my representative, and House Whip, Jim Clyburn. And he did it by demeaning Bill Clinton. You know, Bill Clinton, the one who spoke the other night so eloquently, as only he can? The first “black president”? The one under whom our economy was so good? That one?

Let me refresh your memory on what Jim Clyburn said about Bill Clinton, on our “friend,” Keith Olbermann’s show:

Oh, and Rep. Clyburn? The “WILL OF THE PEOPLE” WAS overturned by the SuperDelegates when they supported OBAMA, not Clinton! So many of the counties, districts, and STATES she won had the SDs go to Obama in clear contravention to the will of the people. So, how do all of those folks who wrote you feel about this NOW, or do they not care as long as THEIR candidate won? DO they not care HOW he got it as long as HE got it?

Oh - and Keith was right - there WAS “traitorous” acts - and they were perpetrated by the RBC of the DNC, and the Obama campaign with caucuses. Whatever. As long as it’s not Hillary, right?

Anywho, so during the primary, Clyburn had some tough stuff to say about Bill Clinton. Bill Clinton who has done more for the African American community than ANY other president. That one. After President Clinton’s outstanding speech the other night, Jim Clyburn was interviewed by Judy Woodruff. Here is the transcript from that interview in an article, Delegates Rate Speech “Outstanding“:

JIM LEHRER: Let’s go now to Judy Woodruff, who’s on the floor there among the — the Clinton reaction, Judy?

JUDY WOODRUFF: Jim, I am here on the floor with the third-ranking Democrat in the House of Representatives, Representative Jim Clyburn of the state of South Carolina.

What did you think of the president’s speech?

REP. JIM CLYBURN (D), South Carolina: A great speech, outstanding. As I said earlier today, I expect for Bill to be Bill. And he was Bill tonight. I really believe that he teed it up well for Barack Obama, and I think tomorrow night we’ll — he’ll do what he has to do tomorrow night.

JUDY WOODRUFF: There were some differences between you and some others with President Clinton with some of the language he used during the tough primary battle between Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama, the question of whether he injected race into the campaign at a couple of points. Is all forgiven on that front?

REP. JIM CLYBURN: Well, I never had a problem. I made it very clear. I admire and respect Bill Clinton. I think he was a great president. I was pleased to be in the Congress to help with that, so I never had a problem.

I do believe, though, that a lot of things that got said could have had more than one meaning. And it got carried in more than one way.

And so I still think that he is an outstanding person, and I have no animosity toward him at all.

JUDY WOODRUFF: How much will his support — how much difference will his support make in this general election campaign?

REP. JIM CLYBURN: I think it means a great amount of difference, especially to our base supporters out there. These people love and admire the Clintons. And they really needed to hear what they heard last night and what we’ve heard tonight.

JUDY WOODRUFF: Congressman Jim Clyburn, the House majority whip, thank you very much.

REP. JIM CLYBURN: Thank you.

Well, golly gee, Jim. YOU may not have any animosity toward Bill Clinton, but I imagine he might just have some toward YOU for disparaging him, for demeaning him, for implying (at the very least) that he was a RACIST. Yeah, he might not be too keen on YOU right about now. You tried to ruin his reputation, and YOU have no animosity toward HIm. That’s rich. Really rich.

But here’s the thing about BIll Clinton: he has class. He may have grown up dirt poor, but the man has class. And integrity. You and your candidate could sure take a lesson or a thousand from Bill AND Hillary on class and graciousness.

You know, now that it is official that Obama is The One, I have said I would vote downticket. But that means voting for Jim Clyburn. Frankly, there is no way in HELL I’m going to support that man after what he did to Hillary and Bill. Hmmm. Looks like I might not even be going to the polls for the first time in my adult life this time around (and before you tell me that I MUST vote for McCain, I assure you - I will give it serious consideration as a way to make clear to the DNC that I will not support a Party that lies, cheats, and steals. I am not there yet. As a lifelong Democrat, that is a hard, hard place for me to go. So can we just leave it at that, that I’ll think about it? Great. Thanks.).

The DNC is broken. People like Jim Clyburn helped break it. I can think of no better reward for him than to lose his seat. Or at least being the Whip. Hey, here’s a thought - how about Dennis Kucinich being the Whip? He hasn’t trashed the Clintons, or painted them as racist. He holds all of the positions Progressives hold dear. Sounds like a good option to me! Maybe he should push for THAT position!! Oh, that would be FUN to watch, wouldn’t it? Whoever, however, it would sure be nice for Clyburn to lose that power position he holds, wouldn’t it? I think so. Couldn’t happen to a more deserving guy, IMHO.

Jim, you may not have animosity toward President Clinton, but I sure have animosity toward you for what you did. To quote another line from The American President: “You have bigger problems…You just lost my vote.”

Politico’s Michael Calderone has the scoop, via Memeorandum.com:

Milbank’s dissatisfaction with the show started before any controversy over the Obama piece or questions from Olbermann about misquoting the Democratic candidate, according to sources.

Isn’t that what most sentient beings had already figured out? That for all of Olbermann’s heavy-breathed sternness and breathless tirade published at the distinguished Daily Kos, it turns out that it was Milbank who was sick and tired of Olbermann’s and his crew’s stunts?

A source familiar with the situation told Politico that Milbank had been unhappy on the show for a couple of months and expressed this sentiment to friends. But it wasn’t until directly after an incident last month that Milbank made a move.

During the first week of July, Milbank spoke to executive producer Katy Karp about why he had not been on the show for a couple of weeks. At that point, Milbank was told that there was an issue among staff with something positive he said the previous month about Charlie Black, a McCain senior adviser.

Oh. My. God. Milbank committed the ultimate sin! Well, the sin just below criticizing “The One.” He praised The Enemy’s Force! Oh, the hideousness of it all!

Here’s the exchange from June 23, where Olbermann talked to Milbank on-air about Black’s statement to Fortune magazine, that a terrorist attack would be a “big advantage” for the McCain campaign.

OLBERMANN: But where do we go in terms of this story from here? Does McCain have to, whether he likes it or not, fire Charlie Black or face having this bell along with other bells around his neck all summer and all fall?

MILBANK: Well, he’s going to wait and see. I imagine they are certainly going to hope that this becomes a 24-hour thing that blows over. Which it well could be, depending on what events happen in the coming days. But if it keeps being brought back to them, they’ll have to take some action here.

The irony here is that Charlie Black is a very soft-spoken, well-liked figure, and this does seem rather out of character for him to sound off in this way.

An MSNBC spokesperson confirmed there was a conversation where Black came, but the producer was only joking. The spokesperson said there was no connection between anything Dana said about Black and his not being booked on “Countdown.”

Milbank told Big Head DC yesterday that he "started contract talks with CNN on July 7" — therefore, things were underway several weeks before the July 30 column. (Indeed, Milbank reached out directly to Campbell Brown.) …

Read all.

So, if you’re looking for Dana Milbank, look no further than CNN!

And I hope that Keith Olbermann followed the instructions from Obama’s campaign to the letter.

For more fun with this “hot” story, check out Larry Johnson’s “Obama Versus the Press.”

On The Big Orange, Commissar Keith Olbermann decided to whet the appetites of his rabid, but dwindling, fan base by offering “a little preview of an item on tonight’s Countdown” by ordering an EXECUTION:

The headline: Dana Milbank won’t be on the news hour any more.

Dana Milbank of The Washington Post, who notified us today that after four years appearing with us, he had accepted another television offer. This saved your crack Countdown staff an increasingly difficult decision.

Your “crack Countdown staff?”

And what decision was that, Keith? Dana must be brought to heel?

It seems the brouhaha stemmed from Dana Milbank’s article, President Obama Continues Hectic Victory Tour where Dana had the audacity to refer to Barack Obama as “the presumptuous nominee.” In other words, Dana finally woke up from his koolaid-induced stupor and called it like he saw it. And for this, the punishment was to be swift and sure from Herr Olbermann.

Since I covered Dana’s article last week, I thought it only fitting that I share the “reasons” for Keithie’s faux outrage. According to the pompous Olbermann:

For nearly a week we’d been waiting for [Dana] to offer a correction or an explanation for his column from last week in which he apparently reported an Obama quote without a full context turned the meaning of the quote inside-out.

Then he called criticisms of his column “whines” even though the dispute was over whether Obama said the self-deprecating: “It has become increasingly clear in my travel, the campaign — that the crowds, the enthusiasm, 200,000 people in Berlin, is not about me at all. It’s about America. I have just become a symbol of the possibility of America returning to our best traditions” — or only the part about “I have just become a symbol…”

All current evidence indicates that Senator Obama is about as capable of being self-deprecating as Olbermann is of having humility. Secondly, the article covers more of the quote than just the ‘symbol‘ part. Lastly, Keith is whining. That is something he has in common with most Obama surrogates on the receiving end of any criticism for their messiah: to whine.

We had decided not to have Dana on this news-hour again until this was cleared up, and, sadly after some very happy years, he’s apparently chosen to make that cloud permanent. Good luck, Dana.

…he took any further decision-making out of our hands. It was quite a surprise conclusion, obviously, and I’ll take it (before anybody tries to take it back).

So, Keith, what you are really telling us is that Dana Milbank basically told you to go stuff it before you had to make the “difficult decision” of telling him to go stuff it.

As you can see from reading Dana’s article linked above, he had the absolute audacity to criticize ‘the One’ and report honestly that some of the press corps started referring to Obama as a “prom queen.”

Considering Obama’s new supersized logo on his plane, his chair stitched with the word President on it, the usurping of the Presidential Seal, telling the press corps how to dress, not answering any real questions, negotiating with and giving his two cents to foreign leaders, overstepping the bounds of his overseas trip, the list goes on and on…why wouldn’t the press call Senator Obama a prom queen? Or perhaps we can use my favorite new name for him: Il Duce.

To summarize, Olbermann, who has been sipping his own koolaid for some time now and puffing out his chest higher and higher with every stinking broadcast, forbade Dana to come back on the show until Milbank basically bowed down and scraped his knees on the carpet begging Olbermann’s forgiveness.

You can manipulate Obama’s quote any way you want – there are several versions of it from different news sources. But in every single one, he refers to himself as ‘a symbol of returning to America best traditions.’ Obama and Puffy the Clown belong together. They have the same exaggerated sense of their own importance.

Why don’t they just go do a sweat lodge and sing songs around the campfire and smoke a doobie and get it over with.

Olbermann accusing Milbank of taking something out of context is a tad disingenuous considering he is the one who would go on nightly unjustified, self-righteous and outrageous diatribes against Hillary Clinton, mentioning the Clintons in the same sentence with the racist David Duke, and other disgusting rants. This is the man who said:

“A Super Delegate needs to take Hillary Clinton into a room and only he comes out. That kind of scenario.”

When viewers exploded with outrage, his big apology was that he “used the wrong pronoun.” That’s it.

MSNBC took the cake in terms of the worst misogynist slurs against Senator Clinton – the unforgivable remarks were compounded daily.

In addition to every other outrage from MSNBC, it appears they are practicing censorship. Because Dana Milbank finally decided to tell the truth about Senator Obama’s arrogant and unseemly behavior, Milbank was to be denied the opportunity to appear on the show and possibly express such dissent.

Olbermann was not worried about Dana offering an “explanation.” The threat was clear – either fall in line or you’re out of a job over here. Dana refused and took another offer instead.

I hope Keith Olbermann can enjoy his ever-lower ratings; currently around the rank of “the Butterfly Channel,” as I believe Bill O’Reilly so eloquently put it.

I see that freedom of speech and freedom of expression are not welcome on Countdown. I have long since written off this program, but more worrisome is the dread I have that dissent and honest expression are also being crushed in other parts of the news media. While Olbermann is arguably the worst offender, he is not alone.

I remember reading that Greta Van Susteren noted a reporter colleague of hers on another network could not file a report critical of Obama without it being watered down, whereas stories critical of Senators McCain and Clinton were left untouched. Highly disturbing to say the least.

There is no love lost for Dana Milbank, given most of his reporting this season. Like many in the media who complain about Obama now, they did so only after they spent many months unfairly kicking the far more qualified Senator Clinton in the teeth.

That stated, I am glad Dana had the good sense not to bow and scrape before Olbermann – a man whose character would be best served in a profession having nothing to do with disseminating ‘news’ to a public desperate for the truth.

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

NoQuarterUSA Action Of The Day:

We ask that you take part in the I Own My Vote Virtual Platform Committee Meeting now! It takes five minutes. Click here to start. If you have not yet signed the pledge, click here to do so.

• “Does he wear a flag pin on his lapel? Yes, but not always. Like many presidential candidates, sometimes he wears a flag pin, sometimes he wears a breast cancer awareness pin, sometimes he wears his U.S. Senate membership pin and other times he wears no pin at all.”

• “Is he a Christian? Yes. He is a committed Christian. In 1985, he began working as a community organizer with a Christian church-based group seeking to improve the living conditions in poor Chicago neighborhoods.”

The mailer missed the mark! It reminds of us those rumors, that he is unpatriotic and a Muslim, rather than dispels them. Once again our family, friends and neighbors will be discussing the rumors anew.

Here is the second mailer. Part of this mailer has an older white woman saying “I am voting for the candidate who will fix our health care system.” Today, it was revealed that a health care plan backed by the AFL-CIO and SEIU may derail Obama’s healthcare plan.

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kcdnlNZg2iM[/youtube]

And now this on a union backed health care plan is called “guaranteed affordable choice”. More on that:

If SEIU and the AFL-CIO get their way, the day that all Americans have affordable insurance will be pushed into the unforeseeable future.

The labor-backed plan, which they call “guaranteed affordable choice,” would create a public program like Medicare that would allegedly compete with the nation’s 1,500 insurance companies. Americans would get tax-financed subsidies to purchase insurance from either a private insurance company or the public plan. Competition, which has never worked in the health insurance industry, would magically come to life.

By leaving the bloated insurance industry smack in the middle of our health care system, “guaranteed affordable choice” would have taxpayers and premium-payers continuing to spend hundreds of billions of dollars on unnecessary administrative costs.

The other two faces on the mailer show white older males, one a retiree and one still employed. It will evoke memories of the comments spoken in front of wealthy donors in San Francisco. Here are Obama’s exact words:

“You go into some of these small towns in Pennsylvania, and like a lot of small towns in the Midwest, the jobs have been gone now for 25 years and nothing’s replaced them,” Obama said. “And they fell through the Clinton Administration, and the Bush Administration, and each successive administration has said that somehow these communities are gonna regenerate and they have not. And it’s not surprising then they get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren’t like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations.”

And of course we will be reminded of Obama’s stance on NAFTA. Or were those just words and he didn’t mean it?

“While Senator Obama was telling voters he would fix NAFTA, his chief economics advisor was telling Canadians that his position was just words.

The AFL-CIO wasted their money and time. The AFL-CIO needs to go back to the drawing board on these mailers! If the mailers evoke these memories in me, what will they do for the union members and the bitter people living in Pennsylvania? All those campaign gaffes during the primaries will haunt Obama’s dream again, while I sleep peacefully at night!

Some viewed it as a power struggle over who ends up with the most influence in Washington, with ambitious legislators preferring a weaker president over whom they could likely exercise most influence.
 
While Hillary carried resentments some held against her husband, it was widely recognized that she was, factually, the most qualified candidate; even those who didn’t back her saw her as the most intelligent, prepared and competent of all the candidates, Democratic and Republican alike. While polls showed that many Americans found her “untrustworthy,” at the same time those polled trusted her ability, to lead the nation and the military, and to accomplish her goals, which were clear and which conformed to what most Americans claim to want.  
 
Now that she has suspended her campaign and Barack is all but our official candidate, many who voted for him, either out of the ideals he seemed to profess or those they projected onto him, are experiencing buyer’s remorse.
 
Still it’s highly unlikely that the DNC will reverse itself and give us the most competent candidate with the best chance of winning the presidency for our party, and who also happens to be a woman.
 
The fact that much must be accomplished in order to reverse Bush’s disastrous acts is undisputed, and yet the campaign rhetoric between Barack and his RNC rival John focuses on pandering to ‘one-issue’ voters, and hardly at all on our frightening problems, our unique but limited opportunities, and what must be done to make things right in Washington toward guiding our nation to greater freedom, prosperity, health and safety.  
 
So, what happened?  Why, even though enough of the ‘people’ voted for ‘the girl,’ did the ‘powers’ in our party deliver us a less qualified and less prepared man?  
 
One thing noticed was that Barack got nearly all the African American vote, while many women voted for one of the men, rather than Hillary. Had nearly all the women voted for Hillary, she would have won in a landslide.  But, their so-called reasons proved plastic.
 
In the beginning many women claimed a woman couldn’t get elected and that they wanted someone who could win. When Hillary’s support waxed while Barack’s waned, some of these women did cross over to Hillary, but there were others who stayed relentlessly negative toward her, blaming her for her own ‘inability’ to catch up with Barack, even though Barack got away with claiming early victory while she continued to beat him in big primaries and closed in on his early lead.   
 
He was objectively bored and cranky with the primary campaigning and clearly wanted it over. She remained enthusiastic and energized by the primary, which she characterized as a very long job interview.
 
And that was the main difference between their campaigns, Hillary saw ‘president’ as job, where the best-qualified applicant should be ‘hired,’ while Barack continues to see it as a contest, with a ‘whoever runs the cleverest campaign will win’ ethic.    
 
She used goals, plans, staffing recommendations and solutions, while he used strategies resplendent with obfuscation and character smears.   
 
She obviously prepared before she started her run, while he hasn’t yet shown any need to prepare, and seemingly plans to ‘get started’ only after he ‘gets elected.’
 
She trusts experts, professionals and work, sets goals, names her ‘lines in the sand,’ and promises to do her best. He trusts his own instincts and his ‘unique’ yet unproven ability to lead.    
 
This ‘difference’ mirrors, amusingly, one of the those ‘differences’ we can find between males and females seeking power positions in large businesses.  Women who get ‘hired’ for top jobs in business first prepare themselves, and they work their way up, garnering experience and learning how to garner allies and accomplish goals. They present themselves as most qualified, which they can back up.
 
Men often aspire to jobs they haven’t prepared for, and expect to be selected because of ‘potential,’ or supposed ‘leadership’ talents, and thus learning ‘on the job’ isn’t considered by them to be a deficit.  
 
Some newspapers, such as the New York Times, were ‘compelled’ to endorse Hillary, after lengthy ‘job interviews’ with all the candidates, because she knew her stuff and she had clear, concrete and practical plans to carry forward her goals.  
 
To look at it from such a ‘girl, boy’ angle, however, one must start by looking at the ‘masculine,’ as different from the ‘feminine.’ This is also referred to in psychoanalysis as the difference between the phallus and the object.
 
Of course the phallus isn’t the penis, even though it’s represented by the penis; the phallus is what no one has, but which, were it ‘had,’ would guarantee that the holder of ‘it’ could fill the ‘appetites’ of the Other (one’s mOther in the first place).  
 
When someone chooses the phallus over the object, it’s like holding onto ‘potential’ over settling for what you might get, the unlimited promise over the limited actuality.  Gore was a good example of this, he preferred his high mindedness and delight in his own personal ethics over landing the job, and so we may say that those like Gore can only ‘get’ what’s given to them by the Other, they can’t ‘take’ anything, probably because it wouldn’t be enough.    
 
Original trauma means that moment in which a young child first notices his or her mother isn’t entirely satisfied, and therefore must lack ‘something.’
 
The fear is that the child must provide his or her mother with whatever ‘it’ is she lacks, which is the definition of ‘the phallus.’  Often boys mistake their penises for what she lacks, and come to ‘value’ their penises as a sign of their worth, as well as a source of anxiety that they may lose ‘it.’   
 
Little girls know that, like their mother, they also ‘lack’ a penis, and consequently girls suffer far less from that fear that their mother may ‘emasculate’ them.    
 
But this doesn’t mean the little girl doesn’t know ‘the phallus,’ that she doesn’t think she may also have to ‘provide’ what her mother lacks, it only means that she’s far less likely to delude herself into thinking she really has ‘it,’ or, for that matter, that anyone else has ‘it’ either.
 
That she doesn’t view little boys as in unique possession of ‘something’ marvelous and sought after by moms doesn’t mean that she isn’t at all interested in his penis, it just means she isn’t awed.     
 
There are cultural differences between what societies see as ideals of masculinity and femininity, which depend on how the roles are divided between the sexes, but some things are constants, and these ‘constants’ generally involve the expression of sexuality.   
 
Penises are the source of much interest and great pleasure for those who have one.  Little boys typically react with horror to their first glimpse of naked girls, at first either denying or repressing the ‘information’ that there are seeming human counterparts who don’t have one, as if those without one must have been mutilated.  
 
One need only think of the common reaction of small children to real mutilation, for example when a young child sees someone who’s missing a limb or part of a face, to get a sense of the little boy’s shock.  
 
A little girl has no similar shock, she immediately perceives that boys have something she hasn’t, and she may feel interested or curious or whatever, but she won’t feel any horror.  
 
Freud saw this ‘question’ of sexual difference for children as the start of scientific curiosity, because you can’t explain to young children the real story, which is that humans come in (at least) two sexes, and that both are complete.  This isn’t a credible explanation to a child, who can see for his or herself that the two sexes may dress differently, may have different roles, may behave differently, and are clearly judged differently.  
 
Although all societies treat each sex differently, depending on the societal ideal for each sex, boys are often encouraged to explore, and to be fearless and take risks, while girls may be encouraged to stay close to home, and to be careful and cautious.  
 
And of course girls are at more real risk than boys, and do require societal protection. One only need consider the vast numbers of girls and women who are sexually abused and mistreated to admit girls need protection, and this truth isn’t diluted by the fact that all children need protection from predatory adults, whatever their sex.   
 
And one may here point out that men are predominately the sexual abusers.  Even those few grown women, who garner headlines through sexually inappropriate behavior with miner males, don’t use force, and most of their male ‘victims’ feel glad about this abuse and may even ‘fall in love’ with their abusers, which is a stark contrast to how most males feel about sexual abuse from older males, which one could argue is at least as traumatic for them as it is for girls.  
 
Across societies violent criminals are mainly men, and violent sexual predators are exclusively male.  
 
And over all societies most men are proud of their penises, and glad to be men, while most girls don’t know what the ‘big deal’ is all about. (An ancient Greek saying goes something like, praise to the gods I’m not a slave, a non-Greek or a woman. I’m sure that even in ancient times that line made women chuckle.)   
 
Little girls may be praised for being ‘tom boys,’ but little boys may be tormented for having perceived ‘feminine’ characteristics.  
 
Lucky is the little girl who is reared in a home where her parental figures appreciate girls as much as boys, and where her father likes her mother, however ‘different’ her mother may be from him.  And lucky is the little boy who is simply accepted and not required to ‘pretend’ to some masculine ideal that doesn’t suit his inclinations.  
 
But, outside having a ‘naming’ penis, what is it to be a man? No one can fully answer such a question, but whatever answers are offered, they will always come with a requirement for a measure of prestige and contain the ‘rights’ to respect.
 
Whenever anyone is at the mercy of needing respect to feel his or her worth, he or she will necessarily experience frustration and be vulnerable to humiliation and mortification.  
 
This is because human subjects are filled with desires and wants and demands that overflow any possibility of being fully satisfied. We’re each of us lucky to get much satisfaction at all, and luckier still to accept what we can get and be glad.   
 
For all children and for many adults frustration is the punishment for not having enough of ‘whatever it may be’ that ‘causes’ others to respect and, why not, to love us, to overlook our shortcomings and to enjoy our talents and achievements, big or small.
 
A man also has his penis, big or small, and he’s either lucky or unlucky when it comes to having a love object that respects his ‘manhood,’ and will enjoy and participate in his phallic sexual desire.  

As men grow older their sexuality becomes that ‘thing’ that can get in the way of normal satisfactions.  Perfectly ordinary seeming men may harbor fantasies, or even engage in secret acts, that those who ‘know’ them would never imagine.  Many men are unable to overcome the impulse to ‘misbehave’ when an easy and seemingly safe opportunity for sexual ‘acting out’ presents itself.  The examples are too numerous and too ubiquitous to require listing.  

There is therefore a ‘normal’ variety of misogyny that is experienced by any heterosexual man whose sexual satisfaction depends on his ‘acceptance’ by some woman, who can ‘judge’ him to be either sufficient, or wanting.  
 
To marry, and thus to try to overcome the normal ‘anxiety’ between the sexes, men and women make compromises.   
 
The man accepts that he can’t have ‘all the women,’ and agrees, at least publicly, to settle for one (or however many the law allows him), who confirms he is a man by the fact of her.  The woman in turn agrees to accept his offer (submit to the law), or to believe his promise (which may be kept or broken) that he will protect her from the sexual appetites of other men, if she gives herself over to him.
 
This ‘arrangement’ in its varied forms has been going on as long as there have been humans on earth.  And back when sex roles were clearer and ‘universal,’ (meaning within a closed society) we suppose there were few overt ‘problems’ between the sexes, as each ‘knew’ his or her role and each was given community respect for fulfilling his or her role.  
 
Ah, but then came the concept of human rights, and the consequent one of women’s rights, and all hell broke loose.  
 
When a woman isn’t required by law to ‘submit,’ she may not. When a man can’t ‘enforce’ his sexual rights, he may not get any.  
 
But it seems this was not such a disaster, as men and women adapted, mainly by way of their fantasies.  They could then happily ‘misunderstand’ each other, bridging their sexual divide with fantasy, and life went on.   This was likely the birth of ‘romantic love,’ the best example of which is courtly love, which is all fantasy.
 
Some say the most successful marriages take place when the woman plays the role of ‘mother’ to her husband; she looks out for him as if he were a child, and she ‘protects’ his ‘male ego’ by pretending he isn’t lacking (that he has the phallus).  
 
Some others say the most successful is the opposite, where the man takes on the ‘father’ role, and his word is the law, and is respected.
 
But neither of these roles is our 21st century ideal. We now want it all, we want to stay ‘in love’ forever and never ever ‘doubt’ that we made the best choice with our forever ‘romantic’ or forever ‘sexually desirable’ partner.   We want to ‘make love,’ not ‘have sex’ or we want to have ‘hot sex’ and never ‘make love,’ plus we all want to ‘want to,’ no one wants to ‘have to,’ either out of duty or compassion.  
 
So the ‘mommy wife’ may still take care of things at home, keep to her own ‘objectives,’  but she can refuse to f–k, or at least mostly refuse.  Our ‘daddy husband’ can’t get anyone to obey him anymore, and he thus lives in constant frustration, which can make everyone at home miserable. Frustrated ‘wives’ may turn to drink, and frustrated ‘husbands’ may act out sexually.  
 
This state of affairs is likely to keep marriage counselors and divorce lawyers in their booming businesses for the foreseeable future and may also be an underpinning for the increase in addictions, if the ‘substance’ acts both as the phallus that only completes and needs no completion of its own, and as a disguise.   It may also account for the emergence of religion in what was once a mainly secular nation, in that religions are the most clear about laws regarding marriage and differential sex roles.  
 
Into this ‘situation,’ comes Hillary Clinton, first credible female running for president of the greatest nation on earth, for now anyway, and a woman who ‘doesn’t get what the big deal is all about.’
 
She followed the women in business model, which is to prepare first and then ask for the job.  She presented what she would do, not what she is.
 
To her great and naïve surprise she was told that her confidence, competence, enthusiasm, and enjoyment in campaigning was somehow ‘emasculating’ Barack.
 
She was ‘too confident,’ plus ‘too competitive,’ and she made him look unprepared during those debates, by knowing all the answers, and having the best-crafted plans, and responding first to everything, and by ‘forcing’ the media to compare the two of them she somehow diminished him, which must have been what she really wanted to do all along, to emasculate, to castrate, to ruin, to withhold, to be a bad ‘mom’ who didn’t ‘need’ a man.  In other words she didn’t pretend he had the phallus, and she didn’t even seem to know she was supposed to.  
 
Some of his most ‘manly’ supporters behaved as if the simple fact of ‘her’ running against ‘him’ was a big slap in their faces (how dared she!) and this is still demonstrated by the ‘boos’ that greet her name at Barack festivals.    
 
Hillary never ran as a phallic model, someone with whom lesser folk could elevate themselves through, by way of identification with her ‘phallus’; she followed the ‘object’ model, in it’s business form, she ran on objectives, who could best meet them.   
 
Barack is running on the phallic model, he ‘has’ what the rest of us lack, and need, hey, if you don’t believe me just ask him, or better, ask his wife.
 
To Hillary, Barack’s campaign seemed bizarre, how could he think to simply waltz in and expect he already knew enough to do the job, with his slim resume, and lack of relevant experience, without any ‘work’ to show what he’d already accomplished, and with his claimed superior judgment called so consistently into question?  
 
She wondered how it was he didn’t seem to ‘understand’ how complex, how vast, how varied, just how damn hard the job of president of the United States really is, not to mention just how important these times are and how many lives depend on our next president doing the job superlatively.  Like, even with his male ambition, didn’t he know it really wasn’t about him, but about all of us?    
 
This clearly demonstrates the difference between the sexes, this complete lack of mutual understanding, this complete difference in fantasies. She’s imagining every child with health care, and he’s imagining sitting in the oval office getting all deferred to.   
 
Hillary didn’t understand that Barack hadn’t prepared himself for the job in the same time-honored way that men aspiring to power jobs never do, because he’s running as a man, the one we’ve all been waiting for, our ‘leader.’  
 
He’s been rather amusing about it too, which makes me wonder if he’s a lot smarter than he pretends, but a lot less responsible. He responded to Bill Clinton’s friendly challenge to a ‘dance contest’ with, ‘he’d have to see Bill’s “stuff.”’  Only some girls failed to understand what Barack was really saying, and since Jennifer Flowers has already described Bill’s “stuff,” it was a joke that made his male supporters proud.
 
And Barack did the now famous hot and tired ‘jeans’ pose, that some likened to Bush’s codpiece in the ‘mission accomplished’ video.  (Barack does play it like comedy, from time to time, just think of his presidential seal.)
 
I mean, Barack doesn’t even try to ‘know’ what he’s talking about, because he knows he’s running on being the ‘man for the job’ and not as the ‘person who can actually do the job.’     
 
He played his ‘manhood’ less amusingly by claiming victim to the ‘castrating’ woman, and we can now see why this worked, why this got him sympathy from women and unleashed unbridled fury at Hillary and her supporters rather than making him look unprepared and ridiculous.  
 
Many men want a leader who ‘has it,’ so that, by extension, they can identify with his ‘phallus,’ (and let their mothers want that guy, give their own sorry selves