WILL THE REAL MEDIA DARLING PLEASE STAND UP

The TimesOnline takes a realistic look at the American media's worship of Obama:

it's fairly clear now that, with the near-certain nomination by the Democrats of Barack Obama everything is in place for the media to indulge in one of the greatest, orgiastic media fiestas of hero-worship since Elvis Presley.

You will not see a finer example of the genre than the cover story of this week's Newsweek, which was entitled “The O Team”. This rhapsodic inside account of Senator Obama's campaign reads a little like a cross between Father Alban Butler's Life of St Francis and the sort of authorised biography of Kim Jong Il you can pick up in any good bookshop in Pyongyang.
...
The idolatry of Mr Obama is a shame, really. The Illinois senator is indeed, an unusually talented, inspiring and charismatic figure. His very ethnicity offers an exciting departure. But he is not a saint. He is a smart and eloquent man with a personal history that is startlingly shallow set against the scale of the office he seeks to hold. It is not only legitimate, but necessary, to scrutinise his past and infer what it might tell us about his beliefs, in the absence of the normal record of achievement expected in a presidential nominee.

If the past 40 years have taught us anything they have surely taught that premature canonisation is an almost certain guarantee of subsequent deep disappointment.

The only real disagreement I have with this story is its speculation that the media will forsake John McCain for Obama when the GE gets going. I'll have to see that to believe it. Obama is the new crush, but I can't believe they'd turn on The Straight-Talking MaverickTM so easily. It seems more probable to me that they've been championing Obama because they think he's The One to finally and forever rid us of the pesky Hillary Clinton, but most of the male media actually want to BE John McCain. He's more their kind of guy, the one they want to have barbecue and beer with, swap football and war stories with.

I expect the media will be flummoxed and discomfited when their dream candidates go mano e mano. That's about the only pleasure that such a matchup will bring me.

OBAMA AND THE PULPIT

There is so much about this that disturbs me that I hardly know where to begin. But here are some quick thoughts:

1. Obama in the pulpit. That's just too, too close to the GWB "pastor-in-chief" meme. Is that what we're voting for?
2. His too-absolute identification with Christianity. Are Jews, Muslims, Mormons, atheists and agnostics going to feel as if he's their president too?
3. The quote about "doing the Lord's work." So, like Bush, he believes he's anointed by God for the presidency? I'd like to know what "Lord's work" he's done in the past, or is this just another promise we're supposed to hope he keeps?
4. The whole flyer is so staged and pretentious, it's embarrassing. It's an insult to people of faith. Just how stupid does he think the people of Kentucky are? Does he think they don't know a giant pander when they see one?
5. This lines up perfectly and bizarrely with the religious/cult/messianic flavor of Obama's campaign. It's one thing for one's supporters to develop true-believer-itis on their own, it's another to actively encourage it.

Holy smoke (pun clearly intended), can you imagine if Hillary had put out something similar? They'd be mocking her on MSNBC and in the blogs till the cows come home.

WHERE'S ELIZABETH EDWARDS?

I don't know why I should feel disillusioned because John Edwards endorsed Obama. I was an Edwards supporter until he dropped out of the race (because of his anti-poverty campaign, largely), but I wasn't heartbroken when he did because I was already getting, via the debates, the sense that Hillary had a broader, better-thought-out agenda. And to tell the truth, the smell of sexism and the "good ole boys club" was starting to bother me. And now Edwards' end-game endorsement of Obama smacks of more of the WWTSBQ? activity than a true meeting of the minds.

Still, it's a disappointment. I thought better of him. Obama has done nothing to indicate that fighting poverty is a priority for him, and from what I can tell from his resume and his books, he’s done about zero for poor people in his life. For crying out loud, he didn’t even take care of his own constituents who were freezing in his pal Tony Rezko’s tenements!

Sure would be nice if Elizabeth would endorse Hill. She was noticeably absent from the stage during the endorsement announcement. She's a smart, pragmatic feminist that has much in common with HRC and has stated that she prefers Hillary's healthcare proposal to Obama's. John even indicated on Morning Joe last week that he and Elizabeth had voted differently, which I take to mean she voted for Hill.

NARAL TEXAS NOT CONSULTED ON OBAMA ENDORSEMENT

I just called the Texas chapter of NARAL, and they told me in no uncertain terms that they had NOT been consulted before the national organization decided to issue an endorsement of Obama -- and they just found about it about the same time the rest of us did. They didn't sound too pleased about it, although a spokesperson said they could not make a public statement.

Nancy Keenan is an arrogant opportunist, so she should fit nicely into the Obama camp.

From the Illinois chapter of NOW:

"As a State Senator, Barack Obama voted ‘present’ on seven abortion bills, including a ban on 'partial birth abortion,' two parental notification laws and three 'born alive' bills. In each case, the right vote was clear, but Senator Obama chose political cover over standing and fighting for his convictions. When we needed someone to take a stand, Senator Obama took a pass. He wasn’t there for us then and we don’t expect him to be now.”

But you heard the woman. He's got the money.

HORRIBLE PEOPLE

Despite all the rancor on the Obama Blogs, the only "progressive" blog I've removed from my blogroll during the primary has been that of Democratic Underground. Today I've removed AmericaBlog as well. John Aravosis and gang have reached levels of rage that have rendered them not only stupid but disgusting. And they call themselves Democrats?

Go away you horrible human being
by John Aravosis (DC) · 5/13/2008 09:25:00 PM ET

IT'S NOT CLOSE. YOU FREAKING LOST THE NOMINATION, WHAT THE HELL IS WRONG WITH YOU?
...
She can't win, the math says she lost the nomination, but she doesn't give a damn. She's going to stay in the race like some spoiled hateful egotistical brat.
...
Now, far too many of us loathe Hillary Clinton, and she has done her racist best to ensure that her supporters can't stand Barack Obama either.

The Clintons don't give a damn about our party. Their party, their church, is themselves. To hell with everyone else.
...
Now I actually loathe her. She makes me yell at the TV like she's George Bush, and no one other than George Bush makes me yell at the TV - until now. I actually can't stand her or her husband any more. I defended her. I defended her husband. And now I'm actually wondering if the Republicans weren't right about them. That's how bad she has damaged her reputation. People who actually liked you, who actually helped you, who actually defended you, LOATHE you now.

It amazes me, the self-importance of the media and the Blogger Boyz that they are enraged that a candidate IN CLOSE TO A VIRTUAL TIE for our party's presidential nomination doesn't take orders from them (unlike Al Gore and John Kerry). How dare She? Who Does She Think She Is? Doesn't she know that they're the future of the party, that they have plans to rule, and that in fact they're in charge now and the most important influencers -- and that there's no place for Hillary and her supporters (horrible, racist people that we are) in the party that they're wresting away from its most faithful members?

And we keep being asked, what will it take for the party to heal, for us Hillaryites to lie down and take another one for The Man.

No, YOU go away, you horrible people. You're destroying the party, you're fouling any chance your favored candidate can win the GE, and as usual, you'll blame it on Hillary.

FAITH VS. HOPE

Just wow. I'm just now catching up on the news of last night's extraordinary victory for Hillary in West Virginia.

Last night I slipped on some oil in the parking garage at work and strained my already-suffering back and knees (long story involving past surgeries), but dragged myself into the car and drove home as quickly as I could, intending to drown my pain in lots of Tylenol and lots and lots of election results and commentary. It was certainly one of those days. I arrived home to find the electricity off (rainstorms in Dallas), including my digital cable. So no TV, no Internet. I just wrapped both knees in heating pads, put one behind my back, and settled in with a good book instead and went to bed early.

So everything's back on this morning, and I awaken to the news that Hillary beat Barry by 41%, but it doesn't matter. WWTSBQ? is the anthem of the media and the Obama campaign. Right-wing talk radio is full of "she's toast, let's get on with it" commentary -- you can almost hear them salivating over the radio, they're so anxious to get her out of it and take on BO.

It's not over till it's over. I've given far more money to Hillary's campaign than I have ever before donated to a candidate, yet yesterday I sent another $50 just on faith. What a return!

And that reminds me. I've been thinking of posting on the difference between faith and hope for some time now. This will be a quickie.

Faith as defined in the Bible is "the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen," while the dictionary defines hope as the feeling that what is wanted can be had or that events will turn out for the best; to believe, desire, or trust; to feel that something desired may happen.

Notice the difference between the two -- faith requires evidence, hope is a feeling or desire. We have faith that the sun will rise tomorrow because IT ALWAYS HAS (evidence). We hope our team will win (desire).

I have faith in Hillary because I have the evidence of her past record, her behavior, her character as demonstrated in the public domain for decades, and her explicit promises as outlined in her policy positions and issues papers. Barack's supporters have hope that he'll live up to his rhetoric, but they cannot have faith because there is no evidence that he ever has.

What's the intelligent, mature perspective?

"WE'VE COME A LONG WAY, BABY!"

Created by geeklove. Go to youtube to RATE, COMMENT & mark FAVORITE the video.

NOT ONE CENT FOR TRIBUTE

Finally. A major columnist has gone public with the sexism and misogyny exposed by Hillary's run for the presidency.

Marie Cocco calls them out.

Most of all, I will not miss the silence.

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

Yes, Marie, that clarion silence has pushed this formerly loyal Democrat to questioning not only the leading candidate (who has also been silent, that husband and father of two daughters) but the leaders of the party and other prominent Democrats. How can Caroline Kennedy justify it? How can George McGovern, Harry Reid, Nancy Pelosi?

I'm still struggling with what to do with my vote if Hillary doesn't win the nomination. But it's supremely easy to determine that the DNC will not win even one of my contribution dollars, which will to a cent be disbursed to candidates who have endorsed HRC.

THE PROGRESSIVE ELITIST

Because for so long we have concentrated our ire and our air on Bush/Cheney, it's been easy enough for Kos, Chris Bowers, and Whoever Kidnapped Josh Marshall to fool those of us who are more inclined to populism and traditional liberalism that they were of the same mind and heart. This primary season has certainly disabused us of that notion.

But I have to say that Chris Bowers has amazed me more than any of the Blogger Boyz with his faulty and sometimes downright flaky analysis. His lengthy post today on Obama and the "current" incarnation of the progressive movement is so target-rich I don't know where to start. Take just the following passage for example (emphasis mine):

Another objection that will be raised to this formulation is that I am characterizing both Obama and the netroots as elitists, which is exactly what Republicans will do. My first response is that well, we kind of are elites, when you look at our demographics. My second response is that 2008 is the first election year where the conservative backlash narrative against "liberal elites" and civil rights will find itself in a minority nationwide. In other words, the era of "liberal elites" as a negative is over in terms of its national political effectiveness. Consider, for example, how Obama has been hit harder with this characterization than even John Kerry or Michael Dukakis, and yet he continues to comfortably lead John McCain and cruise toward the nomination. The changing demographics of the electorate have rendered the "liberal elite" change functionally inert.

Is he serious? Obama has been hit harder with the "elite" meme than Dukakis or Kerry? They were dogged with the tag from day one and it never let up. Obama didn't receive such scrutiny from his adoring media fans until late in the primaries, with his infamous San Francisco comments just before the PA primary, and it didn't even begin to resonate until AFTER Pennsylvania. In addition, the MSM long ago decided that no person of color could possibly be deemed an elite, owing to their membership in an "oppressed minority," so Obama hasn't suffered nearly the mockery that Dukakis and Kerry experienced. In fact, the media didn't even inject an iota of mockery in their reports -- the remarks, it was made obvious, didn't bother THEM, rather they questioned whether the comments might hurt him among the peasantry.

And where on earth does he get his information that the "liberal elites" attack is no longer effective for Republicans? They haven't even STARTED on Obama, and it's a sure thing that they'll use it, and use it and use it, particularly since BO is having such a tough time selling himself to lower-income, less educated, and older non-AAs. They know it's a Barry vulnerability, and they'll use it to contrast him with good old salt-of-the-earth ex-POW John McCain, who knows how to barbecue and graduated near the bottom of his class. And dang, if I were a Republican I'd be quoting Bowers and every other Blogger Boy who proudly declares "we are the elites."

Here's a revealing excerpt that doesn't surprise me. The "new progressives" (so many of which are ex-Republicans) are ready to dispense with the Democratic Party and take the reins of power:

Further support for this thesis can be seen in the demographic breakdown of Obama's support, which is heavy both on non-partisan self-identifiers, on high-income voters, and on highly educated voters. This elite, anti-partisan message appeals to the growing progressive movement, which is largely de-moored from identification with dominant institutions like the Democratic Party, rather than changes the movement. It is a sort of creative class identity politics, which Obama appeals to both through his life story and his anti-partisan, pro-unity message.

I find it hysterically funny that Chris could talk so confidently about Obama's "elitist" message and then call it "pro-unity." What's the opposite of elite? Common? Does he really think progressives can triumph if they frame the argument as between elites and the common people? How do you unify the peasants with their "betters"?

Scary stuff, guys. More reason to support Hillary and avoid the trainwreck ahead.

WHAT WOULD IT TAKE? A DIFFERENT CANDIDATE

Turkana at The Left Coaster asks what it will take for Clinton supporters to vote for Obama should he become the Democratic nominee. I posted the following comment:

Well, it would certainly help if he'd say one dadgum word publicly to shame his supporters for saying things like this (yes, I'm looking at you, Donna Brazile): "...the Hillary forces are uncivil, repugnant and vile."

Beyond the wounds his campaign has inflicted on faithful, long-time Democrats who simply prefer a different candidate, Obama has never demonstrated any particular loyalty to the Democratic Party. Despite Hillary's repeated promises to do everything she can to support him if he wins the nomination, Mr. and Mrs. Obama have not returned the favor. That's a little hard to swallow, considering all the unity ponies they keep offering.

Obama would have to change his pro-Republican "unity" rhetoric and back up all that "hope" and "change" with some solid progressive positions on universal healthcare, Social Security, and SCOTUS appointments, among other issues, before I'd even consider voting for someone who has so diligently worked to destroy the legacy and reputation of the Clintons.

But there's something I'd like to add, something the Obamamaniacs and the swooning media just don't get.

We don't know this man well enough to turn the most important seat of power in the world over to him. We have but the sketchiest legislative record to assess. He has shown almost no real leadership on any particular issue that helps us to understand his priorities and passions. He and his wife talk unity out of one side of the mouth and trash-talk their party and its most successful representatives, the Clintons, out of the other side. He has demonstrated no command of or particularly insightful understanding of the domestic economy, of foreign relations, or other issues that matter to liberals (notice I don't say progressives) and ordinary Americans. He has offered no new solutions to any of our more pressing problems, indeed has cribbed most of his policy positions from others, but watered them down in the process and making them less workable and less appealing. At the very least, he and Michelle have abetted (or endorsed by failure to refute) the accusations of racism against the Clintons. He has consistently and egregiously conflated the Clinton-Bush years. There's plenty more, but the point is, what we do know about him, we don't like or trust.

So when I hear pleas for "party unity" and for Hillary supporters to rally 'round the Obama campaign lest that evil old John McCain win the presidency, I gag. Of COURSE "any Democrat" would be an improvement over McSame in the normal course of events. But what others don't get is that we're not sure Obama qualifies since we know so little about him and have so little insight into how he will govern. I'm sure there are loonies who call themselves Democrats that I would NOT trust with the functions of government over John McCain. And many of us worry that Obama's inexperience, coupled with our other concerns and reservations, put him in the same category. And with him making noises about "fixing" Social Security, admiring SCOTUS justices such as John Roberts, voting for the Cheney energy policy, and running away from universal healthcare, he sounds more like McCain than like the other Democratic candidates.

It's not a spite thing. It's a considered response to an absurd campaign in which hope triumphs reason.

HILLARY CLINTON -- THERE IS NO SUBSTITUTE

Now that pundits and leading Dems have decided that the primary race is over, many of them are speculating on an Obama/Hillary ticket. Most conclude that the hostility in the Obama camp is too great to allow Hillary the second slot on the ticket. Again, that's simply more fodder for the "it's all about them" charge against the Obamas. Many other hotly fought races found nominees reconciling with their former opponents to create a formidable ticket for the good of the nation (think JFK and LBJ, Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush), but that's not where the Obamas are at. Barack and Michelle have always been reluctant to openly promise to support Hillary were she the nominee, and are ungracious in their presumed victory.

But the blindness of others, who suggest that there's a Hillary surrogate such as governors Ted Strickland (OH) or Ed Rendell (PA) that, if selected as BO's running mate, would assuage the concerns of Clinton voters, is preposterous.

In the first place, I don't want her running with Obama as VP. His and Michelle's attitudes towards her would almost surely prevent them from giving her any substantive place in their administration. If Hillary's not going to be president, I want her in the Senate where she can at least continue to fight the good fight for the issues that matter.

In the second place, there is no substitute for Hillary. Her experience, her passion, her resilience, her leadership, her courage, her dedication, her compassion, and her mastery of policy nuance are unparalleled and cannot be transferred by osmosis to another. She is far and away the best choice for president and our best chance to beat John McCain.

We will not be placated by a gesture.

R-E-S-P-E-C-T

Huff Post continues its quest to label all non-Obama supporters as racist.

Of course, the fact that 90%+ of AAs are voting for BO indicates nothing more than their superior judgment. And the fact that working-class whites may actually be voting, this time around, "for their own interests" as they did for JFK and Bill Clinton in the nineties, doesn't mean that they actually LIKE Hillary or believe she'll fight for the issues that matter to them. Oh no! They're just acting out of their thick-skulled, inferior, racially insensitive Bubba mentalities.

I am 34, a white male in West Virginia, and currently have an Obama sign in my yard. I have logged on and read total ignorance about West Virginia for days. I love Obama and his speeches move me, but I'm now uncertain about the base I'm aligning myself with. I have read nothing but hate and ignorance spewed at my home state from Obama supporters for days.

West Virginia is 99% white. The lead Hillary Clinton has in West Virginia is on par with whites in most states. So enough with the racist, backwards West Virginia comments.

For the uneducated WV remarks, I implore you to pull out recent World Almanacs and see where WV ranks on average in SAT scores in the country, because like I said in my other comment, South Carolina and Georgia are consistently the worst in the country and Obama carried South Carolina and did very well in Georgia.

For the racist remarks, you people have no idea how much the people in this state love our African American college football QB Pat White. There is very strong support in this state to have a statue of him put up when he graduates. Just ask Randy Moss, or OJ Mayo how "bad" they have it here.

As much as I support Obama I love my home state and am just starting to get embarrassed enough after reading the comments on here to go pull the sign out of my yard.

Obama's supporters better get a grip. Their words and actions not only reflect poorly on their candidate, the rest of us are attributing their sentiments to The One, since he's not said one word to rein them in. And we're sure-as-shootin' not going to vote for anyone that arrogant, spiteful and hypocritical.

The truth is, most of America has been gradually separating from the racial divide for some time now. We still have progress to make, especially in our institutions and social networks, but it's a far cry from the conditions that existed even 20-30 years ago. To trash fully half (or more) of the country as Ku Kluxers just because we're immune to the Obama Magic is a losing strategy. And it compares badly with Hillary's campaign, which, despite the best efforts of the Obamaniacs and their media surrogates to label it as race-baiting, has consistently demonstrated respect for every demographic.

POT CALLING KETTLE!

As you may know, we here at AMERICAblog are now awarding Hillary and her team a special prize every time they cross the line of decency and attack Democratic nominee Obama in a way that could hurt his chances against McCain in the fall. Our award is called a "Monica," and the Hillary team member will earn between one and five Monicas, based on the severity of their sleaze. This morning's Monica goes to former NY Mayor Ed Koch.


These people are unbelievably un-self-aware. SLEAZE??? It's not sleazy to use Monica as an icon, it doesn't "cross the line of decency"?

I vote five Rezkos for John Aravosis of AmericaBlog.

SUNDAY TALKING HEADS

It's amusing to watch this morning's news shows with their panels speculating on who Obama might pick for his running mate.

It's clear, from Michelle Obama's attitude, that he will never select Hillary unless forced to do so by pragmatic political considerations. And I have real trouble believing that Hillary would accept such a post. She has to know that if it happened, he would diminish her role in every possible way, relegating her to a campaigner and not an adviser or participant in the governing process. And Hillary is an activist -- she would never voluntarily surrender her ability to speak and act independently on the issues that matter to her just to fill a ceremonial slot. So the talking bobbleheads suggest that maybe a Hillary supporter such as Ohio Governor Ted Strickland might be a way to extend the olive branch to the Hillary wing of the party. Fools and idiots. Strickland or PA Gov. Ed Rendell will not assuage our doubts about Obama, and they will not serve as surrogates for Hillary. The media and the Obama campaign JUST DON'T GET IT. Hillary is not a REPRESENTATIVE of an ideology or a wing of the party -- she is herself, the best-prepared candidate for the presidency. We are not voting for her as a symbol. We support her leadership, which is not replicable. Someone else cannot substitute.

There really is no way for the Obama campaign to make nice with us now other than to appeal to us as loyal Democrats. And there is only one real issue that keeps me and others like me in the fold: Supreme Court appointments. Were it not for that (McCain praises Alito and Roberts as the kind of judges he would select), I would certainly be abstaining from a presidential vote if Obama is the Democratic nominee.

The discussion is almost always, on this topic, about how horribly AAs would react if Obama is "denied" the nomination. Give credit to Cokie Roberts for insisting on This Week with George S. that the media coverage, columns, and blogs have offered little respectful treatment of Hillary and her campaign. Cokie rightly pointed (I keep waiting for it, but almost never hear it) out that women are offended by the rampant sexism in this election cycle, and women are resentful.

Sam Donaldson defended Hillary on the "white, working-class voters" problem for Barack comment by saying that not only is that a fact reported repeatedly by every media outlet, but the Obama campaign knows it and is working on it.

This is NOT OVER.

HAPPY MOTHER'S DAY, HILLARY

Many of you know that I'm the mother of five and the grandmother of four toddlers. If you include our "adopted" daughter and her three young'uns (which we do) and the sons-in-law, we have a pretty large brood. I've played a lot of roles in my life, but none has been more satisfying than motherhood. Less than two weeks from now our oldest daughter will become a bride, and yesterday, as we shopped for her lingerie shower, with the cell phones ringing merrily between me and our four girls, I thought how amazing the bond is between mothers and daughters when founded on love, trust, and respect. Whenever I'm low and feeling as if I haven't accomplished all I wished to in this life, I look at my daughters and two sons and know that I've had a part in creating an amazing legacy of young people with good values, bright minds and strong wills that will enable them to make contributions to society far beyond what The Sage and I have done.

Hillary Clinton has faced more bad press and confronted more unreasoned animosity during her life and career than any public figure in my memory, yet she has produced a superior child, Chelsea, and her success as a mother is practically unquestioned. Hillary has been an example to us all in the way she has carved out of an incredibly burdened schedule of working for the betterment of ordinary people, an inviolable space for her responsibility and pleasure in guiding, educating and mothering her daughter. And adding to her personal success in that role, she has fought for other people's children throughout her entire life. So she is to be celebrated today, and every day, as an extraordinary mother, and an example for all the rest of us.

For years there has been a meme that declared Republicans as the "strong father" party and Democrats as "nurturing mother." There's nobody better than Hillary to represent the latter, yet she's demonstrated she qualifies for the former as well. She's our iron lady, our Margaret Thatcher, only with more brains and more heart. Lady Thatcher, with whom I have an acquaintance and intimate knowledge of through our mutual close friend, has had much less success as a mother, producing a spectacularly flawed son, whom she has doted on and thoroughly spoiled, and a somewhat estranged daughter that nobody even seems to remember she has (though her son's twin sister). Hillary is resilient, tough, focused and pragmatic, yet she is also and always a wise and devoted mother. I believe from the depths of my being that the nation is in great need of such a character as Hillary's to lead us through the monumental challenges we face.

So Happy Mother's Day, Hillary. This mother salutes you and is inspired by you. God bless you. And keep fighting the good fight for all of us.