So, now that we are are down to the wire, I thought that I would play a little game of compare and contrast with the resumes of the final two candidates.

Tim Scott has served thirteen years on the Charleston County Council–and, he has been in the SC House of Representatives for the last two years where he is currently the first black Republican state legislator since Reconstruction. Mr. Scott has impeccable conservative credentials, because he is just one of eleven candidates to have been endorsed by The Club for Growth (who also endorsed Marco Rubio and Pat Toomey). Michael Barone also acknowledged that Tim Scott was the most conservative candidate in the SC District One race, when he wrote the following–

“Interestingly, Haley is the daughter of Sikh immigrants from India. If elected governor she would be the second Republican governor of a Southern state, after Bobby Jindal of Louisiana, to be the child of immigrants from South Asia. Who’d a thunk it? And when you’re putting your mind around that, consider that the leader in the Republican primary for the open South Carolina 1 seat relinquished by retiree Henry Brown is Tim Scott, who may be the most conservative and assuredly is the only black Republican in the South Carolina legislature. He led Paul Thurmond, son of the late Governor and Senator Strom Thurmond, by a 31%-16% margin; in third place with 14% was Carroll Campbell, son of the late Congressman and Governor Carroll Campbell.”

Actually, Tim Scott won by 32%, but the rest is correct.

Now, as far as charisma goes, Tim Scott has it to spare–in fact, he has it oozing out of every pore. I have embedded two videos below of Tim Scott. The first one is his excellent advertisement that points out that he wrote the anti-Obamacare legislation in the SC House of Representatives. The second video is of a speech that Mr. Scott made before RNC members in Myrtle Beach, SC–and it is just made of awesome (watch the first 12 minutes of it if you don’t have time to watch the entire thing–that should be enough to give you an idea of who Mr. Scott is and what he is about).

OK–so now that I’ve told you about Tim Scott, I thought that I’d tell you a bit about Paul Thurmond. Paul Thurmond is the youngest son of the late Strom Thurmond. He got elected to the Charleston County Council in 2006, but decided to retire at the ripe old age of 33 (Tim Scott is 44), after serving only three years there. He is now running for Congress at the age of 34–that’s it, the end. I’m serious–that’s really all there is to his resume.

And as far as his conservative bona fides go, I can’t really tell you one way or the other, because HE HASN’T DONE ANYTHING YET.

Oh, and here are Paul Thurmond’s television ads for the SC District 1 race. I’m not exaggerating when I tell you that they are both in the top five WORST ads that I’ve ever seen.

Did you hear that? He said that he was “a conservative problem solver” and he has a family. Well, my mailman’s “a conservative problem solver” and he has a family–he solves the problem of getting me my mail everyday. Does he get to run for Congress? Do I? I’m “a conservative problem solver” as well.

Oh, and did you catch the end? “It’s not the name”, but it really is, because why the heck else would you bring it up? Besides, what else is he running on again? Oh yeah, silly me. He’s “a conservative problem solver” (whatever that is).

Now, let’s look at Mr. Thurmond’s next ad shall we?

Omigod–is it over?! Can I look yet? Man, that was all kinds of terrible! “Thad and little Fletch”?! Is he serious with this foolishness? If I didn’t know any better, I’d swear that ad was a parody. But hey, I guess if you don’t have any real accomplishments or legislation under your belt (like writing the anti-Obamacare legislation for SC), then “Thad and little Fletch” it is. (Don’t get me wrong–his children are adorable, but come on. This an ad for a congressional seat, not a home movie.)

Oh, and did you catch the beginning of that ad where he had a picture of him and his dad? Oh, but he’s not running on his family name….now, if somebody could actually tell me what exactly he is running on, I would love to hear it. Oh yeah. He’s “a conservative problem solver” (rolls eyes).

And finally, at the beginning of that ad, it mentions that Paul Thurmond is endorsed by Authur Ravenel Jr. Who is he you ask? Well, he is a prominent politician from Charleston from a very old Charleston family (there is a historic home in downtown Charleston, built in 1845, named after his family) whose son, Thomas Ravenel (who was the SC state Treasurer) was sentenced to federal prison for buying and distributing cocaine. (Arthur Ravenel Jr. was a Democrat in the 1950’s, but became a Republican.) Oh, and Arthur Ravenel is a member of the Sons of the Confederate Veterans, is highly in favor of flying the Confederate flag over the SC State House, and referred to the NAACP as the “National Association of Retarded People”. Whoa–this guy’s a real class act isn’t he? (And by “class act”, I mean a real scumbag.) Let’s just say that I’m not at all surprised that Mr. Ravenel is in favor over ANY guy named “Thurmond” over Tim Scott, but I digress. (Seriously Mr. Thurmond–you thought that it was a good idea to begin your ad with this guy’s endorsement?!)

Oh, while we’re on the subject of endorsements, that previous advertisement also said that Paul Thurmond was endorsed by Representative Thomas Hartnett who has been a SC politician since the 1960’s–he was originally a Democrat in the 60s, but he became a Republican in 1972.

So now, I bet you are curious about who got what endorsements the day after the Republican Primary. Well, the day after the June 8th Republican Primary, Paul Thurmond–the guy who came in a far distant second–picked up three new endorsements. I’m not kidding. Paul Thurmond–a second rate, unqualified hack of a candidate (Tim Scott is, literally, FIVE TIMES more qualified than him–he has 15 years in elected office and Paul Thurmond has 3), with the charisma of vanilla pudding got three endorsements in less than 24 hours after he LOST BY A TWO TO ONE MARGIN.

[One a side note, are you starting to notice a pattern here? That every ancient, entitled, pork barreling, SC political hack, who was friends/acquaintances with or worked with Strom Thurmond, is now endorsing Paul Thurmond over Tim Scott? It's quite obvious to me anyway. Oh, but I forgot. Paul Thurmond is a breath of fresh air whose going to change Washington by owing his election to a bunch of SC political hacks who have been in Washington for decades (rolls eyes).]

And, one of Paul Thurmond’s endorsements was from the guy who came in third in the primary, Carroll Campbell the third, who is the son of a former governor (Carroll Campbell Jr.). But, Carroll Campbell III has never done anything much except be a lobbyist. Oh, so he’s kind of similar to a lot of SC political hacks in that he has the following mentality—

(In my whiniest voice possible…..)

“My daddy was somebody big and important, so that makes me big and important! So I deserve this seat dammit!! And besides, who does that Tim Scott think he is working hard and playing by the rules and not participating in dirty, backroom politics?! Doesn’t he know how things are done around here??!! Doesn’t he know that your supposed to have a famous daddy and that we’re supposed to “scratch each others backs” to get ahead? Well, if this goody two shoes wins the Republican Primary, then I’m going to take my ball and go home and endorse the other guy with the famous daddy who will do more favors for ME! Me, me, me–it’s all about me! (Pouts and stomps foot.)”

Now, I realize that some of you think that I’m being a little hard on Mr. Campbell–well, I’m not! When Tim Scott first announced that he was running for Congress, Mr. Campbell blasted Mr. Scott for having the very temerity to throw his hat in the ring when he said the following–

“Tim Scott will be trying to run for his third office in just two years; abandoning what appears to be a failed campaign for Lt. Governor. Mr. Scott is just another politician in a string, all scrambling over one another to get into a campaign I have been in for nearly a year. The people of South Carolina are tired of political opportunists.“

OK–first of all Tim Scott didn’t have “a failed bid for Lt. Governor”. To put it bluntly, Carroll Campbell is shamelessly lying. In fact, in his first ten days in the race for Lt. Governor, Tim Scott raised a whopping $150,000 and was considered to be the front-runner. However, then Henry Brown’s seat opened up (and Tim Scott, for some strange reason, was not told ahead of time that it was going to open up), and Tim Scott decided that he would rather be a Congressman instead. (No Mr. Campbell–it was you who had a failed bid for Congress. Deal with it.)

Also, what I find to be extremely rich, is that Carroll Campbell’s father, literally, made a career out of perpetually switching elected offices in SC. Furthermore, he is now endorsing Paul Thurmond–a guy who didn’t even finish his first four year term in the Charleston County Council in order to run for Congress (not to mention, Mr. Campbell, himself, is not remotely qualified for this job either). So, let me get this straight. Carroll Campbell (and a lot of the good old boys in SC) seems to have a different set of rules for himself, his father, and Paul Thurmond, than he does for Tim Scott–who, by the way, has served more time in elected office than Mr. Campbell and Paul Thurmond put together. I would love to know, what other rules would Mr. Campbell like Tim Scott (and the rest of us) to follow that he and his cronies don’t have to follow?

As many of us know, Erick Erickson has written the following about the circus that was the SC Republican Gubernatorial Primary–

“Down in South Carolina we are seeing another one. Pulling the noose ever tighter, stringing everyone along, the good old boys in South Carolina don’t want the uppity Indian lady becoming Governor because she’s made life too miserable for them.”

Well, it looks to me like the good old boys in SC don’t want Tim Scott to become a US Congressman either, because they sure aren’t wasting any time rallying around the ridiculously unqualified and bland Paul Thurmond over the experienced, charismatic and Club for Growth endorsed Tim Scott.

Oh, and to all of you smarmy, entitled little parasites who think that you can sandbag great candidates like Nikki Haley and Tim Scott by lying about them because you are jealous or threatened…well, I’ve had enough of peering into your heads (I feel like I need to to take a shower right now), so I will let Daffy Duck do my talking for me–

Now, I think that I have definitely made it quite clear that the old guard in SC doesn’t want to see Tim Scott elected to Congress. However, I know that many of you are feeling complacent right now and think that it doesn’t matter, because Tim Scott is going to win anyway (due to his overwhelming victory in the SC Primary). Well, don’t get too comfortable, because Jim DeMint came in second in his first Republican primary, but won in the second round by consolidating all of the anti-David Beasley votes. (David Beasley was DeMint’s opponent in the run-off who beat him in the first primary.) In other words, Paul Thurmond is trying round up all of the good old boys/establishment/anti-change votes right now as we speak, and win in the second round. We can’t afford to rest on our laurels.

On a side note, the SC good old boys are not the only enemies that Tim Scott will face going forward during the next two weeks. The Democrats, the left and the Daily Kos crowd will also be out to take Tim Scott down as well–and they will use every dirty trick in the book. Let me put it this way–who do you honestly think that Nancy Pelosi wants to win the SC District 1 race? Paul Thurmond or Tim Scott? Tim Scott would be Nancy Pelosi’s WORST NIGHTMARE, because he could mortally wound the race card, and he is an extremely charismatic speaker who can cleverly attack Obama, all the while wearing a smile on his face (and he has the potential to become a conservative rockstar). On the other hand, Paul Thurmond would be the answer to Nancy Pelosi’s prayers, because she could use him as a club to beat us over the head with again and again. Oh, and we know exactly how much respect liberals have for black conservatives–just ask Clarence Thomas and Charles “Minstrel Show” Blow.

Oh, and as far as the MSM and the left goes (I know, same thing), don’t think that they aren’t watching this race, because they are. Remember how nuts the MSM went when Joe Wilson shouted “You Lie!” at the State of the Union, and how they wrote articles tying him to the Confederate flag? Well, that’s mere child’s play compared to what the media will do to the state of SC if Tim Scott loses to Paul Thurmond.

In fact, a couple of days ago, Jon Stewart gave us a glimpse of the humiliation that SC would be in for if Tim Scott loses to Paul Thurmond. (The ONLY reason why I can watch this video without breathing through a paper bag–the one that I’ve saved to cover my face with if Nikki Haley and Tim Scott both lose–is because it is now evident that Nikki Haley’s going to win.) (H/T Allahpundit of Hot Air–go to 4:30 in to see the SC bit.)

OK–so if Jon Stewart did that to us over some idiotic state legislator calling Nikki Haley a “raghead” and a couple of lying morons claiming to have slept with her, then can you imagine what he is going to do to SC is we elect Paul Thurmond instead of a MORE QUALIFIED, MORE CONSERVATIVE, MORE CHARISMATIC BLACK CANDIDATE?! Take the humiliation sandwich served to us in that previous video and cube it (because, of course, Stewart is also going to bring up Joe Wilson, the Confederate flag, and the Nikki Haley circus when he mocks SC–yet again–for acting like idiots and going with Paul Thurmond).

And finally, as I stated previously, the MSM is well aware of this race and don’t think for a second that they aren’t. Two days before the SC District 1 Primary The Washington Post wrote the following about this race–

“The offspring of the late Sen. Strom Thurmond and the late Gov. Carroll Campbell could be edged out by Tim Scott, the first black GOP state representative since Reconstruction.”

Did you read that? They referred to him as “the offspring” of Strom Thurmond (that’s one step removed from calling him “the spawn” of Strom Thurmond). No, the media is like a hungry cheetah stalking this race–they are sitting up on their perch watching us, just waiting to pounce and take out the weakest gazelle when given the right opportunity.

And, I know what some of you will say…”But Susannah, it’s not fair to hold his name against him”. And my reply is, first of all, who told you that life is fair? All the MSM will care about, is that we elected an unqualified guy named “Thurmond” over a more qualified, more conservative, more charismatic African-American who was a far superior candidate. Period. Second of all, Paul Thurmond made it about his name when he decided to run before he had any real accomplishments under his belt (what else–pray tell–is he running on?). The media will humiliate us in SC–and the Republican Party in general–with this because it will be fun for them. And worst of all, we will have no defense, because Tim Scott is such an obviously superior candidate. We will have to assume the position and take it–and, it will also kill our chances of appealing to future minority recruits and voters. We will be like that gazelle in the video. Well, you know what? I’m tired of being that gazelle. I would like–just for once–to be the cheetah instead. When Tim Scott came in first the other night, Bill Kristol called it “an amazing moment”, and Juan Williams’ face lit up with both surprise and pride. I would like the story, the night of the SC run-off, to be about another “amazing moment” in Charleston, SC–instead of just providing more fodder for The Daily Show.

So in conclusion, I don’t think that Paul Thurmond is a bad guy–I just think that he got a little greedy. I think that he saw an opportunity and he took it without thinking of the consequences. If he came back and ran in ten years–and got some real experience and accomplishments in his own right–then I promise to give him a fair hearing. However, he is just not ready yet.

Now, as far as Paul Thurmond’s endorsers go, I realize that a few people might think that they are motivated by racism, but I don’t think that’s the case. I think that they are, like Paul Thurmond, motivated by greed, as well as jealously (just like with Nikki Haley, they are jealous of a young upstart with more talent than themselves). Tim Scott didn’t get just one of eleven Club for Growth endorsements without ruffling some feathers. Mr. Scott has ALWAYS been extremely anti-earmark, and I’m sure that doesn’t sit well with the good old boys in SC. However, Paul Thurmond has always been, at best, quite wishy-washy on earmarks. In fact, he told the Politico the following with regard to earmarks–

“I’m not willing to say I’m not for earmarks if we have them.”

Furthermore, Paul Thurmond told The Post and Courier that he was critical of Tim Scott’s stance on earmarks. The Post and Courier wrote the following about Paul Thurmond’s position with regard to earmarks, and his critiques of Tim Scott’s position–

“Some of the early sparring points already have surfaced, with Thurmond saying Scott’s across-the-board opposition to earmarks could cost much-needed dredging dollars for Charleston Harbor, while Scott said budgets need to be tightened in D.C., with dredging pursued through the open bill-writing process.”

Now, contrast Mr. Thurmond’s statements with the statements that Mr. Scott makes about earmarks in his awesome new ad (embedded below) and you tell me who you think that the good old boys of SC would rather have in power.

Alright–now tell the truth and shame the Devil. If you are a “Me, me, me–what’s in it for me?!” kind of politician, then which one of these two men would you endorse? Yes, Paul Thurmond is indeed the correct answer.

So, in conclusion, rarely in life do you have such a clear-cut opportunity to do the right thing. Usually, there are some nuances or shades of gray involved–and, you might look back with 20/20 hindsight and say “Man, I really should have done X instead of Y”. However, this is not one of those times. This time, there is a bright, red arrow pointing in a specific direction with the words “This way to do the right thing, Dummy!” in flashing lights above it. The right thing for SC–and for the Republican Party–is to get Tim Scott elected to the US Congress as the first African-American Representative from Charleston, SC since Reconstruction. Guys, I’m telling you, we will all seriously regret this if we wuss out, because Mr. Scott has enormous potential and could become a great force to be reckoned with in Washington, DC (and, right now, Paul Thurmond simply could not). Let’s kick the tires and lights some fires people. Let’s get Tim Scott elected to Congress. Who is with me?

PS–If you are able, please GO HERE TO DONATE TO TIM SCOTT’S CAMPAIGN.

PPS–Please Twitter this diary out and pass it around. Thankies!

This diary was originally posted on The Minority Report.

Well, a couple of days ago, I read a fascinating column in The Washington Post that compared Bill Clinton to Michael Clayton, and referred to him as Obama’s “Mr. Fix-it”. Now, for those of you who don’t get this analogy, “Michael Clayton” was an excellent movie (see the trailer below) about a slightly shady guy who cleaned up messes for a law firm–he was their roving, perpetually on-call “Mr. Fix-it”. Oh, and in my opinion, “Michale Clayton” has one of the top ten best lines in recent movie history when the title character (brilliantly played by George Clooney) says to the evil, murdering trial lawyer (played perfectly by Tilda Swinton)—

“I’m not the guy that you kill, I’m the guy that you buy!”

….But, I digress.

Now, I think that The Washington Post was more right about Bill Clinton being “Michael Clayton” than they might ever know. What do I mean by that? Well, those of you who have seen the movie (spoiler alert for those of you who have not) might remember that, in the end, Michael Clayton did the right thing and turned on the chemical company hired by his law firm that had manufactured a deadly weedkiller. In other words, I think that Bill Clinton “Michael Claytoned” (yes, I’ve now created a new verb) the Obama Administration, and was secretly helping Joe Sestak behind their back. Yes, I know that it’s a juicy story, but you’re worried that it might be largely based on conjecture. Well, you’re in luck, because I happen to deplore stories based strictly on conjecture. So, if you will bear with me, I will start of by bombarding you with a plethora of facts to back up my hunch.

Fact–Bill Clinton and Joe Sestak have been friends for quite a while. Joe Sestak worked in the Clinton Administration as Director for Defense Policy on the National Security Council.

Fact–Joe Sestak was an extremely loyal Hillary Clinton supporter who stayed with her until the bitter end, and who was constantly on TV defending her. In fact, he was even defending Hillary when most of her supporters had left, and when the MSM and the Democratic establishment were telling her to get out of the race (the Democratic Party seems to have a nasty of habit of doing this sort of thing). Furthermore, Sestak helped Hillary win PA by almost ten points–but, specifically, he helped her carry Bucks County by fifteen points. Therefore, Bill Clinton owes Joe Sestak a lot. And, he owes Arlen Specter absolutely nothing.

Fact–According to that same WaPo column that I linked to above, Joe Sestak was at Bill Clinton’s house so that Clinton could help him plan for his general election campaign against Arlen Specter, the very day that Arlen Specter announced that he was switching parties. Now, of course the WaPo kind of glanced over this inconvenient little factoid; however, if you read between the lines, this is an extremely big deal. Why? Well, because first of all, I seriously doubt that Bill Clinton does that for every congressional candidate (i.e, invites them over to his home to plan strategy sessions)–Joe Sestak was obviously someone whose candidacy Clinton was deeply invested in. And second of all, this is a big deal because it means that the Obama Administration deliberately kept Bill Clinton out of the loop, and then backed someone–who even liberals think is a blatant opportunist–over his loyal buddy Joe Sestak. C’mon, you KNOW that this had to royally piss Bill Clinton off–especially when the Obama Administration keeps using him to put out its fires and campaign for Obama “in places where Obama is less than welcome”, to quote the WaPo (probably because he called the people there “bitter, gun-clingers”).

Fact–Bill Clinton does not like Barack Obama. For starters, Clinton thinks that Obama “played the race card” on him (and let’s face facts–he did–and he played it on John McCain as well). Furthermore, it was the Obama campaign that pushed the meme that Hillary Clinton was hoping that Obama would get assassinated. And finally, Bill Clinton even went so far as to tell Ted Kennedy, with regard to Obama, that, “A few years ago, this guy would have been getting us coffee”–which I think means that Clinton sees Obama as a “Junior” (who should be an intern) or as “The Boy President” (to quote our own MBecker), and therefore, doesn’t have a whole lot of respect for him. (By the way, I’d be willing to bet that Bill Clinton thinks that if you need a “Michael Clayton” to put out your fires for you, then you shouldn’t be president in the first place.)

Fact–Every biography news special that I’ve ever seen about Bill Clinton all say one thing in common–that he is extremely loyal to his friends, but that he hold grudges forever. For instance, when he and George H. W. Bush flew overseas to help promote relief for the tsunami victims, Bill Clinton gave George H. W. Bush the one bed on the plane and slept on an air mattress–yet to this day, he still hates Jimmy Carter’s guts (probably because of all of Carter’s “freelance diplomacy” during the Clinton years). Not to mention, I remember seeing an 60 Minutes expose on Bill Clinton a few years ago where they reported that he still keeps in touch with his high school friends from AR.

[Now, I realize that some people reading this might find it a bit painful to admit that Bill Clinton could possibly have any redeeming qualities at all--such as being a loyal friend. However, I promise you that it's quite painless. Pinky swear. The sky won't rain down fire, cats and dogs won't be living together, and gravity won't reverse itself. Take a look around. See? Everything is still where you last left it. Wait a second....I'm meeelting....MEEEEELTING!! Ha, ha! Just kidding. I'm still here. But, I digress. Anyway, my point is that everyone (with the exception of Attila the Hun and Adolph Hitler) has some redeeming qualities. (And no liberals--I am not comparing Bill Clinton to Attila the Hun or Adolph Hitler--I am just trying to make a point.)]

Fact–Bill Clinton knows PA like the back of his hand–he probably knows it better than Joe Sestak does. A Clinton has won the state of PA three different times–twice when Bill Clinton ran for president, and once when Hillary won PA in the Democratic primary. Bill Clinton probably knows how every county in PA will vote before they do. Not to mention, I’m sure that Clinton knew that Arlen Specter was weak and would be easy to beat–why else would he have met with Sestak so early? You really think that we all knew that Specter was weak, but Bill Clinton didn’t?

Fact–Two days before the Sestak/Specter election, Bill Clinton was in Johnstown, PA campaigning for Mark Critz (who recently won Jack Murtha’s old seat). Now, when he was there, Clinton NEVER mentioned Specter’s name (Obama’s choice for Senate whom he claimed that he “loved”) once. Furthermore, Critz’s district went HEAVILY for Hillary, so just by being there, Bill Clinton was doing a serious get out the vote drive for Sestak (he didn’t have to say anything–once the people who voted for Hillary heard he was there, they knew what to do).

Fact–Joe Sestak has a serious man-crush on Bill Clinton. Don’t believe me? Well then, watch the video below and see for yourself (H/T C-SPAN). Pay particular attention to how much Sestak’s entire demeanor changes when he starts discussing President Clinton. Not to mention, Sestak totally backs up the WaPo story about Clinton helping him with his campaign before Specter announced that he was switching parties. (Oh, and to be specific, the WaPo story that I previously linked to stated that, “Sestak’s eyes lit up on the Capitol steps Friday as he recalled his bond with Clinton”. If you watch the video, you’ll see that that is the understatement of the millennium.)

Hey dude–watch it! You’re oozing man-crush everywhere and it’s getting on my shoes.

But seriously, that was more than just man-crush radiating off of Congressman Sestak–that was appreciation. And yes, I think that part of it was for President Clinton’s phone call to his poor little girl (God Bless her) when she was diagnosed with brain cancer. However, I honestly think that part of it was appreciation for President Clinton supporting him when everyone else wanted him to just go away.

Now, here comes the conjecture part of my diary. I know that Bill Clinton is reported to have had a brief conversation with Joe Sestak (at the behest of Rahm Emanuel) where he offered him a non-paying position on a board that Sestak could not have even served on if he remained in Congress (and that Sestak declined his offer). However, I don’t know what the two men said to each other after Sestak declined Clinton and Clinton replied, “I knew that you would say that.”

In other words, after reviewing ALL of the evidence (and there is a lot of it), I simply refuse to believe that Bill Clinton was happy about being used by the Obama Administration as some sort of Michael Clayton figure (the WaPo somehow manages to infer that this is a flattering thing for a former president). Furthermore, does anyone honestly think that Bill Clinton was happy about being kept out of the loop with regard to Specter switching parties, and then being told to stab his loyal friend in the back–by some guy who had called him and his wife “RAAAAACISTS!!”–in order to help Arlen Freakin’ Spector–a guy with the charisma of Mr. Potato Head?! Really????!!!!!! I’m sorry, but I’m just not buying it–that would require a willing suspension of disbelief on my part. No, I think that after Bill Clinton delivered Rahm Emanuel’s message to Joe Sestak (just like he told Mr. Emanuel that he would), the conversation continued in a fashion similar to this—

Joe Sestak: So, Mr. President, what do you think that I should do? Should I drop out of the Race?

(In my best Clinton impersonation voice….)

Bill Clinton: “Hell No! Run dammit!! You can easily beat that SOB Specter. He has the personality of a toad! Besides, no one in Pennsylvania, Republican or Democrat, likes him. Now Joe, you know that I can’t publicly come out and support you because of Hillary’s job and all, but I know Pennsylvania like the back of my hand and I promise you that you can beat this guy. Furthermore, I can promise you that I won’t utter one word in support for Arlen Specter, and that, come Hell or high-water, I will find a way to show my face in Pennsylvania a few days before the votes are cast–even if I have to show up to campaign for the local dogcatcher.”

Now, besides all of the evidence–and Bill Clinton’s ginormous ego–what else makes me think that Bill Clinton Michael Claytoned the Obama Administration? Well, because it’s something that I would do. Being the vindictive beyotch that I am (yes, I know that it’s a bad quality and I’m working on it–you all can pray for me if you’d like), if I was put in the exact same position that Bill Clinton was put in, I would smile sweetly and bat my eyes at Rahm Emanuel, tell him that I would love to help him using my best Southern belle drawl, and then would proceed to kneecap that SOB by giving my buddy the heads up and telling him to run anyway. (I believe that revenge is a dish best served cold–and, I bet that Bill Clinton does as well.) Moreover, this could also explain why President Clinton was running away from some random blogger yesterday when asked about this, instead of getting in his face and telling him to “piss off”–something that Mr. Clinton has never shied away from doing in the past (just ask Chris Wallace). (See embed below–H/T Allahpundit of Hot Air.)

And finally, I think that the the spectacle of Bill Clinton kneecapping Obama is what the Obama Administration is really afraid of people finding out about. That would totally explain why they’ve been so evasive and antsy about something that could easily be made to look like small potatoes by a group of highly skilled White House lawyers. (Not to mention, it could also explain why they were so quick to throw Bill Clinton under the bus.) They figure that people knowing about them offering Joe Sestak a job might undercut their message a bit, but at the end of the day, everyone already knows that Obama’s just a typical Chicago politician. (Yawn–I’m bored already.) However, if it were proven to be true that Bill Clinton has so little respect for Barack Obama that he would blatantly Michael Clayton him in favor of his buddy–well, that would be one huge humiliation sandwich that would choke the life out of the Obama administration. Why? Simply put–it would make them look weak. In a nutshell, I think that the Obama Administration’s greatest fear is Bill Clinton saying the following under oath about helping out Joe Sestak, when he was supposed to be doing Barack Obama and Rahm Emanuel a favor—

(In my best Clinton impersonation voice….)

“First of all, it depends on what the meaning of the word “favor” is. Second of all, I said that I would do “a favor”–I just never specified for whom. I think that I performed a huge favor for my buddy, Joe Sestak, and for the good people of Pennsylvania by getting rid of that opportunistic hack, Arlen Specter.”

A couple of days ago, Peggy Noonan wrote a column titled, “He Was Supposed to Be Competent” where she wrote the following with regard to Barack Obama’s relationship with the Democrats (H/T Ed Morrissey of Hot Air and Jeff Emanuel)—

“What continues to fascinate me is Mr. Obama’s standing with Democrats. They don’t love him. Half the party voted for Hillary Clinton, and her people have never fully reconciled themselves to him. But he is what they have. They are invested in him. In time—after the 2010 elections go badly—they are going to start to peel off. The political operative James Carville, the most vocal and influential of the president’s Gulf critics, signaled to Democrats this week that they can start to peel off. He did it through the passion of his denunciations.”

Here is the embed of James Carville signaling to Democrats that it’s OK to “peel off”–

Now, what I would like to know is who signaled to James Carville that it was OK for him to “peel off”? I’m not a betting woman, but I would bet dollars to donuts that it was Bill Clinton. Remember, Carville has always worked for Bill Clinton–not the other way around.

So, in conclusion, if my theory is correct (and the evidence sure as heck makes it look like I’m correct), this story could be a lot bigger than any of us originally thought. Instead of it being about the Obama administration offering some congressman a job to get out of a Senate primary race (which they seem to have done before, by the way), this story could actually be about Bill Clinton totally dissing/kneecapping/Michael Claytoning the Obama administration–and, about the Democrats, themselves, starting to peel away from Obama. (Remember, the Democrats in PA voted for Joe Sestak, instead of Arlen Specter–Obama’s chosen candidate). Now, I realize that “dissing” and “kneecapping” are strong words, but if the Lanvin sneaker fits, well…..

Hey, I’m only following the evidence–which is something that the MSM simply refuses to do.

PS–By the way, I think that conservatives should reclaim the movie “Michael Clayton”. I realize that it’s been labeled a “left-leaning film”, but I think that’s bullocks. Since when are conservatives in favor of corporations that make deadly weed-killers? And besides, at the end of the movie, the title character does the right thing by taking personal responsibility and standing up to corrupt trial lawyers. Sounds like a conservative movie to me.

This diary was originally posted on The Minority Report.

This morning on ABC’s “This Week”, Obama lackey David Plouffe faced off against Karl Rove in the ongoing health care debate. Ladies and gentlemen, it was vicious—Plouffe didn’t stand a chance against Rove. In fact, Rove ate his lunch—and that’s putting it politely. For every campaign talking point that David Plouffe regurgitated, Karl Rove swung back hard with actual facts, figures, statistics and calculations. Plouffe was basically reduced to a rubble of transparent Obamaisms. Rove must have sensed that he had Plouffe backed into a corner, because he went so far as to demand that Plouffe “stop throwing around epithets and deal with the facts”. I guess the moral of the story is that when all is said and done, pixie dust and unicorn farts are no match for real knowledge, facts and cojones.

PS—I don’t know about you all, but after watching that train-wreck of a debate (for Plouffe anyway), I’m currently having visions of President Obama nervously pacing around the Oval Office and chain smoking while Rham Emanuel is simultaneously uttering creative and never before heard profanities. Have a happy Sunday!

This diary was originally posted on The Minority Report.

Richard Cohen seems to be experiencing some buyer’s remorse in regard to Barack Obama. Last week in a column, Mr. Cohen lamented that Barack Obama has lost much of the “moral clarity” that he had when he was running for president. To be specific, Mr. Cohen wrote the following—

“But to reread the speech is also to come face to face with an Obama of keen moral clarity. Here was a man who knew why he was running for president and knew, also precisely, what he personified. He could talk to America both as a black man and a white man — having lived in both worlds. He could — and he did — explain to America what it is like to have been a black man of Wright’s age and what it is like even now to be a black man of any age.”

Gee—I didn’t think that was a qualification to run for president (maybe a qualification to be a motivational speaker), but I digress.

Then, after admitting that he had been the one “In my set” to have some reservations about Barack Obama (even though he wrote nothing but glowing columns about Obama pre-election), Mr. Cohen wrote the following—

“Somehow, though, that moral clarity has been dissipated. The Obama who was leading a movement of professed political purity is the very same person who as president would not meet with the Dalai Lama, lest he annoy the very sensitive Chinese. He is the same man who bowed to the emperor of Japan when, in my estimation, the president of the United States should bow to no man. He is the same president who in China played the mannequin for the Chinese government, appearing at stage-managed news conference and appearances — and having his remarks sometimes censored. When I saw him in that picture alone on the Great Wall, he seemed to be saying, “What the hell am I doing here?” If so, it was a good question.

The Barack Obama of that Philadelphia speech would not have let his attorney general, Eric Holder, announce the new policy for trying Khalid Sheik Mohammed and four other 9/11 defendants in criminal court, as if this was a mere departmental issue and not one of momentous policy. And the Barack Obama of the speech would have enunciated a principle of law and not an ad hoc system in which some alleged terrorists are tried in civilian courts and some before military tribunals. Where is the principle in that — what works, works? Try putting that one on the Liberty Bell.”

Furthermore, Maureen Dowd also seems to be experiencing some buyer’s remorse in regard to vigorously supporting Barack Obama. In a recent column (where she actually has some nice things to say about Sarah Palin), Ms. Dowd writes the following—

“If we could see a Reduced Shakespeare summary of Obama’s presidency so far, it would read:

Dither, dither, speech. Foreign trip, bow, reassure. Seminar, summit. Shoot a jump shot with the guys, throw out the first pitch in mom jeans. Compromise, concede, close the deal. Dither, dither, water down, news conference.”

Now, I find Mr. Cohen and Ms. Dowd’s change of heart towards President Obama to be a bit curious. I mean, anyone with a seventh grade education and a mouse could have found out that Obama would “dither” and “concede” when it came to Afghanistan and would go out of his way to project weakness to the rest of the world. I mean, Obama had the most left-wing voting record in the Senate, he openly bragged in debates about his willingness to meet with dictators and shut down Gitmo, and he never even held one hearing on Afghanistan as a Senator despite chairing a subcommittee on NATO, so I’m not sure what else these two could have expected.

However, I did a little digging into both Mr. Cohen’s and Ms. Dowd’s columns regarding President Obama, and what I found was quite interesting. In March of 2008, Richard Cohen wrote a column titled, “Taking the Call on Black Men” where he basically acknowledged that Hillary Clinton was more qualified to deal with national security issues, or the “3 AM call”, but that Barack Obama should be president instead, because he was more qualified “to take the call on black men in prison”. Why? Well, I’m not really sure. Mr. Cohen doesn’t say what Obama’s qualifications are in regard to dealing with disproportionately high levels of black men in prison, other than being black himself (which I don’t think is an actual qualification).

Furthermore, in November of 2008, right after Obama was elected president, Maureen Dowd wrote a column titled, “The Tracks of Our Tears” where she prattled on about how white people were finally talking to black people in Manhattan and about how she deigned to ask her “cute black mailman” what he thought about the election of Obama. (The Gawker mocked her boasting in that column that Gwen Ifil was her one black friend). Someone should inform Ms. Dowd that we bitter clingers in the south and middle America have been talking to black people long before Obama came along, but I digress.

So, now I’m going to be politically incorrect here and diagnose Richard Cohen and Maureen Dowd with a raging case of white liberal guilt. I mean, why else would someone so enthusiastically support a candidate that he or she has “reservations” about? Especially when said candidate’s campaign was, to quote liberal reporter John Heilemann, “a policy free zone”. It must be because of all of Barack Obama’s long years of legislative experience. Oh, wait a minute—I forgot. Barack Obama is an inexperienced neophyte with unsavory friends. Well, wait. Maybe it was the outstanding leadership on Afghanistan that Obama demonstrated when he was a US Senator. Oh wait a minute—I forgot. Barack Obama didn’t hold one hearing of his Senate subcommittee that he chaired on NATO forces in Afghanistan. Is it any wonder that he was “dithering” for so long about whether or not to send more troops into Afghanistan? Moreover, given the fact that both Mr. Cohen and Ms. Dowd seem to have serious disagreements with many of Obama’s decisions, white liberal guilt seems to be the only logical reason for their past vociferous support of him (and trashing of everyone else who ran against him).

Now, to be fair to Mr. Cohen and Ms. Dowd, a plethora of reporters and pundits suffered from white liberal guilt when it came to covering Barack Obama. Recently, Chris Matthews made a flaming ass of himself when he suggested that racism is at the heart of Sarah Palin’s support. To be specific, Mr. Matthews said the following—

“Well, they look like a white crowd to me,” later claiming, “I think there is a tribal aspect to this thing, in other words, white vs. other people.”

“Oh nooos!! The white people are coming!! The white people are coming!! Everybody, flee, flee for your lives!!”

However, the biggest offender of white liberal guilt to date has to be John Judis of The New Republic. Bob Somerby of The Daily Howler chronicled some of the ridiculousness of Judis’ ramblings—

“Clinton’s second great political mistake lay in how she dealt with Obama’s challenge. Sometime in December, having realized that Obama was going to be a genuine rival for the nomination, she and her campaign decided to go negative on him. They did the usual thing politicians do to each other: They ran attack ads taking his words somewhat out of context (Obama calling Reagan a “transformative politician”); they somewhat distorted old votes (voting “present” in Illinois on abortion bills); and they questioned old associations (Obama’s connection with real estate developer Tony Rezko).

John McCain and Mitt Romney were doing similar things to each other—and Obama did some of it to Clinton, too. But there a was difference between her doing this to Obama and McCain’s doing it to Romney—a difference that eluded Clinton, her husband, and her campaign staff.

My friend David Kusnet, Bill Clinton’s former speechwriter, explained the difference to me by citing what ex-heavyweight champion Floyd Patterson had once said about Muhammad Ali. “I was just a fighter,” Patterson had said, “but he was history.” Obama, too, was, and is, history—the first viable African-American presidential candidate. Yes, Hillary Clinton was the first viable female candidate, but it is still different. Race is the deepest and oldest and most bitter conflict in American history—the cause of our great Civil War and of the upheavals of the 1950s and ’60s. And if some voters didn’t appreciate the potential breakthrough that Obama’s candidacy represented, many in the Democratic primaries and caucuses did—and so did the members of the media and Obama’s fellow politicians. And as Clinton began treating Obama as just another politician, they recoiled and threw their support to him. “

Is it over? Can I look now? Man, that was an embarrassing gaffe (you know what they say—a gaffe is when you accidentally tell the truth), because it was unintentionally racist. Maybe I don’t understand white liberal guilt, because I didn’t grow up in a segregated era and both my husband and I have always had friends, and even family members, of all races and ethnicities. Furthermore, as a medical student, I had more minority attending physicians than white ones. Anyway, my point is that I think that most of my minority friends, family members, and attending physicians would probably find it to be offensive and patronizing if I were to blindly “throw my support to them” and not treat them like I treat everyone else because it would imply that they were too weak to stand on their own and be judged on their own merits, when they are in all ways my equals—and in some instances, my superiors.

Now, back during the 2008 election, Ron Rosenbaum of Slate magazine made the point that white liberal guilt was a good thing when he wrote the following—

“Since when has guilt become shameful? Since when is shame shameful when it’s shame about a four-centuries-long historical crime? Not one of us is a slave owner today, segregation is no longer enshrined in law, and there are fewer overt racists than before, but if we want to praise America’s virtues, we have to concede—and feel guilty about—America’s sins, else we praise a false god, a golden calf, a whited sepulcher, a Potemkin village of virtue. (I’ve run out of metaphors, but you get the picture.)

Guilt is good, people! The only people who don’t suffer guilt are sociopaths and serial killers. Guilt means you have a conscience. You have self-awareness, you have—in the case of America’s history of racism—historical awareness. Just because things have gotten better in the present doesn’t mean we can erase racism from our past or ignore its enduring legacy.

Well, I can easily answer Mr. Rosenbaum’s question, but in order to do this, I first need to go off on a tangent and quote Glenn Reynolds in regard to many of Obama’s voters (particularly Maureen Dowd)—

“I think Obama’s “charisma” was based on voter narcissism — people excited not just about electing a black President, but about themselves, voting for a black President. Now that’s over, and they’re stuck just with him, and emptied of their own narcissism there’s not much there to fill out the suit. As Ann Althouse says, “I think what Obama seems to have become, he always was.”

On a side note, reading Mr. Reynold’s quote reminds me of the TV miniseries V, which is about a group of aliens that try to infiltrate humanity and take over the planet earth by “spreading hope”. Anna, the leader of the aliens, controls them using “bliss”—a meditation/mind control trick where she tells them to forget all of their troubles, cares and responsibilities and to just feel good for the moment (see embed below).

So, to finally answer Mr. Rosenbaum’s question, yes, we moderates and conservatives feel terrible about slavery and segregation and the high levels of black men in prison. However, we are not going to just abandon all reason and logic and vote for some inexperienced, far left candidate just so that we can have the momentary “bliss” of patting ourselves on the back. Furthermore, we also feel terrible about unemployment and poverty, but we are not going to support some reckless, trillion dollar, budget busting porkulus bill that will only line the pockets of the Democratic special interest groups and not help any of the poor or unemployed (the stimulus has failed and unemployment is now over 10%). And finally, we also feel terrible about soldiers dying in Iraq and Afghanistan, but at the same time, we don’t support rashly pulling all of the troops out of the Middle East so that Al Qaeda and the Taliban will be victorious and more innocent people will die from future terrorist attacks.

In conclusion, white liberal guilt is a symptom of the irresponsibility and impulsiveness of liberalism. If it feels good for the moment, do it—consequences be damned. Hope, change, yada yada. Well, you know what? Mature adults understand that there are no easy solutions to real problems such as racism, poverty and unemployment, and that people who disagree with you politically are not automatically “Raaacists!!”. We also understand that everything you do in life has a consequence—that every action has an equal and opposite reaction. There are no short-cuts. There are no easy outs in life.

Dammit, there is no bliss!

There is only reality, and it’s high time that we all start living in the real world.

This diary was originally posted on The Minority Report.

Is it just me, or is this really starting to get weird? I mean, I don’t remember singing praises to Ronald Reagan in school when I was growing up.

This diary was originally posted on The Minority Report.

Three days ago, Glenn Beck ran the following story about a video that is currently being shown in schools across the country (see embeds below). The video is straight up liberal propaganda. For instance, the narrator uses a tank to symbolize our government, lies about how much of our tax dollars are going to the military, implies that capitalism is evil, lies about how much of our original forests are left, tells the children watching that, “We douse our pillows in neurotoxins”, and then states the following doozy—

“It’s the government’s job to watch out for us…to take care us us. That’s their job.”

Now, I know what you all are asking. Who made this video? Well, the narrator of the video is a woman by the name of Annie Leonard who is a former Greenpeace employee. However, as Glenn Beck stated above, this video is made by an organization called the Tides Foundation which is headed by a liberal activist named Drummond Pike. This organization is funded by George Soros and launders money from liberal donors to other liberal recipients in order to avoid a paper trail. Oh, and Wade Rathke is the Board Chairman of the Tides Foundation. Yeah, that Wade Rathke—the founder and chief of ACORN. By the way, that’s the same ACORN that Barack Obama’s campaign paid over $800,000 to and that Barack Obama worked for as a community organizer—and Obama represented them as their attorney in a 1995 motor voter case. And, finally, that’s also the same ACORN that, until recently, was scheduled to take part in the 2010 US Census and was scheduled to receive possibly up to eight billion dollars in the stimulus bill, and has received over fifty-three million dollars in federal funds over the years.

OK—now, I realize that liberals will reply to all of this information with the following retort—“Yes, this may all be true, but we can play this six degrees of Kevin Bacon game with any of the past presidents—all politicians have some sketchy friends.” To which I would reply, yes, most past presidents have had some sketchy friends (and I think that Beck can sometimes go too far with his conspiracy theories). However, no past president that I’m aware of has ever had any of their degenerate friends disperse propagandistic videos throughout the tax-payer funded public schools, have they?

However folks—this story about the above videos circulating in the schools is a big deal for several additional reasons (besides the obvious ones that I just laid out), the first of which is the Skool-Aid (H/T to our own $peciallist for the creative name)—i.e., the Obama Administration’s recent foray into public education. Our own Steve Foley and Caleb Howe have both reported extensively on this subject, and Michelle Malkin has as well.

Now, the typical New York Times reader would think that people who objected to Barack Obama speaking to school children are “RAAACISTS!” who had a problem with Obama telling their kids to “study hard and stay in school”—when, in fact, they were concerned about the Obama Administration’s ridiculously partisan lesson plan (which even Camille Paglia referred to as “imbecilic support materials”). Furthermore, he or she would not know that congressional Democrats investigated and held hearings when George H.W. Bush spoke to school children and that The Washington Post ran a scathing front page article about George H. W. Bush speaking to school children (and George H.W. Bush didn’t have the ridiculous “lesson Plan” that the Obama Administration had either). Below, Michelle Malkin walks us through some of the details of the Skool-Aid when she writes the following—-

Education Secretary Arne Duncan dispatched letters to principals nationwide boasting that “This is the first time an American president has spoken directly to the nation’s school children about persisting and succeeding in school.” But the goal is not merely morale-boosting. According to White House event-related guides developed by the U.S. Department of Education’s Teaching Fellows, grade-school students will be told to “listen to the speech” and “could think about the following:”

*What is the President trying to tell me?

*What is the President asking me to do?

*What new ideas and actions is the President challenging me to think about?

• Students can record important parts of the speech where the President is asking them to do something. Students might think about: What specific job is he asking me to do? Is he asking anything of anyone else? Teachers? Principals? Parents? The American people?

After the speech, teachers will ask students:

*What do you think the President wants us to do?

*Does the speech make you want to do anything?

*Are we able to do what President Obama is asking of us?

Now, in a vacuum, the Skool-Aid wouldn’t look all that bad—well I take that back. It wouldn’t look great, but it wouldn’t have been ghastly either. However, let’s not forget that the Obama Administration, and their sycophants in the MSM, actively bragged about Barack Obama’s youth outreach program. In fact, in a 2007 WSJ article, Elizabeth Holmes wrote the following about the Obama campaign’s youth outreach program (H/T Sourcewatch)—-

“Many of you can caucus in Iowa,” Mr. Obama told scores of high-school students, via conference call, from around [Iowa in September 2007] for the kickoff of the weekly ‘BarackStar’ nights held for teens at the campaign’s 31 field offices. ‘I hope you realize how much power you have, potentially, to change the world.’”

The Obama campaign is also actively cultivating teachers, along with high-school principals, using them for entree to the youngest voters. Sometimes Obama aides try to hunt the adults down at home, begging for classroom time.”

Obama, “driven both by necessity, and his particular appeal … has a proverbial seat at the cool kids’ lunch table, with his appearance on the cover of Vibe and having met with the likes of rapper Ludacris. …

“So Rachel Haltom-Irwin, the campaign’s 25-year-old Iowa Youth Vote director, attends many of Sen. Obama’s appearances, building the campaign’s email database. At a stop in the tiny town of Guthrie Center, she approached the student band and passed around a sign-up clipboard.

“Under the heading of ‘BarackStars,’ the field offices hold weekly gatherings tailored toward teens and hand out information packets to be distributed back at school. …

“In Storm Lake, a picturesque town in northwestern Iowa, Sen. Obama’s team invited high-school teachers to bring students to a midweek event. The district accepted the invitation and provided a bus to transport 60 students. … ”

Teachers Elise Walz and Jenna Broghamer of West Lake High School in Iowa City “recently hopped one of many campaign-hired school buses to the Harkin Steak Fry in Indianola — an annual event sponsored by the state’s veteran Democratic Sen. Tom Harkin. In presidential campaign season, the event draws the top Democratic contenders.”

Furthermore, during the Democratic primary, several Democratic senators and high level Democratic politicians actively bragged about how their teenage children browbeat them into supporting Obama (in fact, I remember Claire McCaskill admitting on MSNBC that her seventeen year old daughter told her that she was a “slug” if she didn’t support Obama). At the time, The Washington Post wrote the following about this matter—

The youth movement behind Obama isn’t just bringing 18-year-olds to the polls — it’s also providing cover for their parents.

When Claire McCaskill, the Missouri senator, endorsed Obama earlier this month, she said it was the urging of her 18-year-old daughter that got her over the hump. When Caroline Kennedy announced her endorsement on Sunday, she also invoked her children as a reason: “I have spent the past five years working in the New York City public schools and have three teenage children of my own,” she wrote in her New York Times op-ed. “As parents, we have a responsibility to help our children to believe in themselves and in their power to shape their future. Senator Obama is inspiring my children, my parents’ grandchildren, with that sense of possibility.”

Tuesday came Kathleen Sebelius, the governor of Kansas, who offered the most detailed attribution of all when she endorsed Obama during a visit to his grandfather’s hometown of El Dorado, Kansas — and which she then repeated during a big rally in Kansas City, Mo. She said that her two sons had been after her for a long time to endorse Obama, but for different reasons. Her elder, in law school, likes Obama for his message, “because he could bring people together”; her younger one likes Obama because he likes Michelle Obama. “He says that anyone who can get Michelle to marry him has to have something going for him.”

And finally, The AP recently wrote about how a political science professor from LaSalle University, named Mary Ellen Balchunis, thought that Obama should re-mobilize his youth support in order to pass his healthcare bill. The AP wrote the following about Balchunis’ thoughts with regard to young people below—-

Balchunis thinks the president could boost youth support on these and other issues — and get them influencing their parents, as they did in the election — if he mobilized and spoke directly to them, the way he did during the campaign. He could for instance, make use of the well-organized student groups that campaigned for him to push the issues of the day.

If he doesn’t, Balchunis thinks that also could have negative ramifications for Democrats in the upcoming midterm elections, because those young voters will lose interest and won’t bother to show up at the polls. That’s what happened, she says, after her own young generation was initially excited about Bill Clinton when he was first elected president in 1992. Then, just two years later, Democrats lost control of Congress.

So anyway, my point is that it’s ridiculously unfair for the Obama campaign to actively recruit high school students and bus them in for caucuses, for Democratic bigwigs to wax ecstatic about how their children nagged them into voting for Obama, and for political science professors to imply that Obama could get his mojo back if he started recruiting high school and college kids again (many kids in high school will be in college in 2012)—but then, for those same liberals to turn around an yell “Raaacist!” when parents are upset about their children having to write an essay, after the President’s speech, about what they and their parents can do to help President Obama. (Translation—“Kiddies, you can vote for me when you turn eighteen, and be sure to nag your poor parents into submission until then”.)

Moreover, the above propaganda video circulating through the schools that Glenn Beck recently played on his show further compounds people’s fear that the public schools are becoming a hotbed of liberal indoctrination for their kids—especially when teachers are making the children that they teach draw pro-Obama campaign art and sing in propaganda videos that would make Hugo Chavez proud (H/T Hot Air—see embed below).

Now, a second reason why the video (involving liberal propaganda in the schools) that Beck recently played on his show is a big deal is because of the recent scandal involving The National Endowment for the Arts. Glenn Beck also covered the NEA scandal in depth and I wrote about it in more detail in a diary here. The NEA scandal initially involved Yosi Sargent, the director of communications for the NEA, making a conference call to various artists encouraging them to participate in propaganda for the Obama Administration (the NEA is a tax-payer funded entity). Patrick Courrielche, a blogger for BigHollywood.com., told Beck that the NEA had sent out mass emails to many artists and bloggers, and that he had participated in a conference call with the NEA (that he recorded and that Beck played on his show) in which Yosi Sargent of the NEA said the following (see embed below)—

“We are just now learning how to really bring this community together to speak with the government. What that looks like legally.”

And, Mr. Sergant also said this little gem—

“Take photos. Take video. Post it on your blogs. Get the word out. Like I said, this is a community that knows how to make a stink. Do it.”

OK—now given the fact that the NEA is an independent agency of the United States federal government (independent being the operative word here), the NEA shouldn’t be bringing ANYONE together to “speak with the government”. In the words of George Will, “I don’t know how many laws that breaks”.

However, this was not the end of th NEA scandal. Patrick Courrielche has now reported that Buffy Wicks, from the White House Office of Public Engagement, was the one who actually hosted the conference call, and that Yosi Sargent gave his little pep talk after she spoke. Mr. Courrielche recorded Ms. Wicks saying the following—

” I just first of all want to thank everyone for being on the call and just a deep deep appreciation for all the work you all put into the campaign for the 2+ years we all worked together.” “We won.” “I’m actually in the White House and working towards furthering this agenda, this very aggressive agenda.” “We’re going to come at you with some specific asks here.” “I hope you guys are ready.”

And then, Glenn Beck ran the story about the updated NEA scandal where he explained that Buffy Wicks used to be a union astroturfer who funneled hundreds and thousands of dollars to ACORN (see embed below).

Furthermore, Beck also added that Ms. Wicks is the lead White House official on Serve.Gov (an organization that is supposed to “encourage” volunteer work, though The Washington Times easily dispels that myth) which made that creepy “I Pledge” video (see embed below).

Oh, and now, Yosi Sargent has had to resign from the NEA, but Buffy Wicks still has her job of course.

Now you ask, how does the NEA scandal tie into the Skool-Aid and the recent school propaganda videos (that I embedded at the top of this blog)? Simple. All three are prime examples of how the Obama Administration, and far-left liberals in general, don’t really mind using propaganda and indoctrination—whether in the schools or using tax-payer funded organizations like the NEA—to push their agenda. Simply put, this is the same song, third verse.

And finally, there is one more reason why this propaganda video dispersed throughout the schools (along with the Skool-Aid and the NEA scandal) is a big deal. Several days ago, Glenn Beck did a story about Mark Lloyd, Barack Obama’s chief diversity czar for the FCC (I can’t quite figure out why the FCC needs a diversity czar). In the video that I’m about to show you, Mr. Lloyd is heard openly praising Hugo Chavez (but then again, Sean Penn routinely praises Hugo Chavez so this is really nothing new for the far-left), stating The Fairness Doctrine doesn’t go far enough (that’s the bill that Nancy Pelosi wants to pass in order to curtail the conservative media), and finally, Mr. Lloyd states that, “We’re in a position to say who is going to step down so that someone else will get power”. Seriously, between Reverend Wright, Bill Ayers, Father Pfleger, Van Jones, and now, Mark Lloyd, has Obama ever met a nutter that he doesn’t like? But, I digress.

So, now we are singing the same song, fourth verse. In a nutshell, this song basically states that the government and its allies can engage in open propaganda and indoctrination in our public schools, manipulate our tax-payer funded institutions for political purposes (such as the NEA), while simultaneously curtailing our freedom of speech and deciding who gets hired and fired. I don’t know about you, but I think that this song sucks. I say that we stop singing it. In fact, what’s so scary about the tune that the Obama Administration, and its buddies, seem to be humming, is that when I, and honest people on both sides of the aisle read about the details, we can’t all help but exclaim, “This doesn’t happen in America! This kind of stuff only happens in other countries—like Venezuela.” Well you know what, this shouldn’t happen in America—not if we have anything to say about it. I say that it’s high time that we, the sane people of America, start making our voices heard, and start singing louder than the bozos behind the the Skool-Aid, the NEA scandal, and all of these propagandistic videos. Enough is enough. It is time to make our voices heard. Here is where I take my stand.

This diary was originally posted on The Minority Report.

(H/T Aaron Gardner)

Last night, I was watching the following exchange on The O’Reilly Factor with Chris Wallace and Bill O’Reilly, when Chris Wallace blasted the Obama Administration so hard that it made my jaw hit the floor. The reason why this surprised me so, is because Chris Wallace runs a very “fair and balanced” show and he usually keeps his personal opinions to himself—i.e., he is no partisan hack. Below is a list of criticisms that Wallace hurls toward the Obama administration:

—Both Bill O’Reilly and Chris Wallace call out Barack Obama for going on all of the other Sunday talk shows this weekend EXCEPT Fox News Sunday, which has the highest ratings. Wallace further points out that he has always been fair to the Obama Administration, that they “refuse to take yes for an answer”, and that “there is a certain childishness or pettiness” about their behavior.

—Chris Wallace also calls out David Axelrod for going on Face the Nation and denigrating the 9/12 tea party demonstrators by stating that, “They are not representative.” Wallace then adds, “This from the President who said that he wanted to reach out to all Americans?”

—Chris Wallace even hilariously points out that Bertha Lewis, the CEO of ACORN, will go on Fox News Sunday, but Barack Obama won’t.

—However, Wallace really burns the Obama Administration when he offers up the following zinger—

“These guys…everything is personal…everything. They are the biggest bunch of crybabies I have dealt with in my 30 years in Washington.” (See embed below).

Ouch!! That’s gonna leave a mark.

However, I would be willing to bet dollars to donuts that the arrogant Obama Administration, and their pompous supporters, won’t use Chris Wallace’s honest critiques as an opportunity for some self-reflection (see Media Matters as exhibit A). No, they will probably continue to preach to the choir by having President Obama perpetually appear on networks whose ratings are in the toilet. Furthermore, the Obama Administration will probably continue on its quest to alienate swing voters by allowing Democratic leaders and their surrogates in the MSM to childishly attack Fox News and refer to its viewers, as well as regular Americans exercising their First Amendment rights, as “Raaacists!”, “The Mob”, “evil-mongers”, “Nazis”, “hooligans” and “teabaggers”. Heckuva job Obama Administration!

This diary was originally posted on The Minority Report.

…..[And Thomas Friedman Shows Liberals How to Whine.]

I’m sure that most of you are aware that Glenn Beck broke several major stories during the past week that had significant outcomes. For starters, there is the Van Jones story (Van Jones was Obama’s Green Jobs Czar) that he had been following for weeks (see embeds below).

After Beck’s many exposes on Van Jones, Gateway Pundit wrote a blog about how Jones was a 9/11 truther, and Glenn Beck further publicized the story (see Beck discuss Van Jones being a truther at about four minutes into the embed below).

Then, after Glenn Beck ran the 9/11 truther story, Van Jones resigned (or to quote The Huffington Post, “Glenn Beck Gets First Scalp”).

[By the way, Byron York also has an excellent column regarding the MSM’s lack of coverage of the Van Jones scandal. (see exert and embed below—H/T theblogprof).

From a Nexis search a few moments ago:

Total words about the Van Jones controversy in the New York Times: 0. Total words about the Van Jones controversy in the Washington Post: 0. Total words about the Van Jones controversy on NBC Nightly News: 0. Total words about the Van Jones controversy on ABC World News: 0. Total words about the Van Jones controversy on CBS Evening News: 0.

Also, last week, Glenn Beck ran several stories about the National Endowment for the Arts acting as a propaganda arm for the White House. I wrote a diary that includes all of the specific details about the scandal. However, you can also view the embed of Beck discussing the matter below with blogger Patrick Courrielche who first broke the story on the blog Big Hollywood.com.

Now, sure enough, as soon as Glenn Beck ran with the NEA story, Yosi Sargent resigned as communications director for the NEA, or was reassigned to another post (H/T Moe Lane).

And finally, this past Thursday and Friday, Glenn Beck reported on the latest ACORN scandal that involved two college age bloggers (James O’Keefe and Hannah Giles), from Big Government.com, going into a Baltimore ACORN office dressed as a pimp and a prostitute. At the Baltimore ACORN office, they recorded two ACORN employees attempting to help them commit tax fraud and buy a house so that they can smuggle in underage, El Salvadorian girls to work as prostitutes in their brothel. Oh, and they also did the same thing at a Washington DC ACORN office as well. (See embed below of Beck reporting on this story).

Oh, and here is one more thing on the latest ACORN scandal. Below is a video of Glenn Beck tallying the coverage—or lack of coverage—by the MSM (H/T Steve Foley).

Now, this latest ACORN scandal is a big story because Barack Obama got his start in politics as a lawyer and a community organizer for ACORN, and because ACORN has received over fifty-three million dollars via the tax payers since 1994, and now stands to get as much as eight billion dollars in federal funds from the stimulus package. So, do you know what this means boys and girls? It means, literally, that ACORN, which appears to be a criminal enterprise, can receive billions with a B from the stimulus package, but the children in Washington DC who want a voucher to go to school are SOL (see video below—H/T Allahpundit of Hot Air). Chew on that for a while.

Furthermore, this is not ACORN’s first scandal. For instance, they are under investigation by the FBI for registering over 400,000 fraudulent voters. And finally, another reason that this story is a big deal is because ACORN was also scheduled to take part in the 2010 census, but the Census Bureau backed out of the deal after Glenn Beck reported on ACORN’s latest scandal.

Oh, I almost forgot to tell you. The ACORN employees in both the Baltimore and DC videos were all fired after Glenn Beck publicized the original stories from BigGovernment.com.

Now, as previously alluded to, the MSM, particularly The New York Times, didn’t cover the Van Jones scandal, The NEA scandal, or this week’s most recent ACORN scandal. However, the NYT has covered ACORN in the past. I kid you not. Well, one of their reporters tried to cover the Obama campaign’s connections to ACORN, but was shut down. (H/T Ed Morrissey of Hot Air—see embed of Bill O’Reilly below).

To be fair, the NYT’s public editor, Clark Hoyt, did write an op-ed offering a bunch of mealy-mouthed excuses as to why the Times killed the story—none of them very convincing. Here is my favorite one—

“Despite denials all around, maybe there will turn out to be a story about the Obama campaign and Acorn, but it would involve fairly technical violations of campaign finance law that experts told me are difficult to prove.”

Difficult to prove? DIFFICULT TO PROVE?! Two college aged kids dressed up like a hooker and a pimp and got ACORN employees to try to help them out with an underage prostitution ring, yet a story about ACORN is DIFFICULT TO PROVE?! I seriously can’t believe what I am reading. You mean to tell me that two young bloggers could pull this kind of sting off, but the NYT or 60 Minutes can’t? Really?!!!

Oh, and here are two other ACORN stories that the NYT has covered in the past. In October 2008, right before the presidential election, the NYT ran a story about how the Obama campaign was seeking a special prosecutor investigation into whether or not the FBI investigations of voter fraud committed by members of ACORN were politically motivated. (POLITICALLY MOTIVATED?! REGISTERING MICKEY MOUSE TO VOTE?!) And, the NYT also wrote an op-ed about ACORN which said the following—-

“In recent weeks, the McCain campaign has accused the group of perpetrating voter fraud by intentionally submitting invalid registration forms, including some with fictional names like Mickey Mouse and others for voters who are already registered.

Based on the information that has come to light so far, the charges appear to be wildly overblown — and intended to hobble Acorn’s efforts.”

HOBBLE ACORN’S EFFORTS?! My head is about to explode right now. I sure hope that the McCain campaign (or anyone else for that matter) was trying to hobble ACORN’s efforts to commit voter fraud, tax fraud and assist in aiding child prostitution rings.

Now, if someone read only The New York Times (and maybe one or two other MSM newspapers), there is a plethora of other items that they would be misinformed about. For instance, a typical NYT’s reader would know how much money the RNC spent on Sarah Palin’s clothes, and that Joe the Plumber’s first name isn’t really Joe and that he owes some money in back taxes (see original NYT column here). However, he or she wouldn’t know about any past or present ACORN scandals—except that the mean old FBI is “politically targeting” poor little ACORN.

Also, the typical NYT’s reader would know all about John McCain’s supposed affair with a lobbyist—except that the story was total bs, and the Times had to print a retraction (and they got sued by Vicki Iseman, the lobbyist in question).

Oh, and the typical NYT’s reader would know about Bristol Palin’s pregnancy (in fact, he or she would know about it three times over, because The New York Times ran three front page stories in one day about her pregnancy), but they would have absolutely no idea that former presidential candidate and Democratic VP nominee, John Edwards, had an illegitimate child. Of course, Clark Hoyt, the NYT’s public excuse maker, uh—I mean public editor, did write another op-ed full of mealy-mouthed excuses about why John Edwards illegitimate child was less important that Bristol Palin’s pregnancy (three times over), but it just sounded pathetic. (You would think that the man would get tired of making retractions and ridiculous excuses, and would thus get his paper to actually cover real news instead of being a propaganda arm for the Obama campaign/administration, but I digress.)

Not to mention, the typical NTY’s reader would think that people who objected to Barack Obama speaking to school children are “RAAACISTS!” who had a problem with Obama telling their kids to “study hard and stay in school”—when, in fact, they were concerned about the Obama Administration’s ridiculously partisan lesson plan. Furthermore, he or she would not know that Congressional Democrats investigated and held hearings when George H.W. Bush spoke to school children (and George H.W. Bush didn’t have the ridiculous “lesson Plan” that the Obama Administration had either).

And finally, the average NYT’s reader would not have heard about the Van Jones scandal until after his resignation, and would not have heard about Reverend Wright until six months after the original story broke (H/T Byron York—read his excellent column). Today, The New York Post has a column that stated the following regarding the NYT’s failure to cover the Van Jones story—

“This is not an excuse,” the managing editor of The New York Times said after offering the following excuse for completely missing the Van Jones story, except in a blog post: “Our Washington bureau was somewhat short-staffed during the height of the pre-Labor Day vacation period.”

Pathetic, huh?

However, the typical NYT’s reader would know about Congressman Joe Wilson’s (R-SC) 2007 NoDoze habit. (I’m not kidding.) In fact, the following is the first line from the Joe Wilson NoDoze column—-

“Here’s a headline and, no, it doesn’t come from The Onion:”

“Wilson took caffeine pills in 2007.”

Well, I’ll tell you what sounds like a headline from The Onion—the fact that after a week of hellacious scandals directly and indirectly involving the Obama Administration, The New York Times’ blog decides that reporting on some little-known congressman’s past NoDoze habit takes precedent over all other events, just because he inappropriately heckled President Obama during his recent healthcare speech (for which Wilson has since apologized).

On a side note, The New York Times’ Thomas Friedman, as well as Tom Brokaw, seemed quite angry about Glenn Beck’s expose of Van Jones, because they both threw hissy fits on Meet the Press last Sunday and Mr. Friedman said that the internet is an “open sewer that needs filtering”. And, Mr. Brokaw said that “People believe everything that they read on the internet”. The delicious irony here is that both of these men are defending a man (Van Jones) who apparently believes everything that he reads on the internet! (H/T theblogprof.)

Notice how neither Mr. Friedman, nor Mr. Brokaw, can point to any falsehood reported by Glenn Beck, or found on the internet, with regard to Van Jones. They both just sit there and throw temper tantrums, and Mr. Friedman rants on about how “everybody is a photographer, filmmaker or a journalist/blogger”.

Well, after reading Mr. Friedman’s recent column about China, I find the views he espoused on Meet the Press to be most enlightening. In his column, Mr. Friedman wrote the following—

“One-party autocracy certainly has its drawbacks. But when it is led by a reasonably enlightened group of people, as China is today, it can also have great advantages. That one party can just impose the politically difficult but critically important policies needed to move a society forward in the 21st century.”

Hmmm—that’s interesting. I wonder if Mr. Friedman is aware that they arrest bloggers in China? Probably so, but that’s pretty much par for the course for liberals. They are all for freedom of speech if it’s their freedom of speech—otherwise, talk radio and the conservative blogosphere are “open sewers that need to be filtered”.

And finally, I can tell that both the conservative and the liberal elite are scratching their heads and wondering aloud, “What exactly is Glenn Beck’s appeal?” Yesterday, on This Week, I heard David Brooks (the NYT’s token “conservative columnist”) say that Glenn Beck’s viewers are “the fringe”. Well, there is no way that Beck would be able to get the high ratings that he gets if his viewers were nothing but “the fringe”. No, his viewers now consist of conservatives, moderates and, dare I say, some liberals who want to know exactly what in hell is going on with their country. Simply put, Glenn Beck’s appeal is that he actually breaks news and tells people things that other news organizations won’t. Yes, Beck is prone to crying jags, he is known to wear lederhosen and he can be over the top with some of his rants (even his friend Jonah Goldberg admits this). However, he tells people what is really going on—so even if they find him obnoxious (I don’t, but I realize that some do), they will sit through it, because they are sick to death of all of the Obama cheerleading and they want some real, honest to goodness news. Funny tidbit here—I saw a diary the other night on Daily Kos titled, “Wake up Obama: Beckism is Winning!”. Well if by “Beckism”, he or she means “telling the truth and not cheerleading for Obama”, then yes, “Beckism” is winning, because MSNBC’s numbers are in the toilet and The New York Times is now a junk bond.

So, in conclusion, after Barack Obama won the election, I admit to initially having felt overwhelmed by the Obama-loving media and to thinking that we were fighting an impossible, uphill battle. I don’t feel that way any now. I’m not beaten down anymore—I actually have hope. After the recent successes of Glenn Beck and the conservative blogoshpere, as well as the incredibly high turnout for the DC tea party, I actually feel optimistic. I mean, in all three of the scandals that Beck targeted this week (Van Jones, NEA, and ACORN) , someone either had to resign or was fired. I think that this is because people are tired of all of the Obama cheerleading and they are now paying attention (even Camille Paglia calls the MSM a bunch of “liberal lemmings”). To quote our own EPU, “The Ents are waking up”. Right now, I can’t help but be reminded of Aragorn’s awesome speech in “Lord of the Rings” where he says, “A day may come where we forsake our friends and break all bonds of fellowship, but it is not this day. This day we fight!” I say, this day, we fight like hell—and let’s win!!

Update: My, what a difference a day makes. Since I wrote this diary yesterday, several major events have unfolded in the ACORN saga. Yesterday afternoon, the two young bloggers from BigGovernment.com who produced the two videos that exposed corruption in both the Baltimore and DC ACORN offices, released another video that revealed the exact same sort in corruption in the NY ACORN office.

Then, last night, the Senate voted 83-7 to cut off housing funds to ACORN, and today the House GOP has introduced a bill to cut off all federal funding to ACORN.

And finally, today, the two bloggers from BigGovernment.com have released a fourth video–this one exposes corruption in a CA ACORN office. However, this one is particularly shocking, because the ACORN employee named Theresa basically admits to a premeditated murder of her husband whom she claims was abusive. Once again, Glenn Beck immediately covered this story (see embed below).

Now, looking back, I think that David Brooks looks pretty silly for calling Glenn Beck’s viewers “the fringe”. In the past week or so, Glenn Beck, BigGovernment.com, the conservative blogosphere and concerned citizens who called their congresspersons have been able to get Van Jones to resign, Yosi Sargent to resign or be reassigned, multiple ACORN employees fired, ACORN removed from participating in the 2010 Census and the Senate to vote 83-7 to cut off housing funds to ACORN. I find it hard to believe that “the fringe” alone could accomplish all of that.

Update 2: I was watching Fox News this evening, when I heard Bret Baier report that Charles Gibson of ABC News issued the following reply when asked about the recent ACORN scandals–

“I don’t even know about it so you’ve got me at a loss.”

Michelle Malkin has the audio and the transcript. And people wonder what Glenn Beck’s appeal is?

This diary was originally posted on The Minority Report.

Last night, Michelle Bernard, who is the CEO of the Independent Women’s Forum, a conservative women’s group founded in 1992, decided to write a diary for Redstate.com endorsing the DC voucher program. Well, Ms. Bernard’s diary was actually quite good—she made a rational and eloquent argument for school choice. However, my problem is with Ms. Bernard herself, not what she stated in her diary. You see, during the 2008 election cycle, Ms. Bernard was a relentless shill for Barack Obama, and was a regular guest (actually still is) on propagandistic programs on MSBNC such as Hardball, Keith Olberman’s show and Rachel Maddow’s show. Therefore, I couldn’t believe that she had the unmitigated gall to come on Redstate and lecture us about school choice, when she had been unapologetically shilling for Obama throughout the entire presidential election, and it was President Obama and the Democrats that killed the DC voucher program! (H/T Allahpundit of Hot Air—watch the informative video below.) Furthermore, is she not aware that elections have consequences—or does she think that they are all about unicorn farts, pixie dust, and who gives you a “thrill up your leg”?

Anyway, because of my outrage towards Ms. Bernard’s obvious hypocrisy, I decided to write a comment on her blog (you can read it in the link—it is the first one in the comments section). Well, several regular Redstate readers then suggested that I turn my comment in Ms. Bernard’s blog into a diary (specifically Cold Warrior, Civil Truth and SoFiMil). I have decided to take their advice, and so I pasted my original comment to Ms. Bernard below—and I threw in a few things that I forgot to mention in the original comment as well. Now, here it is—

Dear Ms. Bernard,

So, do you think that we don’t know how to use the interwebs around here?

…Because anyone with a mouse or a TV could figure out that you are one great big Obama shill–even worse than Chris-”thrill up my leg”-Matthews. (See exhibit A, B, and C below).

Oh, and at 5:20 in this video, we can all watch you trash Cindy McCain and imply that her “claws are coming out”. I think that must be a common Obama campaign talking point in regard to women who are opposing him in some way, but I digress.

By the way, I think that it’s great that you are for school choice, but then if that is so, you were certainly shilling for the wrong candidate, because Obama and the Democrats squelched the DC voucher program. (I guess they thought that funding the the study of pig odor in the stimulus bill was more important.) Aren’t you at all aware that elections have consequences? Furthermore, I don’t care what conservative women’s forum that you claim to be the head of, even The Daily Howler mocked your supposed “conservatism” and noticed how much you gushed over Obama. (See excerpt below).–

“Who is Michelle Bernard?

On the surface, the question is easily answered. At present, Bernard is CEO of the Independent Women’s Forum, a conservative women’s group founded in 1992. (According to Wikipedia, the IWF grew out of an ad hoc group created to support Clarence Thomas.) The groups directors emeritae include such conservative stars as Lynn Cheney, Wendy Gramm, Midge Decter and Kate O’Beirne. To peruse the group’s web site, just click here.

The IWF, like many such groups, is founded as a non-partisan 501(c)(3) group. As such, the group does not endorse candidates. But it does promote a range of conservative causes.

All that is well and good—and Michelle Bernard is the group’s CEO. Which leads us to a puzzling question: As a major conservative, why is Bernard appearing on Hardball so often—to gush about Obama?

Bernard’s remarkable Hardball run began on Thursday, January 24. Since then, she has become a frequent guest on the propagandistic program. Here is the list of dates on which she has appeared:

Thursday, January 24 Friday, January 25 Monday, January 28 Tuesday, January 29 Wednesday, January 30 (regular program) Wednesday, January 30 (special post-debate program)

Tuesday, February 5 Tuesday, February 12 Wednesday, February 13 Thursday, February 14 Tuesday, February 19 Tuesday, February 26

Tuesday, March 4 Wednesday, March 5 Tuesday, March 11 (regular program) Tuesday, March 11 (special post-primary program) Wednesday, March 12 Friday, March 14 Tuesday, March 18

According to Nexis, Bernard has appeared nineteen times since January 24, an eight-week period. During that time:

• She has almost never been identified as a conservative.
• She has repeatedly and effusively praised Obama.
• She has never been asked why she, as a leading conservative, is promoting the Democratic Party’s most likely presidential nominee.”

Oh, and how could I leave this little gem out. The Daily Howler also quoted you as having said the following with regard to Barack Obama’s famous speech on race after his twenty year stint in Reverend Wright’s church became public knowledge.—-

I think that this is probably the most important speech that I have heard in my lifetime. I would say this is probably the best speech and most important speech on race that we have, that we have heard as a nation since Martin Luther King`s “I have a dream” speech. Every single word was riveting.

Really??! I mean, I hate to sound like Seth Meyers and Amy Poehler, but really???! The best speech since Martin Luther King? Are we talking about that same speech on race where Barack Obama threw his grandmother under the bus by implying that she was a closet racist and where he compared Geraldine Ferraro to Jeremiah Wright? Maybe I’m missing something, but I don’t remember Martin Luther King taking potshots at people (especially not the woman who raised him) during his “I Have a Dream” speech, but I digress.

FYI–All of your buddies at MSNBC and NBC post on the Daily Kos and Huffington Post. I think that you took a wrong turn and turned right when you should have turned left. Hopefully, If you decide to visit us here again, you will be capable of offering us a reasonable explanation with regard to how you could shamelessly shill for a candidate whose policies you seem to disagree with.

Oh, and one more thing. Welcome to Redstate.

Sincerely, Susannah

PS—I think it’s extremely telling that you never responded to me or to anyone else who posted a comment on your blog.

PPS–Please tell Lawrence O’Donnell that we all think he’s a nutter. Thankies.

Update: Well, well, well. Below is an embed of a video of Hardball where Michelle Bernard literally ADMITS to voting for Barack Obama (at 53 seconds exactly). And, she had the audacity to write a post here attempting to enlighten us on school choice. Unbelievable. Maybe we should send her emails about candidate choice.

This diary is cross-posted on The Minority Report.

That sound you hear is the sound of glass breaking and of liberal’s heads exploding. Yeah, I know—every pundit and Obama supporter in the MSM is perpetually waxing ecstatic about how “articulate” he is. And, many of his supporters will point to the following speech/video as evidence of his being quite the wordsmith.

My, that sure is pretty (if you can ignore all of the celebrities looking weirdly into the camera)! Man, that Obama sure can deliver a speech that other people write and that he memorizes ahead of time and then reads off of a teleprompter. You see, Barack Obama’s uncanny ability to powerfully deliver a speech makes him a great orator. By the way, the definition of the word orator is as follows—

An eloquent and skilled public speaker.

However, I would like to perform a social experiment and take away President Obama’s teleprompters and his prepared speeches, and put him in, say, a town hall setting discussing health care where random people can ask him spontaneous questions. OK—let’s see how he does shall we? (H/T Cassy Fiano).

My oh my, that Obama sure is a silver-tongued devil isn’t he? I mean, it’s really common knowledge that most children suffering from asthma attacks are little drunks, so everyone knows that we should give them a breathalyzer first to check their blood alcohol level before we treat them, right? OK—to be fair, let’s give the man another chance and see if he redeems himself during this next town hall about health care. (H/T Ed Morrissey of Hot Air).

“Maybe you’re better off not having the surgery, but taking painkillers.”

Ouch—that’s gonna leave a mark. I don’t know about any of you, but I’ve never heard of the AMA recommending painkillers as a treatment for an arrhythmia. Furthermore, during that video when Obama goes on about “unnecessary tests” (you know, those pesky things that doctors use to help diagnose patients’ diseases), I can’t help but be reminded of a hilarious quote from a column by Mickey Kaus of Slate titled, Obama as Health Care Salesman: He Sucks!—

Later on he tells people that they are foolish to prefer brand name drugs to generic drugs, and to want multiple medical tests. “If you only need one test, why do you want five tests?” Stop clinging to your tests! You’re worse than those people in Pennsylvania.

Alright, alright—I’ll give President Obama one more chance. I know, let’s take a listen to his recent press conference on health care where random reporters asked him unrehearsed questions. Well, during the first half of the press conference, President Obama basically said a whole lotta nothin’. Then, towards the very end of the press conference, the President uttered the following gem (H/T Allahpundit of Hot Air)—

Is it over? Can I look now? Oh my goodness, that was painful. I seriously felt sorry for the President. I mean, the man actually implied—nay stated—that pediatricians are unnecessarily taking children’s tonsils out for money. Not to mention, that was the same press conference where President Obama said that Sergeant James Crowley and the Cambridge Police “acted stupidly”. So, Obama gives this long press conference on health care, and all people remember is that he attacked family docs and cops. Shudder.

Now, even though I have produced a plethora of evidence clearly demonstrating President Obama to be less than stellar when speaking off the cuff, I can guarantee that there are still numerous Obama supporters out there right this minute saying, “What do you mean? Of course he’s articulate! What about the”Yes We Can” speech?” Well, what about it? That powerful speech was written by a professional speech writer and that moving song was written and produced by will.i.am (a Grammy award winning song writer), and that video was directed by Jesse Dylan (a Hollywood director and Bob Dylan’s son). Barack Obama’s problem does not lie with giving rehearsed speeches. As previously stated, he is an extremely talented orator—and being a good orator is a skill that, like archery or horseback riding, improves with practice. Barack Obama’s problem lies with speaking off the cuff at press conferences and at town halls—in theses settings, he sounds like a bumbler.

So, when I hear Obama supporters and pundits in the MSM repeatedly refer to him as “articulate”, I can’t help but be reminded of that famous clip from The Princess Bride where Vizzini keeps using the word “inconceivable” over and over again, even though he clearly doesn’t know what it means (see embed below).

Well, when I hear Obama supporters use the word “articulate” to describe Barack Obama, I feel the need to reply to them in the exact same way that Inigo Montoya (brilliantly played by Mandy Patinkin) replied to Vizzini when he kept using the word “inconceivable” repeatedly—-

“You keep using that word. I don’t think it means what you think it means.”

In fact, the definition of the word articulate is as follows—

Expressing oneself easily in clear and effective language.

You’ll have to forgive me, but in the above clips, Barack Obama comes across as anything but clear and effective.

Now, speaking of articulate, why don’t we take a look at a clip of John McCain’s town hall on health care reform from last week (see embed below).

Let’s see—Senator McCain is calm, confident, has a five point plan, a good mastery of the subject matter, and easily expresses himself using clear and effective language. By George, I’d say the man is articulate! And, he does it without a teleprompter, a speechwriter, a Hollywood director, “Yes we can!”, or pixie dust. Inconceivable!

Now, the six million dollar question here is, how can Senator McCain be such a poor orator (we’ve all seen the famous “green screen speech”), and yet be so articulate in his town halls? The answer is actually quite simple. As previously stated, being an orator is simply a talent or a skill that one can practice and master. However, to be articulate about a certain subject, one must have a mastery of those facts. And, John McCain has a mastery of the facts with regard to health care (or most things that he discusses in his town hall meetings), because he has years of EXPERIENCE as a Senator and as a legislator which has given him a vast amount of knowledge which he can draw upon spontaneously, if need be. However, Barack Obama is probably one one the most INEXPERIENCED people to run for president in the last hundred years, and he spent his entire time in the US Senate running for president. Ipso facto, it shouldn’t be all that surprising that Barack Obama isn’t very articulate once the teleprompter is removed, because he doesn’t really know what he is talking about in the first place.

So, in conclusion, Barack Obama is now finding out that “Yes we can!” can only take him so far. Now, it has kind of lost it’s oomph and is beginning to sound silly. Furthermore, voters are beginning to say, “Yes we can what? Elect you president? We’ve already done that. So now, what are you going to do for us?” And sadly, President Obama can’t tell them, because as previously stated, he can’t articulate any clear cut plans for fixing health care (or anything else for that matter), because he has no experience and hence, no real idea of what he’s talking about. Barack Obama’s incompetence and inarticulateness should not have been inconceivable to anyone—in fact, it was really quite predictable. However, what’s regrettable, and even lamentable, is the fact that millions of voters are just now coming to grips with this reality.

This diary is cross-posted on The Minority Report.