Obamas escalate War on Christmas

Guest post by Ted Leibowitz 

Ed. note: Ted is good friends with our former associate editor and co-blogger Creature, and Ted often wrote for Creature's now-on-long-hiatus blog State of the Day. He's an occasional guest blogger here at The Reaction, and it's great to have him back after a long absence. -- MJWS 

Ted Leibowitz is an award-winning internet radio music director / DJ focused on bringing the best new and interesting indie rock to his worldwide listenership via his 10-year old station BAGeL Radio. He has been featured on panels at music/tech conferences and writes about the exciting new business of music as well as the foot-dragging, entrenched, dinosaur-like old music industry.

**********

The first thing that came to mind while watching the Christmas Tree lighting in D.C. the other night was how Fox News was going to spin the bit with Michelle and Abby Cadabby:

a) Obamas escalate their War On Christmas; or

b) Michelle Obama read her lines while the puppet had hers memorized.

Inquiring minds want to know.

Oh, dry up

By Mustang Bobby

The mantra for the GOP is that whatever Barack Obama is for, they’re against. The same goes for Michelle Obama. She tells America to exercise more and eat healthy foods, and the Republicans defend couch potatoes and deep-fried Twinkies.

So I wonder how they’ll deal with this latest campaign:

First lady Michelle Obama led Wisconsin high school students in a toast to “the best drink in town” Thursday as she launched a campaign to encourage people to drink more water — something she said was the single best thing Americans could do to improve their health.

“Water is so basic, and because it is so plentiful, sometimes we just forget about it amid all the ads we watch on television and all the messages we receive every day about what to eat and drink,” Mrs. Obama said. “The truth is, water just gets drowned out.”

As Charles Johnson wonders, how long before conservatives die of dehydration?

(Cross-posted at Bark Bark Woof Woof.)

Senator Michelle Obama?

By Richard K. Barry

They poll everything these days, some of it actually useful. Public Policy Polling has decided to give Michelle Obama's post-First Lady career a little boost by asking the good voters of Illinois what they might think of a Senate run for Mrs. Obama should she be so inclined.

As it turns out, to perhaps no one's surprise, she does okay:

If Michelle Obama decided she wanted to follow the Hillary Clinton route once her husband leaves office in 2016 and go to the Senate, she'd have the upper hand on Sen. Mark Kirk (R-IL). She leads him 51/40 in a hypothetical head to head. Kirk's approval numbers are ok with 34% of voters approving of him to 19% who disapprove. But those numbers are no match for the first lady, who's seen positively by 60% of voters to 33% with a negative one.

She's a very accomplished woman with some rather massive name recognition. Why not?

Worth repeating: Michelle Obama rocks

By Richard K. Barry

John Heilemann wrote about First Lady Michelle Obama's speech on Tuesday night in New York Magazine, calling it "one of the most extraordinary convention turns I have witnessed in more than two decades in this racket."

He continued:

Her own high-stakes debut came four years ago at the Democratic convention in Denver, in a speech that sought to dispel the negative impressions of her -- as a haughty, aggrieved, and even angry black woman -- that had been propagated in some quarters. And so it did, and then some. Since then, MRO's public image has been pure gold; with an approval rating of 66 percent, she is more popular than her husband (and any other Democrat save the Clintons) by a mile.

And yet, for all that, what no one could have fully appreciated was how much she has grown and the heights she has attained as a political performer -- until last night, that is. Purely at the level of stage presence and oratorical execution, Michelle was close to flawless: warm and natural, charming and convincing, passionate and pitch-perfect, giving off such a natural and comfortable affect that it was almost possible to forget that she was, you know, performing.

Well said, John.

(Cross-posted at Lippmann's Ghost.)

Wednesday at the Democratic National Convention

By Michael J.W. Stickings

(photo)

(For my comments about Tuesday, see here.)

There were some great moments today, along with a bit of overblown controversy over "God" and Jerusalem, and some great speeches. Let's focus briefly on the most prominent ones of the evening:

-- Sandra Fluke. She's hardly a political pro, but that made her speech all the more remarkable. She spoke with confidence and conviction as one of the most prominent targets of the Republican war on women. Ann Romney says women should "wake up." Really? It seems to me that women are already awake to the Taliban Republicans who seek to control them. Just look what happened to Fluke, whom Dear Leader Rush called a slut simply for wanting to be able to make her own choices. The convention is dominated by politicians, of course, but sometimes you need to hear from the non-politicians to get a sense of the human implications of the ugliness and brutality of Republican ideology. And Fluke did an impressive job, to say the least.

-- Elizabeth Warren may not be the most dynamic figure ever to grace the national stage, but she's a powerful voice for liberalism, particularly when it comes to financial regulation. Her speech doesn't stand out the way Julian Castro's did last night, but it was nonetheless effective at drawing the clear distinctions between the two parties and the two presidential candidates. And hopefully it will give her a boost back home in Massachusetts, where she's in a tough race with incumbent Scott Brown, who alternately presents himself as a moderate or a right-wing hardliner depending on the audience to which he's sucking up. In stark contast, Warren is a woman of genuine principle, and that came through in abundance tonight.

-- How awesome is Bill Clinton? Seriously, what an amazing speech. It was long, and it meandered at times, occasionally feeling like one of his own State of the Union addresses, occasionally going into a bit too much detail perhaps, but he was as commanding as ever -- folksy and authoritative, persuasive and inspiring, funny and enlightening. If Michelle Obama spoke about Barack the man, the personality and character, Bill Clinton spoke about Barack the leader, the policies and politics, and he was just as much a champion of the president. (He's just wrapping up as I write this.) He held the room and those present, and those watching on TV, in his hand, speaking with compassion and respect, understanding and conviction, drawing the contrasts just like other speakers have done but also compellingly making the case for coming together -- because, as he said, we're all in this together, this historical quest for a more perfect union. A formidable man. A brilliant speech. 

Wolf Blitzer says it just might have been the best speech he's ever heard Clinton give. That's high praise.

And there he is, President Obama coming out on stage to greet President Clinton and to give a wave to the crowd. You knew it was coming, but it was stirring nonetheless, a prelude to tomorrow, when he will accept the nomination. The energy in the arena is palpable. I can feel it here, a long way away. (If only I was there. Alas.)

Paul Begala on Clinton's speech: substantive and riveting. Yes, that's it. He knows his stuff, for sure, and can speak so intelligently on so much, but he's also so engaging, so compelling, and, yes, he does it without talking down to anyone, and quite the reverse by lifting everyone up along with him (which of course is so unlike the Republicans, including Romney and Ryan, who are arrogant and dismissive and utterly contemptuous of anyone other than themselves and those just like them).

For all the tension that may have been there during the '08 Democratic primaries, there is a close and it would seem completely genuine connection between Bill Clinton and Barack Obama. That was on full display tonight, and it was just what was needed as we head into the final day of the convention, and then into the last two months of the campaign.

Another great day for the Democrats.

(photo)

The smallness and pettiness of Ann Romney

By Michael J.W. Stickings

I realize this isn't a race for First Lady, that it's not Ann Romney challenging Michelle Obama, but the fact is, the first lady and the would-be first lady are prominent surrogates for their husbands, not least at the conventions, and are very much a part of the race. We may not like it, how spouses have more and more become political actors, and have more and more been treated as such, and how they're put in the difficult position of being both submissively supportive and willfully assertive as individuals, but it's just the way it is, and that means, alas, that they're fair game, that they're deserving of the sort of praise and criticism usually reserved for the candidates themselves and for their partisan surrogates.

And the fact is, compared to Michelle Obama, who last night gave a magnificent speech, the best I've ever seen or heard by a first lady or would-be first lady, Ann Romney, while seemingly quite pleasant, has appeared small and petty in contrast, and utterly phony when she's tried to connect.

Of course, it's a tough job trying to humanize Mitt Romney, and to persuade people that you and your husband aren't just an out-of-touch rich douchebag couple living a life of extreme privilege -- perhaps an impossible one. But hasn't just been Ann's attempted humanizing of Mitt. She'd waded into politics as well, and when she has, she's proven to be as out-of-touch, as arrogant, and as condescending as her husband.

Like when she referred to "you people" when defending Mitt's decision to release any more of his tax returns.

Like when she told Latino voters to get over their "biases" and spoke to them as if they're just a bunch of selfish small-business owners.

And like when, today, she told women to "wake up" and trust in Mitt:

"Women, you need to wake up," she told the largely female audience at a "Women For Mitt" rally in Findlay, Ohio. "Women have to ask themselves who is going to... be there for you. I can promise you, I know that Mitt will be there for you, he will stand up for you, he will hear your voices, he knows how to fix an economy, he's a can do kind of guy, he's a turnaround guy."

She can try, but this isn't going to work. Mitt is leading a party that is aggressively waging war on women -- I write this while listening to Sandra Fluke speak at the Democratic convention; how very fitting -- a party that has embraced an extemist anti-choice platform, that desires to disempower and humiliate women, that seeks to obliterate a women's right to be in control of her own body, indeed, to be in control of anything, a party that wants to silence women and suffocate their concerns altogether.

Romney and the Republicans won't be there for women. They won't stand up for them. They won't listen to them in any meaningful way. They've already proven, time and time again, that they won't.

No, I'm not saying that Mitt Romney hates women. I'm not saying he doesn't care at all. He's much more sensitive to women's issues, I think, than most in his party. But as he's moved further and ever further to the right, as he's embraced the right-wing mainstream of the Republican Party, and as he's run an ugly campaign based on a far-right agenda, selecting the anti-choice extremist Paul Ryan as his running mate and otherwise joining the Republican war on women, even if he usually prefers to remain silent and let others do the dirty work, refusing to condemn what his party is doing and what it stands for and therefore appearing to support and enable it, he has shown what he is really all about, or at least what he is willing to be about in his shameless quest for power.

Elizabeth Warren has just taken the stage in Charlotte. Now there's a strong, powerful woman.

Women don't need to "wake up." How fucking condescending. It's abundantly clear which candidate embraces them and stands up for them and which candidate pays lip service to women's issues while embracing an anti-woman agenda.

Ann may love her husband and think he's a great guy, and maybe even that he cares about women, politically and otherwise, but it's Barack Obama who is the one fighting for them against the forces that would keep them down.

(photo)

Tuesday at the Democratic National Convention

By Michael J.W. Stickings

We probably won't be doing any live-blogging of the proceedings in Charlotte, but we'll be doing a lot of writing about the convention. (I was on vacation during the Republican one, which is why Richard was handling lead-blogger duties. In Prince Edward Island, my favorite place in the world, I just didn't want all the Republican lies and distortions, all the ugliness and brutality, to ruin the wonderful time I was having.)

So stay tuned, and keep coming back, for a lot of new posts from us. Already Wednesday is lining up to be a very busy day.

Having just watched much of what happened this evening, here are some quick thoughts:

-- Ted Strickland is hilarious, and amazingly quotable. More on that tomorrow.

-- Deval Patrick gave a remarkably eloquent and moving speech. Here are some highlights:

The list of accomplishments is long, impressive, and barely told... With a record like that and a vision that powerful and hopeful, I will not stand by and let him be bullied out of office -- and neither should you.

And:

We believe that government has a role to play, not in solving every problem in everybody's life, but in helping people help themselves to the American Dream. That's what Democrats believe. That's what Americans believe. And if we want to win elections in November and keep our country moving forward, if we want to earn the privilege to lead, it's time for Democrats to grow a backbone and stand up for what we believe.

Republicans are already twisting this to mean that Democrat think it's all about government and more government, but of course that's not what Patrick said. What he said -- and this was echoed later by Julian Castro (more on that in a moment) -- was that government (the government of "We the People," let us not forget, a democratic government, not the authoritarian one Republicans seem to think rules the country with an iron fist) has a key role to play in helping those who can't help themselves, those who, for example, lack the fortune and privilege into which someone like Mitt Romney was born, that it can help level the playing field and provide opportunity to those who simply would not otherwise have any.

That is indeed what we believe, and we should not shy away from expressing it.

-- Julian Castro is being called a rising star, but to me he's already there. It's just a matter of how high he can go. He was outstanding in giving the keynote speech tonight. A great speech, a great performance. Clearly, the point was to reach out to Latinos, who are already overwhelmingly supportive of Obama, but more broadly he effectively drew the sharp contrast between Obama and Romney, between the Democrats and the Republicans. On the one side, the president's side, is hope and opportunity, and indeed Castro's success, along with that of his twin brother Joaquin, who introduced him, is a story of opportunity and making the most of it. On the other side, the Romney-Ryan side, is privilege and, I would add, brutality, a celebration of Hobbes's state of nature as channelled through Ayn Rand.

Very, very well done.

-- Michelle Obama. What can I say? She was amazing. (Wolf Blitzer said something like, "She didn't hit a home run... uh, she hit a grand slam." I agree with the assessment, and appreciate the sentiment, though his knowledge of baseball is embarrassingly limited, it would seem.) It was the most powerful speech, and quite possibly the best speech, I've ever seen (or heard) by a first lady or would-be first lady, but really it stood on its own as one of the best convention speeches ever delivered by anyone, far superior to the "we're not really a couple o' rich douchebags" speech by Ann Romney last week in Tampa, reaching out to women, with whom Republicans are at war, but more generally making a truly compelling case not just for her husband but for what he stands for, what he fights for, for what they stand and fight for together, alongside their fellow Democrats.

Michelle can make an awesome case for Barack. And that's just what she did tonight, capping off an exceptional day for the Democrats.

What a way to get the convention rolling.

NASCAR rednecks boo Michelle Obama

By Michael J.W. Stickings

Classy. Very classy.

And why was the First Lady at the Homestead-Miami Speedway yesterday? As ABC News reports, she and Jill Biden, grand marshals for the race, were there "as part of their charitable campaign to support military veterans and their families":

The Associated Press reported that the two women received a standing ovation at the pre-race meeting with drivers, during which Obama said NASCAR was "amazing in terms of its support, not just today but every day, for military families."

Before the race, the first lady addressed a barbeque for military families that NASCAR had invited to the event.

"Everyone around the country is focused on you. And this isn't just an effort today," she said. "Jill and I through Joining Forces, we want to make this a part of the dialogue in this country forever. Whether Jill or I are here or not, whether this administration is here or not, this is about the way we want this country to talk about our troops, veterans and military families forever. We want you to feel that appreciation and that gratitude so that you know your sacrifice is not in vain."

A good cause, to be sure, though the drooling rednecks obviously didn't give a shit.

Mediaite has the clip:

Milk matters: Palin and Bachmann, sinking to new levels of idiocy, attack Michelle Obama for encouraging breast-feeding

By Michael J.W. Stickings

Yes, yes, Palin keeps hinting at a possible presidential run, but that's all there ever is, a hint here and hint there, as if she's just trying to keep the speculation going, and I remain convinced, or almost convinced, that she won't end up running, not with so much at stake, not with so much to lose, including her status as Tea Party shadchan and party kingmaker.

But, honestly, attacking Michelle Obama for promoting breast-feeding?

Sarah Palin followed in Rep. Michele Bachmann's footsteps and took a swipe at Michelle Obama on Thursday, mocking her efforts to get mothers to breast-feed their children.

"No wonder Michelle Obama is telling everybody, 'You'd better breast-feed your baby,'" she said at a Long Island appearance on Thursday, after slamming President Barack Obama for rising gas prices and other items -- like milk -- since he took office. "Yeah, you'd better, because the price of milk is so high right now."

The comments come two days after Bachmann accused the first lady of trying to implement a "nanny state."

"To think that government has to go out and buy my breast pump for my babies? You wanna talk about the nanny state, I think you just got a new definition."

Bachmann, a Minnesota Republican and tea party favorite, added that the first lady's agenda is "very consistent with where the hard left is coming from."

What a pair of ignorant, hyper-partisan morons.

How is Obama responsible for the price of milk? He certainly is more powerful than we all imagine if he can really influence consumer product costs so directly. (Palin must think he's some sort of god, pulling strings and controlling our lives.)

And what's wrong with breast-feeding? How is it inappropriate for the first lady -- who, by the way, is clearly not making policy or pushing legislation -- to promote something (and all first ladies promote things, that comes with the job) that is not just medically sensible but naturally human? How is that "the nanny state" run amok?

There's nothing wrong not just with the first lady but with the president or any other government official making suggestions and encouraging healthy choices (like exercising, not smoking, etc.). It's only the nanny state when government actually seeks to micro-regulate behaviour, prying into aspects of society that are better left private. (Which is precisely what theocratic social conservatives like Palin herself seek to do, not liberals like Obama and not even more left-wing progressives, who while advocating bigger government are nonetheless committed to civil liberties and individual choice.)

Oh, and how is preferring breast-feeding a "hard left" thing? It is because it takes profits away from the Big Baby Formula companies?

(Umm... wasn't it Nancy Reagan, wife of the supposedly greatest Republican ever, who had that whole "Just Say No" anti-drug campaign? Talk about the hard-left nanny state! Or how about Laura Bush and literacy? Another left-wing plot? Well, maybe, given how much the right hates book learnin'.)

Honestly, this is just pathetic, and it shows just how low the likes of Palin and Bachmann are willing to go in their non-stop efforts to score political points. I suppose their admirers on the right love this sort of thing, but it's hard to imagine this charge being taken seriously by anyone who deals with reality (and human nature) on a regular basis.

All these two do is continue to embarrass themselves. It's amusing, to a point, but also evidence of astounding idiocy. And it's telling that they're both such huge celebrities, especially Palin, in today's Republican Party.

Right-wing media blame Michelle Obama for rise in pedestrian deaths

By R.K. Barry and Michael J.W. Stickings

Tucker Carlson's web creation, The Daily Caller, had a dumb-ass little piece up yesterday suggesting that Michelle Obama's campaign to get people to exercise more may be responsible for a spike in pedestrian deaths. You know, if you walk more for your health, you might just get hit by a car.

Apparently someone by the name of Barbara Harsha, Executive Director of the Governors Highway Safety Association (GHSA), suggested if more people are getting out to exercise, they need to be mindful that steel and rubber objects traveling at significant speeds might run them over if they fail to keep their wits about them.

Sensible enough, I suppose.

Of course, by the time The Daily Caller got a hold of it, it read like this:

In an interview with the Washington Examiner, Harsha said that while there are not yet definitive answers as to why there were more pedestrian deaths in 2010 than 2009, Obama's "get moving" movement could be at least partially to blame.

Okay, fine. Ridiculous, but I get your non-point.

Apparently pedestrian fatalities have increased significantly in the first part of 2010, though no one knows why.

Ms. Harsha claims, in a phone call with Derek Thompson of The Atlantic, to have been misquoted, though it appears more likely that she is credited with saying something she never said. That's not a misquote. That's a fabrication. There's a difference. (The piece at The Daily Caller has been updated to reflect Harsha's claim but still asserts that the GHSA blamed Michelle Obama.)

Technorati has a good description of what was said and what was not said. Here is what was said:

"There's an emphasis these days to getting fit, and I think people doing that are more exposed to risk [of getting hit by a vehicle]," said Harsha, who conceded to having no scientific evidence that the Let's Move campaign has led to an increase in walkers and runners, or deaths.

I guess that qualifies as a statement that Michelle Obama is responsible for the demise of innocent pedestrians.

Anyway, it just bothers me that this is so often the level of discourse in America at this moment in our history. Ms. Harsha's comments were clearly innocent enough, but innocent doesn't cut it these days, not when the right-wing media are hell-bent on repeating each others lies to fabricate a story. 

(Cross-posted at Lippmann's Ghost.)

**********

UPDATE: TPM explains what happened. Basically, The Daily Caller and The Examiner, two conservative media outlets, blatantly misrepresented a GHSA report. That report simply noted that "[a] focus on liveable communities, or 'get moving' health and fitness programs may increase walking and pedestrian-vehicle conflicts."

"That makes it seems like we're blaming Michelle Obama's program," GHSA executive director Barbara Harsha told TPM. "That's ridiculous."

Indeed it is. And while The Daily Caller has added updates to its piece, the misrepresentation -- and the attempt to smear the First Lady, continues.

Consider the piece's "new" headline: "Highway safety spokesperson blames pedestrian deaths on Michelle Obama's anti-obesity campaign? 

Yes, that's right, a question mark has been added -- as if that makes such gross, partisan misrepresentation acceptable.

It would sort of be like me changing a post titled "Rational people can all agree that Tucker Carlson is a pompous douchebag" to "Rational people can all agree that Tucker Carlson is a pompous douchebag?"

And why would I ever do that?

-- MJWS

Elephant Dung #7: Huckabee calls out Palin over FLOTUS food flap

Tracking the GOP Civil War

By R.K. Barry

(For an explanation of this ongoing series, see here. For previous entries, see here.) 

You may have noticed that former Arkansas Governor Mike Huckabee took a little shot at Sarah Palin for her bogus claim that Michelle Obama doesn't want Americans to eat dessert – or some such nonsense. All of this was in the context of the First Lady talking about combating childhood obesity in America and the need to encourage children to consider healthier eating choices.

This is what Huckabee had to say:

With all due respect to my colleague and friend Sarah Palin, I think she's misunderstood what Michelle Obama is trying to do. Michelle Obama's not trying to tell people what to eat or force government's desires on people. She's stating the obvious: that we have an obesity crisis in this country. 

Palin was doing what she always does, which is to fire up her base by pointing to what she would consider an instance of government telling people what to do. In contrast, Huckabee was presenting himself as the voice of reason in defending Ms. Obama who was only suggesting the obvious point that public education about healthier food choices for our children is a good idea.

Okay. But what I found interesting is that this little flare-up, such as it was, comes only a few weeks after new polling indicated that Huckabee would give Palin a run for her money for the Republican presidential nomination and would appeal potentially to much of the same constituency, but also perhaps to much-needed voters beyond the base.

A Quinnipac poll on November 22 showed Huckabee in a statistical dead heat with Obama and former Massachusetts governor Mitt Romney. In a Marist College poll on November 24, Huckabee and Palin were virtually tied in popularity among Republicans who were not college graduates. But Huckabee pulled ahead significantly -- 18 percent to Palin's nine percent -- among respondents with college degrees. Huckabee came in second to Romney, who registered 25 percent among college-educated Republicans.

According to Janine Parry, director of the Arkansas Poll at the University of Arkansas, Huckabee is in a good position to separate himself from the rest of the pack.

His unfavorable numbers are significantly lower, he's penetrated the mainstream culture without becoming clownish, and he's demonstrated a willingness – even eagerness – to be a practical, truly bipartisan leader. In this environment and in a general election at least, those seem like substantial assets. 

Maybe this dessert flap is nothing. But it could be an early attempt by Huckabee to stake out some territory that takes in not only the conservative base but also independent voters, while Palin continues to say and do stupid things that appeal only to the same narrow constituency. 

I noticed a particularly idiotic comment on the Fox Nation website by an unnamed poster in response to Huckabee's statement, which said it all for me. It read: 

Governor, with your inability to see through to the real motives of the Obama's agenda to destroy freedom and America, you have lost my vote. 

There you have it. Taking away our freedom one double-chocolate raspberry cheesecake at a time.

The smarter types in the Republican Party understand full well that the road to 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue does not go through Crazy Town.

Mike Huckabee seems to get this. Sarah Palin, and those who hang on her every word, not so much.

Fox News plays up Obama date night criticism

By Michael J.W. Stickings

Here are the headline and synopsis of Fox News's article on Republican criticism of the Obamas' Broadway date night in New York:

Obamas' Date Night in New York City Draws Criticism

Even before the Obamas left Washington, the there-and-back trip drew criticism from Republicans who questioned the president's decision to travel to New York for a night of entertainment during a recession and while automakers struggle to survive.

This is, as you might (should) expect from Fox News, incredibly stupid.

First, the only Republican criticism cited comes from the RNC. No specific Republicans are quoted. The RNC is obviously looking to score any political points it can, and, under Michael Steele (but not solely because of him), it has turned itself into a comedy of errors and, for the most part, an irrelevance.

Second, are the Obamas not allowed to do anything normal? Are they not allowed to enjoy themselves? Yes, it's a serious economic crisis, and, yes, many Americans are suffering, but it's not like the Obamas should submit to a life of monastic deprivation and denial. Barack told Michelle he'd take her to a show after the election. That's all. Taking time off, a brief time off, to take in a show does not mean that Obama doesn't care about the economy or about General Motors or about what's happening to ordinary Americans (almost all of whom, I'm sure, like their various entertainments even, or especially, during times of economic crisis and personal uncertainty).

Third, where was the RNC -- and where was Fox News -- when Bush took time off to golf, or clear brush, after 9/11? Was that not a time of crisis? (We were certainly told it was, as Bush and Cheney did their utmost to scare Americans into submission.)

Fourth, what's wrong with going to see a show in New York? The Fox News article lists shows the Obamas could have seen in Washington. But so what? Are they only allowed to enjoy themselves, only allowed to seek out entertainment, inside the Beltway?

Fifth, a date night with his wife hardly takes much time away from Obama's presidency. He works long hours. He is, unlike Bush, a president who is clearly on top of things. Taking a night off (not that he's ever really off the job) to spend some quality time with Michelle, and to relax, is probably just what he needed. And what? Republicans in Washington are avoiding anything resembling entertainment at the moment? While Obama was in New York, they were all reading policy papers and thinking about the state of the economy? Yeah, sure they were. I realize the president is held to higher standards even than a mere senator -- or at least Obama is; I'm not sure Bush was -- but this is ridiculous.

As far as I'm concerned, Obama's "night of entertainment" was fully deserved. But Fox News, like the RNC -- and Fox News is pretty much just an organ of the Republican Party anyway -- is both deeply partisan and anti-Obama, and, here as elsewhere, it rarely passes up an opportunity, even one it makes up on its own, to smear the president. In a time of economic crisis, it is Fox News that is wasting everyone's time and diverting attention away from what really matters.

Michelle and Carla, a battle for the ages

By Michael J.W. Stickings

Seriously, it's hard to have much respect for the mainstream new media when you see headlines like these:

-- Telegraph: "Michelle Obama and Carla Bruni-Sarkozy in palace encounter"

-- The Guardian: "Michelle Obama's fashion face-off with Carla Bruni-Sarkozy"

-- Chicago Tribune: "Michelle Obama, Carla Bruni 'smackdown'"

Okay, the first two are British, and the sensationalism of the British press is hardly new, and, fine, the Guardian piece appeared in the "Fashion" section, but it's the American headline that is the worst of the three.

I realize that Barack and Michelle are American royalty, perhaps even more so than Brad and Angelina (are they still together?), and I realize that Bruni is a popular European celebrity (and now French royalty), and so some of this was to be expected... but still, really?

It's so stupid I feel stupid just thinking about it.

There was no breach of royal protocol

By Creature

Whatever the fuck royal protocol is. Enough with the stupid.

72

By Creature

That's the percentage of people who look favorably upon our first lady, Michelle Obama. That's slightly higher than her husband who stills hold the favor of 69% of the people (despite turning America into a bastion of communist/socialist/fascist thought). With numbers like these it's clear, Rush, Sean, and Glenn need to pick up their game.

Inauguration Wednesday

By Carol Gee

Wednesday's promised analysis of my predictions made yesterday:

Inauguration (January 20)... In advance, here is my fantasy, my prediction --

The day will be cold and gray. The crowds will be huge, millions, in fact. And they will be well-behaved, for the most part. Except for those people desperate to use one of a limited number of Porta-Potties. It could get ugly. Not everyone will be able to use their cell phones or Blackberries at the same time, due to overloading of the system. But eventually everyone will get home and get back in touch.

The day was cold and sunny, bright and beautiful. Estimates of crowd size centered around two million. They were well-behaved. Initial reports were that there were no arrests. Cell phone service was reported to be "problem-free" to "spotty." Extensive research proved unsuccessful as to whether there were enough Porta-Potties. Perhaps one of my readers knows. Finally, it is too soon to tell whether there are still lost souls wandering around in Washington D.C.

The moods will be wide-ranging -- excited, joyful, moved to tears, confused, anxious and relieved. People, filled with optimism, will have a spirit of helpfulness, of generosity and of shared community. They must be prepared for a great deal of celebration and stress, all at the same time. And they will have to be rather physically fit. The walks will be long, the pavement hard, the grass bumpy and the seating nonexistent. The people who come to see the Inauguration will be kids,... adults and a few very fit Seniors. They will come in all colors and from many different nations in addition to the USA. They will get tired and hungry...

The crowds appeared to be universally happy and excited. Many did shed tears. And there was a great amount of apparent camaraderie. I did read scattered reports of impatient incidents, however. As promised bridges were closed and security was extremely tight. The people all seemed young and vigorous and very diverse. Indeed, many were from out of the country. No one looked ravenously hungry, though we speculated that some "ate mayonnaise sandwiches" in order to make the trip.

The people who are participants in the Inauguration will be well organized, patient, nervous or excited and overcome with emotion at times. There will be lots of Democrats, some Republicans who are required to be there because of their office, and some who want to be there because it is of historic importance. Most will wish President Obama and the First Lady well. Security will be omnipresent and as tense as at any time in memory... And the media will cover it all.

Under close observation participants seemed to be well organized, though the parade did run somewhat late. Everyone looked relatively patient. I detected that President Obama was a bit nervous at the beginning of his speech. Who would not be so, upon seeing the sea of humanity covering the Mall? Chief Justice Roberts' slight oath flub could have been because he is a newbie at oaths of office. Rep. John Boehner never looked happy. President and Mrs. Obama greeted, and were greeted by what seemed like, everyone. Security stopped everyone at the door of the vewing stand. Each party dutifully waited to be announced. I watched MSNBC and C-SPAN; the coverage was different but generally good.

The Inaugural speech will be magnificent and memorable to the millions watching. The Inaugural Poet will wax poetic. The Bible will be Lincoln's, and it will carefully be returned to where it belongs. All the Obamas will be beautiful and stylish. All the Supreme Court Justices will look distinguished. The bands will march smartly in straight lines. The parade will be on time, as will all other elements of the ceremony. And, the day... will make African-Americans and all Americans proud that history is being made in a profoundly important way.

The inaugural speech was not the best speech ever given by the new President, but it served is purpose very well. The domestic/political/economic aspects were adequate and will be functional as a plan for where to begin work. But it was in addressing the world where the speech soared. My favorite line was about "unclinching your fist" to "shake the hand" of unfriendly countries. The Poet was a wonderful wordsmith, modern, powerful and talented. Her cadence was striking. One of my favorite very intimate visuals was when Michelle Obama held the Lincoln Bible for the administration of the oath to her husband. I liked the humanity displayed by the Supreme Court justices: Roberts not perfect, Alito insulted enough to skip the ceremony and O'Conner still robed. The parade, running late like most parades, gave us bands that were as American as apple pie, contrasting in capability, all happy to be included. My favorite parade moment was seeing Montana Senator John Tester astride his steed. The Obamas made up time as they went from Inaugural Ball to Ball. Important history was made on Tuesday.

The power to govern will quickly pass from party to party, peacefully. The White House will get to work quickly, Tuesday afternoon, actually. People from other countries may wonder how we manage to do it this way for hundreds of years. And some may wish they were American. Others will go home and vow to work harder for better government, or peace or maybe revolution. And many others will go back to their own nations feeling that the earth is a bit smaller, and that we are all neighbors, able to be united in spirit despite differences.

The torch of governance passed peacefully from "43" to "44." Now former President Bush listened calmly as his successor subtly took him to task as he spoke to the crowd and the world. And the crowd booed Mr. Bush, it was reported. The new skeleton White House staff were whisked by van to take over at noon. Those outside of the United States, who watched all this, will indicate by their actions as time passes, what they make of the transition between administrations.

The time has come to close. These are my predictions and assumptions. I will post again, post-Inauguration to let you know how I did. Have a great day. Enjoy, celebrate, reflect and hug those you love. Today is January 20, 2009. I thought it would never come. And now it here; I intend to enjoy it to the fullest.

And it is time to close today's post. Where I lacked information I invite my readers to fill me in. I hope that all of you had as good a Tuesday as we enjoyed. It was a magnificent new beginning, for which we had waited 8 years.

(Cross-posted at South by Southwest.)

This is the Week!

By Carol Gee

Update for The Reaction -- Memeorandum reports that Alaska Governor Sarah Palin is McCain's VP pick: source.

The mornings after the Democratic National Convention (DNC) this week, I was often struck speechless. The DNC was so very big, bold and beautiful along the way. Fast paced, and yet somehow at ease, the convention moved towards the last day with ascending excitement. Media coverage of the week was available to cable and satellite TV viewers in pundit-driven or gavel to gavel style. By Thursday's the DNC had visited almost everything. The convention's conclusion did not begin until afternoon.

FRIDAY MORNING, everyone agrees the DNC was unprecedented in several respects. Barack Obama is the first African American candidate to be nominated by a major party to run for President. His acceptance speech audience was the largest ever. His candidacy was the most high-tech in history. And the United States is in a brand a new kind of governance crisis. The USA is embroiled in two very high cost (in people and money) wars. Polarized politically, in economic recession, its citizens have been routinely victimized by an out of control, inept, constitution-shredding administration. An unprecedented level of problems faces the nation; that is the reason the Democrats are willing to leave the venue mostly united. They and the whole country know what is at stake.

Is it any wonder that the "Change We Need" campaign of (dare I say it?) destiny's Obama was eventually so welcomed by Democrats? The other reason for Democratic party unity is Barack Obama himself. His skill as a the leader of his own campaign became more apparent as the week progressed. The stadium setting was the story for a while. And it was seized upon by nay-sayers as "over the top." A full stadium of flag-waving, enthusiastic people, who came early and in large numbers, affirmed the planners' decision, in my opinion. A text message exercise in voter recruitment energized a huge starry map showing supporters. Lots of good video filled in the gaps, along with food and funny hats, statement t-shirts, and Diverse Dems dancing in place. The audience was entertained by good music that seemed just right, much of it with a a modern folk feel. Stevie Wonder and Sheryl Crow sang. Republicans and Independents testified to their support. Obama's best political friends, including his mentor, Senator Dick Durbin, gave little speeches. And a set of "just folks" told us through vignettes why they had to support Obama. In contrast, a stage-filling group of military leaders and generals marched out in a line to support the candidate, some of whom had previously retired in protest against the Bush administration. Vice-President Gore did 'his thing" with sincerity and skill.

This is the week that culminated last night in Senator Obama's acceptance speech. By most accounts it was perhaps his best speech ever-- it was dynamite. At once biographical, inspirational and confrontational, it was also policy specific. It was a magnificent blue print for the next couple of months of this 2008 presidential campaign. I cannot wait for it to unfold. Unwilling to post yesterday, because I wanted to just enjoy the moments, I went back to my occasional years-ago choice of "being on vacation without my camera." The blogosphere took appropriate notice, however, as links to the other blogs where I post show. This is the rest of the week as reflected in my earlier notes:

THURSDAY MORNING, Wednesday was historic -- Senator Barack Obama was nominated by the Democrats to run for President. In a stroke of genius, Senator Joseph Biden was nominated for Vice-President. Speeches by Former President Clinton, Senator John Kerry, and Veep-to-be Senator Joe Biden were all outstanding. Many of us were relieved by Bill Clinton's endorsement. Wednesday night's theme was national security. Morning-after reflections gave the Democrats high marks for the way the theme was handled during the third night of this historic week. Bloggers gave the mainstream media less than high marks for the coverage. Because of the difficulty of Surviving the DNC on cable, too many viewers missed the best speech of the evening given by John Kerry.

WEDNESDAY MORNING, Democratic National Convention -- Tuesday night was all Hillary Clinton's, though she was not the official keynoter. The keynote speaking task fell to Governor Mark Warner, who was lack luster, by many of the next morning's accounts. To me, it was probably one of her best to date. A few questioned whether Clinton's endorsement of Obama was strong enough, but most bestowed qualified approval of her speech. Scott Paul, for instance at The Washington Note, gave: "A (Potentially Premature) Defense of Clinton." To quote:

I had two immediate reactions to Clinton's speech. First, purely from the perspective of speechcraft and delivery, I've never seen her deliver a better one. Second, she said very few positive things about Barack Obama or his candidacy. She talked at great lengths about the need to support Obama given the state of the country, the challenges we face, the alternative of John McCain, and the importance of Democratic Party unity. But aside from one line of praise for the grassroots oriented, bottom-up nature of Obama's campaign, she had precious little to say about the appeal of the candidate himself.

TUESDAY MORNING, Dateline: Democrats -- Michelle Obama was a big hit with all of us who listened to her speech Monday night (8/26/o8). She was both highly "professional," as well as very personal. On the morning after, this was a typical story: "Michelle keeps things down to earth." It was penned by Roger Simon at Politico.com. It refers to Michelle's narrative about Barack, the brand new father, driving his little family home from the hospital at a snail's pace. To quote:

. . . She was describing a simple moment, a real moment, an emotional moment and one that made only one point: Barack Obama is a human being just like you. He is not an other, he is not a celebrity. He is a father, a husband, a person.

And so, indeed, was Senator Ted Kennedy awesome, according to David Rogers at Politico.com (8/26/08). Most every listener was rooting for his success. In a way, he "had us with hello." The headline hinted at how we all still felt the next morning: "Ailing Kennedy: 'The dream lives on.'" To quote:

Most people have to fight a whole Civil War before getting a Ken Burns documentary. Not Teddy Kennedy, who staged a triumphant appearance before the Democratic National Convention Monday night complete with a Burns-crafted tribute casting him as the modern Ulysses bringing his party home to port.

Weakened by cancer, the Massachusetts senator first let the pictures do his talking but then rocked the Denver hall with an appeal for healthcare reform and party unity that brought him full circle from his famous the dream shall never die speech in New York 28 years ago.

This is also the week that Senator McCain was to have announced the identity of his running mate. I am not waiting to conclude this piece with that information. I want to savor the week before being forced to move on before I am ready. But, of course I will move on -- to Minneapolis. I predict that I will be able to post much more because I will not be savoring all those Republican moments. I give them back to the next participants in this wonderful democratic process.

ADDENDUM -- References From Tom Head, who writes about civil liberties for About.com.

1. Obama vs. McCain (on civil liberties issue differences)


2. Joe Biden on Civil Liberties


3. Joe Biden's Middle East Policy


4. Civil Liberties and November 2008 Ballot Initiatives


5. If You Make a Mistake While Voting

(Cross-posted at South by Southwest.)

Democratic convention day III

By Creature

I know there are naysayers out there that don't "feel" the power of this convention, but from Michelle, to Hillary, to Bill, and Biden this convention has power. It's all working for me, but I'm easy.

(Cross-posted at State of the Day.)

Smear-hurling Romney gets it all ass-backwards wrong on Obama, McCain, and the house flap

By Michael J.W. Stickings

From the Globe:

Romney: McCain earned his homes; Obama didn't

Yes, Romney really is a twisted partisan fool.

In a speech yesterday in Denver -- of course! -- he claimed that while McCain deserved all his houses because of his and his family's "hard work," Obama "got a special deal from a convicted felon." That "convicted felon" is Tony Rezko -- and the GOP Smear Machine, of which Romney is a willing part, is playing the Rezko card hard these days -- but, as the Globe notes, rightly, "[t]here is no evidence... that the Obamas got any 'special deal' [to buy a piece of land to expand his property in Chicago] engineered by Rezko. Obama was able to buy the place thanks to two best-selling books and the six-figure salaries he and his wife were both earning."

So, Mitt, do you really believe that the Obamas haven't worked hard for their money? They are both successful professionals, much more successful in the private sector than the McCains, and, what's more, Barack has gone on to be a hugely successful author.

And the McCains, did they work hard for their money as well? Well, John has been somewhat successful, yes, but it helps that he married a wealthy heiress, no? That's right, let's not forget that much of their wealth is family money. Cindy's father, James Hensley, was the founder of Hensley & Co., a wholesaler and distributor for beer giant Anheuser-Busch. Cindy is now the chair, but, obviously, she didn't rise to that position on her merits. John, meanwhile, was hired as Hensley's vice president of public relations in 1981, shortly after he left the Navy. How do you think he got that job? Lots of hard work, no doubt. Just as I'm sure it was hard work that got McCain's won Andrew the job of Hensley CFO.

Romney, once again, has it all backwards.

Cindy McCain, heroic peacemaker

By Michael J.W. Stickings

I'm being facetious, of course. But she's apparently on her way to war-torn Georgia, if she isn't there already.

"McCain has been a staunch supporter of Georgia in that country's clash with Russia, and sending his wife there underscores his commitment," noted the AP. "It also could deflect attention from Michelle Obama's convention speech in Denver as the Obama campaign seeks to introduce the family to voters."

Really.

McCain may be a staunch supporter of Georgia, but he's also a stupid one, rooted firmly in Cold War politics, talking tough with nothing to back it up but his own unstable temperament, pushing policies bound to aggravate Russia and drive a wedge into the heart of U.S.-Russian relations.

And now Cindy's off to do what? Broker peace? Smile for the cameras and pretend she has a clue?

This is politics, nothing else, with the clear intention of undermining Michelle Obama: While she's giving a speech, it will be said, Cindy McCain is off risking her manicure life in a dangerous foreign land. McCain may or may not care about Georgia, but he certainly cares about his political fortunes, and, as always, he's willing to do anything, and take advantage of any opportunity, even sending his wife over to Georgia for a photo-op, to score points.

The media will no doubt give him a free pass -- and Cindy, too (see Time, for example, which presents her as a courageous do-gooder unmotivated by political considerations) -- because they always do, but the real McCain is fully in evidence here: dangerously wrong on policy, shamelessly opportunistic on politics.

He's just grasping for attention this week. Try to ignore it.