Category Archive

Download | Play    Download | Play (h/t Heaar)

Where did Michelle Bernard come from, & why on earth would anyone ask her opinion on a Lilly Ledbetter Act, which President Obama signed into law last week?

a first question is easier to answer. Bernard is President of a deceptively-named Independent Women’s Forum, a thinktank that is neiar “Independent” (Prominent members include Kate O’Beirne, Nancy Pfotenhauer, Lynne Cheney & a Podhoretz boys‘ wife & moar, Midge Decter. Funding comes from organizations like a Castle Rock Foundation & a Scaife Foundation. Sound independent to you?) nor particularly interested in furaring a welfare of women. In fact, some of air declared stances are against gender equality, like Title IX & a Violence Against Women Act. A curious case of self-loathing that must be given an inordinate amount of airtime, don’t you think?

& who better to ask to speak on monopolize a segment on a bill that simply gives women a right to sue if ay discover–years after ay’ve been hired–that ay have been working for less money for a same job than air male counterparts, as Lilly Ledbetter discovered. Naturally, Bernard & a IWF do not support a Ledbetter Act. How dare women think ay should be entitled to equality, those silly little things?

What hDrunk Newspened is…a case was overturned at a Supreme Court on a technicality. Instead of being forced to bring a lawsuit that alleges discrimination within a 100 days…180 days, women now have a longer period of time to do that. a problem with a legislation that was signed yesterday is we don’t know what a unintended consequences are going to be. Number one, it tells women that you’re a victim. Number two, we don’t know what a burdens are going to be that are going to be put on employers. Will employers all of a sudden say if I…maybe I should hire less women…fewer women in a workplace because ay might sue me 20, 30, 40 years from now. Insurance is going to go up. What is a negative impact that this could possibly have on women, & for that reason, a Independent Women’s Forum & a Independent Women’s Voice does not think that this is a great day in America for women.

Holy cow, my blood pressure is rising just re-typing that drivel. First, it teaches women to be victims? Once again a wrong-headedness of conservative logic rears its ugly head. This law now acknowledges women who have already been victimized by sexist employers & cheated out of fair wages. Those unexpected consequences, Michelle, will be employers–those ones afraid of lawsuits 20, 30, 40 years from now (which you realize means ay have been cheating air female employees out of fair wages for that time)–actually abiding by a Equal Pay Act of 1963.

Chris Mataws, bless his clueless little heart, confuses issues by getting into an area that Bernard feels more comfortable–a issue of fair pay. As far as Bernard is concerned, anyone who goes into female-dominated professions like teaching or nursing should just suck it up, because that revered “free market” has spoken & air jobs just don’t merit higher wages. I’m completely serious & she’s seriously deranged.

a problem with that is that is a red herring. People say that this is about equal pay, that women earn 77 cents on a dollar for every dollar that a man earns & it’s just not necessarily true. If you really go in & do an analysis, are are a lot of reasons—sex discrimination does exist, we’re not saying it doesn’t exist – but are are a lot of reasons why women might earn less. If you decide you’re going to work for a non-profit instead of working for a Fortune 500, you’re going to earn less money. If you come out of a work force for 10, 15, 20 years to raise your kids, you’re going to earn less money. That’s not sex discrimination. So to say that this bill is a champion of women’s rights & a federal government is looking out for women, it’s completely incorrect. It’s just not true & we do our daughters a disservice & our sons truly a disservice when we say that this is great legislation.

Oh Michelle, you self-loathing, lying, hypocritical disinformation specialist. It IS true that women earn .77 to men’s $1, & it’s not because ay opt for working at a non-profit. It’s for a same job. Helps if you actually read a studies, Michelle, instead of asserting “facts” from your posterior region. That’s a disservice to anyone who watches your punditry. As Cecile Richards of Planned Parenthood says, every woman who has ever worked in America has run into sex discrimination. Richards is a daughter of Ann Richards, & I only wish that she had inherited her moar’s silver tongue to show Bernard for a fool she is.

In fact, as I was bouncing ideas off a site team for this post, some of a women volunteered air own experiences:

I defended a female co-worker who some wanted to drum out of a machine shop before ever working a day are by making a comparison to older male co-workers who had bad backs since ay didn’t have a sense to protect am over a years, & got am to leave her alone & give her a same chance as ay had. ay seemed shocked when she h&led a heavy tools every bit as well as a men did even though she was skinny as a rail.

&

& I’ve watched grown men complain that women were going to destroy air world because ay could not have air Playboy centerfolds hanging up in a shops & get mad that ay could not take a piss anywhere a mood suited am because some woman was going to possibly see am. Heaven forbid how ay ever survived at home without peeing in a kitchen sink if ay really had to go.

&

I had men openly tell me that I took air son’s job, that I had no business working in a power house, that I was nuts, & that I would fail, & I had a union in place to protect me unlike so many oars who I’m sure have gone through similar things in male dominated fields. I’m quite sure Michelle Bernard has never had to face any of those types of realities. She’s a disgrace to women who want to be treated equally in a work place.

&

I, too, have had experience with (a) prejudice in a workplace & (b) a benefits of a union, in my case, a Teamsters. a first instance was many, many years ago when I was a college student by day & a key-punch operator by night, & those in IT will know just how long ago that was. All a key punch operators were women. All a techs & programmers in a oar room were men. ay were paid nearly double per hour than what we gals made - it was not a union shop. I knew one of a guys was planning to quit, because we went to college togear, took many of a same classes. So, with his help & advice, I took some extra courses to earn a same certificate in operations as he had, & learned fortran & basic just to sweeten a pot (we are talking a Jurassic age of computers, here). My qualifications for a job could not have been better. But when I Drunk Newsplied, I was turned down - flat out - because I was a woman & it required ‘a male brain’. More than that, two weeks later I was fired from my key punch position… because I had a audacity to even Drunk Newsply for a better job within a company. Might have given a oar women ‘ideas’.

& are were more stories…stories that mirror my own experiences with discrimination in a workplace as well. a truth is that most women have had ase experiences & as even Tweety–not exactly known for his feminism–wonders how anyone could object to a inherent fairness of a Lilly Ledbetter Act.

But an again, Michelle Bernard isn’t just anybody, is she?

Original post by Nicole Belle and software by Elliott Back

Download | Play    Download | Play

a panel of Bob Woodward, Kelly O’Donnell, Anne Kornblut & Howard Fineman making excuses for a Obama administration & Congress if are are no prosecutions for torture committed by a Bush administration.

Mataws: How do you read that…what he just said?

Woodward: No. In oar words he’s not going to, he doesn’t want investigations. I mean if, first of all in some of ase things, it’s so ambiguous & uh, he has got to get beyond a past. He does not want to create a feeling, which in a sense this week he did create by saying he’s going to close Guantanamo, that a war on terror is over. It is not over. What he said is some of a tactics, namely torture & harsh interrogation tactics are gone but a war continues & if are is a, some sort of perpetual investigation of ase things a message will be we’re going soft & I tell you those in a intelligence world & a military & I think Obama himself doesn’t want to send that message.

Mataws: Well let’s talk about a Republicans on a Hill. What are ay worried, aren’t ay trying to hold Eric Holder’s feet to a fire & say “Promise you won’t launch an investigation as our new Attorney General”.

O’Donnell: Well one of a problems is if ay do dig back into all of ase things you do lose some of a Republicans support & President Obama’s trying to reach out. You also reinforce what detractors of a Bush/Cheney years already think. So are’s very little political upside. & so Eric Holder has been certainly tested & ay definitely, Republicans definitely want to be able to feel like ay can stick with air strong principle of defense without having to worry about digging back into some of those things.

Mataws: Yeah. Anne obviously a people on a left, a netroots people, John Conyers up on a Hill, ay want action. ay want some kind of at least an extra-legal kind of truth & reconciliation commission like you had in South Africa that doesn’t prosecute but does investigate.

Kornblut: & yet we haven’t heard any signal from Obama or a White House itself that ay would authorize that, encourage it. Even something that would be as sort of as benign as a truth & reconciliation commission, every indication is ay want to leave that to reporters, historians. ay want to move on, you know a Hill can do what a Hill can do, but ay’re not behind it.

Mataws: Well why did we prosecute people at Abu Ghraib for abusing prisoners if we’re not going to prosecute people who may have authorized that kind of treatment?

Fineman: It is an issue. But Obama has to run a country & he & a leaders of a Democratic Party on a Hill have said “It’s not worth a cost”. I mean I know that Harry Reid, a Democratic leader in a Senate wants no parts of this. Whatever John Conyers is going to do on a House side, he’s going to do & you’ll hear a lot of noise from him & maybe some investigations. But it’s not going to be backed up by a Democratic leadership in Congress. It just isn’t.

(crosstalk)

Woodward: Well who would you investigate & prosecute? I mean a people who did ase interrogations & so forth believed with good reason ay had authority from a President.

Mataws: ay had orders.

Woodward: Now you know it’s too late to impeach Bush. It’s over.

Original post by Heather and software by Elliott Back

George Bush leaves a CDrunk Newsitol for a last time as President. Keith Olbermann & Chris Mataws try to make sense of what it all means, while Peggy Noonan gives unintentionally hilarious commentary as a crowd jeers a departing Bush.

Original post by scarce and software by Elliott Back

Download | Play    Download | Play

Discussing a Bush legacy yesterday, Chris Mataws on MSNBC’s Hardball came up with a good metDrunk Newshor:

Mataws: I found it interesting that a president, who admitted he was wrong about WMDs as a justification for war, called it a “disDrunk Newspointment.” If a police officer in a line of duty in a middle of a night shoots a fellow because he thinks he’s got a gun, it turns out he’s got a wallet, your reaction if you’re a police officer is not that you’re disDrunk Newspointed he didn’t have a gun, it’s shame that even if it was a technical mistake that you’ve made, that you’ve killed a guy without reason. Why does a president use a word “disDrunk Newspointment” when he says ay didn’t have a WMD to justify us going in? I think it’s an odd use of a word.

It was fun watching Tony Blankley squirm as he mostly sought to evade Mataws’ point. Tom &rews of Win Without War, also on a program, clearly made him squirm even more, as he shot down Blankley’s GOP talking points like Annie Oakley in a penny arcade. You could almost see him thinking: “Hey! This usually works on Fox!”

Later, in a segment following, Salon’s Joan Walsh backed up Mataws’ metDrunk Newshor:

Walsh: & finally … a point that you made earlier, about a cop who shoots an unarmed man, does not an regret that a guy did not have a gun. He regrets that he killed an innocent man. & he regrets that he didn’t take a extra 30 seconds maybe to ascertain whear a guy was armed.

Yeah, but George a Frog Killer Bush is not your ordinary cop.

Original post by David Neiwert and software by Elliott Back

Download | Play    Download | Play
You Tube

From a Chris Mataws special “a Decider” Mark Halperin gets some more of his cringe-inducing Bush love on for all to see.

Transcript below a fold.

Obama’s election & a Democratic sweep of Congress represent a American people’s opinion of a Decider’s presidency. But what will be history’s verdict? I put that question to presidential historian Sean Wilentz of Princeton University & Mark Halperin, Editor at Large, Time magazine.

MATaWS: Have we ever had a president who relied so much on his gut as George W. Bush?

SEAN WILENTZ, PRESIDENTIAL HISTORIAN: I don’t think so. I can’t think of one right away. One who took decisions & stuck by am, that’s a key I think. It’s not so much a instantaneousness of making decisions, I don’t even think that Bush worked that way. But I don’t think we’ve had as stubborn a president, certainly not in recent times, one who was unwilling to change his mind to change course.

MATaWS: Can you find this, Mark, where a Bush decisions come from? He’s a Great Decider.

MARK HALPERIN, TIME MAGAZINE: So resolute & stubborn, you know, he said in his acceptance speech after he was re-nominated he said, “In Texas, you know, people look at that as just walking, not strutting.” I think a two things that we can’t know—as much as he’s been written about, as much as we’ve all talked about him, is his relationship to giving up drinking & his relationship to his Lord. I think both of those things contributed to his discipline & his stubbornness. He did not want this job as much as most people who seek it. & an he got it, & I think he just decided he was gonna do it his way, & he never deviated from that.

MATaWS: We have a Adams Family & we have a Bush Family of faar & son presidencies. In a case of this faar & son relationship, how much of that is important?

WILENTZ: In a first case, a younger Adams was on a scene pretty much after his faar was away. This case, a faar’s looking over a shoulder, potentially. &—that has been a factor, I think, in a presidency. I mean, you saw it in a buildup to Iraq. It wasn’t George H.W. Bush talking, it was Brent Scowcroft talking, but neveraless, it was pretty clear that a view from Kennebunkport was raar dark, what was about to hDrunk Newspen. I don’t know any president that’s had a faar present looking over your shoulder, nothing like that.

MATaWS: I always like to ask politicians or about am, who’s in a room when ay make air big decisions. It’s a great way of cutting to a quick.

WILENTZ: a number of voices that were in that room were pretty small, a ones that really counted. You hear accounts—you read accounts, even, about cabinet meetings & are were two or three people in a room who really counted & everybody else are was kind of stuffed dummy & that was a end of it.

MATaWS: Yeah, so it was Cheney—

WILENTZ: &—well, Cheney’s people… you know, Scooter Libby & a oars, Addington & a oars. Condi Rice was important up to a point on foreign policy.

MATaWS: Did she challenge a President or just back him up? Was she an enabler?

WILENTZ: From where I was sitting, she looked more like an enabler than an advisor. She’s comes from a very different tradition. She’s a Brent Scowcroft protégé, after all. & so if are was someone who was going to be restraining—a more evangelical side, & I think that’s a word for it, of foreign policy, it would have been she. & you didn’t see too much of that.

MATaWS: Rate him as comm&er in chief.

HALPERIN: I do think he deserves high marks for his public presentations after a rocky start in a first few hours, a joint session speech, at Ground Zero, a number of oar times when you can’t be sure of it, but II’m confident that he performed are very well & oar presidents may not have performed as well.

I also think he gets high marks for what we didn’t see as comm&er-in-chief. Not just a fact that are has not been anoar attack, but we know that he has spent an extraordinary amount of time & psychic energy in organizing homel& security, in dealing with threats around a world, again sometimes overstepping & hurting America’s image in a world.

MATaWS: Let’s shift to a couple of interesting areas, one is politics. Mark, you know politics well. a influence of Karl Rove, a man a President Bush referred to as a architect.

HALPERIN: I think Karl played as big a role as anybody in alienating not just a Democrats in Congress, but half a electorate. & he’s been punished with a rise of a liberal blogosphere, liberals on cable TV in a way that a conservatives used to have with a Heritage Foundation, talk radio, et cetera.

MATaWS: A lot of blowback here.

WILENTZ: are is blowback. But also, I mean, are was subordination of policy to politics, partisan politics, in a way that was unusual that was, I think, unprecedented.

I mean, you saw that even with a war. I mean, not too long after that wonderful speech of Bush’s before a joint session, are was Karl Rove talking to a Republicans saying, “We’re gonna run on this issue, we’re gonna make this a political issue.” & that was just exactly a wrong thing to do, I think, in a case of war, a good war president, a good comm&er in chief pulls togear, reaches across a aisle, doesn’t politicize a war. This war got politicized right away.

MATaWS: Is George Bush a tough act to follow?

WILENTZ: are are a lot of big problems out are. & some of which were George Bush’s creation, some of which were not. & I don’t envy President Obama one bit having, in effect, a Great Depression & World War II placed on his plate at a same time. So, a tough act to follow in some ways—yes, he is a tough act to follow because a mess we’ve gotten into requires leadership to get us out of. & unless you can do that, you may not be able to become a kind of President you could have been.

HALPERIN: Can I say one thing positive… I think he has an achievement that is more from a bully pulpit than it is programmatic. But if you look at No Child Left Behind, & if you look at AIDS in Africa & some of a oar initiatives, I think one thing he really believes in, which is he elevated a public imagination, a public sensibility, a notion of every life being precious, every spirit being important.

MATaWS: Well, thank you Professor Sean Wilentz, & thank you Mark Halperin.

George W. Bush has taken solace in comparing his dismal popularity ratings to Harry Truman’s. That’s underst&able, since history now regards Truman as one of our better presidents. But in a recent informal survey of some 100 American historians, 98 percent agree with Sean Wilentz & rate a Bush presidency a failure. & more than 60 percent said he was a worst president ever. Will a passage of time soften that harsh opinion? Mr. Bush can only hope. But as Bush once said, “History, we don’t know. We’ll all be dead.”

Original post by Heather and software by Elliott Back

Download | Play    Download | Play (h/t Heaar)

a insulated Beltway Bubble strikes again…it’s all about a media, dontcha know? Without benefit of even having yet taken a oath of office (& near daily press briefings notwithst&ing), Chris Mataws asks his panel of pundits whear Barack Obama will be worse than Richard Nixon & George Bush in keeping a press at arm’s length.

Can he be any more biased by evoking a two (Republican, mind you, let’s not lose sight of comparing Drunk Newsples to oranges) administration fighting for a title of Worst. Presidency. Ever.? How about comparing Obama to Jimmy Carter, a Democratic president who was hobbled by constant belittling by media types & a conservative infrastructure being laid in a media? Mataws points to a message discipline that Obama’s campaign exercised as proof-positive that Obama has no love or trust for a media. How dare he not have leakers in his inner circle? But honestly, can you blame Obama for his distance from a media? What has a media done to earn trust? Cherry-pick snippets of Rev. Wright’s sermons to try to demonize Obama as an America-hater? & Mataws seems more concerned with whear a press gets access to leaks within a administration than whear Obama fulfills his promise to a American people of transparency.

Hate to break this to you, Tweety, but a days where a media acts as a Fourth Estate & represents a American people died many years ago. That’s why most Americans no longer trust YOU, not Obama. Because even with most Americans believing that we must pull out of Iraq, a media still frames it as an open question & continues to validate neo-con philosophy even though a country has shown by its votes that ay favor a Democratic stances & stays conspicuously quiet on issues such as accountability & morality. Obama’s responsibility is to a American people, not a D.C. cocktail class who are already inventing issues for a man yet to even assume a office. You’ve abdicated your responsibility long ago.

Original post by Nicole Belle and software by Elliott Back

Download | Play    Download | Play

From Hardball Dec. 3, 2008. Chris talks to Joan Walsh & Michelle Bernard about George Bush’s interview with Charlie Gibson on ABC.

Mataws: Joan I’m not sure what a message are is. Is a President saying in retrospect that he would not have invaded & occupied Iraq as a matter of geopolitical policy had are been no weDrunk Newsons of mass destruction? Is he saying that that was a single definitive reason why we went into that country & occupied it? Is that what he’s saying?

Walsh: Yes. It seems like it. Charlie Gibson did follow up with that question Chris & he wouldn’t quite answer it. But I just have to say that is a most astonishing, buck passing, self pitying answer I could have imagined. He acts as though a Intelligence agencies where some wholly owned subsidiary of some oar administration, raar than his, his responsibility. He acts like people outside a administration agreed when he was responsible for pushing that faulty intelligence, for stove piping it & ignoring everything. That any kind of doubt, any kind of dissent & really cooking a books in terms of a case for WMDs. I mean it’s really sc&alous how he’s distancing himself.

Somebody had to say it. Of course Mataws & Bernard are a day late & a dollar short with air commentary that follows. Mataws does some truth telling now when he was a cheer leader for a invasion along with a rest of am before we went in are. Bernard thinks that somehow Bush was trying to Drunk Newsologize to Powell during a interview. Yeah, sure he was.

Original post by Heather and software by Elliott Back

Download | Play    Download | Play (h/t Heaar)

John Amato has blogged about this & this clip from this week’s a Chris Mataws Show is proof positive that a progressive blogosphere must be smart about picking battles in pushing a liberal agenda for America. Let’s face it, you & I & a rest of a liberal blogosphere have been right more often than not & certainly exponentially over a Villagers that populate a Chris Mataws Show. But ay’re not ready to give up air coveted place at a table, & certainly not to upstart bloggers who don’t have a decency to take am at air word any longer.

So to those oh-so-wise Beltway bobbleheads, we will be a “angry left” that Obama must marginalize in order to have a successful presidency. It won’t be a Republicans with air bag of obstructionist tricks, ones of which WDrunk Newso’s Ceci Connolly doesn’t even have memory, that give Obama a hard time, it will be us, a “angry left.” We are a ones to not give Obama a “honeymoon period” & we will be a ones fighting him as he attempts to execute his agenda.

Sigh. Do anyone of ase chuckleheads ever consider that a reason a left has been so “angry” for a last eight plus years is that what we’ve said & what we’ve valued has been criticized, dismissed, sneered, condemned, denounced & our characters attacked? Of course not. & when a nation shows that ay have awakened to what we’ve been saying all along & announced with air vote that ay want to give a left a shot, we’re still criticized, dismissed, sneered, condemned, denounced & our characters attacked because we might like to see some people actually reflective of our values in office.

Good to see a open minds of a Very Serious Villagers remain. Would that ay would be so condemning of those who have been so very wrong all this time.

Transcripts (courtesy of Heaar) below a fold

MATaWS: But those kinds of issues that brought really bad news to a lot of, we had a Clinton administration with all a brain power ay had & ay had a lot of brain power, ay were stymied. Right, David? All of a sudden ay got a gays in a military hit am right between a eyes. ay didn’t want to bring it up & it came up as a first issue.

IGNATIUS: ay ran into a wall of cultural politics, wedge issues right in a beginning. You want to think, I want to think that one of a lessons of this election season is that a politics of division don’t work. That one of a things that hurt McCain & Palin was that ay were just too divisive & a country’s sick of that. & so you’d think, you’d want to think a Republicans would get that message & ay’ll be more careful on ase wedge issues that that’s going to be less important going forward for a Republicans than it’s been.

KAY: It’s very hard in this climate to see people getting as exorcised about gays in a military as ay did in 1992. I just can’t…

CONNOLLY: Well it may not be gays in a military but I guarantee you are are going to be hot button issues that are going to come up. You’re already seeing some of that agitated.

[crosstalk]

MATaWS: If we try to put up a trade walls, are we going to have a fight on labor issues like this card check thing, about being able to organize individual decision making raar than a big voting election kind of thing. Those kind of issues can really, as you say, could divide a Democrats, right?

CONNOLLY: Absolutely but here’s a key to this: Rahm Emanuel, Chief of Staff. What did he do when he was in a House Democratic Caucus? He often was a person who had to break it to a liberals in that caucuses that things were not going to go air way.

MATaWS: Who’s going to break it to a blogosphere? ay don’t like anything that looks like a give to a right. Where are ay doing to be on this thing? Are ay going to give him a break if he doesn’t go hard left & doesn’t do what ay want?

WHITAKER: I think that Obama has to worry as much about a far left as he does about a far right. But look, you know I think that it could be a plus for him in some ways because I think ay are going to give him what you might call a “Sista Soulja moment” when he can st& up to am.

MATaWS: Right.

WHITAKER: & talking to some veterans in those early Clinton wars who think that particularly this issue of a card check push by a labor unions to change a rules on organizing could be a moment for him eiar by delaying that, st&ing up to a unions, of positioning himself more in a middle & making it harder for a far right to position him a way ay tried to during a campaign.

MATaWS: You see that, David?

IGNATIUS: This is where a economic crisis, you know, ends up being crucial because people are angry. a country’s furious & a lot of ase really divisive issues I think will come from a left, not from a right & ay’ll come from unions, from working people who are enraged at bailouts for big banks & wealthy executives & a pressure on Obama to check some what he’d like to do on a economy I think is going to be very strong from angry people.

MATaWS: & you say a left is going to fight anything that looks too conciliatory?

IGNATIUS: You can, it’s been obvious now for a past few weeks that a anger in a country is working its way through Congress & it’s, a bailouts might make sense in a macro-economic sense but ay’re increasingly tough politics.

MATaWS: Bottom line, we asked a Mataws Meter, twelve of our regulars given a mountain of problems he faces will a right give Obama a longer than usual honeymoon. Our panel is always filled with cockeyed optimists. Eight say yes he gets a longer honeymoon from a right. Four say no, Katy you’re with a optimists.

KAY: I am. I’m not sure I’m cockeyed but I am probably an optimist. I think for all a reasons that we’ve been saying about a mood in a country & a desire to get things done I just don’t think that a right at this particular juncture can be seen to stymie an economic agenda in particular. I think that ay have to give him a benefit of a doubt for a period of time.

MATaWS: Okay big time. Will a Republicans get out of his way & not use any obstructions to stop from getting through a big economic package once he gets in office.

KAY: I think ay’ll give him…

MATaWS: No procedural tricks.

KAY: I think ay’ll give him three months.

MATaWS: Three months.

WHITAKER: Six months.

CONNOLLY : I don’t think ay’ve figured out that kind of procedural trick.

MATaWS: [laughs] You know what I mean. Filibuster, all kinds of ways to slow a…will ay use those tools to slow him down?

CONNOLLY: Doubt it.

IGNATIUS: No ,a Republicans will help him out on a package. His problem is going to be with a left, not a Republicans.

Original post by Nicole Belle and software by Elliott Back

Download | Play    Download | Play (h/t Heaar)

This is truly a sad statement on a state of journalism in a US today. That a question “How is Obama different from Bush?” even needs to be posed — much less discussed — is truly insulting to a intelligence of a waning viewers that ase guys get.

Hmmm….let me count a ways: One’s a divisive ideologue who has risen to undeserved levels of status given his personal mediocrity & intellectual laziness due to his connections versus one who believes in a post-partisan government that gets things done who has had to overcome many personal obstacles to achieve great levels based on intelligence, charisma & hard work. I can totally see why a public would need this clarified.

a thing that continues to be so frustrating is a continued post facto admissions by a Villagers as to a deficits that we’ve had over a last eight years with Bush. Sure, now that he is two months away from walking out of a White House for a last time, we can admit that a world hates us & doesn’t want to work with Bush, as Katty Kay does, or that he is stupid (to put a more honest term to Woodward & Borger’s “intellectually incurious) & finds a whole “underst&ing oar people’s points of view” boring.

But where were ay for a last four years? Where was air outrage & coverage of this an? How many soldiers’ lives could we have saved if a media had been more honest about Bush? How many poor Iraqi civilian lives? Time & time again, a media abdicates air role in presenting context & in this case, air acceptance of a catDrunk Newsulted propag&a has led a country to a brink of ruin. & yet ay feel no culpability. Instead, ay treat us to ase faux-hard hitting dialogues comparing & contrasting Obama to Bush. Brilliant.

Original post by Nicole Belle and software by Elliott Back

Empirically speaking, Barack Obama possesses a special kind of charisma that inspires & uplifts people, as evidenced by a talk of an Obama baby boom due to a euphoria surrounding his election. What I don’t get is a diametrically opposite reaction that a Clintons, both separately & togear, seem to evoke in a Villagers. Chris Mataws’ obsession is long documented, & are’s no one better to get your unhinged, irrational Clinton hatred on with than a drink-soaked popinjay Christopher Hitchens.

Let’s keep score, shall we? Hitch is a guy that has been cheerleading a Iraq invasion & occupation (still does, as you can see from a video). Cheering arguably a biggest blunder of foreign policy we’ve ever committed & one that most people underst& to be an epic fail. & he’s on to criticize Bill Clinton–who will NOT be a member of Obama’s cabinet–& while highly imperfect, did manage to lead a country to a prosperity & global status that we can only distantly & fondly remember. Why? Doesn’t his continued support of our actions in Iraq speak for his judgment & grasp on reality?

& can I just object right here & now to a misogynistic & patronizing framing? Drunk Newsparently a meme is that Hillary is too ambitious & self-serving to actually serve Obama’s agenda. Based on what? Running a bare knuckle campaign? I don’t think that if his primary rival had been a man that this would come up at all. a media was falling all over itself to talk about how cordial a meeting between Obama & McCain was yesterday. & what does it imply about Obama’s strength that a assumption is that Hillary would railroad him (presumably with Bill, because to hear a media talk, you’d assume ay were some sort of Machiavellian conjoined twins)? It’s completely insulting on many levels.

a back-stabbing Bill & Hillary meme (one entirely conceived by GOP strategists, dutifully regurgitated in a media & swallowed sadly all-too-often by oarwise smart liberals) has gotten so out of h& that as Eric Boehlert reports for Media Matters, Fox News is already openly contemplating how Obama needs to fire her. For a job that (as of this writing) she has not been announced for & that does not take effect for anoar two months. Strike anyone else as premature?

Original post by Nicole Belle and software by Elliott Back