It seems like the sheer number of people who, like me, just can’t seem to wrap their heads around this Obama/Peace Prize thing, is starting to get under the formerly esteemed Nobel folks’ skin and majorly piss them off.   Duh.  And, they’re surprised because…?  The Associated Press is reporting that, in an “unprecedented move,” the jury what voted for to put the Pretendident in the company of greatness, is speaking out in justification of their mind-blowing decision.  And, in the real spirit of their phony “unprecedented” honesty, let me be the first to go on record as saying, methinks the Nobel Publisher’s Clearinghouse Peace Prize jury is full of shit:

To those who say a Nobel is too much too soon in Obama’s young presidency, “We simply disagree … He got the prize for what he has done,” committee chairman Thorbjorn Jagland told The Associated Press by telephone from Strasbourg, France, where he was attending meetings of the Council of Europe.

Jagland singled out Obama’s efforts to heal the divide between the West and the Muslim world and scale down a Bush-era proposal for an anti-missile shield in Europe.

“All these things have contributed to — I wouldn’t say a safer world — but a world with less tension,” he said.

Oh, wipe my ass and call me “Whitney,” why doncha, huh?  Gee whiz.  First of all, Obama may have received “the prize” of prizes for his platitudinous Cairo speech, among tedious others, but that’s not why he was nominated for it.  According to the Nobel folks’ website, the nomination had to come in February, after less than two months in office, about two months before his April-in-Prague call for nuclear weapons reduction, and almost exactly two months before his June Sermon on the Nile shoutout to the Muslim world.  So, what, these Nobel guys are prescient, too?  Or, did they get a timeline, or blueprint of his proposed agenda by carrier pigeon flown paper airplane the day after he and the Chief Justice channeled their inner Moe and Curly and flubbed, then dubbed his acceptance speech?

One committee member expressed dismay that Obie didn’t seem appropriately deferential, honored and humbled as he refused to decline the previously prestigious award:

For nine-year Nobel committee veteran Inger-Marie Ytterhorn, Obama’s demeanor spoke volumes when he first acknowledged the award during a news conference Friday on the lawn of the White House Rose Garden.

“I looked at his face when he was on TV and confirmed that he would receive the prize and would come to Norway, and he didn’t look particularly happy,” she told the AP by telephone.

Don’t feel bad, Inger-Marie.  The Spokesmodel-in-Chief may not have seemed happy on the outside, but, I assure you, inside, he was shitting bricks while his penis was giving his testicles deliriously enthusiastic thumbs up and high-fives.  It’s just that Axel Rove and his smashup Motley AstroTurf Crue  had awakened Baracus Whoosayin’ and the Cardboard Titty Groper far too early for the Boy WonderWhat? to get his  Scrabble-by-Avon-Word-Clown-Makeup-Speechwriting-By-The-Numbers kit out and properly paint his boss’ game face on.  He’s only capable of composing blast emails at that hour.

Personally, I also take exception to the rapidly developing gospel being pushed that the peace prize was awarded the to pretendident simply because he is not George Bush.  Well, golly gee willikers, Mrs. Cleaver, who is?   But that fact of “unbeing” does not justify an award of any sort now, any more than it did as justification for his deification during the presidential primaries.  After all, neither Hillary Clinton, nor John McCain is Heebee GeeBee, either, yet people demanded meat and potatoes from them, only to dump their proffered political Happy Meals in favor of gleefully slurping up Barry Blast KoolAid to the point of Obama-intoxication induced delirium.   Makes you wonder why, when, how, and where Axelrahm and his ValPal first came up with the idea and shipped the Nobel crew their Extra Strength, six month supply on the downlow?  Is that what the long shot, last minute visit to Copenhagen to make a half-hearted appeal for the Olympics the Chicago Way was about, cover for a 300 mile side trip to re-up the Nobel folks’ KoolAid order?

This guy says we Americans united in our blindness to all that is great and good about the Obamanominee, are just a bunch of racist sore losers too rude to properly congratulate his beloved, our be-hated, (whatever) First Ever Brother President.  His point being that, love or hate the Obamination, he didn’t pick himself as a Nobel Publisher’s Clearinghouse Peace Prize winner, so if you got beef, you got it with the committee, not the TelePrompTer-dependent, King-cum-Gandhi impersonator par excellence.

Yeah.

And?

Be that as it may, all this ongoing consternation and brouhaha leads me to what I believe is a very obvious question: where’s Kanye West when you really need him?  Now, I know many question the necessity of Kanye, (there’s an album title if I ever heard one, “The Necessity of Kanye?”) under any circumstances, but come on, even fungus has a function.  And, you’d have to have been living under a smoldering 1,000 pound rock of crack cocaine not to have noticed West’s predilection for showing up uninvited onstage at awards presentations, reeking of what he’s been told is the latest Trendy Expensive Alcohol du jour, in order to rambunctiously protest the injustice of the award being given to some artist other than the one his pickled brain lead him to deem more worthy.

So, where is he now?

Maybe he’s saving his loony mooning act for the actual awards presentation, though I fear that by December, the Nobel organization’s image will have taken such a hit for its egregious example of shark-jumping, that an appearance by Kanye will endow the proceedings with an undeserved air of grace and dignity.  Let’s face it, whether you think Kanye’s songs are misogynistic, racially insensitive crap full of “gold diggers” and “n-words” set to catchy synthetic beats, I’m pretty sure that, unlike his fellow Chicago brother, whatever uttered outrage he’s being praised or criticized for, he wrote and believes the words of which he spake.   On the other hand, whenever Barry O issues an unvetted, unapproved, unscripted-by-others, off-the-cuff-remark, it usually involves his Special Olympics brothers of his Muslim faith being wee-wee’d up, acting stupid, and keeping him from his waffles, sweetie.   Thus, his honest remarks reveal his basic lack of character and questionable intelligence, as well as highlight his scripted word’s bogusity.

*UPDATE: Here’s the transcript of Baracus Hubris Maximus (Hail Caesar!)’s
“A New Beginning, ” speech to the Muslim world, for those, like me, who just can’t bear to watch him read it to us.

As I write this, an American Pretendident, Barack Hussein Obama, is in the Middle East about to tell people who hate his country, but love them some him, that he’s not a Muslim, but he feels their pain, from personal experience, while his Jewish Chief of Staff, Rahm Emanuel, stands at his side embodying everything they hate about his country.  Seems he wants to kiss and make up for all the bad stuff George Bush has single-handedly been doing in the region since, oh, I dunno, the Iranian hostage crisis.  I think he’s also planning to try to make the Muslim world, or at least, the Arab part of it, understand that even though he’s gonna keep bombing the shit out of some of them, he really, really wants to be their friend.  That’s because he’s from Chicago, and there are a lot of Muslims there, in fact, there are so many Muslims in this country period, that you could call us one big ol’ Muslim country.

In other news of the truly bizarre, Republicans are backing off their opposition to the Spokesmodel-in-Chief’s Supreme Court appointee, Sonia Sotomayor because, even though she was a stupid, racist, bully, dyke, yesterday, today, Rush Limb-awe agrees with That One that she is their wet dreams come true, a stealth conservative who might overturn Roe v. Wade. And, the Gingrich who stole Christmas now says, “Psych! Just foolin’!  You’re not racist, and, did I mention I love Liz Torres?”

The Celebritician with a name worthy of Batman adversary status, The Waffler, is now okay with accepting his presidential opponent, John McCain’s health care tax proposal, the one that he mockingly campaigned against, which doesn’t really matter because “polls show” most Americans don’t really want health care reform right now, any more than they want Affirmative Action, or support choice.

And, sadly, blues legend Koko Taylor has died.  She was 80 years old.  May she rest in peace, and have an eternal Wang Dangle Doodle, too.

We’ll diss the speech together later on today, okay?

News of the release of documents detailing the shenanigans of the particular parties involved in perpetrating the 700 billion dollar fraud bank bailout, or Troubled Asset Relief Program, came out last week and didn’t really get the attention it was due, what with the Pretendident-as-Solomon’s first “Split the Fetus” tour stop at Notre Dame, and his fingernail clinging, bus undercarriage-headed Speaker of the House, Nasty Pancake’s, more-serious-because-chicks-have-a higher-standard, CIA never lies, and all going on.  The Freedom of Information documents obtained by Judicial Watch show that TARP, (or, as I’m sure it is known in certain circle jerks, the Rape of They, The Sheeple, those willing, clueless, hopium-addicted, changeling co-conspirators, who managed to both bend over and grab all of our collective ankles, while forcing everybody’s, theirs included, hands up in a “reach for the sky” surrender gesture at the same time, by electing the Chicago Robbin’ Hood whose vig to the Merry Band of Banksters who he fronted for was due) is  the cross-party, cross-administration, shady scummy scam we’ve all known it to be all along.  From Politico:

A series of emails and other documents released this week fill in dramatic new details of the Bush administration’s decision to bail out the nation’s largest banks – portraying Treasury Secretary Hank Paulson and White House aides as frantically reaching out to bank executives, the two presidential candidates and even a conservative think-tank to line up support for the plan.

The gist of the the story for publication is that on October 13, 2008, former Treasury Secretary, Henry Paulson, (R-Golman Sachs) gathered the top nine banksters in the country to his Turf for the Meeting, the New York Fed, then headed by Turbo Tax Timmy (Doogie Doofus) Geithner, tax cheat (TTTG,tc, I-Mars) where he and Da Boyz made the wayward Bankster Family Bosses an offer they literally couldn’t refuse.  “Sign da paper or else,” Paulson growled, and the greedy, yet cowed in the face of their own incompetence, Belittled Bankster Boyz reluctantly complied.  (insert mandolin music here)

Nice story, except that’s probably not what happened.  First of all, the Banksters claim not to have needed the money.  Yeah right.  Sure.  Umm-hmm.   And flu pigs fly, pigs fly flu, fly to the flu, my darlin’.  On the other hand, maybe some didn’t.  Second, the part which was not highlighted in any of the “news articles” (tee hee) I read about all this stuff, is that these are the same Big Bank Ballers who had been meeting pretty regularly with Hank, Timmy, Federal Reserve Chairman, Benny (the Jet) Bernanke, (?- ObamaLand) and FDIC Chairwoman, Sheila (the Skirt) Blair, (R- Lala Land) ever since early September when they got together over cannoli and decided to fit Lehman Brothers with cement shoes, and bankroll AIG.  All while the Presidential Election Follies and Traveling Road Show was being presented, and brought to the sheeple by KoolAid, as if the eagerly anticipated, foregone conclusion was a gift of manna-as-Divine Writ, ordained by a loving God upon his Second Begotten Son and those who truly believed.

The bailout occurred just 21 days before Election Day 2008, and the documents, which were obtained by Judicial Watch, suggested that that Paulson and the White House aides knew the political reaction was key – that too much criticism from Barack Obama, John McCain

or key interest groups could seriously complicate the deal.

So they started working the phones.

Obama got a call from Paulson that day – and ended up backing the plan. They tried to reach McCain but couldn’t at first. Instead, Bush White House official Joel Kaplan called McCain economics advisor Douglas Holtz-Eakin, who said “he had succeeded in backing down the ‘they are nationalizing the banks’ crowd … for now,” Kaplan wrote in an email that day.

Tee hee, hahaha, hardy har har, heh heh heh, na na nana, hey, hey, hey…Commmme onnnnn, people, geez, for goodness sakes, a’ready!  They got the guy on the phone who went to bat for the bailout in front of the Senate after the sheeple shook off the hopium hit long enough to shout, “whoa, dude,” and, enough low-on-the-totem-pole/payroll public servants, including most of the Congressional Black Caucus said “by me,” and voted down the first shakedown demand, but, the guy who said, “let’s screw the debate and work this thing out, was what, shacked up in the one quaint little cottage in America on the last remote stretch of beach Verizon hasn’t gotten around to establishing cell service for?  “A-yuh, we got no reception he-uh, Senatuh.  WiFi, ya say?  Might wanna check the General Stowah.”

On September 9, Lehman started to tank, their buyout plans fell through, and a buncha meetings took place at the New York Fed about their fate, with everybody but Lehman, like this one on Sept, 13:

An official from the Federal Reserve Bank of New York said participants include Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson, Timothy Geithner, president of the Federal Reserve Bank of New York, and Securities and Exchange Commission Chairman Christopher Cox. The New York Fed official asked not to be named due to the sensitivity of the talks.

Participants in today’s discussions at the offices of the New York Fed also include executives from Goldman Sachs, JPMorgan Chase, Morgan Stanley, Citigroup and Merrill Lynch. Representatives for Lehman Brothers were not present during the discussions.

Hmmm…Lehamn was unrepresented, but  an official from the New York Fed who doesn’t want to be named, was?  Geithner was named, he was President, Jamie Dimon of JP Morgan Chase was there, he was on the Board of Governors of the New York Fed …lesseee, who else could it have been in a big, high-level plotting strategy session three days before this press release about the $85 billion they had been authorized by Treasury to loan to AIG came out?  Jeffrey Immelt of GE/MSNBO, now one of the ObaMassah’s economic advisors, maybe?  Indra Nooyi, the Pepsi lady, perhaps?  Or, coulda been the Columbia University guy, Lee Bollinger, or the AFL-CIO guy, Dennis Hughes.

Who knows?  And, it couldn’t reeeaaalllyyy matter that MSNBO had this to say on Sept. 22:

Obama, the Democratic nominee, does not rule out retaining Mr. Paulson, a Republican. The two have spoken almost daily since Treasury put the mortgage giants Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac into government conservatorships two weeks ago, and Mr. Obama speaks highly of Mr. Paulson. ‘Getting a new person to start juggling those balls is going to be tricky,’ Mr. Obama said in an interview aboard his campaign plane Saturday. ‘Regardless of who wins the election, the issue of transition to the next administration is going to be very important. And it’s going to have to be executed with a spirit of bipartisanship and cooperation.’”

”But Obama advisers say it is more likely that he would pick someone new. The names bandied about before the financial crisis remain among the main prospects now, they say, though the turmoil has altered the calculations about each person. They include Timothy F. Geithner, 47 and a protégé of one of President Bill Clinton’s Treasury secretaries, Robert E. Rubin. As president of the New York Federal Reserve, Mr. Geithner has had a supporting role in managing the crisis. Also mentioned are two Clinton cabinet veterans: Laura Tyson, 61, former chairwoman of both the White House National Economic Council and the Council of Economic Advisers, and Lawrence H. Summers, 53, Treasury secretary for Mr. Clinton’s final year and a half. Both are economists and have been part of the core of advisers Mr. Obama has been consulting lately, along with Mr. Rubin and Paul A. Volcker, a former Federal Reserve chairman.”

Probably just a coinky-dinky that so many players at the time of the whole Lehman/AIG/TARP machinations ended up in the ObaCircle.  It was Bush’s Paulson who was holding the gun to the Banksters’ heads after all, wasn’t it?  Judicial Watch is just being snarky when they talk about some kinda coverup:

“These documents show our government exercising unrestrained power over the private sector. Despite promises of transparency, the Obama administration tried to cover up the very existence of these smoking-gun documents. And the cover-up continues, as the Obama administration protects Timothy Geithner by withholding a key document about his role in this infamous bankers meeting,” stated Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton.

Why, I’m even willing to bet that Bank of America’s Kenneth Lewis was lying through his teeth when he told Congress that Henry Paulson made him buy Merrill Lynch and keep quiet about the details at the Sept 15 follow-up meeting after Lehman crashed.  And all those meetings between Paulson, Geithner, etc., and the banksters were as clear-cut, above board, and beyond reproach as it was reported at the time.  This New York Times correction of a Sept. 27 article detailing Goldman Sachs’ CEO LLoyd  Blankfien’s attendance at the Sept. 15 meeting where Lehman Brothers and AIG’s futures were decided, proves that:

Because of an editing error, an article on Sunday about the financial problems of American International Group referred incorrectly to the timing and participants at meetings at the New York Federal Reserve between Saturday, Sept. 13, and Monday, Sept. 15. Although there were indeed meetings that weekend, there was also a separate meeting on Monday to discuss financial aid for A.I.G. Lloyd C. Blankfein, the chief executive of Goldman Sachs, was the only Wall Street chief executive who attended the Monday meeting, not the only chief executive who attended weekend meetings. Also, Henry M. Paulson Jr., the Treasury secretary, did not lead or attend the Monday meeting. (Both Mr. Blankfein and Mr. Paulson did attend the weekend meetings.)

There is absolutely no reason (fingers inserted in ears, singing lalalalalalaaaa) to believe that any of these guys were in on anything all along, just like news reports suggested at the time.  From the October 14, New York Times:

The executives did not have an inkling of Mr. Paulson’s plans. Some speculated that he would brief them about the government’s latest bailout program, or perhaps sound them out about a voluntary initiative. No one expected him to present his plan as an ultimatum.

See, so, these guys, who examine whether Barack Obama deliberately scuttled the original bailout vote in order to put lipstick on his own flu fly pig and shake it at the sheeple on the campaign trail like he cocked his legs for those horny chick reporters who thought him lookum so much goodum, they promptly forgot just why they there in the first place, are just haters:

The defeat of the bailout deal in the House yesterday afternoon and subsequent largest single-day points selloff of the Dow Jones index has put a white hot focus on the bailout as the single most important issue in the campaign. The stakes for Obama and McCain could not be higher as the candidate who is perceived by moderate, centrist swing voters as fashioning a solution will probably seize the inside track to the presidency. An interesting question to independent, centrist observers is whether Obama’s campaign did or did not intentionally scuttle yesterday’s bailout vote in order to deny McCain credit for fostering the bipartisan package. Some evidence supports both theories. It cannot seriously be contended that McCain scuttled the package as he suspended his campaign to push the deal and limited campaigning through the weekend to focus on pushing House GOP members to vote for the bailout.

And, those people who say JP Morgan Chase, the company that always seems to be in the mix, but not in the red, snookered Lehman and set them up for the fall, are obviously delusional.  Just because Jamie Dimon has known Barack Obama since Chicago when he was turning the dog Bank One into a show pony he could ride back to New York and the NY Fed board and the JP Morgan Chase CEO job doesn’t mean he’s in cahoots with the Obites, saying one thing in public and doing sumpin’ sumpin’ else in private.  Sure Jamie was at the March Business Roundtable conference where Obie let it slip that he had to “talk to Jamie” about stuff, but, there’d have to be at least one more meeting than that.

MR. PARSONS: So take it down to our industry, the banking business. At its core, it’s a very simple business: It takes funds from depositors and other providers of funding, and then it makes those funds available in the credit markets. And that’s how businesses grow, when people buy homes, and send their kids to college, buy cars, and all that sort of stuff.

THE PRESIDENT: Can I just say, Dick, it hasn’t been that simple lately. (Laughter.) But I get your theory, though.

MR. PARSONS: I said at its core.

THE PRESIDENT: All right, I’ll talk to Jamie. Maybe that’s — (laughter.)

Wouldn’t there?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9fD1kfUKFlM

Forget single payer.  Not Gonna Happen.  The Obamacans say it’s off the table, and I believe ‘em.  Just like I believed their duly selected Spokesmodel-In-Chief, Barack Hussein Walker Obushma, when he said, back when he was just the Inevitable Candidate, that  he wasn’t opposed to all wars, just dumb ones, and that blowing shit up in Afghanistan and Pakistan was a pretty freaking radically brilliant idea, as far as he was concerned.  “Anti-war, my left tit,” said I back then, and, sure as shootin’, turns out my faith in the Black Sheep of the Bush Family was not misplaced.  His FISA vote and his subsequent, “look forward without anger, why change things when they work for me” philosophy regarding Bush-era transgressions doesn’t surprise me a whit, either.

I have always been struck by the cozy, lovey-dovey relationship Georgie’s Ba’ Bruh has always seemed to have with “Obamacans.”  When I first heard of Republicans for Obama, I was like, “what’s up with that, huh?”  Why would a group of Republicans get together in 2006 to encourage the “most liberal Senator in the history of…liberals and Senators” to run for President after the guy had only been voting against their interests on a national basis for a couple years or so?  Sure, coulda been just another Axelrove AstroTurfing campaign, but, if it was, why weren’t real Republicans yelling their heads off about it?   Rush Limbaugh and Dick Cheney are not exactly shy about slamming one of their own for being too buddy-buddy with the other side.  Why did all the black Republicans endorse this “most liberal Senator, blah, blah, blah, either explicitly, or tacitly?  Why did so many registered Republicans switch party affiliation to vote for a community organizer, (a phrase they utter with all the dripping sarcasm, venom and contempt a mother uses to describe her law school-grad son, the “rap singer”’s career choice) in the primaries and caucuses, then neglect to switch back, swelling the ranks of Independents while depleting their former party’s numbers so significantly it’s now a shell of itself?  In fact, didn’t the guy Al Franken called a “big, fat, idiot,” encourage that?  Operation Chaos, anyone?  Why didn’t the sleazy Obama ploy plea for Republicans to become Democrats for a Day cause the “liberal media” and the “progressive blogospherians” who supported him with a blind fury to turn their backs on, and wash their hands of, him?  How come the Barackamedian’s biggest laugh on his Rock Star Tour campaign trail come from his oft-related response of “Thank you, why are we whispering?” to Republicans’ hushed confessions of “I voted for you”?

The tales of his repeated promises to “reach across the aisle” in a “bipartisan effort,” yadda, yadda, are legend.  In light of all that, one would have to be a willingly head burying ostrich not to conclude, “duh, he’s one of them.”  His latest actions in regard to “health care reform” only validate, underscore, and put a cherry on top of that obvious reality.  And, then here’s Arlen.

In 2004, That One’s Rhinestone Cowboy predecessor began his push for reforming the healthcare industy by digitalizing medial records.  While he, and his Homey, the Clown, speak in pretty vague terms of “computerizing medical records,” the truth is that the goal involves totally revamping the way health care is delivered, both nationally, and globally.  From Health Policy Monitor, October, 2004:

On April 26, 2004 President Bush announced his goal that most Americans have an Electronic Health Record (EHR) within the next ten years.  The anticipated  benefits of EHRs that could share patient information securely among providers and ensure complete health information would be available at the time and place of care, would be: improved quality of care, reduced medical errors, reduced health care costs, improved administrative efficiencies, reduced paperwork, and increased access to affordable health care.  The President issued Executive Order 13335 and established the position of  National Coordinator for Health Information Technology, who was required to report within 90 days on a strategic plan to guide the national development and implementation of Health Information Technology (HIT) in both public and private sectors.

In May 2004, Secretary of Health and Human Services Tommy G. Thompson appointed David J. Brailer, MD, PhD to serve in this new position, and on July 21, 2004, presented  a report, “The Decade of Health Information Technology: Delivering Consumer-centric and Information-rich Health Care -  Framework for Strategic Action.”

Now, I don’t know if Dr. David Brailer of Health Evolution Partners is part of the SEIU led group of health care related organizations pledging to “reform” health care and cut costs, but I do know that it doesn’t really matter.  The coalition coming to the White House at 12:30 tomorrow to present Obamboozler with an undefined proposal outlined in a vague letter, comprised of some of the same reform-blocking entities that plagued the Clinton administration, is but another player in the ongoing drama in the Theater of the Obsurd.   Karen Ignagni, of American Health Insurance Plans, (one of the letter signing groups) last week went before Congress and bogusly begged to be regulated.   While the media dutifully reports that their concern is over the possibility that the Obamacrats (the opposing faction of the Obamacans of the Democratic party) might actually implement a public plan to help Americans struggling with impossible to afford health care, the truth is we’re just being softened up for the GE/Microsoft/Simi Valley/Google/liberal elite university overhaul of the industry.  Forget about single payer, think health care “delivery system reform.”  Senate Finance Chair Max Baucus does:

“I do believe we need universal coverage and I think the inefficiencies you allude to can be addressed. Delivery system reform would cut costs and improve quality. We need health insurer reform to get rid of preexisting conditions and other ways insurers discriminate. That’s part of our plan here, and the CEOs of many larger insurance companies are on board. They know this change is coming. They may lose the current model but they pick up on volume with 46 million people coming into the system.”

The insurance-based, public/private payment system is unlikely to change much.  The Obamacanacrats will get away with that by convincing us all that by the time all of our medical, insurance, hospital, etc., files are hooked up to a central national, then global, database, insurance industry overhaul won’t be necessary.  The Rick Scotts and Karen Ignagnis of the world are just jockeying for elbow room at the coming pie-laden boardinghouse table.  When George Bush, Barack Obama, Newt Gingrich and Max Baucus are all saying the same damned thing, only a fool would believe there’s a chance they’ll listen.  No single payer, it’s the medical records, stupid.  They’re just quibbling over the details to keep us occupied.  Baucus, once again, spells it out:

Sen. Max Baucus (D-Mont.), chairman of the Senate Finance Committee and responsible for leading healthcare reform efforts, said Monday that health IT will be key in containing costs to pay for reform.

At a press meeting hosted by the American Progress Action Fund, Baucus said Congress wants to reduce costs internally through delivery system reform, and he highlighted health IT and comparative effectiveness as prime examples. He emphasized savings would come over the long haul, up to 12 years, after initial investments in health IT.

“This is strategic,” he said.

Baucus said the Senate is working hard to develop legislation before next fall, a longer timeline than initially proposed. He’s optimistic about the process, saying, “I think all of us agree that the stars are maybe finally aligned this year for the passage of meaningful healthcare reform.”

Baucus said a bipartisan compromise will create sustainability in health reform.

Health Information Technology, (HIT) something General Electric, parent company of MSNBO, is investing heavily in, refers to any computerized health care service; electronic health records are those of an individual; and electronic medical records are the doctor’s files.  Coming up with a compatible, comprehensive system that will accommodate all the disparate factions is a huge, and hugely expensive undertaking, but make no mistake, that’s what the current fight is about.  Pulling it off will create jobs, and likely effect a siesmic shift in the economy.  Which, if you’ve been listening, is pretty much what Obie’s been talking about with his social planning budget.  And, though the Republicans cast in the role of curmudgeonly contrarians make a big, “oh, he’s a socialist” show to entertain, occupy and confuse the sheeple, they know better.  Hell, they’re in on it, too.

There are drawbacks, however, like this article detailing the hacking of the medical records database at University of California, Berkley, highlights.   This Boston Globe piece about Google Health chronicles some others.  And, while this Wikipedia entry shows how the sheer number of software companies looking to get in on the gravy train makes compatibility a potential nightmare, the chart at the bottom reassures us that they all run on Windows.

In light of last week’s Supreme Court ruling against Fox TV and in favor of the Federal Communications Committee, in the case FCC vs. Fox Television Stations, Janet Jackson’s tit is back in the news.  It seems that the Court upheld George Carlin’s “7 dirty words” argument that there are just some words you’re not allowed to say on television, even if uttered spontaneously.   Previous FCC policy held that “fleeting expletives” were no big deal.  From Fox News, April 28:

The Supreme Court ruled narrowly Tuesday in favor of a government policy that threatens broadcasters with fines over the use of even a single curse word on live television, yet stopped short of deciding whether the policy violates the Constitution.

In six separate opinions totalling 69 pages, the justices signaled serious concerns about the constitutionality of the Federal Communications Commission’s “fleeting expletives” policy, but called on a federal appeals court to weigh whether it violates First Amendment guarantees of free speech.

By a 5-4 vote, however, the court did throw out a ruling by the 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in New York. That court had found in favor of a FOX Television-led challenge to the FCC policy and had returned the case to the agency for a “reasoned analysis” of its tougher line on indecency.

The commission appealed to the Supreme Court instead.

Because of the ruling in the case of FCC vs. CBS Corp.,  fines imposed by the FCC in the wake of Jackson’s 2004 MTV produced, Superbowl half-time show “wardrobe malfunction,” which were thrown out last year by the Court of Appeals on the grounds of being no big freaking deal (in legal terms, of course) are being ordered reconsidered.  From Fox News, May 4:

The U.S. Supreme Court on Monday ordered a federal appeals court to re-examine its ruling in favor of CBS Corp. in a legal fight over entertainer Janet Jackson’s wardrobe malfunction.

The high court on Monday directed the 3rd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Philadelphia to consider reinstating the $550,000 fine that the Federal Communications Commission imposed on CBS over Jackson’s breast-baring performance at the 2004 Super Bowl football championship.

The order follows the high court ruling last week that narrowly upheld the FCC’s policy threatening fines against even one-time uses of curse words on live television.

On the one hand, these filings and their subsequent rulings are all silly.  First of all, there are a gazillion of these inter-related “decency” cases, with some of the more notable ones involving Fox.   Secondly, in light of what is now allowed and common-place on TV, Janet Jackson’s tit, or a little tushy shot on NYPD Blue could well be considered tame, nowadays.  Ever seen “Damages?”  Then there’s the point that the Fox case in question is about celebrities saying “fuck” and “shit” on awards shows (seriously) and the CBS case is about a nanosecond shot of brown sugar.  And lastly, (for the time being) there’s the very real question of who, exactly, is offended?

Ya gotta wonder who is forcing the principles in all these cases to jump through hoops making silly arguments to stupid allegations.  CBS saying they didn’t know Justin Timberlake was going to expose Janet’s boob at the end of their duet is about as believable as saying the Easter Bunny is hung like Dirk Diggler.  CBS and MTV are both part of Sumner Redstone’s National Amusements empire, and according to Keith Olbermann (who I’m ashamed to admit, I liked at the time) rumors of sexy hijinks were rampant prior to the actual show.  It was MTV in 2004, for Goodness sakes; after Diana Ross’ fondling of L’il Kim’s tit and the Madonna/Christina/Britney three-way, to name but two “events” that should have given anyone pause if “giving pause” was a consideration.  According to yet another Fox News story, this one dated February 2, 2004, the standards being applied at the time were thus:

Over-the-air television channels cannot air “obscene” material at any time and cannot air “indecent” material between 6 a.m. and 10 p.m. The FCC defines obscene material as describing sexual conduct “in a patently offensive way” and lacking “serious literary, artistic, political or scientific value.” Indecent material is not as offensive but still contains references to sex or excretions.

“References to sex?”  If all the “references to sex” were removed from broadcast TV, there would be no commercials, would there?  When chocolate ice cream can seduce hungry women with Barry White-like voices saying, “awww, baby, you know you want me,” it becomes hard to determine where to draw the line. Playtex commercials about “the girls” might not show as much skin as Janet did, but the images of women in nothing but their bras last much longer.  Frankly, I’m much more offended by bears shitting in the woods and leaving toilet paper pieces stuck to their butts, but, that’s just me.

While the resolutions associated with these cases are being characterized as “routine,” the timing and motivations are “interesting” to say the least.  And, why is Fox leading the charge?  ABC is appealing its million dollar fines resulting from a 2003 NYPD Blue airing of 7 seconds worth of naked butt, and the original incidences in the Fox case go back to Cher saying ‘fuck” at the 2002 Billboard awards and Nicole Ritchie saying “shit” in 2003.  Yet, according to this site, those rulings are part of an Omnibus Order including complaints against NYPD Blue (again) and the Early Show.  The complaint against the Early Show for an inadverdent “bullshit” utterance was thrown out because it was a news show, which is presumably why George Bush saying “shit” could be aired without fines.  Why was the FCC of the Bush administration so prudish, and again, why against Fox?

The Wall Street Journal claims that thousands of indecency cases are likely to turn on the eventual outcome of the “wardrobe malfunction case, and points out that it only takes one complaint to launch an FCC investigation.  This is significant in relation to another case highlighted in the piece involving Fox TV, this one regarding the 2003 show, Married By America, which had its 1.2 million dollar fine reduced to $91,000 on appeal.  What’s most interesting about this case is not that the network was fined for showing a couple of horny chicks licking whipped cream off of a male stripper’s nipples, and other “provocative” images, nor is the question of why you have to protect children from a stupid show nobody watched, but the fact that blogger Jeff Jarvis proved that the hue and cry that supposedly touched off the investigation leading to the record-setting fines amounted to a bunch of letters sent by no more than 3 people.  Not only that, the three people involved in all these “complaints” are most likely members of the Parents Television Council, according to Tim Goodman of the San Francisco Chronicle, December 13, 2004:

My vote for best media/television story of the year goes to one you may have missed. Mediaweek reported on Dec. 6 that of all the “indecency complaints” to the Federal Communications Commission in 2003, a startling 99.8 percent of them came from one conservative group, the Parents Television Council.

And through October of this year, apart from complaints over Janet Jackson’s infamous “wardrobe malfunction,” a full 99.9 percent of the complaints about indecency have again come from the Parents Television Council. That means a small group of highly mobilized conservative watchdogs has essentially driven the “moral values” campaign directed at the FCC.

Though the Constitutional issues in these cases have yet to be addressed, the implications affecting the ultimate resolution will likely be impacted by decisions made by the Obministration’s Court and FCC, both of which are being shaped by Obie’s nominations.  Will he, and we, continue to allow those, and all the other important upcoming decisions to be unduly impacted by the AstroTurfing efforts of one small “conservative group?”

This is a much bigger subject than I have yet had time to explore, but, in my humble opinion, this bears watching.  Any input you have will be welcome as we continue to dig into the heart of the matter.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8O_lVkK2usE

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EDK2GLznE7Q

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bxmtUFrji48&feature=related

I don’t believe there’s ever a justification for war.  War is stupid.  As a means of conflict resolution, or oxymoronically, “maintaining the peace,” I’m sure it can seem effective.  I mean, nothing will shut an annoying opponent up quicker than dropping a super megatonic bomb on his head mid-sentence.  Unfortunately, any of his friends, neighbors, relatives, etc. who manage to survive the fallout, are subject to major pissitude in the aftermath, and likely to wish grievous bodily harm upon the person of bombnation, and all whom he knoweth and love, in perpetuity.  Who needs the hassle?

That being said, I understand the almost irresistible compulsion to reciprocate when one is attacked.  Some stranger smacks you upside the head on line at the Piggly Wiggly, you’re not really gonna care what twisted his knickers into a knot so tight as to cause him to clock you with a can of baked beans in the first place.  You’re likely to take the bottle of bleach you’re carrying and try to catch the guy in the face at the height of the roundhouse arc of your swing at his head.  Never mind that the impact might cause the plastic bottle to crack, or the top to come off and spray you and any innocent bystander in the vicinity, who the fuck does this guy think he is?  More importantly, who does he think you are, some major wuss?  Now, in moments of clarity upon reflection, you might regret contributing to the situation in such a way as to cause it to escalate.  However, when you’re standing there in line, bleeding and covered with bleach, your most fervent wish might be for store security to shoot your assailant in the ass with a bazooka, right before the butcher runs what’s left of him through the meat grinder and packages him up as butt burger dog food.  The reality would probably be however, that cooler heads, fearful of being bleach and bean blindsided themselves, would prevail, and you and Twisted Knickers would both end up in the prison infirmary.

In the aftermath of the September 11, 2001 attacks upon the World Trade Center, Americans were scared.  We were also a little bewildered, and mightily pissed.  All perfectly understandable.  We had been clocked, and many of us wanted to strike back, not just to get revenge, but to alleviate the feeling of impotence, powerlessness.  But, who would we strike, where could our rage be focused, what country would take the credit or blame so we could bomb the shit out of them back?

There was no country.  But that didn’t stop us.  Whether the powers that were at the time threw darts, picked a name out of a hat, drew straws, or had a handy target in the back of their mind to pull up should the opportunity to fuck ‘em up arise, we found a country to retaliate against.  Who cared if the guys who committed the atrocity weren’t from there?  They freakin’ knew where it was, that was good enough.  We were pissed.  And scared.  And hurt.  Why us?  What did we do?  Who did those guys think they were?  Who do they think we are?

You gotta admit though, a person would have to be a little more than miffed at somebody to sacrifice their own life just to get their licks in.  But, so what?  No matter what their beef, they had picked on the wrong guys.  The cowboy administration of the day knew a thing or two about John Wayne diplomacy.  The bad guys had to be Injuns, who else would attack the innocent, good, decent, Christian families trying to steal their land?  Those dirty Redskins had to go, and any dirty Redskins would do.  Of course, the good, decent, Christian folk would be appalled if they knew that innocent women and children were being harmed in any way by the retaliators.  That is, unless it was their village that had been raided by the filthy savages.  Then, all bets are off.  Do whatever you gotta do, to whoever ya gotta do it to.  After all, good, decent, Christian women and children must be protected at all costs.

As it is in Hollywood, so it is in Washington, D.C.

While one can debate the merits of Cowboy Diplomacy, (I think the advocates would lose every time, but that’s not the point) the fact that it requires a comforting John Wayne type Mr. Fixit to pull it off is kind of comforting, in a demented, twisted logic kinda way.  We all like the strong, silent type reluctant hero father figure to reassure us that even if a few dirty Redskins have to die, it’s for a good cause, and Gary Cooper would really rather be boinking Barbara Stanwyck back on the homestead after all.

But what happens when the guy in charge is more Urkel-ean than Herculean?  When every decision is based on poll results and internal staff debate contest winners?  When every proclamation has a caveat, how can confidence and trust be inspired?  According to the Washington Post, President Alfred E. Urkelbama decided to release the so called “torture memos” after a series of intense staff debates.  What’s up with that?  What’s to debate?  Where the heck does he stand on the issue?  It’s really not that complicated, either torture is bad, and we, being morally superior, don’t condone it, ever; or, if the dirty Redskins attack our villages we fuck ‘em up.  You can’t have it both ways.  Unless you think being the Obamessiah gives you license to earn your Bothways Barry nickname and gives you a pass on taking a stand.  Even then, you’re likely to find out you’re wrong.

Folks who can claim the high ground of using whatever means necessary to protect the women and children don’t take too kindly to being called out for their methods.  “You gave me a dirty job, I did it, you kept your hands clean, now you want to drag me through the mud to cover your ass.  No freaking way.  Are you really stupid enough to accuse me of fighting dirty knowing just how dirty I’m willing to fight?”  That’s likely to be the attitude the John Wayne-led Redskin killers will always take.  The only thing to be determined in the face of that is, does Urkules have the stones and righteous authority to take them on?

The legal, ethical, and moral issues regarding the torture memos are pretty much moot points by now.  Now it’s about truth, justice and the American Way.  Is the guy now entrusted with the nation’s moral compass Clark Kent, or Superman?  Cuz, even though both of them can kick John Wayne’s ass, only one of them’s a hero.  The other one’s a bald-faced liar.

Just Barely President, Baracus Hubris Maximus, (Hail Ceasar!) forced the networks to give him a hunk of their prime time last night because…well, he really, really wanted to go on TV again.  It wasn’t like he had anything earth-shattering, or even new, to share with the nation; he just must have felt, just like the rest of us did, that his last few giggly, insulting television appearances sucked, so he needed to hijack American Idol time to try to re-convince America that he was indeed worthy of their American Idol, West Wing-esque devotion to his Spokesmodel-In-Chief-iness.   Whatever; Obi in HD is getting old.

The only thing remotely “new” that was introduced during lasts night’s public masturbatory exercise was the single direct line-of-sight TelePrompTer placement, favored by award show and infomercial productions for at least a generation, in lieu of the traditional, left/right, 50’s era  setup the Teflon TelePrompTer Reader has come to favor in the belief he has mastered the ‘technique” inherent in its use.  That it took the increasing ridicule of people across the political spectrum, weary of watching the squinty-eyed, head-swiveling, nose-in-the-air, boy-stood-on-the-burning-deck, staccato delivery of the Greatest Communicator Since Reagan Ever for the vaunted ObamArchitects of New Age Politics to figure out that putting the script right in front of the Reader’s face might work better, speaks volumes about their “luck-over-acumen” reality.

These are the same guys who have obviously decided that “overexposure” is only a danger for frost-bitten flashers, and that the only way to sell their New Order of the World, (as opposed to New World Order, which is passe, and besides, Obi doesn’t have the copyright on that name) Plan disguised as a budget, is to keep their Paid Pitchman of Prestidigitation in the public eye, the better to bamboozle the sheeple with bullshit.  Let’s face it, no new ground was broken last night, the New Plan Same as the Old Plan he presented, yet again, has not yet righted the country’s economic ship, be it an ocean liner, speed boat or Gilligan’s land-locked Minnow.

The Narcissistic Naked Emperor did exhort the masses to grant his “embattled” Treasury Secretary, Turbo Tax Timmy Geithner, tax cheat (TTTG,tc) unprecedented power to do what he will under cover of presidential lies, as if no one is aware that last week’s “what, did I do that?” protestations from Alfred E. Urkelbama was a curious game of Charades meets Twister.  That the previously infatuated press would attempt to call him on his bs, so infuriated The One Who Would Be Obamessiah that he was moved to snippiness as he lied his fool head off.   When CNN’s cheeky Ed Henry had the temerity to ask the Wizard of Odd why it took him two days to respond to the outrage generated by his Beloved Boy Wonder, TTTg,tc’s complicity in the AIG bonus debacle, Oblahblah looked him in the eye and lied that he “liked to know what he was talking about” before he answered.  Unless he meant that he “liked to give his staff enough time to come up with something that the KoolAid-addled would buy, if delivered earnestly enough,” his answer was pure hogwash.  He and the guy he wants to give even more undeserved power to, not only knew about the bonuses they denied knowing about for months, they’re the ones responsible for sneaking language protecting them into the stimulus bill.

These kinds of foot-in-mouth moments, so prevalent lately, should give a prudent president pause.  However, as we know, there’s not likely to be much chance of Our Obi laying low.  His only talent is reading speeches designed to occupy the press enough to allow them to pretend there’s some substance to at least some of the things he says.   Therefore, we get stupid New York Magazine articles arguing that “warnings of overexposure,” mitigated by the president’s “sky-high approval ratings,” are just meritless jealous rantings of his enemies in the press.  In fact, according to Chris Rovzar, the only reason people are even bringing up the whole “Too Much Barack on TV” meme is because he’s not George Bush:

It’s not even that Obama is trying to earn the obvious positives that come with campaign-style selling of his positions (which no doubt he is). It’s that he’s doing very basically what a president should do — explaining the problems facing the country to a nervous public, going above and beyond to appear like he knows what he’s doing, and trying to make his decisions as transparent as possible. If it smells at all of desperation, consider the context: For the past eight years we had a president notorious for opaque governing. George Bush wouldn’t address the country even in times of need, and when he did, his answers to questions in press conferences were often simple, evasive, and even touchy. After that, of course it seems like Obama is going above and beyond the call of duty with a handful of candid appearances.

Hate to break it to you, Chris, but, a speech on the economy one night, designed to as you say, explain “the problems facing the country to a nervous public, going above and beyond to appear like he knows what he’s doing, and trying to make his decisions as transparent as possible” that’s met with news of foreign leaders calling said plan a “road to hell,” pretty much shoots your whole argument to shit:

The president of the European Union on Wednesday slammed U.S. plans to spend its way out of recession as “a road to hell.”

Czech Prime Minister Mirek Topolanek, whose country currently holds the rotating EU presidency, told the European Parliament that President Barack Obama’s massive stimulus package and banking bailout “will undermine the liquidity of the global financial market.”

I’ll be the first to admit that I did not come into this blogging business as the most politically astute or learned person on the planet.  The idea that I might be is so far from the possibility of reality that the words I just typed hardly belong in the same sentence.  I know that.  However, watching my hopes for the election of a candidate I thought to be most qualified to “inherit” (I’m beginning  to hate that word) the responsibility of guiding the county back on track be bashed, dashed, crashed and gleefully shattered to smithereens by disparate entities on the left and right, seemingly demented in their zeal, has given me an opportunity to learn and grow politically in a way unlikely to have been appreciated before, had it presented itself.  And frankly, I’m sick of it.

All. Of. It.

Each news story, op-ed column, Google search, blog post and talking head garbage spew disguised as informed opinion has added another tidbit of information, often counter to the point the happy yakker thought he/she was making, to the tapestry of my understanding of our nation’s political reality.  It’s enough to make you puke.

It was Barack Obama’s declaration that he was a “New Democrat” that began to pull the wool from my eyes this weekend.  You know how “you know just enough to be dangerous,” as the adults used to tell us when we were kids, and we only slightly, superficially understood?  That’s how I feel now.  My previously determined impressions have not exactly been dramatically altered, rather, a sketchy picture is coming into better focus.

I’ve always known that New Democrats were affiliated with the Democratic Leadership Council, that evil Clintonian institution responsible for giving the world the concept of Third Way “triangulation.”  It never dawned on me before however, how such a concept reflects the same sort of underhanded attempt to institute a UniParty under Democratic cover that Obama advocates.  And by UniParty, I mean just that, though not necessarily a melding of the two parties into one, the complete subsumption of the lesser party works just fine, and allows you to loot the ideas you like while suppressing and discarding those you find unacceptable or inconvenient.   Claiming to be “progressive,” their mission statement is rife with uncomfortably “conservative” concepts, presenting a mishmash of doubletalking bullshit that any thinking person would find hard to swallow whole.  Given the influence of Bill and Hillary Clinton in the founding of the damned thing, it would be only natural for those opposed to the concept in general to then assume that Barack Obama represents something better.  However, their “third way” is his “bipartisanship.”

Obama’s “New Democrat declaration” is the most major “duh!” moment any of us will ever likely experience.  Reading the DLC “Hyde Park Initiative,” or Hillary Clinton’s speech to the DLC in 2005, it’s patently obvious that the both documents were cut and pasted unto my.barackobama.com, slapped atop Howard Dean’s 50 State Strategy, typed into a TelePrompTer, and shoved down the country’s throat at a cost of 3/4 of a billion dollars in blackface.  Which begs the question, why?

If, before Obama threw his hat in the ring, Hillary Clinton was the “inevitable” Democratic candidate, inextricably tied to the philosophy of the DLC, what did the party’s corporate elite need Obama for?  Did they really believe him to be more malleable?  3/4 of a billion dollars more “malleable?”  If they’re both going to implement the same policies, the strategy makes no sense, even if you factor Clinton Derangement Syndrome and Hillary’s supposed “high negatives” into the equation.  After all, the same media assault necessary to catapult an inexperienced, unqualified, unknown quantity into the fray and transform him into a beloved, messianic household name, could have been deployed on Clinton’s behalf, likely with even better results, since she, at least, usually knows what the hell she’s talking about.  Let’s face it, even with all the shit thrown at her that she endured, she still managed to emerge victorious; imagine what might have happened if she had actually had the kind of party and media support Obama did.

Also, if he was a DLC Trojan Horse, why the vicious campaign?  And, why would the Clinton faction fight so hard against his juggernaut?  Why the race-baiting, sexist, ugliness foisted upon the national consciousness?  To whose benefit was that?  Why wouldn’t Clinton just put up a show of a fight and bow out gracefully?   The whole “historic nature” of his candidacy and ultimate presidency is bogus, too, given that a woman POTUS would have been equally earth-shattering.  It all makes no sense.

With only a portion of the resources afforded Obama, financial and media-wise, added to her arsenal, Clinton could have marshaled just as many forces on her side, resulting in just as many downticket Democratic gains.  The argument that the Republicans would have mounted a more vigorous campaign against her is speculative and spurious given that McCain was the presumptive nominee early on, and it’s hardly a given that he would have engendered more of his party’s support as a result.  Besides, with the handicap of George Bush to deal with, any Democrat was almost assured of victory against any Republican they might have faced.

We know that David Axelrod might well have been tapped by Clinton had there been no Obama, he had worked for President Clinton’s and Hillary Clinton’s campaigns, after all.  Even the argument that she didn’t embrace Dean’s 50 State Strategy is insignificant, there’s no reason to assume that the Democratic Party would not, or could not have employed it in conjunction with Clinton’s more traditional approach, thereby increasing the potential effectiveness of both.  If Barack Obama has always been a “New Democrat,” last years presidential campaign makes no sense whatsoever.  If he hasn’t, what’s he trying to hide by claiming to be?

Bill Clinton’s 2000 remarks at the DLC’s Hyde Park Retreat, the Hyde Park Delaration, itself, Hillary Clinton’s 2005 America in 2020 Dream Initiative read like they could have been plastered onto Barack Obama’s Traveling TelePrompTer Crutch, and might well have been, with all their talk of health insurance reform, (including electronic medical records) personal responsibility, public service, stem cell research, etc.  We know for a fact that Barack Obama was not in on formulating these plans back in 1985 when the DLC was founded, or, in 1990 when Chairman Bill Clinton put together the New Orleans Declaration that founder Al From called “a seminal document” that served as “the philosophical foundation for the third way approach.”  Yet, the front page of the DLC website just as proudly claims Obama as their own, as he, surprisingly, recently claimed them.

Wikipedia’s assertion that the Center For American Progress and Howard Dean’s Democracy For America, as well as Daily Kos and MyDD are at odds with DLC’s philosophy is rather simplistic, in my opinion.  They could all be spokes on the same wheel.  Not only that, in many ways, Barack Obama is to the right of either Clinton.  In 2006, Hillary Clinton told Yearly Kos that she helped found the George Soros backed Center For American Progress and Media Matters.  And, while the Soros-backed Democracy Alliance had provided funding to CAP and not the DLC, and Soros himself, along with Media Matters and CAP and their Clinton era staffers have been closely aligned with Obama during his campaign and transition, Hillary’s claims at Kos (August 4, 2007) came a year after the Washington Post (July 17, 2006) story detailing the Soros/Democracy Alliance/CAP connection.  Is she so clueless she didn’t know she had been abandoned?  Had she?  Hillary’s boast comes at about 2:20 in the following clip:

We are certainly better prepared and more focused on, you know, taking our arguments, and making them effective, and disseminating them widely, and really putting together a network, uh, in the blogosphere, in a lot of the new progressive infrastructure, institutions that I helped to start and support like Media Matters and Center for American Progress.

I’ve tried to make sense of all this many times before, notably here, but the new “I’m a New Democrat” happy crappy is really burning my ass.  If Obama is indeed a New Democrat, and has been all along, we’ve all been played for suckers, big time.  And, we still are.   Could Hillary’s reluctance to play into the Obama-Axelrovian “gotcha, silly season” politics they accused her of, and that they seem to delight in, be the problem?  The fratboy pissing contests played out in the media that the the Obministration seems so very fond of, just might not be everybody’s cup of tea, especially considering how stupid they are, no matter how effective the New Obacrats might deem them to be.

Also, while Clinton might not have a problem battling the Vast Right Wing Conspiracy in response, she might not have the stomach for the more pro-active, aggressive media manipulation that’s all the rage with the otherwise vacuous and inefficient New Obama Dems.  In addition to the sort of Joe the Plumber attacks that the Obacracy employed so boyishly against her and Sarah Palin, Rick Santelli, Rush Limbaugh, Jim Cramer and others, with their now-White House, then Chicago headquarters dispatched talking points distributed via paid media talking heads, Begala, Carville and Stephanopoulis, (all former Clintonites) as well as diligently issued email alerts to the Blogger Bully Obots and Alinsky agitators under the guise of donor updates, Obidiots are now implementing Phase Two, according to Politico:

Beginning Sunday, the White House will harness every part of the Democratic Party’s machinery to defend President Obama’s budget and portray Republicans as reflexively political, according to party strategists.

A participant in the planning meetings described the push as a successor to Democrats’ message that Rush Limbaugh is the Republican Party leader. “We have exhausted the use of Rush as an attention-getter,” the official said.

The media manipulation has been especially odious, made moreso by the shameless admission that such tactics are an integral part of the Obministration’s arsenal.  This sort of Astroturfing “governing by the appearance of popular opinion” is a specialty of the Obots, perfected during the campaign, though, not always successful, as in the Pennsylvania primaries, where they wasted millions of dollars employing his vaunted media mojo, only to get soundly spanked.

The Obama grassroots network—now known as Organizing for America, a project of the Democratic National Committee—has launched an e-mail pledge drive on MyBarackObama.com in which supporters sign their e-mail address to the statement: “I support President Obama’s bold approach for renewing America’s economy.”

The pledge drive was announced with a video called “Ready for the Fight.” Plouffe e-mailed supporters over the weekend with a challenge labeled “The next few weeks”: “In the next few weeks we’ll be asking you to do some of the same things we asked of you during the campaign—talking directly to people in your communities about the President’s ideas for long-term prosperity.”

If the ultimate goal was to engage a younger, electorate-expanding  demographic, this sort of iPod, Blackberry, FaceBook-ization of media manipulation might seem cool enough to work for now, but even braindead, KoolAid drunk, basement dwelling, one hand typists grow up sooner or later, and are likely to be pissed off when they realize how much their “style over substance” support of an empty suit wearing Naked Emperor could cost them in the long run.  Too bad the entire Democratic party is now banking on it.

A broad coalition of left-leaning groups is quietly closing ranks into a new coalition, “Unity ‘09,” aimed at helping President Barack Obama push his agenda through Congress.

Conceived at a New York meeting before the November election, two Democrats familiar with the planning said, Unity ‘09 will draw together money and grassroots organizations to pressure lawmakers in their home states to back White House legislation and other progressive causes.

The online-based MoveOn.org is a central player in the nascent organization, but other groups involved in planning Unity ‘09 span a broad spectrum of interests, from the American Civil Liberties Union to the National Council of La Raza to Planned Parenthood, as well as labor unions and environmental groups.

Frankly, the so-called “progressive” agenda espoused by any candidate embracing the DLC/New Democrat agenda concerns me on a lot of levels.  I have real problems with some of  the elements of it, especially those regarding health care, education, housing, so-called “service” and the whole “married with children is the only acceptable lifestyle” stuff.  To be honest, the “tree hugging, let me share your pain, you poor suffering wretch” far left liberals make my ass itch, too.  That being said, overall, the Democratic approach to government is more appealing to me on the whole than the alternative; I just have an even bigger problem with having the elements I don’t like shoved down my throat without grease (yeah, another mixed metaphor, but, hey, what can I say, I like ‘em) or debate, let alone a vote.  Even a marginalized alternate party serves a purpose in our system of government.

And, if his groovy new Facebook Obacrophy of media manipulation is the only thing that Obama brings to the table, it’s not enough to justify somebody’s 3/4 billion dollar investment in him over Hillary.  It just makes me hate him more, and is likely to blow up in his face and bite him in the ass in the future.  Especially if he doesn’t get better, and, a little more subtle, at it.

Though I make no claims of being a financial wizard, or a political maven, even I can see that all is not right on Wall Street, D.C. where the heart and soul of our country is on life support, currently being administered to by second graders who want to be doctors when they grow up.  And, I’m sophisticated enough to recognize that a lot of what I read about our dire national situation is presented in the media by people representing the political party so far out of favor they have to look to bloviating blowhards for advice, or worse, can be made to appear to need to do so.  I get that.  However, in spite of all that, the forces pretending to represent the white-hatted good guys in this classic Adventures in Administration movie, armed with their heralded sky-high approval ratings for their poor man’s Dark Gable leading man, simply can’t mount enough of a stampede to disguise the fact that the dustcloud that follows them like Charlie Brown’s pal Pigpen’s is not the result of riding hard and strong over the dusty trail, but merely the wispy smoke trails from their “throw ‘em off the path,” hastily built, diversionary cookfire.  In other words, they got nothing.

Stalwart bastion of the Obamedia protection service, Salon Magazine, has an article by former Clinton labor secretary and Obacolyte, Robert Reich, in which he pitifully attempts to pooh-pooh rightwing claims that the Obamessiah himself is responsible for our economic woes by trying to lay them at the feet of the finger-pointers:

When it turns out that people like Lloyd Blankfein, the CEO of Goldman Sachs, who took home $68 million in 1997, was the only Wall Streeter in a meeting last September at the New York Federal Reserve to discuss the initial AIG bailout with Tim Geithner, then New York Fed chair, among others, at the very time Goldman was AIG’s largest trading partner, a distinct scent of self-dealing begins to emanate. When it turns out that Citigroup got a bailout deal last October far more generous than that given to any other distressed bank, when a top Citi executive was advising the Treasury and Fed, the scent increases. Goldman’s past CEO was treasury secretary at that time, by the way, and another former Goldman CEO was a top Citi official and also a former treasury secretary. I am not suggesting anything so crude as corruption. But could it be, given these tangled webs, that — innocently, unintentionally, perhaps even subconsciously — the entire bailout effort was premised on saving these companies rather than protecting the public? Or that the distinction between the two was lost, and still is?

Yet, Reich gleefully and disingenuously, ignores the fact that the people he’s defending his ObaMaster against are the people who funded his campaign.  Not only that, the central figure in Reich’s little morality play, Turbo Tax Timmy Geithner, tax cheat, (TTTG,tc)  has a family history of sorts with Barry Sutoro, and is currently employed as the Blameless One’s lapdog and whipping boy.  To point out that he may have colluded with the banksters against the public in ripping off the country on the other team’s watch is…well…stupid.

Why would anyone purporting to defend the Obama administration draw attention to the man quickly becoming the public face of its incompetence?  Especially when the author can’t even make it through to the end of his own piece without acknowledging at least some of the complicity of the Obama Drama Troupe?

The Wall Street and Republican media attack machine doesn’t know exactly what to make of this. The Wall Street Journal’s editorial page, along with CNBC, alternates between attacking Obama for bailing out Wall Street and excusing Wall Street’s excesses. But then again, Obama doesn’t seem to know exactly what to make of it either. He seems to vacillate as well — one moment scorning Wall Street, the next moment justifying further bailouts. I do hope he takes a firmer hand, drawing a clearer distinction and making a clearer connection between clearing up these financial balance sheets and helping average people. Otherwise, the next populist uprising will be born in this moneyed quagmire. It is here — within the muck that was created by AIG, Citigroup, Fannie and Freddie, other giant financial institutions, now in combination with the U.S. Treasury and Fed — that the public is most confused, bears its most serious scars, and is potentially most burdened in future years, by decisions still made in secret.

Of course AIG is, and has been, raping the nation with a bayonet-tipped, Black and Decker, turbo-powered dildo; so, too is Citigroup, Fannie, Freddie, Timmy, Barney, Benny, Obie, Larry, Curly and Moe.  And while gross negligence, inexperience, and incompetence are slightly less odious than thuggery, thievery, and trickery, when considered on as grand a scale as the one under discussion, “oops, did I do that?” becomes as insulting as it is improbable.

CBS News reports that TTTG,tc is, for some reason, single-handedly ripping off the country, given that he has not been bothered with putting together a staff.  Thus, the man in charge of fixing the potentially “catastrophic” economic problems we face is not only winging it, he’s “flying solo:”

For five weeks, Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner has battled the worst economic crisis in generations with no key deputies in place. That’s made for a rocky debut for the man President Barack Obama put in charge of addressing the financial crisis.

With an awkward first television appearance, a bank rescue plan that lacked promised specifics and two restructured bailouts that raised taxpayer risk, Geithner has failed to calm financial markets desperate for answers.

Critics say part of the problem is that Geithner is flying solo: Not one of his top 17 deputies has been named, let alone confirmed. And without senior leadership, lower-level Treasury employees can’t make decisions or represent the government in crucial conversations with banks and others.

His boss is on no firmer terra, either, what with pissing off visiting world leaders on his own turf while preparing to embark on an offensive into friendly enemy territory regardless of how diplomatically ill-equipped he has shown himself to be.  Yet, his uncanny ability to garner approval from the sheeple should see him through abroad as well as it does here, like when he shows his commitment to the people by gathering disparate forces resistant to hot-button issues like  healthcare reform, into one location, and breaks them up into study groups so they can explain to each other why they won’t be implementing any substantial changes to the current system any time soon.

Such is the charm, or strong arm, of the Spokesmodel-in-Chief, that even his staunchest critics couch even their legitimate gripes in hopeful appeals for a more palatibly flavored KoolAid, rather than risk the ire of his West Wing Astroturfing media storm troopers.  Even his stanchest defenders, rapidly becoming disillusioned, are more comfortable ascribing his shortcomings to everything but incompetence, let alone, deliberate deciet.  Such is the ferocity, skill and effectiveness of said blitzkriegers that their outrageous tactics hardly register a blip on the radar screen of public consciousness.

So, with stories of the Lightbringer’s administration’s dedication to truth being trumpeted far and wide, while questions of high level staff impropriety are whispered into the wind, and big, fat, hard to blow over, straw men are built as decoys to divert attention from the fact that pre-appointees are jumping ship like telepathic Titanic passengers, we are only afforded glimpses into the reality of our Dear Leader’s frustrations with the difficulties of presidentin’.  Only when overwhelmed to the point that he and the Missus have to break out and bust a move, or hop a jet or helicopter to someplace exotic like, the homeland of Roland Burris, remember him? do we get a sense of how difficult it is to read speeches from a TelePrompTer every day. The fact that his visits often coincide with other significant events, like the release of affidavits, is of no consequence.

Sure, presidentin’ is hard, George Bush told us that.  But, as his successor is proving beyond a doubt, presidentin’ is a lot easier when people are so busy watching the show, they’re not really paying attention to the 800 pound gorilla taking a dump in the middle of the room.

What if the Obama family dog isn’t a moose?  That’s what Michelle Obama wants to know.  What I’d like to know is, wtf does that mean?  Doesn’t the First Lady have multiple degrees?  Even if she did have to prove she was good enough to get into college, shouldn’t she have at least learned that a dog can never be a moose by the time she got out?  Okay, I’m being snitchy, (snarky bitchy) but, maybe Blackie O should think a bit more before she opens mouth and inserts foot.

The moose/dog question arises in an interview with People Magazine about the dog the President and his wife have been promising their poor, deprived children “for years” (according to Michelle herself).  And, the poor kids still aren’t going to get their pet until April Fool’s Day (the day the rest of us get our tax cuts, btw) at the earliest.  Mommie and Daddy Dearest haven’t yet even settled on a breed.

Though the Huxtables-in-Chief claim to have narrowed their potential choices for this so far mythical dog down to a decision between a Portuguese water dog and a Labradoodle, they’re already trying to name it.  I suggest Harvey, since so far it’s invisible, and a giant rabbit dog makes just as much sense as a moose dog, but the Addams Family has other (bad)  ideas:

“Oh, the names are really bad. I don’t even want to mention it, because there are names floating around and they’re bad,” Mrs. Obama says with a laugh. “You listen and you go – like, I think, Frank was one of them. Frank! Moose was another one of them. Moose. I said, well, what if the dog isn’t a moose? Moose. I’m like, no, come on, let’s work with the names a little bit.”

Them Obamas be so intelligent.  I told you she said a moose was a dog.  You thought I was just being mean, didn’t you?  That’ll teach you to doubt me.

I wouldn’t even be writing about the Obamas and their stupid non-dog if there was anything else in the news besides, The Speech That Saved The World And Cured Cancer.  Yeah, sure, there’s the Obama Wants A 634 Billion Dollar Down Payment On A 10 Year Unspecified Health Care Thingy, but, it’s unspecified so, what’s to talk about?  The 3 Trillion Dollar Budget That Ate the World, it’s supposed to come out of?  I’d rather talk about the pseudo dog.

I guess you’d have to expect the world to be all a-Twitter about a vague speech so powerful it could knock the “catastrophic” state of our economic “crisis” right off the front pages, even when no matter who says what, stocks are still down and people who keep getting laid off still can’t pay for their overpriced houses.  But that’s what happens when you give a State of the Union speech that’s not really a State of the Union speech and still honor the time tested tradition of schmoozing with the media before a State of the Union address, even if it isn’t one for real.

When this supposed time-honored tradition of having off the record, pre-speech gourmet spin-fests began exactly is anybody’s guess, though The Wahington Post claims that they date back to Clinton:

George W. Bush and Bill Clinton routinely had the anchors over for lunch on State of the Union day.

While all reports from “journalists” who attended, like George Stephanoupolis and Katie Couric agree that the purpose of these “just between us” gatherings is for the president to chew the fat informally and run his ideas up their flagpoles, the ground rules specify that the events can only be reported broadly, with no direct attribution allowed.  In other words, the president greases up his fluffers.

Such chatty get-togethers haven’t always been seen to be so acceptable, however.  At one time, any overture to the press by the president was met with skepticism and suspicion.  An April 12, 1989 Maureen Dowd column about the subject derisively questions George H. W. Bush’s motives for issuing such untrustworthy invitations.  But, then again, it is Maureen Dowd:

Some reporters say such private contacts give them additional insights. But many other journalists and media critics are skeptical, remembering the Camelot days when John F. Kennedy’s courtship of reporters seemed to turn many of them into cheerleaders, and the tense days when Lyndon B. Johnson tried to build support for the Vietnam war with intense, personal persuasion of the press corps.

In both cases, many journalists worried afterwards that they may have crossed the line from journalism to advocacy.

Ha, ha, ha!  Crossed the line?  Oh, MoDo, honey, that line has been completely erased by the Tickle Me President!  These guys, and gals, would sell their mothers into white slavery for a chance to lick this guy’s plate.  They can’t wait to write breathtaking exposes about his favorite movie and how his socks smell.  Rock stars can’t get as much tail as our Spokesmodel-in-Chief could get from any one of these “reporters” with just a wink and subtle head nod.

They’re not the only ones, either.  Even CNN’s ObaLover, Anderson Cooper, had to put aside his own desire to get him some ObaMan in order to ridicule those members of Congress who waited up to 12 hours to get an aisle seat for the Speechapalooza Tuesday night:

You wanna talk pathetic? How about a hotshot cable news yacker mocking a New York congressman for being excited about his President?

That’s the response of veteran Bronx Rep. Eliot Engel, who was ridiculed by CNN host Anderson Cooper on Tuesday night for staking out a choice aisle seat 12-1/2 hours in advance for President Obama’s address to Congress.

“It’s like waiting for, like, Madonna tickets or something. It was  … kind of pathetic,” Cooper snarked as legislators swarmed Obama after the speech for handshakes and autographs.

Brian Williams wrote about a September ‘07 George Bush lunch summons to the press which was markedly different in tone than the self-congratulatory love note he wrote about scoring a seat at the left hand of the ObaFather.  Wolf Blitzer’s take on his luncheon with W last year was pretty generic, even though the Houston Chronicle said there was a bomb threat at the White House that day.  The Weekly Standard said the man was psychotic.  But then, according to Fred Barnes whose version of an earlier SOTU luncheon with Bush in 2005 is recounted in his book “Who Gives A F*ck” (that’s not the real name, I just see no reason to promote Fred barnes’ book) Georgie Porgie wasn’t exactly happy to see them:

“Why do I have to go to this meeting?” Bush asks his communications director, Dan Bartlett. “It’s traditional,” Bartlett explains.

Nope, it seems this new Mutual Admiration Society Obama has going with his news hoochies is unique, and uniqely beneficial and powerful for all concerned.  He schmoozes, they swoon, everybody’s happy.  For the price of a lunch, or dinner for those whose pants he wants entree into, or an hour of face time with those ‘ho’s already in his clutches, and thus, obviously secure in their place in his heart, Obama merely has to ensure that the compliant members of his audience agree to do the Hokey Pokey every time he follows the “pause” direction in his script as he reads the words of the Cardboard Titty Groper aloud on TV, to ensure that the ObaLovers will do eveything in their power to see to it that his act always plays in Peoria.

Crisis, schmisis.

And you wonder why I’d rather write about the Mythical Moose Dog.