The Light: Hillary

There is much in the news about our current economic crisis right now, the mosque Imam Rauf wants to build near Ground Zero (on purpose), and Obama’s 274th vacation (okay, not really, but it seems like it).

But I’m not talking about any of that. Nope, I have some interesting little news tidbits for you.

First up, Rep. Maxine Water’s attorneys are irritated that she is still being investigated. Yes, they want the Ethics Committee to “Leave Maxine ALOONNNEEE!” They assert that since the formal probe is over, the Ethics Committee should knock it off. But as The Hill article indicates, they aren’t the boss of the Ethics Committee:

[snip] Unlike criminal proceedings, however, the ethics committee itself, not a judge, determines whether Waters’s legal arguments are accepted or dismissed. For that reason, it’s unlikely the panel will halt its activities after receiving the letter from Brand and Herman. [snip] (Click HERE to read the rest.)

So, there’s that. Perhaps it didn’t occur to them that Rep. Waters might have committed additional ethics violations. Just a thought.

Second up, and you’re going to love this, is Ed Schultz, of MSNBO and Air America fame, had himself a little “Mel Gibson” moment, as this NY Post article, “MSNBC’s Ed Schultz Goes Bonkers.” Just wait until you read why:

MSNBC talk show screamer Ed Schultz had a meltdown in the network’s 30 Rock newsroom, shouting at staff, “I’m going to torch this [bleep]ing place.”

The hot-tempered anchor of “The Ed Show” lost it during a phone call in the packed studio and slammed down the phone before exploding.

As astonished MSNBC staff members fell silent, Schultz glared around the room and yelled, “[Bleep]ers!”

A witness told us, “Ed was furious the network was running election-night promos and he wasn’t in them. He’d been arguing on the phone with marketing, then he slammed down the phone and exploded. It was like Mel Gibson had entered the newsroom.” [snip]

But wait – there’s more:

[snip] Our source added, “Schultz was told: ‘If you do that again, you are fired.’ He broke down crying.”

Sources say the hothead was pushed over the edge by MSNBC’s catering to bullying fellow anchor Keith Olbermann and its focus on golden girl Rachel Maddow. [snip]
(Click HERE to read the rest.)

Poor Ed – not feeling the love. Just breaks your heart for him that the MSNBO Execs love Keith and Rachel more, doesn’t it? Oh yeah, my heart bleeds for him.

Finally, did you know that the other name by which the Tea Party should be known is the KKK? Oh, yes, indeedy. Check out this OBC, I mean, ABC, report:

Did you catch that quote at the end? Apparently, Rev. Fauntroy didn’t since he justified his remarks with this explanation:

[snip]Fauntroy attempted to explain the comparison to white supremacists by saying that organizers behind the “Restoring Honor” rally are the same people who cut audio cables from a sound system the night before the historic March on Washington and the Rev. Martin Luther King Jr.’s “I Have a Dream” speech at the Lincoln Memorial. (Click HERE to read the rest.)

Well, that certainly makes it all better: Tea Party = White Supremacists. I mean, c’mon, who could possibly take offense at that connection? Never mind that it is completely false, but hey – you know, that’s all he meant by it. No big deal or anything.

Good grief. All because the Tea Party dared to hold a rally around the same time they are being compared to KKK members? I have to say it – Rev, Fauntroy completely missed the message Rev. Martin Luther King, Jr. was trying to impart. His son said it all – his father “would not want to limit voices.” So, why is Rev. Fauntroy attempting to do so with this incendiary speech? That’s what I would like to know.

I am sure there are more stories out there that we may have missed. Let’s have them!

Hey, you just might. I admit, I was surprised to see that I agreed with at least one opinion of theirs. But I did. Turns out, the JournoListers hate Keith Olbermann, too! I know, right??

Now, I have said before I used to love the guy, DVR’ed him every night. But, once he started with the raging misogyny against Hillary Clinton, even defending David Schuster for calling Chelsea a whore and Hillary a pimp, I knew I could not stomach him anymore. But then again, I wasn’t an Obama sycophant like the vast majority of the JournoListers are, and Olbermann is. So imagine my surprise when I read that was one of the reasons they hate him, too:

[snip] At issue was a segment Olbermann had run about Carrie Prejean, the former Miss California who stirred debate in 2009 when she defended traditional marriage.

Following the segment, the subject on Journolist was “I hate Keith Olbermann again,” and the members of the list let it rip.

The Nation’s Katha Pollitt began the group’s rant. “He and Michael Musto did this whole long riff about beauty contestant Carrie ‘opposite marriage’ Prejean’s breast implants, stupidity, breast implants, tacky clothes, earrings, breast implants. They went on and on about how she was ‘part plastic’ and pathetic. You’d think they were celibate vegans who spent their lives zen meditating. It was just a whole TV humiliation of her, and it made me feel sorry for her, which wasn’t easy,” Pollitt said.

Michael O’Hare, a professor at the University of California, Berkeley, said the segment was “about as funny as a rubber crutch. Odd when a reasonable person’s internal alarm doesn’t go off in a situation like that …’I’m going to ridicule a girl who’s obviously at her personal limits just trying to look conventionally pretty on national TV? What does that make me’?”

O’Hare even suggested friends stage an intervention for Olbermann. “If anyone on the list is a friend of Olbermann, friendship demands that you give him a head-up about this lapse,” he said.

Julian Zelizer, a Princeton professor and CNN contributor, said Olbermann’s root problem is his misogyny. “I can’t take him anytime. I think to write off his mysogyny (sic) as limited to Musto is just not accurate. That very much defined much of how he talked about Clinton as well as others.”

Zelizer was referring to a series of instances during the primary campaign between Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama when critics from both sides of the aisle criticized Olbermann for allegedly sexist treatment towards Hillary. Olbermann was forced to apologize. [snip]

Click here to read the rest.

Incredible, isn’t it? A number of these folks really get it about Olbermann, and his blatant misogyny. No one was more surprised than I was, especially given the level of misogyny leveled at Hillary Clinton and Sarah Palin by many on the left.

But still, Olbermann had some supporters, like David Roberts, who appreciated his getting out the liberal news to the masses, so there is that. But that is not so surprising.

And while I am on the whole JournoList thing again, Tucker Carlson, the Editor in Chief of Daily Caller has written a follow-up letter to address the expose of Journolist. He writes about the two arguments currently being used to justify what these journalists did, and some claims that they are making. Specifically, he wrote:

[snip]The response hasn’t been all that furious, actually, probably because there isn’t much for the exposed members of Journolist to say. We caught them. They’re ashamed. The wise ones are waiting for the tempest to pass.

There have, however, been two lines of argument that we probably ought to respond to, if only because they may harden into received wisdom if we don’t. The first is that our pieces have proved only that liberal journalists have liberal views, and that’s hardly news.

To be clear: We’re not contesting the right of anyone, journalist or not, to have political opinions. (I, for one, have made a pretty good living expressing mine.) What we object to is partisanship, which is by its nature dishonest, a species of intellectual corruption. Again and again, we discovered members of Journolist working to coordinate talking points on behalf of Democratic politicians, principally Barack Obama. That is not journalism, and those who engage in it are not journalists. They should stop pretending to be. The news organizations they work for should stop pretending, too.

The second line of attack we’ve encountered since we began the series is familiar to anyone who has ever published a piece whose subject didn’t like the finished product: “You quoted me out of context!”

The short answer is, no we didn’t. I edited the first four stories myself, and I can say that our reporter Jonathan Strong is as meticulous and fair as anyone I have worked with. [snip]

Click here to read the rest of the letter by Carlson.

I recommend reading the entire series at Daily Caller. It is certainly informative, though the piece about Keith Olbermann cannot help but make me smile. He SO deserves to receive this disdain by some of the very elite of whom he seems to count himself. Teehee! It couldn’t have happened to a more deserving fellow. To quote Jeremiah Wright, “the chickens have come home to roost!”

And how.

The Hopium Haze of Obama’s followers? Well, if Jon Stewart is an example, I’d have to say yes. Larry Johnson finally got me to start watching Stewart again after a long hiatus. The hiatus began when Stewart jumped on the Obama Sycophant Bandwagon. I was very disappointed that Stewart went that route, but he did.

I might add, after the big 18 minute speech, we can also add Chris Matthews, Keith Olbermann, and Howard Fineman to the list of people whose Obama-fog is being lifted. That’s quite a trifecta, and in large part due to the Obama speech about how we would deal with this devastating oil spill, all 18 minutes, which apparently lacked specificity. Just ask Olbermann. Wow, who even knew this was possible?

But to be fair, Stewart’s rehab back into the Reality-based community started earlier than the MSNBC Trifecta, not waiting for the speechifying of the Flawed Analogy Maker in Chief. At least from what I have seen in clips. But when I saw this on Tuesday night, I admit, I was stunned:

Holy moley – it’s as if this BP spill has finally broken through all of the Kool Aide induced amnesia, and some folks are finally starting to put together the pieces like we did during the primaries. Though Stewart missed one – that Obama as president also supports spying on American citizens. But other than that, it was as if Stewart finally decided to look at all of the things we had been screaming about in 2008 and 2009. Of course, he had to have the obligatory dig at Sarah Palin. We can’t have it all be about how hoodwinked the Obots were by Obama or else their heads might explode, so Stewart used the favorite punching bag of the Democrats, Sarah Palin, as a way to reduce tension in their brains. Whatever. Maybe he’ll get over that someday.

It should be interesting to see how Stewart responds to Obama’s Big Gulf Oil speech on Wednesday night’s show. If Tuesday night is any indication, Stewart may have finally gotten it. Perhaps he’ll report on the Safety Award the Obama Administration gave to the Deepwater Horizon, even though the Bush Administration gave it citations, or the lack of federal inspections, or that Obama only has 20 minutes scheduled for his big meeting with the BP Oil Execs (and, WTH with that??), or even why in the world Obama is still kowtowing to the unions and not waiving the Jones Act so other countries can come HELP US with this spill? Will more members of the MSM start to put these all together, or just leave it to a few sites while they continue to protect the Obama Presidency (how’s that working out for you now, Chris Matthews?)? Time will tell, and soon enough…

So, thanks, Larry, for helping me to go back to “The Daily Show.” Maybe there is some hope after all, you think?

Tea partiers have pundits and politicians heads spinning. The movement keeps growing. The defy description or easy characterization. First insulted with the sexual slur “teabaggers,” called racist, extremist, angry white men and every other nasty name in the book, recent polling has determined they are quite representative of American demographics, many are well educated and a plurality believe their taxes are fair. A majority of them are women and now it is clear that the movement contains at least 40% Independents and Democrats.

Naturally the race baiters, race hustlers and sycophants to the current administration are frustrated. Their heads really ought to explode when they watch this video. Please enjoy some tea party folk being interviewed at these protests*…since the MSM et al are so busy tellin you there are no black Americans participating in these rallies…

I wonder what the exploding heads will say now.

Chat away.

**********
* H/T Hot Air for finding the video.

* Bumped Up *

For some folks at MSNBC? Seems like it, given this recent departure. Craig Crawford, an MSNBC mainstay, has quit the network, even leaving before his contract was out. Wait until you read why that is in this article, MSNBC Political Analyst Craig Crawford Has Left the Network – In A Very Public Way. (Photo by Terry Ballard)

It confirms what many of us have been saying for a while:

Writing on his blog at CQPolitics.com, Crawford says he has found the network “unrewarding for me,” – and expands on his reason for leaving in a comment to Mediaite.

Crawford last appeared on MSNBC on February 5, as a guest on Countdown with Keith Olbermann, where he regularly appeared (according to TV Eyes). The blog post came exactly one month after that appearance. Crawford wrote:

Three months short of my current contract I sent the following to the boss, Phil Griffin: “Phil, Just wanted to give you the heads up that my situation with MSNBC has become so unrewarding for me that I’ve decided to move on. — Craig”

But he really expanded on the reasoning in the comments:

i simply could not any longer endure being a cartoon player for lefty games, just gotta move on to higher ground even if there’s no oxygen

i have never and never will forgive Chris for calling me a racist after the West Virginia primary (the last time I will ever go on air with him). Probably should have resigned then and there, but better late than never.

“Cartoon character for lefty games”?? Holy smokes! Tell us how you really feel, Craig:

We asked Crawford what he was referring to regarding Chris Matthews, and to expand on why he left the network. He responded by email:

I haven’t felt like a good fit for MSNBC since the presidential campaign, and the hard turn toward point-of-view programming. No particular event brought this on, just my desire to try other outlets and have more fun. As far as Chris is concerned, on Morning Joe after the West Virginia primary he accused me of always defending Clinton and what he claimed to be her racially motivated campaigning. That’s the problem. Trying to be fair became seen as bias in the new thinking over there. But I do wish my many pals at MSNBC nothing but good things.

This appears to be that incident from Morning Joe.

Dang, Craig, maybe you could have spoken up a bit more back then, giving it back to Tingly Leg that Hillary ISN’T racist, and for Tingles to claim she is, and calling you a racist, too, was nothing short of reprehensible and slanderous? Just asking. So, tell us more:

The decision by a Countdown regular to leave MSNBC because of his the way he perceives the network is a notable one. Although Crawford isn’t purely left-wing, he is a commentator that represents the left perspective. His exit, and his reasoning, show some level of discontent among those who may be politically on the same team at MSNBC.

Crawford says on his blog he will be on Fox & Friends as a guest on Monday, although FNC says he won’t be. He also writes in the comments that he is a “free agent.”

> Update: Crawford took down the F&F booking info shortly after publication.

Some interesting comments at both Craig’s blog, and at Mediaite about Craig’s decision. Many people support him, but a number of MSNBO viewers attack him for going to “Fox and Friends.” Now there’s a surprise.

It is mighty interesting that Crawford has departed the network before his contract was up, and especially the reasons why. I reckon it is better late than never. Oh, no, wait – because he colluded in MSNBC becoming MSNBO, participated in Hillary-bashing even if it was in staying silent in the face of blatant falsehoods about her from other commentators. And he did participate in their “lefty games.” Now, we are stuck with Obama wrecking our country. But, hey – if things keep going this way, there will be fewer “journalists” willing to make Obama’s presidency a success, like Good Ol’ Chris Matthews. I guess that’s something.

Welcome to the Kool Aide Free zone, also free of Hopium smoke. Glad you made it out, Craig.

And Olbermann’s response to him. Now you know I used to watch both Keith Olbermann and Jon Stewart religiously. I’m not about to start watching Olbermann again, but after the mocking Jon Stewart did of Olbermann, I may just have to start watching “The Daily Show” again. He’s been on fire recently.

The other night, Stewart went after Olbermann for his baseless attacks on Scott Brown, the new US Senator from the Commonwealth of Massachusetts (see, I know how to spell it, even without spell-check! Ahem.). It was absolutely priceless, and is continued within Olbermann’s response to Stewart below:

Yeah, I think there is one person who was funny in that clip, and it sure wasn’t Olbermann.

Stewart gave Olbermann a couple of points, but when someone uses as a reference a video clip (a Brown rally) that has been discredited, yet still insists on making the point with no context (that what was shouted off camera related to a case on which Coakley worked), it is demonstrative of some of the hoops Olbermann will jump through to attack someone. It is disingenuous at best, but that is what we have come to expect from Olbermann. Bluster, innuendo, and attacks based on the thinnest of inferences. I mean, really, for Olbermann, of all people, to attack ANYONE else for being sexist, is just, well, laughable. Go back to the 2008 Primary campaign on just about any night, but this one in particular is pretty indicative:

Olbermann was discussing the election with Newsweek’s Howard Fineman, a frequent guest. They topic was, how can a winner finally be determined in this never-ending Democratic race for the nomination? Of course, the assumption was that it was Clinton that should be shown the door (despite clearly still earning her spot in the race thanks to, um, voters). Fineman said that, all the delegate math aside, ultimately it was going to take “some adults somewhere in the Democratic party to step in and stop this thing, like a referee in a fight that could go on for thirty rounds. Those are the super, super, super delegates who are going to have to decide this.”

Said Olbermann: “Right. Somebody who can take her into a room and only he comes out.”

Now, WHO’S sexist, exactly, Keith? Yeah, uh huh – I’ll give you a hint. It ain’t Scott Brown.

And since Jon Stewart mentioned John Edwards, I just had to see what he said about him. Here it is – a newsflash for “idiots”:

Well, I certainly cannot disagree with Stewart’s assessment of those who did NOT know this child really was Edwards, all protests aside.

Yep, I may just have to start watching The Daily Show again if he keeps going this way. I guess people really ARE starting to wake up! And about damn time, too…

Last night, Hannity of FOX News had two female panelists, both conservatives, discussing Sarah Palin’s new book, her great success selling 300,000 copies the first day and the derangement syndrome of the left in trashing her and calling her “dangerous.” Obama’s campaign arm, Organizing for America, is looking to raise $500,000 to combat this “dangerous” woman.

I agree that the debasing attacks on the former Governor are ridiculous. Hannity just conducted an interview with Palin which brought him huge ratings. He was respectful to her and I’m sure the principles she trumpets are similar to his own. That is fine. What is not fine is the nonsense he spewed with his panel as they all got fired up defending Sarah Palin. Hannity made the remark that you can bash a conservative woman all you want – but no one would touch a liberal woman. He basically said if you’re Hillary Clinton, you’re safe from this kind of treatment.

Well, Sean, if you’re reading this – here is a little refresher course on what the left did to Hillary in 2008. And by the way, you and your right wing cronies taught them well with the fifteen years of Hillary bashing she and we have had to put up with. Here are a few examples…

“A Super Delegate needs to take her into a room and only he comes out, that kind of scenario.” ( Keith Olbermann, MSNBC)

“The only reason she was elected to the Senate is that people felt sorry for her because of her husband.” (Chris Matthews, MSNBC)

“When she is on camera, I involuntarily cross my legs. She’s castrating, overbearing and scary.” (Tucker Carlson, MSNBC)

“Doesn’t it seem like the Clinton’s are pimping their daughter Chelsea out in some weird way?” (David Shuster, MSNBC)

“They fined CBS a million dollars for Janet Jackson’s nipple. Just think what they could get for Hillary Clinton’s cunt.” (Bill Maher, HBO, Real Time with Bill Maher)

“If she had any dignity, she’d just bow out.” (Jonathan Alter, Newsweek)

“Some women deserve to be called bitches.” (Castellanos, CNN)

“She’s never going to get out of our faces. … She’s like some hellish housewife who has seen something that she really, really wants and won’t stop nagging you about it until finally you say, fine, take it, be the damn president, just leave me alone.” (Leon Wieseltier, literary editor, The New Republic)

“She’s an aging, resentful female.” “She’s a ludicrous embarrassment.” (Christopher Hitchens, Slate, MSNBC)

“Some find that she makes their skin crawl. Some run screaming from the room. And some want to drink a gallon of rat poison while lying across a railroad track.” (columnist Steve Chapman, Chicago Tribune)

“She’s the most secretive politician in America today.” (David Plouffe, Obama campaign)

“We don’t want to have to watch a woman grow old in the White House….She’s got a testicle lockbox.” (Rush Limbaugh)

“Someone needs to go there and take her out behind the barn.” (Pete Snyder, FOX)

“It cries.” (Glenn Beck, FOX)

“When Barack Obama speaks, men hear “Take off for the future.” And when Hillary Clinton speaks men hear, “Take out the garbage.” She does register with married men, like a small worm boring through the brain.” (Marc Rudov, FOX News)

“She is a stranger to consistency, sincerity and (at a guess) oral sex…” (Bob Ellis, ABC Unleashed)

“Without nepotism, Hillary would be running for the president of Vassar.” (Maureen Dowd, NY Times)

“…when I see her again, all my — all the cootie vibes sort of resurrect themselves…I’m sorry. I must represent a lot of people… I actually find her positions appealing in many ways. I just can’t stand her.” (Andrew Sullivan, Chris Matthews Show)

Readers, please feel free to add your own.

You see, Mr. Hannity, there are several big reasons why Sarah Palin said she would love to sit down with Hillary Clinton for a cup of coffee. Those two ladies have a lot to commiserate about. They were both trashed by the left.

The majority of the comments above came from the liberal media. This was but a mere fraction of the daily filth spewed by the likes of these arrogant cowards. Never mind the shameful General T. McPeak who said “Hillary is not fit to lay a wreath at the tomb of the unknown soldier,” or some of the horrid, betraying comments made by the backstabbing elite in her own party. Further, the daily commentary from the likes of The Huffington Post, Daily Kos and so many lefty blogs who bashed Hillary, the more qualified candidate, in favor of a brand name with no experience seems to have escaped Mr. Hannity’s attention as well.

I’m sure Sarah Palin has a great deal of admiration for Hillary – her toughness, her resilience and her body of knowledge. What a shame, Mr. Hannity, that you cannot see fit to extend the same courtesy to a woman clearly deserving of your respect – even if your political philosophies differ.

This is the big problem with punditry from either side. I appreciate that Mr. Hannity has been brave enough to cover topics others news stations will not. I also appreciate that FOX News is the only network daring to hold President Obama’s feet to the fire on policy, rather than cheerleading. While I may not agree with the conservative bent of the network, I do at least get some news rather than pillow fluffing. Hannity’s show clearly is more opinion than anything else, but when he ignores the experience of Hillary Clinton and the insults her supporters had to put up with in the campaign last year – his credibility takes a nosedive.

It was interesting that just before he mentioned her name, he paused for a moment – he knew he was lying about her, saying liberals gave Hillary a pass – but he just couldn’t help himself. Integrity is not selective.

It is said that character is what you do when nobody’s looking. Perhaps Mr. Hannity thought no one would be paying attention. Well, I was looking and his character last night was found wanting.

From Politico: Wilson wins?

The controversy over Republican Rep. Joe Wilson’s shouting out “You Lie!” at the President over his claim that illegal immigrants wouldn’t benefit from health-care reform apparently sparked some reconsideration of the relevant language.

“We really thought we’d resolved this question of people who are here illegally, but as we reflected on the President’s speech last night we wanted to go back and drill down again,” said Senator Kent Conrad, one of the Democrats in the talks after a meeting Thursday morning. Baucus later that afternoon said the group would put in a proof of citizenship requirement to participate in the new health exchange — a move likely to inflame the left.

And from FOX: Rep. Wilson Outburst Leads Senate Dems to Close Loophole in Health Reform Bill

In the Senate, Democrats in the so called “Gang of Six,” began moving quickly to close the loophole Rep. Joe Wilson helped bring to light with his outburst during President Obama’s address to a joint session of Congress on Wednesday night.

House Republican Minority Leader John Boehner amplified the complaint that without proof of citizenship, illegal immigrants could be insured.

“There were two opportunities for House Democrats to make clear that illegal immigrants wouldn’t be covered by putting in requirements to show citizenships,” he said. “Both of those amendments were, in fact, rejected.”

In the Senate, Democrats in the so called “Gang of Six,” a group of bipartisan senators on the Senate Finance Committee which is the last panel yet to release its bill, began moving quickly to close the loophole that Wilson helped bring greater attention to.

“We absolutely assure that those who are here illegally would not get the benefit of any of these initiatives,” Sen. Kent Conrad said.

So, I guess Joe didn’t yell this out just because he’s a junky hooped up on No-Doz? (yes, someone really tried to make a scandal out of this…)

I wonder when Joe Wilson is going to get an apology? For sure Olbermann owes him one. (I didn’t watch the video…no need to.)

And Shuster, too. “The fact that Joe Wilson is from South Carolina…it strikes a lot of people as awfully close to the idea that maybe there was some sort of racist or bigoted element there.”

Really Shuster? It couldn’t just be that Obama was lying or misleading?

Oh, and in case you were wondering what the Republicans were waving around during Obama’s speech - they were waving around the 30+ health care reform bills that they have come up with. You know, the ideas that Obama keeps saying his opponents “don’t have”.

Why use the props? “To say in a quiet and respectful way, ‘Here are our ideas,’ ” Price says. “To say to the president, ‘You’re not being honest with the American people when you say that there haven’t been ideas put forward, and that you’ve listened to them, because you haven’t.’ ”

This was a recent blurb at memeorandum.com regarding the big Cheney interview on Sunday by Chris Wallace of Fox News: Andrew Sullivan / The Daily Dish: Chris Wallace, A Teenage Girl Interviewing The Jonas Brothers — Here are the tough and penetrating questions asked by Chris Wallace of a man whose critics accuse of war crimes, and whose administration presided over the death of over a hundred prisoners in interrogation …

Now, you know I can’t abide Andrew Sullivan for a bunch of reasons. Hence my unwillingness to give him any traffic at all by even going to his site and re-posting his article here. But when I saw this blurb, and Sullivan’s arrogant, and sexist, title, I just couldn’t resist. I almost cracked up laughing that he, of all people, is getting his nose out of joint about the questions Cheney was asked in this interview. Apparently, he has forgotten just about every interview Obama has had since he began his campaign, and he was running for the highest office in the land! Cheney is not running for anything (and I hasten to add, I have absolutely NO love lost for Dick Cheney. I appreciate that he supports his daughter, her partner, and their child, but that’s about it).

Perhaps Sullivan forgot this interview by Charlie Gibson of ABC News, an outlet that uses OUR airwaves for FREE, of Obama during the campaign:

How does it feel to break a glass ceiling?
How does it feel to “win”?
How does your family feel about your “winning” breaking a glass ceiling?
Who will be your VP?
Should you choose Hillary Clinton as VP?
Will you accept public finance?
What issues is your campaign about?
Will you visit Iraq?
Will you debate McCain at a town hall?
What did you think of your competitor’s [Clinton] speech?

Oooooohhhhh - how di Obama withstand those WITHERING questions?

Or more recently, how about Brian Williams and his day at the White House, one that culminated in THIS moment:

Seriously?? He really wants to go down this road of how political interviewees are handled? How about this clip with George Stephanapoulous:

Heck, George even supplies the correct verbiage to Obama! And may I just say one more time - HOW was this man portrayed as being ELOQUENT??? Holy smokes.

Okay, one more to prove the point, if you can stomach watching Keith Olberman:

Oh, yes - that is some HARD-HITTING “journalism” there for Mr. Sullivan. Get one of the two most biased for Obama show hosts (I refuse to call Olberman a “journalist”) to lob softballs for Obama to trash the Republicans.

By the way, remember Obama’s appearance with McCain at Ground Zero? Yeah, so dignified:

I digress. Back to the whole hard-hitting journalism thing: At least Steve Kroft pointed out Obama’s inappropriate laughter here:

But he did so with a smile, and accepted that lame-ass excuse from Obama as to why he was laughing while indicating how he was going to use our money to bail out the UAW even though Americans were STRONGLY opposed to that idea.

Sullivan complains about the questions asked Cheney? Maybe he should have been so worried about the questions asked of Obama…

The topic of torture and enhanced interrogation has been a hot topic in our country for quite a while. The opinions on what constitutes torture vastly differ, as we have seen in the comments section on this blog. The moral standards on what constitutes right and wrong for torture vastly differ, as they do on abortion and the death penalty.

Some writers on this blog are absolutely against any type of enhanced interrogation techniques and consider water boarding torture. Others not. But what I find utterly unbelievable is an argument in support of air raids, that kill hundreds of innocent civilians, by people who are against water boarding the mastermind of 9/11.

Ellis Henican just makes absolutely no sense to me with this argument. Waterboarding is a big moral failure, but air raids are ok?

U.S.-led airstrikes killed dozens of Afghans, including women and children, the Red Cross said on Wednesday, appearing to confirm an incident that could overshadow a meeting between U.S. and Afghan leaders.

Rohul Amin, governor of Western Farah province where the bombing took place during a battle on Monday and Tuesday, said he feared 100 civilians had been killed. Provincial police chief Abdul Ghafar Watandar said the death toll could be even higher.

Obama ordered these attacks, with the knowledge that innocent civilians could be killed, but the Left argues that Bush is basically a war criminal for water boarding a handful of terrorist suspects, in order to save American lives.

Keith Olbermann has led the charge for the left, screaming for the prosecution of Bush and Cheney for the waterboarding of KSM, a terrorist, and matermind responsible for the deaths of 3000 Americans.

Will KO call for the prosecution of Obama for the bombing and killing of hundreds of innocent women and children because he had a tip that there might be a terrorist living in the area?

“Mr Obama has increased the rate of drone attacks operated by the CIA after his predecessor George W Bush approved a previous escalation last summer.

The agency has carried out at least 16 Predator strikes in Pakistan in the first four months of this year, compared with 36 strikes in 2008, killing about 161 people since Mr Obama was inaugurated on Jan 20.”

I can’t wrap my head around this twisted logic. How is air raid bombing, killing hundreds of innocent people, more acceptable than water boarding a few terrorists in order to save hundreds/thousands of lives?

I can’t fathom the idea that ANYONE would condone air bombing and killing innocent people instead of using enhanced interrogation techniques on suspects, in order to find Taliban leaders, and uncover potential future terrorist plots. It just doesn’t register in my brain.

“Steve Coll, president of the New America Foundation said the Obama administration decided to intensify the attacks in the hope they would reach the top of al-Qaeda quickly.”

I find it so much more humane to interrogate a few suspected terrorists, seeking information as to the location and plans of terrorist leaders, than to drop bombs from the air. Obama said, “America lost its ‘moral bearings’ over its torture of terrorist suspects.”

Obama said water boarding violated American ideals and was not appropriate even if it made getting information from suspected enemies easier. Pressed on whether that meant former President George W. Bush’s administration had sanctioned torture, Obama said:

“I believe that waterboarding was torture. And I think that … whatever legal rationales were used, it was a mistake.”

“We could have gotten this information in other ways, in ways that were consistent with our values, in ways that were consistent with who we are,” he said. “In some cases it may be harder, but part of what makes us, I think, still a beacon to the world is that we are willing to hold true to our ideals even when it’s hard, not just when it’s easy.”

“Ultimately I will be judged as commander-in-chief on how safe I’m keeping the American people,” he said. “So I will do whatever is required to keep the American people safe. But I am absolutely convinced that the best way I can do that is to make sure that we are not taking short cuts that undermine who we are.”

Air raid bombings aren’t considered short cuts? Killings hundreds of innocent civilians doesn’t undermine who we are? How is killing innocent civilians going to make us safer, and make us a beacon in the world?

From Pajamas Media:

I’ve raised this example twice now. But, really, how is waterboarding a known detained terrorist like Khalid Sheik Mohammed (who confessed to cutting off Daniel Pearl’s head [with two knives after the first went dull], and to planning the 9/11 mass murder) at Guantanamo considered a war crime, while blowing up with a Predator drone suspected terrorists (and all those, including women and children, in their general vicinity) not?

The latter victims were not given habeas corpus, and Miranda rights, and there is a greater doubt about their guilt from 10,000 feet than is the case with the much studied psychopath KSM in Guantanamo. Most suspects would prefer to be water-boarded than vaporized? Ditto the Somali pirates, whose heads were blown off during their apparent attempts at negotiating extortion, again a bit more drastic than waterboarding. Would a future President Sanford or Giuliani be right to bring charges against those in the Obama administration who green lighted assassinations of suspected terrorists—something akin to the Phoenix program in Vietnam?

Allahpundit from Hot Air replied: It’s the Jon Stewart/Harry Truman dilemma again: When is it wrong to inflict suffering on captives in hopes of averting greater suffering later? Why do we need a Nuremberg for waterboarders but not one for drone operators who occasionally incinerate Pakistani families based on bad intel?

This post is not about what tactics are right or wrong in a war. This is about the sheer hypocritical partisan politicizing of a war.

Obama attacked Bush and Cheney and used the liberal anger over how they handled the war to win an election. He has even opened Bush and Cheney up to prosecution by releasing the memos.

But how can you be against one method of fighting a war (the waterboarding of three terrorists), but utilize another (drone air raid bombings) which kills innocent civilians? I just don’t see how you can, unless you are just playing politics.

I just don’t know how you can place more value in the life of one or two terrorists, than the lives of hundreds of civilians, American, Pakistani, or Afghani.