media lizzy & friends

Yes, I remember I have a blog.  Oodles of stuff happening in Lizzy-land. Good stuff. Great stuff, actually.  And in the coming weeks, I will make a couple of reader-friendly announcements. On the writing front. Nothing personal – because that’s well, personal – but, for those who can’t handle ambiguity and are wont to gossip – I’ve got some 360-degree happiness going on.  That’s all.

In the meantime, pardon the dust around here as some content is loaded in and announcements are made. In the meantime, be sure to follow me on Twitter. That is officially my happy place online for work and such.  @MediaLizzy!

—Media Lizzy

UPDATED: Do you support Obama’s approach to foreign policy? VOTE HERE.

We’ll always have Berlin…. the days when it was all “Hope” and “Change” and governance was just a word.  The cheering throngs, the coordinated signs, the events and emotions and condescension palpable.  If the atheists could suspend their values for a moment, surely they too would acknowledge that last summer – in Berlin – that from the hereafter, Leni Riefenstahl looked upon Obama’s European debut with great pride in his stagecraft. (something she knew a little about after filming “Triumph of the Will“)

Okay, maybe not.  And certainly not now.  President Barack Obama was for many Americans and Europeans and Africans a welcome change from the presidency of George W.  Bush.  After all, War is hard.  No one likes to be inconvenienced by terrorism, bombings, kidnappings, beheadings, hijackings, and fights with OPEC over oil, and with Ghaddafi over their stash of WMDs, and Iran over nukes, and seriously – who isn’t tired of the Palestinian problem?  Like, Hamas? It’s like – we’re tired, man.  We want some hope-n-change.

War is hard.  Of course, to be honest – it’s not like America – or George W. Bush picked this fight.  Poverty is not a motivator for Usama bin Ladin.  He’s got a few hundred million dollars in liquid assets.  I don’t think he’s losing sleep over Bernie Madoff’s Ponzi scheme.  And he’s probably laughing that President Obama actually believes there are “two” Talibans.  One that we can work with, and one we can’t.  My guess is that the ones we can work with were the spectators in the soccer stadiumback in the pre-9/11 days when they beheaded women and stoned them to death for having an ankle exposed.  But hey, they were just watching.  So, compared to the guy with the machete – they were pretty moderate. 

Anyway, that’s an uncomfortable topic.  Let’s refocus on Europe for a minute.  July 2008 – Obama was gaining steam, kicking Hillary Clinton’s arse, and readying to take the world by storm.  Or, as Der Spiegel put it: “People of the world, Look at me.”

Obama began his speech with sentences about what he claimed not to be — at least for this one Thursday in Berlin: He was neither appearing here as a candidate nor a typical American. Instead, he claimed to be a “proud citizen of the United States and a fellow citizen of the world.” He added: “I know that I don’t look like the Americans who’ve previously spoken in this great city. My mother was born in the heartland of America, but my father grew up herding goats in Kenya. His father, my grandfather, was a cook for the British.” It’s a life story that would not have been possible without the freedom of the West.

And then he elegantly turned to the theme of Berlin. He had been heavily criticized for only wanting nice TV images in front of the Brandenburg Gate. In Obama’s words, however, the choice of the city seemed completely logical. “This city, of all cities, knows the dream of freedom. … In the darkest hours, the people of Berlin kept the flame of hope burning. The people of Berlin refused to give up,” he said. Obama called upon the people of the world to look at this city. That bit was lifted from Ernst Reuter, the former mayor of West Berlin, but it was a good quote to steal — and it applies well to trans-Atlantic relations. “Berlin is where Germans and Americans learned to work together and trust each other.”

Trust.  Hmm.  Trust implies the relationship between America & Germany – or America and any of her European allies is special.  That was then. 

This is now:

Further confirmation that the Obama administration may be downgrading the Special Relationship with Great Britain is provided by a State Department official in an interview with the Sunday Telegraph.

Asked about the underwhelming reception given to Gordon Brown when he visited the White House last week, the “furious” unnamed official, who was involved in the planning of the meeting, declared:

There’s nothing special about Britain. You’re just the same as the other 190 countries in the world. You shouldn’t expect special treatment.

Alrighty then.  So, the Brits can basically stuff it.  Nothing special.  My guess is that France and Germany should not expect anything different.  This kind of commentary won’t go unnoticed at the G20 meeting in London next month.  However – don’t expect Obama to be snubbed.  Instead, expect him to be showered with the good graces of his hosts.  Because PM Gordon Brown isn’t a tacky fellow.  To the contrary – he is an extraordinary man who will simply outclass Obama at every turn.

PM Brown’s visit was the icing on a rancid cake in my opinion.  What cake?  Ah, well – after the terrorist attacks on September 11, 2001 – then PM Tony Blair offered a bust of Winston Churchill as a loan, as a sign of solidarity with the American people and our President.  It remained in the Oval Office for the duration of W’s tenure as President. 

From the Times: (updated for those requesting additional data)

Shortly before Mr Obama’s inauguration, the Jacob Epstein bronze is understood to have been removed and placed in storage by White House curators. Recent photographs show that a bust of Abraham Lincoln, one of the new President’s heroes, has been moved to take the position once occupied by Churchill.

Obama summoned an official from the British embassy to retrieve the artifact.  No war on terror.  No acknowledgement of the gracious spirit in which it was given.  And then, when it came time for the current Prime Minister to visit… things got even uglier.  

Protocol.  Manners.  Etiquette.  These are things that matter.  They communicate who we are as a people to our counterparts across the globe.  The White House protocol folks, the State Department protocolfolks, and the masters of protocol (in my not so humble, used to be one of them snarky way) at Military District Washington, MDW, would never advise, under any circumstance the wholesale tackiness that was to ensue.   

MDW manages the arrivals ceremonies – at Andrews Air Force Base. At the White House.  At the Pentagon.  And pretty much anywhere else inside the National Capitol Region.  They oversee the Presidential Honor Guard, a joint-service group that act as the President’s Official Escort.  And in some ways, they act as his proxy.  They also manage every burial at Arlington National Ceremony.  They are the faces you see in solemnity presiding over state funerals – think Reagan, Kennedy, Ford.  Those folks KNOW protocol. It is their job.  They are dedicated and assigned full time to protocol on behalf of the State.  And they are the President’s own for Inaugurals… these folks have been doing this since the beginning.  The Old Guard, the 3rd ID at Fort Myer – well, they harken back to General George Washington’s days.  So, it’s not like they – nor any of the protocol professionals that advise a president – are new at their jobs.

When PM Brown arrived, there was no presence.  No arrival at Andrews AFB.  No arrival on the South Lawn at the White House.  No State & Territorial flags with a cordon along the White House driveway.  No formal press conference in the Rose Garden, or the East Room.  No State Dinner.  Nothing.  Nada. Zilch. 

Not special enough I guess.  But it didn’t end there.  Presidents and their counterparts offfer gifts to each other.  Thoughtful, meaningful gifts are exchanged to symbolize the “special relationship” between our people.  President Obama must not agree because he gave PM Gordon Brown a boxed set of 25 DVDs showcasing American classic films.  No, I am not kidding.

From the Daily Mail:

As he headed back home from Washington, Gordon Brown must have rummaged through his party bag with disappointment.

Because all he got was a set of DVDs. Barack Obama, the leader of the world’s richest country, gave the Prime Minister a box set of 25 classic American films – a gift about as exciting as a pair of socks.

While the Daily Mail was a bit cheeky in their response, Toby Harnden of the Telegraph was straightforward in his piece “No need for DVDs: Gifts Obama Could Have Given Gordon Brown.”  My favorite on his list:

A pewter flagonfrom the site of Jamestown, the first permanent English settlement in North America.  The flagon, which dates from before 1620, bears the initials P, R and E on its thumbrest, may have belonged to Richard and Elizabeth Pierce, who arrived at Jamestown on board “a faire ship, the Neptune”, which set sail from London in 1618.

While perhaps not as grand, I would certainly have taken a quick drive from my new house out to my old neighborhood and asked for advice on behalf of the stumbling Obama White House from Civil Rights icon Myrlie Evers, widow of Medgar Evers who was slain on his own doorstep.  Certainly, Mr. Obama could have found something from the Civil Rights era… or anything on Mr. Harnden’s list.  But DVDs?  It is truly unconscionable.

What did PM Gordon Brown offer?  Well, in addition to a first edition seven-volume set biography of Winston Churchill (ahem) he brought a penholder carved from the Oak timbers of the HMS Gannet. Why is that significant?  Well, the Gannet participated in anti-slavery missions, and was the sister ship to the HMS Resolute, from which two desks were carved.  One sits in Queen Elizabeth’s study, the other resides in the Oval Office.  To say Gordon Brown ‘thought it through’ is a great understatement.  It was a kind, thoughtful acknowledgement from our greatest ally of the true accomplishment that America is leaving the stain of the Middle Passage behind her.

Of course, the insult continued.  With First Lady Michelle Obama.  Her detractors are having “I told you so” moments from sea to shining sea.  In a stroke of complete ignorance, she gave Prime Minister Brown’s wife Sarah couple of toy plastic Marine One helicopters for their sons.  Seriously. 

From the Times:

Mrs Brown may have two boys but she certainly knows the way to a little girl’s heart. These were gifts chosen in the true spirit of present-giving: to please the recipient, not the giver.

In return Mrs Obama gave the Brown children, Fraser and John, two toy models of Marine One, the Presidential helicopter. Fair enough on the helicopter part, always a popular choice with small boys; but Marine One? It’s not as though anyone needs reminding that Barack Obama is President or that he has his own helicopter. Short of giving the boys Action Man models of her own husband smiting the evil forces of neoconservatism, Mrs Obama’s gesture could not have been more solipsistic or more inherently dismissive of Mrs Brown. ot only did she demonstrate that she spent approximately three seconds contemplating the needs of the Brown boys (having an aide pop to the White House gift shop for a piece of merchandising does not imply a great deal of thought), she appeared to show a most uncharacteristic lapse of judgment.

It might have been possible to overlook the incident were it not for the official photograph.

The White House released one picture of the two women and it does not appear to have been selected with any kind of special relationship in mind. There is a menacing bunch of pink peonies in the foreground and the angle is most unflattering to Mrs Brown, who has the air of a woman very much in need of a stiff drink.

Whether deliberate or not, the whole thing feels like a snub.

Like her husband, Sarah Brown brought thougtful books, dresses and jewelry from London’s Top Shop, for Sasha and Malia.  What made the plastic helicopters so insulting was they came from the White House gift shop, downstairs in the OEOB.  The gifts were clearly a rush, an afterthought, and not of any significant importance.

As an American, I am embarrassed.  Unfortunately, it’s not just protocol that is the problem.  It’s policy.  Secretary of State Hillary Clinton has made some curious remarks about Human Rights, leading some to believe that closing Guantanamo was about appeasing the American anti-war Left, while doing nothing to really make a stand on Human Rights. 

Nowhere are these basic needs more under assault than in Darfur.  Obama promised “unstinting resolve” in 2008.  But, to date, he has done nothing.  Not even mentioned it as a priority.  Every president has a huge portfolio.  So, bad economy or not – he doesn’t get a pass.  Hiring a couple of staffers, appointing an envoy, and getting engaged is cheap, easy, and effective. 

Why does Darfur matter?  There are many, many reasons.  Not the least of which is our own national security.  In 1993, when our troops were in Somalia delivering humanitarian aid to the Somali people – who suffering because of a horrible famine… something happened.  A little known anti-Saudi, anti-US terrorist was just getting his sea legs.  Spurned by the Saudis, his citizenship revoked, and humiliated in front of his family and followers – Usama bin Ladin cowered in the Sudan and Afghanistan.  He funneled his millions through construction and other projects to dirty warlords, like Mohammad Farah Aidid.  He provided Aidid with cash, weapons, missiles, food, and other staples — in October 1993, Aidid’s men – armed by bin Ladin – struck back against our troops.  Creating the “Blackhawk Down” incident. 

Had Clinton stayed, fought, and taken down Aidid – and a much weaker bin Ladin – instead of an aspirin factory, we would be living in a much different world. (note link to NYT piece, utilizing Peter Bergen & Mark Bowden’s research on the topic)

What we do in Africa, and what we don’t do, matters.  Darfur is not only terrorized by the Islamic militant Janjaweed – who rape, torture, and murder – but also by the shadow of Rwanda.  When America, also on Bill Clinton’s watch, turned a blind eye to a genocide.

Now, the International Criminal Court at the Hague has issued an arrest warrant for Sudanese President Bashir, who is in bed with the Janjaweed, he has expelled humanitarian aid organizations.  Kicking out the very people who provide food, potable water, and medical care – but also the witnesses who would tell the story of Darfuris being mowed down. 

From Save Darfur on March 11, 2009:

The Save Darfur Coalition today called on President Obama to press the Sudanese government to immediately reinstate the licenses of 13 international humanitarian groups expelled from Darfur last week. In a letter cosigned by 54 coalition partners, the groups said that the administration should urgently undertake a sustained diplomatic effort to resolve the Darfur crisis and restore peace to all of Sudan.

“We know from your commitment to Darfur as a senator and your campaign pledge of ‘unstinting resolve’ to end the Darfur genocide that you believe the United States and its citizens cannot stand by while civilians are unjustly targeted by their own government,” the groups wrote in the letter. “Now, with millions of lives hanging in the balance, we must act immediately. Any delay will lead to even greater loss of life in Darfur.”

The organizations expelled from Darfur are a part of a humanitarian apparatus that provides relief to 4.7 million Darfuri civilians. It is estimated by the U.N. Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Assistance that their expulsion will leave 1.1 million Darfuris without food aid, 1.5 million without access to healthcare and more than one million without potable water.

“The denial of life-saving food, water and medical care in Darfur is a human rights violation that endangers health and threatens lives,” said Frank Donaghue, CEO of Physicians for Human Rights. “The recent outbreak of meningitis in Darfur’s Kalma Camp is just the beginning of the widespread suffering that the expulsion of humanitarian aid groups will cause.”

And Obama remains silent. 

—Media Lizzy

PS: I’ve updated this post with links to source articles, and additional excerpts to provide those seeking clarity more of it.

Keeping to his campaign promises, President Obama issued an Executive Order to close down the global netowrk of CIA prisons, including the detention center at Guantanamo Bay where HVT Khalid Sheikh Mohammed (KSM) has spent the time after he was captured sporting a look that even the greenest stylist would refer to as “late Belushi-chic.”

Interestingly enough, the Executive Order could be reversed… and it has some other loopholes. Per the New York Times:

The orders, which are the first steps in undoing detention policies of former President George W. Bush, rewrite American rules for the detention of terrorism suspects. They require an immediate review of the 245 detainees still held at the naval base in Guantánamo Bay, Cuba, to determine if they should be transferred, released or prosecuted.

And the orders bring to an end a Central Intelligence Agency program that kept terrorism suspects in secret custody for months or years, a practice that has brought fierce criticism from foreign governments and human rights activists. They will also prohibit the C.I.A. from using coercive interrogation methods, requiring the agency to follow the same rules used by the military in interrogating terrorism suspects, government officials said.

And here’s the part that will warm the cockles of every Code Pink protesters heart:

But the orders leave unresolved complex questions surrounding the closing of the Guantánamo prison, including whether, where and how many of the detainees are to be prosecuted. They could also allow Mr. Obama to reinstate the C.I.A.’s detention and interrogation operations in the future, by presidential order, as some have argued would be appropriate if Osama bin Laden or another top-level leader of Al Qaeda were captured.

The new White House counsel, Gregory B. Craig, briefed lawmakers about some elements of the orders on Wednesday evening. A Congressional official who attended the session said Mr. Craig acknowledged concerns from intelligence officials that new restrictions on C.I.A. methods might be unwise and indicated that the White House might be open to allowing the use of methods other than the 19 techniques allowed for the military.

Details of the directive involving the C.I.A. were described by government officials who insisted on anonymity so they could not be blamed for pre-empting a White House announcement. Copies of the draft order on Guantánamo were provided by people who have consulted with Mr. Obama’s transition team and requested anonymity for the same reason.

Nevertheless, Republicans remain gravely concerned about President Obama’s move to close GTMO with no clear alternative – especially with KSM being readied for trial, and the chance that Usama bin Ladin may eventually be captured.  No one was more clear on this issue than GOP Whip Eric Cantor:

“The single most important role of government is to defend our nation and protect innocent Americans from those who seek to destroy our way of life.  We all want to protect our troops in combat and our citizens at home, but there are serious questions that must be answered before Guantanamo Bay is closed.  For example, how does it make sense to close down the Guantanamo facility before there is a clear plan to deal with the terrorists inside its walls?  And what will American soldiers do with the terrorists they capture in the field before a Presidential Commission offers them a clear position?  

 

“Actively moving terrorists inside our borders weakens our security, raises far more questions than it answers and is the wrong track for our nation.  Most families neither want nor need hundreds of terrorists seeking to kill Americans in their communities.  We need to have a serious, careful, and realistic national discussion about the ramifications of closing Guantanamo Bay.”  

For the American people, the issue is one of grave concern.   But the population is split – according to a new CNN poll released yesterday:

A new national poll suggests Americans are split over whether the U.S. should close the detention facility in Guantanamo Bay. But the CNN/Opinion Research Corporation survey released Wednesday indicated that support for closing the detention facility has increased dramatically since 2005.

Fifty-one percent of those questioned in the survey support the closing of prison at Guantanamo Bay, with 47 percent against the closing. That’s basically a split, when taking into account the survey’s sampling error of plus or minus 3 percentage points.

Buckle your seatbelts, folks.  It is going to be a rough ride.

—Media Lizzy

THE PRESIDENT: Fellow citizens: For eight years, it has been my honor to serve as your President. The first decade of this new century has been a period of consequence — a time set apart. Tonight, with a thankful heart, I have asked for a final opportunity to share some thoughts on the journey that we have traveled together, and the future of our nation.

 Five days from now, the world will witness the vitality of American democracy. In a tradition dating back to our founding, the presidency will pass to a successor chosen by you, the American people. Standing on the steps of the Capitol will be a man whose history reflects the enduring promise of our land. This is a moment of hope and pride for our whole nation. And I join all Americans in offering best wishes to President-Elect Obama, his wife Michelle, and their two beautiful girls.

Tonight I am filled with gratitude — to Vice President Cheney and members of my administration; to Laura, who brought joy to this house and love to my life; to our wonderful daughters, Barbara and Jenna; to my parents, whose examples have provided strength for a lifetime. And above all, I thank the American people for the trust you have given me. I thank you for the prayers that have lifted my spirits. And I thank you for the countless acts of courage, generosity, and grace that I have witnessed these past eight years.

This evening, my thoughts return to the first night I addressed you from this house — September the 11th, 2001. That morning, terrorists took nearly 3,000 lives in the worst attack on America since Pearl Harbor. I remember standing in the rubble of the World Trade Center three days later, surrounded by rescuers who had been working around the clock. I remember talking to brave souls who charged through smoke-filled corridors at the Pentagon, and to husbands and wives whose loved ones became heroes aboard Flight 93. I remember Arlene Howard, who gave me her fallen son’s police shield as a reminder of all that was lost. And I still carry his badge.

As the years passed, most Americans were able to return to life much as it had been before 9/11. But I never did. Every morning, I received a briefing on the threats to our nation. I vowed to do everything in my power to keep us safe.

Over the past seven years, a new Department of Homeland Security has been created. The military, the intelligence community, and the FBI have been transformed. Our nation is equipped with new tools to monitor the terrorists’ movements, freeze their finances, and break up their plots. And with strong allies at our side, we have taken the fight to the terrorists and those who support them. Afghanistan has gone from a nation where the Taliban harbored al Qaeda and stoned women in the streets to a young democracy that is fighting terror and encouraging girls to go to school. Iraq has gone from a brutal dictatorship and a sworn enemy of America to an Arab democracy at the heart of the Middle East and a friend of the United States.

 There is legitimate debate about many of these decisions. But there can be little debate about the results. America has gone more than seven years without another terrorist attack on our soil. This is a tribute to those who toil night and day to keep us safe — law enforcement officers, intelligence analysts, homeland security and diplomatic personnel, and the men and women of the United States Armed Forces.

Our nation is blessed to have citizens who volunteer to defend us in this time of danger. I have cherished meeting these selfless patriots and their families. And America owes you a debt of gratitude. And to all our men and women in uniform listening tonight: There has been no higher honor than serving as your Commander-in-Chief.

The battles waged by our troops are part of a broader struggle between two dramatically different systems. Under one, a small band of fanatics demands total obedience to an oppressive ideology, condemns women to subservience, and marks unbelievers for murder. The other system is based on the conviction that freedom is the universal gift of Almighty God, and that liberty and justice light the path to peace.

This is the belief that gave birth to our nation. And in the long run, advancing this belief is the only practical way to protect our citizens. When people live in freedom, they do not willingly choose leaders who pursue campaigns of terror. When people have hope in the future, they will not cede their lives to violence and extremism. So around the world, America is promoting human liberty, human rights, and human dignity. We’re standing with dissidents and young democracies, providing AIDS medicine to dying patients — to bring dying patients back to life, and sparing mothers and babies from malaria. And this great republic born alone in liberty is leading the world toward a new age when freedom belongs to all nations.

For eight years, we’ve also strived to expand opportunity and hope here at home. Across our country, students are rising to meet higher standards in public schools. A new Medicare prescription drug benefit is bringing peace of mind to seniors and the disabled. Every taxpayer pays lower income taxes. The addicted and suffering are finding new hope through faith-based programs. Vulnerable human life is better protected. Funding for our veterans has nearly doubled. America’s air and water and lands are measurably cleaner. And the federal bench includes wise new members like Justice Sam Alito and Chief Justice John Roberts.

 When challenges to our prosperity emerged, we rose to meet them. Facing the prospect of a financial collapse, we took decisive measures to safeguard our economy. These are very tough times for hardworking families, but the toll would be far worse if we had not acted. All Americans are in this together. And together, with determination and hard work, we will restore our economy to the path of growth. We will show the world once again the resilience of America’s free enterprise system.

Like all who have held this office before me, I have experienced setbacks. There are things I would do differently if given the chance. Yet I’ve always acted with the best interests of our country in mind. I have followed my conscience and done what I thought was right. You may not agree with some of the tough decisions I have made. But I hope you can agree that I was willing to make the tough decisions.

The decades ahead will bring more hard choices for our country, and there are some guiding principles that should shape our course.

While our nation is safer than it was seven years ago, the gravest threat to our people remains another terrorist attack. Our enemies are patient, and determined to strike again. America did nothing to seek or deserve this conflict. But we have been given solemn responsibilities, and we must meet them. We must resist complacency. We must keep our resolve. And we must never let down our guard.

At the same time, we must continue to engage the world with confidence and clear purpose. In the face of threats from abroad, it can be tempting to seek comfort by turning inward. But we must reject isolationism and its companion, protectionism. Retreating behind our borders would only invite danger. In the 21st century, security and prosperity at home depend on the expansion of liberty abroad. If America does not lead the cause of freedom, that cause will not be led.

As we address these challenges — and others we cannot foresee tonight — America must maintain our moral clarity. I’ve often spoken to you about good and evil, and this has made some uncomfortable. But good and evil are present in this world, and between the two of them there can be no compromise. Murdering the innocent to advance an ideology is wrong every time, everywhere. Freeing people from oppression and despair is eternally right. This nation must continue to speak out for justice and truth. We must always be willing to act in their defense — and to advance the cause of peace.

 President Thomas Jefferson once wrote, “I like the dreams of the future better than the history of the past.” As I leave the house he occupied two centuries ago, I share that optimism. America is a young country, full of vitality, constantly growing and renewing itself. And even in the toughest times, we lift our eyes to the broad horizon ahead.

I have confidence in the promise of America because I know the character of our people. This is a nation that inspires immigrants to risk everything for the dream of freedom. This is a nation where citizens show calm in times of danger, and compassion in the face of suffering. We see examples of America’s character all around us. And Laura and I have invited some of them to join us in the White House this evening.

We see America’s character in Dr. Tony Rehcasner, a principal who opened a new charter school from the ruins of Hurricane Katrina. We see it in Julio Medina, a former inmate who leads a faith-based program to help prisoners returning to society. We’ve seen it in Staff Sergeant Aubrey McDade, who charged into an ambush in Iraq and rescued three of his fellow Marines.

We see America’s character in Bill Krissoff — a surgeon from California. His son, Nathan — a Marine — gave his life in Iraq. When I met Dr. Krissoff and his family, he delivered some surprising news: He told me he wanted to join the Navy Medical Corps in honor of his son. This good man was 60 years old — 18 years above the age limit. But his petition for a waiver was granted, and for the past year he has trained in battlefield medicine. Lieutenant Commander Krissoff could not be here tonight, because he will soon deploy to Iraq, where he will help save America’s wounded warriors — and uphold the legacy of his fallen son.

In citizens like these, we see the best of our country – resilient and hopeful, caring and strong. These virtues give me an unshakable faith in America. We have faced danger and trial, and there’s more ahead. But with the courage of our people and confidence in our ideals, this great nation will never tire, never falter, and never fail.
 It has been the privilege of a lifetime to serve as your President. There have been good days and tough days. But every day I have been inspired by the greatness of our country, and uplifted by the goodness of our people. I have been blessed to represent this nation we love. And I will always be honored to carry a title that means more to me than any other – citizen of the United States of America.

And so, my fellow Americans, for the final time: Good night. May God bless this house and our next President. And may God bless you and our wonderful country. Thank you. (Applause.)

They are also uneducated, out of step with the rest of the country, to be pitied, isolated, suffering in the area of “jobs, education and development”, ideologically aligned with the old Confederacy, at odds with the values of the rest of the country, and are getting what they deserve because they won’t “… get with the right program.” Hat tip to Dan Cleary for making sure I was aware of this.

Or you could ask Dwight Lewis at The Tennessean. Lewis learned all this in a phone interview with “… David A. Bositis, senior political analyst for the Washington-based Joint Center for Political and Economic Studies …” He felt it true and significant enough to share it with all of us. The Tennessean evidently agreed with him. Why publish his lunacy otherwise?

The Joint Center for Political and Economic Studies is a misleading name for the group. Per Lewis, the politics and economy the JCPES finds worthy of studying are those “… of concern to African-Americans and other people of color …” The picture at their site includes pictures of Asians and Hispanics. However, reading through the headlines on their site, the only people of color mentioned are either Blacks or African Americans. There is one vague reference to “America’s minorities.”

This is the environment in which Bositis’ claims must be evaluated. And what is Bositis’ basis for making such outrageous claims? It’s his analysis of who voted for John McCain and who voted for Barack Obama. He has lots of high sounding analysis. I’ll save you some time. Anyone who voted for John McCain is all of those things in the opening paragraph. Anyone who voted for Barack Obama is not.

No word on the character of Barr, Baldwin and Nader voters. Words fail to describe how offensive Bositis’ words are, or should be, to every man or woman who supported a candidate OBO, “Other than Barack Obama.” Obviously, however, Lewis, Bositis and presumably some of their readers and supporters believe this tripe. I would point out the position of Lewis and Bositis are, on their face, far more racist and divisive than that of any of John McCain’s supporters of any color. Except, I must be wrong. It’s not possible for Blacks to be racist. Jesse Jackson himself told us so.

When people criticize me for declaring Barack Obama is not my President, I’ll take comfort in knowing that he is not mine, although he is Mr. Lewis’ President and he is Mr. Bositis’ President. To all you who want to claim Barack as your own, enjoy their company. Barack forged a coalition he greatly desired to get him elected. It contains a great many fine people who mistakenly believe in the untested, unproven promise of Barack. It also contains a great many craven, twisted racists such as Mr. Lewis and Mr. Bositis. Their bile and ignorance, passed off as lofty and intellectual analysis, is rubbish if for no other reason than it fails to address the rationale for McCain voters elsewhere. That such thinking might be indicative of the actual change and hope we’ll see as opposed the empty rhetoric Obama offered ought to terrify Americans.

Men like Lewis and Bositis are destroying Dr. Martin Luther King’s dream of integration. They are callously dividing our nation along racial lines for purposes I cannot fathom. How any sane and educated individual in 2008 can believe, let alone put into print in what should be respectable publications, the notion that millions of Americans may legitimately be labled racist and backward based solely on the vote they cast is beyond outrageous.

I’ve read it in a score of places in the last 48 hours. I cannot help but repeat it here. It’s going to be a long 4 years …

Blue Collar Muse

You have to admit… this is extremely funny.

VF Daily has received advance drafts of concession speeches written by Senator John McCain himself that were, for various reasons, rejected by his staff. Here are three that didn’t make the cut, with their titles:

Black-Comedian Indignation

Now, what kind of fucked-up bullshit is this?! A P.O.W. hero with almost 30 years of Senate experience and a history of reaching across the aisle gets his electoral-college ass handed to him in a country supposedly split down the middle like Tim Hardaway’s killer crossover? Oh, hell no. Here’s how you know this election was fucked for me from the start: Karl Rove said I went too far. When Karl motherfucking Rove says you’ve gone too far, that’s like Malcolm saying, “Brother, the whole Black Power thing may be a little much.”

For the record… when the polls close tonight, I will be thrilled.  Win or lose, it’s game over.  In the event of a recount – I hope that voter fraud and voter suppression are looked at in a real way.  They should be anyway.  I highly recommend folks contact the Secretary if State in the 15 states where ACORN is under investigation – just to inquire if you’ve been registered to vote in some place where you should not be.

In any case, after the election is over… I will be taking some much needed time off.  Time for love, family, life, and the mundane. Occasionally, I will drop a missive in here – but Charles & the fellas will be around to keep you informed.

On election day, I will host my show as per the usual – and Siggy from SC&A will be with me.  After the polls close, I will join my most favorite Progressive – the lovely & gracious Maegan Carberry on Wilshire & Washington after the polls close. (about 10pm Pacific)

Please VOTE!  And here’s what is on repeat in my iPod:

love this song.  all about it.

—Media Lizzy

K. I. S. S. I. N. G.  Okay, not really.

—Media Lizzy

From The American Spectator:

The refusal by the Los Angeles Times to release the videotape featuring Barack Obama’s farewell toast to Rashid Khalidi has thrust the Columbia University professor and activist into the center of the presidential campaign, creating particular interest in his ties to Yasser Arafat’s Palestine Liberation Organization.

Liberals have defended Khalidi as a “respected academic,” and amid all of the political noise and accusations flying back and forth between the two camps, it’s easy to see how some voters would tune out when conservatives refer to him as a former “PLO spokesman.” But without engaging in the semantic debate over what word should be applied to his complex and long-standing relationship with the terrorist group, a TAS analysis of contemporaneous news accounts dating back to the 1970s as well a look at Khalidi’s own writings leave no doubt that a close relationship existed.

While living in Lebanon from the early 1970s through 1983 (where the PLO was based at the time), Khalidi was frequently cited in the press as being close to the organization, and he even used the word “we” while speaking on the group’s behalf. He was described as a “director” of Wafa, the PLO’s official news agency, and he thanked Arafat for research assistance in the preface of one of his books. In 1991, Khalidi was part of the Palestinian delegation to the Madrid peace talks with Israel — by his own account, he did so at the request of the PLO.

Before delving into the details, it’s worth entertaining the legitimate question of why Khalidi’s background and writings should raise concerns about Obama himself.

The L.A. Times story from April about their relationship answers this question quite clearly. Not only did Obama know Khalidi, but the professor was his “friend and frequent dinner companion” who Obama was close enough to that he attended the 2003 going away party thrown when Khalidi was moving to New York.

In his toast, Obama went out of his way to thank Khalidi (and his wife Mona) for “consistent reminders of my own blind spots and own biases,” and he added that the conversation they engaged in was necessary around “this entire world.” Given that America is on the cusp of electing Obama, a man of little experience about whom very little is known, it is perfectly fair to learn more about Khalidi, whose viewpoints Obama thought the whole world needed to hear.

ON JUNE 11, 1979, the New York Times ran an article explaining that the PLO was worried that the Camp David peace accords between Israel and Egypt would undermine Palestinians. The article quoted Khalidi opposing the deal for that very reason, and identified him as somebody “close to Al Fatah,” an arm of the PLO.

It read:

One view shared by the Palestinian leadership and the rank and file, down to armed youths who guard doorways and intersections, is that the goal of an independent state will be foreclosed if the Camp David accords succeed. “We are in a make-or-break-it period,” asserted Rashid Khalidi, a professor of political science who is close to Al Fatah. “If we don’t turn the tide, if what (Egyptian President Anwar) Sadat is doing is not decisively repudiated, if the idea that Sadat had brought peace is allowed to stick without regard to Palestinian rights, then we are done in. Israel doesn’t need to sign with us. They already control the land.”

Also noteworthy about the quote was Khalidi’s use of the term “we” in reference to the Palestinian leadership, which turns out to be more of a habit than an isolated occurrence.

For instance, a January 6, 1981 Christian Science Monitor article that refers to Khalidi as “a Palestinian with good access to the PLO leadership,” reads:

Dr. Khalidi also argued that the PLO’s standing among Arabs in the Israeli-occupied areas has grown significantly. “Quite apart from the politics of it, we have built up tremendous links with the Palestinians ‘on the inside’ in different ways. We can render them services, often through our compatriots in the West, that King Hussein, for example, could never match. We’ve never been stronger there, and the trend is continuing,” he said.

Ironically, the same article quotes him as saying that hardliners within the PLO “perceive the new administration as basically hostile — possibly more hostile than the Carter administration.” Yes, on Planet Khalidi, even Jimmy Carter could be seen as being overtly hostile to the Palestinians.

But the evidence for the connections between Khalidi and the PLO are much more explicit than that. Thomas Friedman, in a June 8, 1982 New York Times piece about the Israeli invasion of Lebanon, referred to Khalidi as “a director of the Palestinian press agency, Wafa.” To be clear, Wafa is controlled by the PLO –and you don’t have to take my word for it. Even Khalidi himself, on page 7 of his 1986 book Under Siege: P.L.O. Decisionmaking During the 1982 War, describes it as “the P.L.O.’s news agency.”

That’s not the most telling part of Under Siege. In the book’s preface, Khalidi reserves his first paragraph of thanks for the research assistance provided by the PLO in general, and Arafat specifically. “Permission to utilize the P.L.O. Archives for the first time was generously given by the Chairman of the P.L.O. Executive Committee, Yasser ‘Arafat,” Khalidi wrote. “To him, and to the dedicated individuals working in the Office of the Chairman, the P.L.O. Archives, and the Palestine News Agency (WAFA), who extended every possible assistance to me on three trips to Tunis, I owe deep thanks.”

IN THE WAKE OF THE 1991 GULF WAR, then Secretary of State James Baker launched peace talks featuring Israel and the Palestinians, which were held in Madrid. The Israelis only agreed to the talks under the condition that the PLO not be involved in the negotiations, which turned out to be farcical, because the terrorist group operated from behind the scenes, giving marching orders to the Palestinian delegation of which Khalidi was a part.

As Khalidi recounts in his 1997 book Palestinian Identity: The Construction of Modern National Consciousness, while he was in Jerusalem during the summer of 1991, he “agreed to the request of Faisal al-Husayni that, if the Palestinians became involved in negotiations with Israel…I would serve as an adviser to the Palestinian delegation.”

That fall, he wrote, “on the eve of the sudden convocation of the Madrid conference, I received a call from PLO officials in Tunis asking me to confirm that I was indeed going to Madrid, since the names of the delegation and its advisers had to be presented to Secretary Baker’s assistants that very night.”

Khalidi goes on to explain that while he “did not participate in the entirety of every round of discussions” he and his Palestinian colleagues “worked extremely hard,” and he not only acted as an adviser during the October and November Madrid talks, but also in “each of the ten Palestinian-Israeli bilateral negotiating sessions in Washington which continued until June 1993.”

(A digital scan of the relevant section of the book is available here.)

Taken as a whole, the record shows that Khalidi — whether or not he should officially be called a “spokesman” — clearly was tight with the PLO, having acted as an adviser at the group’s request, and regularly speaking on its behalf.

As a professor, Khalidi has established himself as the heir to Edward Said, the leading anti-Israel intellectual of the 20th century (with whom Obama famously broke bread at a 1998 Arab community event in Chicago). He has said that American Jewish supporters of Israel have been “brainwashed” and that they can’t accept the fact that Israel is “an apartheid system in creation.”  And when it comes to peace talks, Khalidi said, “The United States is actually worse than Israel on some issues.”

So what, exactly, are the “blind spots” and “biases” that Obama is so grateful to Khalidi for exposing in their frequent dinners? And what part of their conversation does Obama hope spreads around “this entire world”?

Somehow, I don’t think Obama was referring to his love for the Chicago White Sox.

Sure, I expect some hate mail. Some BS about “Swift Boat Veterans for Truth” and other invectives.  I expect all the usual attacks.  But here is the thing, we live in a wonderful country.  We all get to vote.  We get to look at the facts and make an assessment.

I am voting for John McCain.  You can vote for whomever you like.  Barack Obama, to me, is just another John Kerry-esque Liberal politician.  So much so that I looked at a couple of their quotes.  Remarkably similar.

Kerry accused American soldiers of “…randomly shot at civilians, razed villages…”

Obama said American soldiers in Afghanistan are “…just air raiding villages and killing civilians…”

That language, in or out of context, reveals something about their opinion of our Armed Forces.  Barack Obama wants to be the next Commander in Chief – and I don’t believe he has the temperament, nor the ability, to set aside party dogma to properly command troops.

That is why I put this web video together:

—Media Lizzy

Really, it’s this simple. VOTE.

I am voting for John McCain. You can vote for whoever you want.

Because, really, that’s the whole thing. I vote. You Vote. America Votes. And then, we get a new president.

Pretty cool. Seriously.

Just VOTE.