OBAMARAMA

It's Obamarama Day!  All Obama, all the time - just the way he likes it!  In honor of Obamarama Day, I just had to share this with you before we get down to business, so check it out!  Gotta love Pelosi's crazy eyes and the Barry Soetoro exec. producer credit at the end.  Did you ever think America would have a president with an a.k.a.?

The Bret Baier interview was pretty good, in that although there was no new information (shouldn't the president know more about what is and isn't in the bill?) it was rather revealing:

“I don’t spend a lot of time worrying about what the procedural rules are in the House or Senate,” Obama said.

You don't say.  That news flash isn't just the quote of the day, it's the quote of the year.  Isn't that also Rule #3 in the Alinsky's Means v. Ends handbook? 

On a side note, in my hunt for a link to Rule #3, I came across this post, and it struck me how much of it pertains to our current situation.  The post was written back in September, but if you read it, you will see that there are a few correlations to what the administration is saying right now.  It discusses calling any  opposition immoral (siding with insurance cos./hate poor and minorities) or cowardly, and special attention should be paid to rules #3, 8, 10 and 11.

Back to the interview.  Obama was quite defensive, and Baier was surprisingly aggressive, but respectfully so.  He interrupted a lot, which the lefty blogs will most surely be all over tomorrow, but it was because his questions weren't getting answered, not out of disrespect.  Time was short; Baier (and America) wanted answers.  Too bad he didn't get any.

As usual, the President painted with a broad brush - you're either for their utopian vision or you are against humanity:

And if they don’t, if they vote against it, then they’re going to be voting against health care reform and they’re going to be voting in favor of the status quo.

It's either all or nothing with these people (see the above referenced post for more insight).  If you don't vote for this stinking carcass of a bill, then you don't want any reform at all.  This is the same response the Republicans got when they presented him with their proposals, which included free market principles, minor regulation and tort reform.   That doesn't sound like the status quo we keep hearing about, does it?

And who's really in bed with the insurance industry - the ones who want to increase competition in a free market way, or the ones who are handing over some 30 million hostages mandated to purchase not just insurance, but comprehensive (read: more expensive) insurance?  Let's not forget, too, that those who are already minimally insured will have to purchase more coverage to meet the new mandates. 

Obama also said:

“What I can tell you is that the vote that’s taken in the House will be a vote for health care reform. And if people vote yes, whatever form that takes, that is going to be a vote for health care reform. And I don’t think we should pretend otherwise.

There are two things wrong with this statement.  The vote taken in the House will not be a vote for health care.  Nor will it be a vote for the nationalization of the student loan system.  It will be a vote for a rule.  But, following his logic, if it is a vote for health care, then he is saying the people who vote for it will have to own up to it.  So why the subterfuge?  Yes, whoever votes for this is going to have to answer for it, whether it is passed by a direct vote or whether it is passed as a rule. Is the reason for technically not voting for it because there some way they can 'take it back' under demon pass if the Senate doesn't pass the reconciliation measure?  That seems pretty unlikely, so democrats in the House just need to trust the Senate to pass a reconciliation bill that is acceptable to them and  "man up" and own the vote - and that means actually cast one.

All in all, this was more damaging to Obama than helpful.  He was definitely not in control of the interview, he didn't have any answers (or at least refused to give them), he was spewing the same old talking points, and was insincere and unconvincing. 

The last ditch, hail Mary (hail Obama?) pass most definitely did not end with a touchdown.  The problem with this bill is that it only appeals to the indoctrinated - mainly because they don't question.  They should have waited another 20 years - you know, get another generation or two through the public school indoctrination system.

Unfortuantely for them, they miscalculated silence for acquiescence and jumped the gun.

SARAH TAKES THE REINS

I don't know if you've heard, but Sarah Palin is on a book tour.

So far it is really paying off for her. The book sold 300,000 copies on the first day, she is dominating the news cycles, people are waiting for hours in the cold to see her, and, best of all, her favorables are up.

Democrats are quite understandably...concerned? worried? freaking out? about the whole thing. As with most people, they are turning to impulsive self-comforting by....fundraising.

One of them has apparently gone off the deep end, and another is cheapening their own brand in a desperate bid to cheapen hers. The offensive thing about that cover isn't so much the picture - yeah, it's sexist, but at least they chose a flattering picture - it's the byline. "She's bad news for the GOP - and everyone else, too" Wow. No, there's absolutely no slant whatsoever to that article.

What I love about this is that the media are so desperate for ratings that they are giving her the forum she needs to set the record they created straight. It's a beautiful thing.

The Oprah and Barbara Walters interviews were huge for her (and Oprah) and she was in the driver's seat the whole time. She was calm, relaxed, approachable and open. The first part of her interview with Bill O'Reilly was good - more serious than the first two, but very effective - I look forward to seeing the other two. Her interview with Sean Hannity got phenomenal ratings, and she came across as relaxed, sassy, and smart. So far, she has been appealing, honest and friendly, and the rising approval ratings reflect that.

Judging from Chris Matthews' coverage of her book tour, the tingle up his leg has turned to tinkle down his leg. You know their backs are up against the wall when they toss out the race card. Apparently attracting mostly white people completely de-legitimizes her popularity and makes the thousands of people who came to see her into a smaller group somehow. I'm sure the few people of color who do come out to support her will be lambasted as 'trying to be white', or 'betraying their people' or plain old 'misguided', so does it really matter if there were any there anyway?

It all sort of reminds me of a weasel gnawing off it's own paw to get out of a trap. They are looking at their own demise, but just can't seem to stop.

It's rather pathetic and sad.

It's obvious that they are afraid of her, and it's obvious they are right to be. I find a sweet irony in the fact that Obama's biggest supporter, Oprah, may have well handed his biggest adversary her most effective success to date.

Sweet, indeed.

A MOMENT OF SOLIDARITY

Kudos to ABC, NBC, CBS and CNN on standing up to the White House today.

Never thought I'd see it happen.

One can only imagine they saw the strong-arm tactics, looked at how quickly the administration turned against former allies when they voiced a differing opinion and saw the writing on the wall.

There, but for the Grace of God, go I....

I'm sure tomorrow it will be Fox-bashing as usual, but lets all savor this moment of clarity and solidarity, shall we? It's great to know that even they have limits to how much power they think the White House can grab.

SARAH PALIN TO GO ON OPRAH

Well, well, well...Sarah Palin is going to be interviewed by Oprah Winfrey on Nov. 16th, according to AP.

On the one hand, I'm disappointed that she is going to contribute to Winfrey's ratings, which are sure to skyrocket on that day. Winfrey refused to have anything to do with Palin during the campaign, saying she didn't want to be political (yeah, because going on the campaign trail with Obama was as apolitical as it gets). But on the other hand, I would just love it if that interview contributed to Palin's book setting sales records. Of course, considering it hit #1 on a number of bestseller lists 7 weeks before it is even released is pretty impressive and speaks well for actual sales without Oprah's help.

Honestly, considering the pre-sales numbers, I'm not sure why Palin decided to go on Winfrey's show. She certainly doesn't need the exposure, and sales for the book will be quite brisk without Winfrey's help.

Perhaps she is looking to change the minds of Winfrey's core followers. It is a good idea to try to win over the critics, but I just don't think Oprah's audience can be swayed. Those who were upset by Winfrey refusing to interview Palin during the campaign, feeling that Winfrey, an outspoken supporter of women's rights, should have given Palin the fair shake other left-wing 'reporters' like Katie Couric denied her, have already left her audience.

Winfrey has a chance to win back those viewers if she gives Palin a fair interview. It's an interesting choice - give Palin a fair interview and win back disaffected viewers, or attack her and try to discredit her to score points for her political cronies.

I would like to think she will give a fair interview, but the ties to the White House run deep, and Palin is seen as a major threat to the denizens of 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue. Not to mention the NeoPravda Media apparatchik would probably nominate Winfrey for a prize if she manages to damage Palin in the interview. Honestly, considering the current climate, I'm surprised the White House is allowing Winfrey to give Palin a forum at all.

So the question is, will Winfrey stick to her winning formula of friendly but probing interviews that will give people a fuller, more honest view of Sarah, or will she follow Couric and Gibson's lead and patronize and try to stump her to score political points?

Whatever the outcome, watching two of the most famous women in America go head to head should be fascinating.