Why Hillary Clinton Must Run

Dear Secretary Clinton...
It's time for you to announce that you'll be running against Barack Obama in next year's Democratic presidential primaries. Your party and your country need you now more than ever.

Yes, we all know how rare it is to take on a sitting president from your own party. But this is no normal election year and the circumstances are dire and the stakes too high. By next November if there isn't significant improvement in the economy and appreciably reduced unemployment, President Obama will likely lose to a Republican. And it might be a Tea Party Republican like Michele Bachmann or Rick Perry, who will set America back 200 years from an economic, policy and social standpoint. Government as we Democrats know it will be unrecognizable, and the advancements we've made in the areas of education, healthcare, science, environmental protection and civil/human rights will fall to ignorance, intolerance and religious zealotry. We simply cannot lose next year's election, and you must be a part of the strategy to keep the White House in Democratic hands.

You've seen Obama's poll numbers. You know the state of the economy. You saw Friday's employment report that showed zero job growth for August. The Obama administration projects that unemployment will be at 9% by the election, yet no president since FDR has been elected when unemployment tops 7.2%. And you've seen how Obama's former supporters are hugely disappointed and disillusioned by his constant caving to the right. Most Americans now believe our government is broken and not functioning properly. Democrats need and want a president who knows how to fight. A president who knows what she stands for, has a vision to achieve her goals, and the passion and gravitas to battle the ruthless obstructionist GOP machine to push through her agenda. A president who'd rather wage war with Republicans than succumb to them. There are tens of millions of voters ready to dump Obama and support you.

There's been much speculation that you'll be running in 2016. But that will be too late. Your time is now. Regardless of whether a Republican or Democrat is in office, the economy is sure to turn around well before the 2016 election. Economies are cyclical, and this one too will improve. And if Obama loses next year, a Republican incumbent running in a strong economy will no doubt win re-election. Which means your next real chance to actually occupy the White House will be 2020 when you will be seventy-three; too old to be president and too old to want to be.

If you run next year you will win. Remember how close you came to beating Obama in 2008. Think of how easy it will be to beat him this time. And I'll bet my life savings on a match-up between you and any Republican. Should you run, I and countless others will do everything in our power to support you...from blogging to raising money to campaigning in the streets.

Madam Secretary, please run. America's future depends on you.

Obama's Huge Mistake on the Jobs Speech

Several weeks ago President Obama announced he'd be addressing the nation after Labor Day to outline his plan to create jobs and kick start economic growth. For independents, Democrats and his progressive base, the speech needs to be a grand slam full of substance and viability and not merely another dispassionate Obama professorial lecture which lacks substance.

But even if Obama knocks it out of the park and delivers a solid blueprint for putting Americans back to work, House Speaker John Boehner, Majority Leader Eric Cantor and the rest of the rabidly anti-Obama Republican House will vehemently oppose it. As Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell proudly declared last year, their mission is to make Obama a one-term president. He could find the cure for cancer and they'll argue how it's gonna put undertakers out of work. So curing the nation's jobs problem is not something they're going to support.

Case in point the battle that was waged this week, and lost by Obama, over the scheduling of the president's jobs speech. Originally set for September 7th, Obama sent a letter to both Boehner and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid requesting to address a joint session of Congress. Of course, Reid said yes. And of course, Boehner said no. The reasons? Because the GOP presidential debate is scheduled for later that night, and that there'd be little time to properly secure the Chamber on such short notice. A tug of war ensued for several days before Obama acquiesced and moved the speech to the following night.

But make no mistake, this debate wasn't about scheduling or security. It's about the Republican tactic of saying "no" to anything Obama requests and proposes. And it's precisely this sort of partisan chicanery and vitriol of which Americans are sick and tired.

And it was a huge mistake for Obama. He caved. Again. Without a real fight. Just backed off the way he's done repeatedly these past two and half years. And it's enraged his base and continues to make him appear weak, scared and lacking vision. What should he have done? Quite frankly, he should've told Boehner to fuck off. He should've kept the 7th and addressed the nation from the Oval Office instead which would appear more presidential than standing before a bunch of jeering Republicans in a pomp and circumstance show. Given the unprecedented level of disrespect they've shown this president since he took office, is there any reason to think they're gonna show him any respect that night?

As for the speech itself, he needs to go right for the jugular. He's gotta take of the gloves and attack Republicans for driving our economy off a cliff. He can't worry about coming off combative. He must appear tough and resolute, placing blame squarely on the GOP's shoulders, while instilling confidence that he knows how to combat both unemployment and his Republican enemy. It needs to sounds something like this:

"My fellow Americans....I am speaking to you tonight to offer an aggressive plan to put you back to work. A plan that will create jobs and rev the nation's economic engine again and put us back on the road to prosperity. Make no mistake, the economy stinks. It's been devastating to many, and I understand how it's been affecting each and every one of you...especially those of you who remain unemployed, with houses foreclosed or under water, and savings depleted. I'm fed up, just like you. And you know what I'm most fed up about? The constant partisan obstructionism of Republicans that's preventing me from helping you. I cannot do my job, I cannot end unemployment, if my opponents in Congress are hellbent on making me a one-term president more than putting you back to work. And that should anger you as much as it angers me. I can fix this economy and I can put you back to work, but I can't do it alone. Republicans have to stop worrying more about their own political interests than they do yours. They've got to stop worrying more about the wealthy and corporations instead of the poor and middle class. Republicans have to stop saying "no" to everything I propose solely because they want me out of office. It's infuriating that they're putting their political goals before the good of the country...and it's hurting you and it's hurting America. They're standing in the way between you and prosperity. So this is a critical time in our nation's history. A time when we can act to restore America's strength and prosperity or time for more political gamesmanship by those who are against America and root for it and you to fail. I speak to you directly right now House Speaker Boehner. I speak directly to you right now Majority Leader Cantor. I speak directly to you right now Senate Leader McConnell. It's time for you to stop obstructing and start working to put Americans back to work. They want you to stop targeting me and start targeting job creation. That's what they elected you to do last November. It's time to stop fighting me and start fighting unemployment. It's time to be Americans first and Republicans second. Enough is enough. So here's my 10-point plan to achieve full employment. I say to the Republican leadership, you can either approve this bill and get people working again or you can continue to obstruct this process and play games with America's future. The choice is yours, and I guarantee you, voters will be watching your every move. Point #1....."

And he better have a solid, actionable plan and not merely more of the same vague, over-intellectualized, esoteric drivel that he's blandly delivered multiple times. He needs to start looking at the polls which have Tea Baggin' Texas Gov. Rick Perry up 44% to his 41%. He needs to appreciate that, with the unemployment rate projected at 9% in November '12, no president since Ronald Reagan has been re-elected with a rate over 7%. He needs to accept that 72% of Americans now believe our government is not functioning properly and that our system is broken. He needs to recognize that only 45% of Americans approve of his performance, and just another 29% are happy with his handling of the economy. He's got to start accepting the ugly truth that there are people like Boehner, Canter and McConnell--those who he's misguidedly tried to make bi-partisan nice-nice with for almost three years--who were probably watching Friday's release of the zero job growth stats while shouting "Yeah!" and fist pumping in excitement. Because zero job growth is their political dream come true.

Obama's gotta stop looking and acting like he's thrown in the towel. He's gotta stop caving. He's gotta finally realize who his enemy is and fight them accordingly. He's gotta stop acting like "the only adult in the room" and start acting and sounding like a warrior. He's gotta grow some balls.

Next Thursday night's speech is Obama's FDR moment. It's just a week away. There's plenty of time for him to pull this out and demonstrate true leadership and regain some control of the debate. Let's hope he does. But I'm sorry to say that I, and millions of others, have lost faith and aren't so sure.

Being Michele Bachmann Means Never Having to Say You're Sorry

Tea Party Queen and GOP presidential hopeful Michele Bachmann continues to make bizarre public gaffes which portray her as either crazy, ignorant, bigoted, hypocritical, insensitive, callous or all of the above. Her latest bout of foot-in-mouth disease stems from comments she made in the wake of the East Coast earthquake and Hurricane Irene.

Speaking to a group of Tea Party supporters Bachmann said: "I don’t know how much God has to do to get the attention of the politicians. We’ve had an earthquake; we’ve had a hurricane. He said, ‘Are you going to start listening to me here?’ Listen to the American people because the American people are roaring right now. They know government is on a morbid obesity diet and we’ve got to rein in the spending."

Forty-five people died from this past weekend's storm, including children. Towns were completely devastated, with an estimated $1-billion+ in total damage. People lost homes and businesses, and five million were left without power. The suggestion that God was punishing these people to send a message to politicians to stop their profligate spending is beyond irresponsible and reprehensible and shows the extent of Bachmann's evil. It's another shining example of how she, like so many of her fellow Tea Baggin' loons, use and abuse religion for political purposes and to spread her vile, hate-fueled dogmatic propaganda.

After taking much heat over her comments what does Bachmann do, apologize? Fat chance. The word "apology" does not exist in her vocabulary. Culpability is not in her DNA. She simply cannot say "I'm sorry...what I said was wrong and insensitive." Incredibly, what Bachmann chose to do instead was dismiss her offensive remarks as an attempt at humor.

"Of course I was being humorous when I said that. It would be absurd to think it was anything else. I am a person who loves humor, I have a great sense of humor," she said.

So let's get this straight: Bachmann denies being an exploitative Jesus freak but she thinks Irene's devastation is something to joke about? I love humor too. In fact, I did stand-up comedy for twelve years. But there's nothing I find funny about the entire Eastern seaboard being ravaged by death and destruction from a Hurricane's violent fury.

What is it about these Tea Baggers like Bachmann, Sarah Palin and Rick Perry that not only causes them to say the most outrageously offensive things but also renders them incapable of taking responsibility for their words and actions? In Bachmann's case, her irrational indifference to large-scale human suffering is unconscionable and is the antithesis of presidential.

You Know You're a Tea Bagger If...

As the 2012 presidential campaign intensifies, there's been much speculation
as to the philosophies, motivations and overall composition of Tea Party constituents.
To help clarify any lingering confusion and to help define these passionate Americans,
I offer the following Litmus Test:

You know you're a Tea Bagger if:

1. You hate science and the corrupt scientists who manufacture data in nefarious schemes

2. You think global warming is a hoax

3. You think there are hundreds of Nobel Peace Prize-winning scientists who believe
in Intelligent Design

4. You think Social Security, Medicare and "big government" are mutually-exclusive

5. You think God is an evangelical Christian conservative

6. You think Elvis was born in August

7. You think the "Soviet Union" remains one of America's biggest threats

8. You can see the "Soviet Union," or Russia, from your backyard

9. You think Paul Revere is famous for warning the British

10. You think the historic "Shot Heard Round the World" took place in New
Hampshire

11. You think John Wayne Gacy was a rugged movie star

12. You think John Wayne was a serial killer

13. You think homosexuals can be "cured" by Marcus Bachmann

14. You think Fed Chairman Ben Bernanke has committed "treason"

15. You think there are "Death Panels" consisting of evil doctors who will kill
old people

16. You think Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity tell the truth and that Fox News is
fair and balanced

17. You think governors who advocate their state's secession from the Union
would make great presidents of the United States.

18. You think that African American males like President Obama benefit more by
government assistance than those hard-workin' white folks

19. You think President Obama is an illegal alien

20. You think Michele Bachmann really worked for the IRS just to get inside to
better understand the enemy

21. You think the Founding Fathers abolished slavery

22. You love America but scowl when your opponents exercise the very Democratic
principles which make it great, like free speech; separation of church
and state; a free and open press; freedom of religion; checks and balances;
freedom from persecution; and civil rights for all

23. And most of all, unlike your founding Tea Party brethren 238 years ago,
you think "No taxation without representation" really just means "No taxation."

Obama's the "Dick Cavett President"

I love Dick Cavett. He's a brilliant, irreverent thinker with a uniquely dry, sardonic, sarcastic wit and deadpan delivery. Qualities that make for a terrific
writer, humorist and interviewer, but unfortunately not a United States
president

Sadly, Barack Obama has become the Dick Cavett President. He's wicked smart, cool and lightening quick with an intellectually biting quip. And while George Bush may have been the guy some wanted to have a beer with, Obama's the guy you'd love to hang with at 2am at a Village jazz club and smoke some weed.

But his brand of nuanced, over-intellectualized witty replies to Republican
street bashing makes him look wimpy, weak and outmatched. While the GOP's Hulk Hogans are verbally beating his ass, he's in full-on Cavette mode. The only thing missing is the mod turtleneck. Guess who's winning the rhetoric war?

Case in point: earlier this week Texas Gov. Rick Perry, the Tea Baggers' Great White Hope since he entered the race a week ago, stooped to a familiar thuggish strategy of attacking Obama's patriotism and calling into question his lack of military service. When asked about this on CNN Obama replied, "I’ll cut him some slack. He’s only been at it for a few days now." WTF?! What kind of lame response was that? That's the best he's got? Asked to comment on the president's quip, Perry deftly attacked with "Actions speak louder than words. My actions as Governor are helping create jobs in this country. The President's actions are killing jobs." Ya see, Dick? That's the way to frame the debate and stay on point, all the while cutting your opponent's legs off.

So what should Obama's reply been? How about:

"Gov. Perry is in this campaign just a week and his #1 campaign strategy for fixing the economy and putting people to work is to attack my patriotism? How offensive to the American people who are seeking help from their elected leaders...not more of the same Republican smear rhetoric and stonewalling." How's that? That would show some fire in the belly. Some much needed balls.

The terrain for Obama could get much shakier if, as reported, New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie decides to enter the race. And why wouldn't he? Obama's struggling on every front, and he's the GOP's wet dream right now. With his big straight-shootin' personality and Boy-Wonder-like deficit-busting reputation and moderate social views, he could, as I've been warning for months, be Obama's worst nightmare. He could be the tough-talking, take-no-prisoners, roll-up-the-sleeves populist firebrand that would appeal to way more independents and moderate Democrats than the administration would like to contemplate.

With the new Gallup poll citing a dismal 26% approval rating on the economy, Professor Obama better immediately rethink his game plan and start fighting fire with fire and show us some guts or he'll soon be back lecturing Constitutional Law in Chicago.

Ostroy's List of Air-Travel Don'ts

Having recently returned from a trip to Barcelona, and as a frequent flyer, I've had the displeasure of spending many hours in the air with strangers who are clearly in need of a little reminder about proper air-travel etiquette. These days, with long lines, invasive x-rays requiring near-nudity, constant delays, smaller, more crowded planes and the threat of terrorism, the flying experience is frustrating and challenging enough without some buffoon sitting next to me making the flight even more unpleasant.

So to make the overall flying experience more bearable, at least for me, I hereby request that passengers follow "Ostroy's List of Air-Travel Don'ts:"

1. If you're considerably overweight, please don't expect to encroach my space. I have absolutely nothing against you personally. This is all about real estate. I didn't buy my seat so I could subsidize yours. If you're too large to fit into your own seat, buy two.

2. Please don't endlessly pray out loud next to me, no matter what religion you follow. It freaks me out and makes me wonder what you're so afraid of and trying to prevent.

3. Please don't bring really smelly food on the plane to gorge on. Remember that we're sitting so close we're practically having sex. I can do without the Burger King wafting into my yard.

4. What part of my face buried in a book is confusing to you? Please don't talk to me. Let me read. If I want to chat I'll start a conversation.

5. And if you do talk to me, please don't do it with a mouth full of food. I don't want little chewed Burger King pieces flying at me like mortar shells.

6. Please don't fart incessantly. If you have a gas problem, please lock yourself in the lavatory and decompress in private.

6. Please don't get on a plane if you have breath that would choke a swine.

7. If you're sitting behind me, please don't kick my seat non-stop.

8. If you're sitting in front of me, please don't snap your seat back at 100 miles an hour. Slow it down, pal, you're not doing crunches. A little head's up so you don't smash my laptop would be most appreciated.

9. My headrest is not a walking stick, so please don't use it as one. I didn't pay for whiplash.

10. Please don't fly unless you've showered sometime in the prior week. Your stank has no where to go except in my face.

11. Please don't listen to your iPod so loudly that the people 10 rows back can hear it through your headphones.

12. When you're putting your bag in the overhead and I'm in the aisle seat, please don't put your crotch anywhere near my face. Be mindful of where your package is headed. Same goes for your ass.

13. Please don't fall asleep and rest your head on my shoulder....unless you want it elbowed by an intolerant New Yorker. We're not gonna snuggle.

14. Please don't blatantly stare at my computer screen while I'm working. If I want your input I'll ask for it.

15. And whatever you do, do not even think about chewing tobacco and spitting the "juice' in a cup every three minutes. This is the rudest, most disgusting thing you could ever possibly do on a plane. Please indulge your mouth-cancer-inducing pleasures elsewhere.

There ya go. Maybe we can now all fly a little more pleasantly and comfortably. I thank you in advance.

Bachmann Wins Straw Poll; Perry's Running; Pawlenty Says 'I'm Outta this Freak Show!'

The Crazy Party took a step closer to nominating a presidential candidate who
makes even moderate Republicans' skin crawl.

In that great political bastion of Ames, Iowa this weekend a microscopic
percentage of that state's Tea Party faithful ran to the ballot box to officially
anoint Minnesota Congresswoman Michelle Bachmann their Great White Hope. Less than 24 hours later Tim Pawlenty, perhaps the sanest hopeful in the place next to Jon Huntsman, tossed in the towel. Apparently intelligence, sanity and moderation are not qualifications for being a Republican president these days.

Let's start with Pawlenty. In assessing the landscape objectively and without partisan rancor, and despite that I disagree with much of his views, the guy probably would've made a decent president, or at least the kind who wouldn't keep me up at night worrying about America's moral destruction. But unfortunately for T-Paw he doesn't fit the Crazies' fantasy image of the Republican Alpha Male. To their naked eye, he kinda looks and sounds more like their stereotypical image of a liberal. You can almost see him behind the wheel of a Volvo, his Bierkenstocked foot resting on the foreign pedal.

Which brings us to the GOP's newest boy-wonder, Texas Gov. Rick Perry, who fits the Alpha Dog profile with his folksy drawl, cowboy boots, pick-up truck and general swagger. When he's not talking to God he's busy promising voters that he'll "make Washington, D.C. as inconsequential in your life as possible." I wonder if that pesky little government involvement he'd like to rid Americans of includes Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, Veteran's benefits, the Post Office, the Centers for Disease Control, the National Weather Service and even the military? Or are those the "consequential" aspects of government; the "good stuff?"? This is a politician who's running for the highest office in the land, yet an office and a government for which he has zero respect and appreciation. A governor who's wanted his state to secede from the Union. It's hard to convince voters you should be president of the "government" you so clearly disrespect. But as I keep saying, Rick Perry has about as much chance of becoming president as Katie Perry.

Now onto Bachmann, who is very likely to slug it out with Perry these next many months for the Crazy vote while Mitt Romney sits back and watches, and benefits from, the train wreck. You can be sure Bachmann and Perry are gonna rip into each other like "The Real Housewives of New York."

Bachmann hit the Sunday morning talk show circuit and was in rare form. Gotta give her credit: she is a master at staying on point and evading virtually every question while coming off over-rehearsed, robotic and lacking substance...and with her usual mangling of the English language. On CBS's "Face the Nation" she boasted that "I have been taking my message all across Iowa, and people resonate with that message." Sorry Michele, messages resonate, not people. But then again what do you expect from a woman who thinks the historic Shot Heard 'Round the World was in New Hampshire?

On NBC's "Meet the Press" host David Gregory appeared as frustrated with her evasiveness as if he were talking to a tight-lipped 15-year-old. He played the clip of her talking about her husband Marcus's influence in her life: "My husband said, 'Now you need to go and get a post-doctorate degree in tax law.' Tax law? I hate taxes. Why should I go into something like that? But the lord said, wife, you are to submit to your husband." She insisted that in her marriage being "submissive" means being "respectful." Gregory was incredulous as he suggested that that kind of "respect" would never fly with his wife.

The candidate who claims she could fix the economy is just three months also humored Gregory with her stand against homosexuality, asking her to comment on her previous statements such as: "It's part of Satan....It leads to the personal enslavement of individuals.....Personal bondage, personal despair, and personal enslavement. And that's why this is so dangerous." Her straight-faced answer? "I don't judge." I guess that's ok if you think calling someone Satanic isn't judging them. And as for that "personal enslavement" thing, kinda gets us back to that whole "submissive" question, no? Hmmm....

On "Fox News Sunday" with Chris Wallace she was outed for appearing to support Obamanomics. Wallace pointed to her opposition to the Stimulus Package yet cited three letters she wrote to the Federal government asking for money for her state, saying the funds would help Minnesota's economy. A bit of a contradiction you say? Not to Michelle, who's argued that if the money's there for the taking, why should voters in her state lose out? But if she truly believed the Stimulus was a bad thing for the economy and would continue to rack up perilous debt for America, wouldn't it have been more politically expedient, and consistent, to refuse such funds? This is yet another example of the colossal hypocrisy of the Bachmann's, who've had no trouble over the years seeking government money for both political and personal use.

And when Wallace, pointing to Bachmann's lone opposition to raising the debt ceiling, asked her about her seeming inability to compromise if she were elected president she offered that she'd hopefully be taking thirteen new Republican Senators with her to Washington for a filibuster-proof Congress. So much for compromise.

Watching and listening to Perry and Bachmann's words and actions I wonder why they even bother pretending to like Democracy? Clearly, neither respects the notion of compromise, the Separation of Church and State, checks and balances, a free and open press, or the truth. Their brand of politics seems more fit for a despotic third-world nation.

Assessing the GOP Debate

Good news for President Obama. He officially won Thursday night's Republican
debate in Iowa and he didn't even have to show up. Despite all the criticism coming at him from all sides including mine, not one GOP hopeful was able to present him or herself as a viable alternative for 2012.

Mitt Romney, who earlier in the day showed his true elitist colors while defending corporate America as "people too," was as consistently bland, evasive and flip-flopping as ever, while trying to convince voters that having economic expertise means buying up troubled companies and gutting them for maximum profit. If this is what being "front-runner" means, then the party is in very serious trouble.

That other supposed front-runner, Michele Bachmann, came charging out of the gate shouting her talking points and, bragging of her accomplishments, pointed to her "light bulb law." Not one of her finest moments of rhetoric.

Tim Pawlenty, who perhaps had the most to lose, perhaps lost the most. He needed to show voters that he was tough and able to fight. He gave it his best shot. And his best shot was pretty darned weak. Imagine Woody Allen screaming at someone. Not terribly scary.

What was scary though was Newt Gingrich's obnoxious, anger-filled display. He arrogantly criticized everything the moderators asked him as being "gotchya" questions--even those Chris Wallace asked about his record--and he was so full of rage it was embarrassing. This, as his ex-wives will attest, is a man who is clearly used to getting this his way and when he doesn't he gets belligerent and narcissistic.

As for the other hopefuls--Rick Santorum, Ron Paul, Herman Cain and Boy-Not-Wonder John Huntsmann--they were as unimpressive and irrelevant as ever. Yawn....

So that brings us to three Republicans not yet in the race but who very well may dive in shortly: Texas Gov. Rick Perry, Rudy Giuliani, and the Wasilla Wonder, ole Grizzly Mama herself, Sarah Palin.

Let's start with Palin, who in fact will in no way enter the race. She's so ill-equipped to be president that even her empty suit is empty. But she utterly loves all the attention and will milk it till the very last drop.

Rudy Giuliani may be one of the party's best bets, but as soon as Democrats play his infamous "There were no terrorist attacks on Bush's watch" clip he's doomed. Throw in failed marriages, cheating, and a general disdain for the working class and his picture gets even darker.

And that brings us to Perry, who, if he can somehow manage to get beyond his radical "secession" comments, as well his state's dismal record on education, health care and the environment, is most likely to win the nomination. He's an aggressive, articulate, attractive, funny, engaging Texas governor...and we all know how that can end up.

Change I Never believed In

President Obama has taken a lot of heat lately over what many believe is his mismanagement of the economy and his inability to successfully take on his Republican opponents. Unlike millions of other Democrats, I am neither disappointed or surprised by his political failings. Prior to the 2008 election, and as an ardent supporter of Hillary Clinton, I wrote quite frequently about what I believed would be Obama's inability to fight Republican obstructionism and the party's fierce attack machine. Sadly, I was 100% right.

It's easy to understand Obama's appeal in 2008. He was indeed exceptionally bright, a master campaigner and fundraiser, and able to move tens of thousands of his progressive disciples, moderates and independents through rousing, messianic oratory. But I never drank the Kool-Aid, and had heated battles with many friends who couldn't understand how I didn't "get" Obama's second-coming status. And while I was thrilled that a black man could come so close to the Oval Office and ultimately win the election for the first time in history, I didn't get caught up in the whole liberal guilt trip. What I personally hoped for for America was that the best candidate win, not the darkest.

To be sure, Obama showed passion and a deeply personal vision for America, but he lacked something much more important: the fire in the belly and the cajones to battle the ruthless GOP warriors to see his vision through to law. The man with the sanctimonious professorial lectures who loves to stay above the fray while being 'the only adult in the room' has learned the hard way about the ugliness of modern partisan politics. Watching him these past three years it's as if he's fighting against the Republican bazooka while merely holding a gladiator shield. He's been outwitted, outmatched and out of touch. This is hardly the change anyone believed in or hoped for. He now looks like Jimmy Carter on a bad day.

Where did Obama go wrong? To begin with, he squandered huge majorities in both the Senate and the House, wasting over a year fighting for health care reform while caving on the critical public option. Can you imagine how much the GOP would've accomplished in the same period had they controlled the White House and Congress? Can you imagine how ravenously they would've rushed through their ideological agenda and changed America as we know it? Obama's also caved on the economy, on gay marriage, on the Bush tax cuts, on Guantanamo, on Afghanistan and on debt ceiling/deficit reduction bill. And we still have 14-million people out of work with a 9.1% unemployment rate. What happened to jobs, jobs, jobs? Where's the jobs bill?

Obama simply seems neutered, unlike his predecessor. Like him or not, look what Bush was able to do to further his conservative agenda. He didn't care what anyone thought..not voters, the media, Democrats or members of his own party. He, Cheney and Rove saw their vision through, whether it was right or wrong or good for the country. The point is, they acted. They led. Where's Obama's leadership?

I'm not gonna say Hillary Clinton's perfect or baggage-free, but I firmly believe she'd have fought much more effectively for Democrats. She knows first-hand how ruthless Republicans are when they're in battle. She would've calculated her battle strategy day-one. To the contrary, three years later, Obama still appears like the proverbial deer caught in the headlights.

My Conversation with Jesus

In the wake of Texas Gov. Rick Perry's God-apalooza gathering on Saturday down in Houston, Jesus Christ himself actually came to me in one of those mystical moments of spiritual revelation, sharing his principles and extremely passionate views about humanity and the state of religion today. So many times we hear how Jesus talks directly to people like George Bush, Sarah Palin, Michelle and Marcus Bachmann and Gov. Perry...so I feel terribly grateful and blessed to have had this incredible experience of God talking to me. Here's an excerpt from our conversion:

Me: Mr. Christ, or can I call you Jesus?.... I gotta ask you this question before anything else. Is it true that you're a Republican?

Jesus: What!? Where did you get that ridiculous notion from, my dear Jewish atheist child. Have you not actually read my book, I mean the Bible?

Me: Well, it's just that Republicans are constantly hiding behind the cloak of religion as if somehow they have you on their side. They constantly equate faith with judgement, intolerance and even bigotry. They proudly claim that to be God-fearing you must be against everything that helps the poor, the sick, the elderly, the needy, and minorities. Is that what you taught them?

Jesus: No, In fact, just the opposite. I fought for justice. You can't just put money in a tin at church on Sundays and think you're doing God's work. Sure, you can feed the poor, but if you're not fighting to better their existence on a systemic level then you are not in line with my teachings.

Me: Jesus, what are you talking about?!

Jesus: It's simple. I am a manifestation of the the most disenfranchised human beings. I am black. I am homosexual. I'm a paraplegic. I am a woman. I'm an old, sick man. I belong to the meek. Remember them? Remember what I said? I didn't say "the rich and the corporations shall inherit the Earth," did I? What is mankind doing today to truly help those in need? Or do the rich simply want to get richer while the poor suffer? Remember Luke 14:13 & 14...But when you give a feast, invite the poor, the maimed, the lame, the blind, and you will be blessed, because they cannot repay you. You will be repaid at the resurrection of the just. And Luke 12:15...Watch out! Be on your guard against all kinds of greed; a man's life does not consist in the abundance of his possessions. Or how about this..how about Deuteronomy 15:7 & 11...If there is a poor man among your brothers in any of the towns of the land that the LORD your God is giving you, do not be hardhearted or tightfisted toward your poor brother. There will always be poor people in the land. Therefore I command you to be openhanded toward your brothers and toward the poor and needy in your land. Do you see what I'm sayin' here? For Pete's Sake, does this sound like the teaching of a Republican? I'm a liberal! There, I've said it! Look at my sandals, my hair...duh!

Me: What about Rick Perry's 'prayer rally' in Texas on Saturday? He was talking to you. Told you "you are our only hope." Were you listening to him? Did you say anything back?

Jesus: First off, let me say neither I or anyone in my family was at that event. That's not my kind of prayer rally. As for me being the only hope, that's quite sad. Perhaps Mr. Perry would be better served to look in the mirror and judge his own narrow-minded, divisive behavior. How he and his conservative brethren prey on the weak, the meek, the needy. Remember Proverbs 14:31...He who oppresses the poor shows contempt for their Maker, but whoever is kind to the needy honors God. Ok, gotta run...I have a bris in Great Neck I have to get to...

Me: Thank you Jesus, thank you for setting the record straight on a few things.

Are There Bigger Skeletons in the Bachmann Closet?

Michelle Bachmann has spent the better part of the last two months trying to convince everyone that she's not a crazy extremist but rather a mainstream candidate who moderates and independents can embrace in the 2012 presidential election. This despite many outrageous comments over the years about gays, immigrants, abortion, evolution, global warming, President Obama, members of Congress and American history...all the while padding her resume (being an IRS tax collector is not quite the same as being a "federal tax litigation attorney.") and downplaying her and her husband's batshit crazy Christian counseling center which cruelly performs "reparation therapy" on gays in an attempt to turn them straight.

As comedian Marc Maron brilliantly posited last week, "It does seem like their whole marriage is one prolonged experiment in this type of therapy." Maron was echoing the suggestions made earlier in the week by Jon Stewart that Marcus might be, er, how you say, in need of a little reparation therapy himself. Certainly wouldn't be a shocker, as it's always the most vehement anti-gay activists who end up caught with their closeted pants down.

It seems that little ole Marcus just might be to Michelle what Billy Carter was to brother Jimmy (worse even, as Billy's embarrassing antics never prevented Jimmy from becoming Leader of the Free World. Marcus could very well derail Michelle's campaign if his bizarre antics lead to scandal). Last week a radio interview clip from 2010 was released in which Marcus referred to homosexuals as "Barbarians." But he's now pulling a Weiner, claiming that the segment was "doctored." Actually, he claims he was "referring to children" and not gays. Apparently Marcus thinks it's ok to call children Barbarians? What is it about these loony Tea Baggers who, despite audio and video which captures their gaffes and lies, continue to deny, deny, deny as if this evidence didn't exist? It's like the classic Richard Pryor bit about his wife walking in on him in bed with another woman: "Are you gonna believe me or your lyin' eyes!?"

But there's another potential scandal I want fully investigated. And in fact, I want Michelle and Marcus Bachmann to immediately provide the information that would clear them, just as she demanded that President Obama release his long-form birth certificate to prove his U.S. citizenship. Bachmann claims she and Marcus "took 23 foster children into our home, and raised them, and launched them off into the world." This foster parenting took place in Minnesota between 1992-2000, but unfortunately the state destroys all such records after seven years, so nothing Bachmann claims can be proven publicly. Interestingly, while Bachmann claims that the fostering involved unwed mothers, some of the children suffered from eating disorders, and according to George Hendrickson, CEO of PATH Minnesota, the private agency that placed the children with the Bachmanns, none of them were in fact pregnant.

Bachmann herself has refused to provide details about her foster children, and for privacy reasons their names have never been disclosed. But given Bachmann's penchant for exaggeration and truth-stretching, in particular about her resume, don't we have a right to know more about her foster parenting and just how many children this actually involved? Are we to take a face value her claim of twenty-three when she seems to embellish other important details about her past? No, we should demand that the Bachmann's provide the same kind of concrete legal proof as they demanded of Obama. Until then, we should assume that her claim is as bogus as her work as a "tax litigation attorney."

And one more thing: the pastor at her church, Rev. Marcus Birkholz, said Bachmann's "a lady with energy and a heart' whose uncompromising "support for the unborn" is more than just about fighting abortion. "She sees the whole picture. It’s not just bringing a child into the world; that child has to be nurtured and educated."

Really? Bachmann "nurtures and educates" America's children? I'm just curious about a few things. Does the small government that Bachmann and her fellow Tea Party faithful fantasize about drastically cut or eliminate funding for foster parent programs? Education and health care for children? Does her "whole picture" include "nurturing and educating" the children of gays, immigrants, minorities and the poor, who so desperately need government assistance, the kind of assistance Tea Baggers dream of vaporizing from the budget?

Twenty-three kids, huh Michelle? We'll be waiting for the proof.....

What Parents Can Learn From the Leiby Kletzky Tragedy

When to let your child out the door alone--to walk to school, camp, a friend's
house or to the park--is a distressing decision over which every parent struggles. And what happened this week to 8-year-old Lieby Kletzky is the gruesome realization of every parent's worst nightmare. The Brooklyn boy, walking home alone from camp for the first time, was abducted, killed and dismembered by a local man with a sketchy past and an ex-wife who'd taken out a restraining order on him.

Lieby's killing is as unfathomable a tragedy as there is. My own family has experienced brutal murder, and I understand the overwhelming shock and grief they're dealing with. It won't be easy to recover from something so horrific, and my heart goes out to them. And as the Kletzy family struggles to reconcile this senseless, random act of violence, parents in both suburban and urban areas nationwide are grappling with what to do with their own children's desire and need for independence. "Can I go by myself?" is a parent's most dreaded question. To be sure, Lieby's death has reignited the debate over the "when to" question more than anything in the last forty years since 6-year-old Etan Patz disappeared off a Soho street and, still missing, is presumed to have been killed.

The world can be a very cruel, ugly place sometimes, and there are predatory monsters who walk among us, undetected, until they commit heinous acts. Somehow, it is our job to stay out of their way and to protect our children from them. When our children are young we take them everywhere. They are never out of our sight or control. And then they hit that magic age, somewhere between eight and eleven, when an innate sense of independence takes over and they want to be alone and to go places by themselves. It's as natural and necessary a part of growing up as attending sleepaway camp, dating, driving and going away to college. In some very real sense, it's the precursor to those organic milestones.

As much as we'd like to shield our kids from harm, we can't. We can't lock them in the house or walk them everywhere until they're sixteen simply because we fear deviants who attack, rape and kill. We can't prohibit our children from dating because date rape exists. We can't keep our kids from driving because there are drunk drivers who could harm or kill them. We must let our little ones leave the nest at some point so they can mature into happy, emotionally healthy, confident adults. Smothering them and denying them their critical independence can have lasting emotional ramifications. We have to wince, cross our fingers and simply hope for the best.

But what we can do as parents is be smarter, and help our children be safer as they begin navigating the world by themselves. The biggest question is, 'What is the right age to let a child go out alone?' That's a very difficult question to answer, as every child is different. Size, maturity, street smarts all play a role. The bigger concern should be what happens when they go out alone. Do they know their neighborhood inside out? Have parent and child done multiple test runs of the various routes a child will be taking? Has a child been indoctrinated with the realities of the street, and the potential harm he or she faces? Do they know their local safe havens? Have they been instructed how to physically defend themselves? Do they carry a whistle? Do they carry a cell phone? Have they been told never, ever, ever go with a stranger under any circumstances, even if they're told their mom or dad is in serious danger and only they can save them...or that their mom or dad has sent this stranger to retrieve them? Do they know how to scream? Do they know what 911 is?

As a society, we have to make some sense out of little Lieby's death or we've learned nothing from it. Something good has to come from it or he will have died in vain. His murder should give pause to every parent across America whose pre-teen child is venturing outside alone. It's a sad reality check and wake-up call, yet one which might allow us to make things a little safer for our kids.

The Real Casey Anthony Verdict

Casey Anthony may have escaped the death penalty and life in prison, but she no doubt will receive a sentence perhaps even worse: life of scorn. There aren't many people in America who believe Anthony isn't responsible for the brutal death of her 2-year-old daughter Caylee. She simply benefited by the greatest legal system in the world. She may have gotten away with murder in a court of law, but she won't escape the court of public opinion.

Anthony is the new O.J. Simpson. She's the demonic object of our hatred and our frustration with our criminal justice system. It seems that at least once every decade we stand stunned, outraged and nauseated as the verdict is read in an audience-gripping, sensational murder trial as the killer walks free. But that's where the similarities end. In the 1995 O.J. trial, the prosecution not only had bodies--O.J's ex-wife Nicole Simpson and her friend Ron Goldman--but clear evidence that they were murdered. There was also motive: O.J.'s tumultuous, violence-marred relationship with Nicole. And there was DNA evidence. Blood everywhere. O.J's, hers, Goldman's. At her place, his house, his car, and on a glove found at his residence. But that wasn't enough. The jury in this case could've had actual videotape of Simpson committing the murders and they likely would have acquitted him still.

In the Anthony case the prosecution had nothing. Nothing but reams of circumstantial evidence. Sure, if you stepped away from it all and looked at it in its totality with a rational, intelligent, common sense perspective, she's as guilty as sin. What loving mother fails to report her toddler missing for 31 days, then lies about it, creates imaginary people whom she blames the death on and, in the process, gets a "Bella Vita" ("Beautiful Life") tattoo and is out partying? We have every reason to believe she killed Caylee and we have every reason to hate her. But unfortunately, the prosecution did not have a motive, witnesses or a cause of death, and you can't convict someone of murder if you can't prove a murder took place. The burden of proof rested solely on the prosecution, and it simply could not prove Anthony's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. No matter how upsetting and painful, no matter how infuriating and sickening the verdict, the system worked. In America, we don't send people to jail because we don't like them or because we're emotional and angry.

But time will not be kind to Casey Anthony. Like O.J. Simpson, she'll face constant animosity, ostracizing and public ridicule. She'll find everyday tasks like grocery shopping filled with vitriol. She'll find it hard to get a job. She'll probably never have a normal, healthy relationship. Perhaps she'll sell a book and do some interviews and make a few bucks, but she'll spend it just as quickly and probably end up destitute. She'll party hard and crash harder. And just like her partner in criminal history, Casey may ultimately end up in jail for some other heinous, despicable act. To be sure, Casey Anthony is not someone who's going to contribute to society in any meaningful way.

Jon Stewart is Definitely a Comedian. Chris Wallace Admits Fox's Bias

The Daily Show
Tags: Daily Show Full Episodes,Political Humor & Satire Blog,The Daily Show on Facebook

In the wake of the now-famous televised showdown between Jon Stewart and Chris Wallace Sunday morning there's lots of chatter from pundits on both the left and right that Stewart, as Wallace charged, is dodging his true role as a 'journalist.' To paraphrase Stewart from the interview, anyone who believes this ridiculous assertion is "insane."

I'm not exactly sure where all the confusion lies. Stewart was a stand-up comic for years and now has a comedy show. On "Comedy Central." And like many a legendary humorist before him--Mark Twain, Will Rogers, Mort Sahl, George Carlin and Lenny Bruce to name a few--his material consists of politics, politicians and American culture. You will never see anything on "The Daily Show," Stewart's nightly program, that is delivered with a serious tone. You will never see Stewart himself analyze and comment on anything unless his set-ups have wickedly funny punchlines. He's a satirist. And probably the best there ever was. But that's all he is. To paraphrase the late Texas Sen. Lloyd Bentsen's famous smackdown of Sen. Dan Quayle in their 1988 vice presidential debate, "Mr. Stewart, I know journalism. I studied journalism for many years. I have a journalism degree. Mr. Stewart, you're no journalist."

It's pretty sad when, as Rogers said, "People are taking their comedians seriously and the politicians as a joke." A society which considers Stewart and people like Bill O'Reilly "journalists" is a society that's in deep trouble. To label Stewart a journalist is offensive to journalists and non-journalists alike. I don't get my news from Stewart. I save that for the New York Times, the Wall Street Journal, CNN, MSNBC, The Huffington Post and other outlets. I watch Stewart for the same reason I watched/watch Johnny Carson, David Letterman, Carlin and a zillion other comics: to get a biting, funny take on the days' news. Because Stewart makes us laugh about the news doesn't make him a newsman. That he makes us laugh about politics doesn't make him a political activist. He's simply doing his job as a comedian.

Now on the other hand, as Stewart pointed out to Wallace, there are millions of very "misinformed" people who watch Fox News and actually think they're watching an objective news network. They listen to people like Sean Hannity, Rush Limbaugh and Glenn Beck and think they're getting the truth. They're not. In an astounding admission of his network's true bias, Wallace, while discussing other networks with Stewart, said "I think we're the counterweight. I think that they have a liberal agenda, and I think we tell the other side of the story." Wow. So much for "fair and balanced."

Stewart is a true genius. But he's a comic genius. And without even being a true journalist he brilliantly managed to do what no one else has done: get Fox to admit that it's a politically biased television network. I bet Wallace didn't have that outcome in mind when he invited Stewart on his Fox "News" Sunday program.

Why Blooberg's Taxi Proposal is Unfair

Mayor Michael Bloomberg is attempting to get a bill pushed through Albany, bypassing the City Council, that would in effect allow New York City's livery cabs to legally pick up passengers in certain areas of the city. This type of proposal has come up at other times over the last forty years and was always killed. As it deserves to be again now.

My father was a "hack" for over 50 years. He began in a post-war era when many young Jewish men like himself could make a decent buck behind the wheel if being behind a desk didn't appeal to them. It was an era where you could eke out a living, perhaps buy a starter home, and in some way live the American dream.

There's a certain misguided nomadic glamour that's associated with the job. You're out on the road, your own boss, making your own hours, working if and when you want to, and meeting all sorts of interesting people. You're like jack Karouac with a coin changer, right?

Wrong. Driving a taxi is an utterly miserable way to make a living and don't let anyone tell you differently. The job practically killed my dad. I remember the long, 15 hour days. I remember the robberies at gunpoint. All the accidents and tickets. And the literally backbreaking nature of being sedentary for so long each day. I still have in my head the disturbing image of my dad exiting his cab as I sat eating dinner by the window one night, watching his grossly contorted body clinging to the fence as he made his way toward our building, hunched over so far he looked like he was staring at the ground. He and his brethren were, and remain, some of the least appreciated workers in New York. He was often cursed at, spit at, threatened, tip-stiffed and generally disrespected.

In 2011, gone are the local, home grown Jewish, Irish and Italian drivers. Most of the more than 46,000 cabbies are immigrants from countries such as Pakistan, India and China. The economics of the job are nearly impossible to get around. Medallions, of which there are about 13,200, cost upwards of $700,000 and mostly it's the wealthier investors who can afford them. The average driver leases his medallion for as much as $200 per day from these fleet-operating barons, and whatever they make beyond that, after paying for gas, food, and other expenses, is theirs to keep. It's an untenable situation, which is why these poor guys literally just sleep and work, some even seven days a week. There's no job security, no benefits, no safety and definitely no glory. But it's an honest living.

Bloomberg's measure is flat out wrong. It will impact the value of medallions and allow for unfair competition. Sure, there are problems with the taxi system. Ever try hailing a cab between 4pm-5pm? Maybe it'd make more sense to require taxi fleets to change shifts at 8pm and not right smack in the middle of rush hour. But permitting gypsy cabbies to reap the legal and economic benefits of medallion drivers without having to pay into the system the same way is grossly inequitable and not the answer.

Assessing the First GOP Debate

It was a motley cast of characters that would make the 2006 California Gubernatorial hopefuls proud. Monday night's GOP presidential debate in Manchester, NH was also a real snoozer, with more talk of God, gays and Obama than each other. Apparently these folks forgot that before they get to run against Obama they need to battle amongst themselves.

Mitt Romney, the presumptive front-runner, was largely treated with kid gloves. The one time he could've really taken it on the chin was when CNN host John King pressed Minnesota Gov. Tim Pawlenty to address Romney directly over the "ObamneyCare" phrase he coined on Sunday's morning's news programs. "He's right there, ask him about it" King challenged. Pawlenty predictably went into his human Ambien mode and avoided appearing too negative.

Pawlenty also repeatedly touted his blue-collar, union roots. I love when Republicans boast of their blue-collar roots as proof that they'd know how to screw the little guy better than anyone.

Newt Gingrich, whose candidacy recently imploded like a Sicilian volcano, was the angriest, most-defiant and most defensive. He disingenuously described Obama's economy as a "depression" on multiple occasions, and skirted the fact that virtually his entire senior strategy team deserted him last week. Talk about depression. And Gingrich also back-peddled yet again about his comments over Rep. Paul Ryan's MediScare plan. Yet he basically repeated his words of caution--first offered on NBC's "Meet the Press" a few weeks ago--that his party not overreach on health care:

"If you’re dealing with something as big as Medicare and can’t have a conversation with the country where the country thinks what you’re doing is the right thing, you better slow down."

While Michelle Bachmann didn't get into any trouble by inaccurately discussing American history, I must say that she comes off as rather scholarly and substantive when compared to her Tea Party co-Queen Sarah Palin. Although there were a couple of instances where someone really needed to give the Minnesota Congresswoman a civics lesson. Speaking to an audience member she vowed, if elected, to immediately repeal ObamaCare, apparently unaware that it is only Congress, not the president, who has the power to enact such legislation. And on the subject of repealing Don't Ask Don't Tell, Bachmann promised that she'd confer with "our commanders in chief" in the military to hear their opinions.

On the subject of gay marriage, all candidates except Cain and Paul hypocritically said they'd support a Constitutional amendment outlawing it despite all firmly believing in states' rights. I guess when it comes to gays, government knows best.

Probably the most bizarre moment of the debate occurred when former Godfather's Pizza CEO Herman Cain, the only black candidate in the race (and apparently the only black person in New Hampshire), tried to explain his past comments that "a lot of Muslims are not totally dedicated to this country" and that he'd refuse to appoint a Muslim to his cabinet without first conducting a loyalty Litmus test based on dedication to the U.S. Constitution. Cain was visibly uncomfortable in his response, lamely explaining that "because you have peaceful Muslims and then you have militant Muslims, those that are trying to kill us." He added, "I was thinking about the ones that are trying to kill us, number one." Like he would really be appointing someone to his cabinet who might actually be a Muslim terrorist?

Cain's ludicrous supposition gave Romney an opportunity to toss some sanity into the conversation. "Obviously I would only be appointing someone to my cabinet who I knew and was comfortable with."

Cain also fear-mongered over the prospect of Sharia, or Muslim law, being applied in U.S. courts, which he and other ignorant conservatives charge is a growing threat to our legal system. "I don’t believe in Sharia law in American courts. I believe in American laws in American courts, period." He continued: "There have been instances in New Jersey, there was an instance in Oklahoma, where Muslims did try to influence court decisions with Sharia law. I was simply saying, very emphatically, American laws in American courts." He happens to be 100% wrong, as Romney, again, took the chance to sanely point out:

"Of course, we're not going to have Sharia law applied in U.S. courts. That's never going to happen. We have a Constitution and we follow the law."

Little could be said about the other candidates on stage--Rick Santorum and Ron Paul--who provided voters a further glimpse into their Christian fundamentalist and Libertarian views respectively. Neither has any more of a chance of winning the nomination than I do.

As far as picking a winner, Romney was the only candidate to appear presidential. He was intelligent, rational and highly confident and composed. The only adult in the room. Did he shamefully run from his own RomneyCare program while governor of Massachusetts? Absolutely. But that was expected. It's his albatross, and he needs to distance himself from his own policy, which is essentially the same health care program Obama pushed through Congress. But just as Romney injected some levity into the evening by announcing that the Boston Bruins were up by four goals in the Stanley Cup Hockey game, I suspect come the GOP convention he'll lead the pack by at least that many delegates....assuming that pack stays the same and doesn't include any of the party's rock stars like New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie.

What is Palin Hiding in the 2000 Missing Emails?

Back in early April Sarah Palin was interviewed on Fox News about the then-mounting controversy over President Obama's refusal to show his long-form birth certificate. The Wasilla Wonder applauded Donald Trump's "investigation" into it, cagily reinforcing the charge that Obama's citizenship was in question:

"Obviously if there's something there that the president doesn't want us to see on that birth certificate that he...ya know, he's going to great lengths to make sure that it isn't shown and that's kind of perplexing for a lot of people. But, ya know, again, Donald Trump, he may get to the bottom of it because he's spending the resources that probably will be necessary to do some investigation."

Trump's persistent attacks continued unabated until Obama released the document later that month, finally killing the Birther movement and, ultimately, Trump's own candidacy.

And now the focus is on Palin herself, as journalists sift through over 24,000 pages of Mama Grizzly's emails released Friday from about the first twenty-one months of her term as Alaska governor. But she's refused to release 2000 remaining emails from September 2008, while she served as Sen. John McCain's vice presidential running-mate, through her resignation the following July.

But let's remember Palin's arrogant charge that Obama's "going to great lengths" to conceal his birth certificate from the public. Well it sure seems like she's going to great lengths to keep her emails from the public. Where's her respect and appreciation for full-disclosure and transparency now? Where's The Donald's "investigation" of Palin?

Palin's decision to withhold these emails raises several critical questions, especially as she's apparently contemplating a run for the White House: what's contained in those emails? Do they expose unethical or illegal activity? What is she hiding? And why won't she release them if there's nothing questionable in there? Isn't this as important as demanding to see Obama's birth certificate? If she expects to be taken seriously as a presidential candidate, don't Americans have a right to know what's in those 2000 emails?

Until the emails are released, it's fair to assume that there's possibly something very incriminating in there that Palin's running from. The public owes her no less scrutiny than she afforded our nation's president.

What Advice Would Rangel Give Weiner?

Given embattled Congressman Anthony Weiner's Custer-like stand on Capitol Hill, I wonder if the randy Representative's refusal to resign might be inspired by the plight of his fellow Congressman from New York, Charlie Rangel, who dug his own scandal-plagued heels into the ground and went on to win re-election in 2010:

Rangel: Weiner, it's Rangel.

Weiner: Oh, hey Charlie, what's up?

Rangel: Weiner, I feel for ya, brother. I know what it feels like to have your world come crashing down on you so unjustly after dedicating your life as a public servant. It's just so wrong.

Weiner: Yeah, it's pretty rough right now. I feel like my world's falling apart and I've lost control.

Rangel: You know I love ya, but I think you lost control the first time you sent pictures of your johnson over the Internet. But that's something different. Something for you and your shrink to work out. I wanna talk business. Politics. And nobody knows more about NY politics than I do.

Weiner: Get to the point Charlie. In case you haven't noticed, I got a lot on my plate right now. Plus, I gotta head to Best Buy to get a new digital camera...so I'm in a bit of a hurry.

Rangel: Ok, here's the thing. Guys like you and me...we're warriors. We fight to make America a better place. So, we're entitled to a few little treats now and then, right? The public even wants us to have that stuff. Except you and I do it in different ways. I like to amass lots of real estate, skip taxes, park my car for free, and take Caribbean trips. You like to act like a horny 16-year-old on Twitter. Jeez, man, I gotta say as an aside, you didn't even get laid in this mess! All this hullaboo and no booty?! You're pathetic! If I'm gonna possibly lose my job over a sex scandal it's because I'm bangin' Halle Berry!

Weiner: Charlie, please, get to the point, I have to also get over to the Jewelry Exchange to get Huma one of those big ass honkin' Kobe Bryant-style 'I'm sorry' diamond rings.

Rangel: Listen, people said I had to step down. That I was finished. And I said, 'screw that...I ain't goin' nowhere!' And I showed 'em. Won the primary and kicked my Republican opponent's ass with 80% of the vote. And you can do the same, Weeny. I got the blacks, you have the Jews, Italians, Irish and all those Asian, Pakistani, Indian immigrants and such. They love you..just like the blacks love me. You think these folks, these hard working middle class New Yorkers, give a rat's tucchus whether I have a house in the Dominican Republic or whether you Tweet dick shots? They care about their schools, their health care, protecting their self-interests...which is what they know we do for them. You stay in that seat, Weiner, and you refuse to be bullied by Pelosi, Reid, the media or anyone else, and you hang onto your job. I can tell you first hand...it's the voters who will decide your fate. And besides, no one in DC liked you before, so whattya got to lose by staying? It's not like you're gonna lose any friends, ya know! Just stick it out...stay the course. Don't get rattled, no matter how ugly it seems. I'm living proof of that...

Weiner: Ok, thanks Charlie. You're my only friend.

Rangel: Um, not really. Don't really like ya. Never did. Shit, no one does, man! You're an asshole! But I do love underdogs.....

Explaining Weiner

The rise and ultimate fall of Rep. Anthony Weiner's once-brilliant political career has many elements of a classic Greek tragedy, where the highly ambitious, competent, powerful protagonist suffers a horrible fate. In Weiner's case, there are many avenues through which to explain his self-destructive behavior. Any one of them, or all of them, might shed light on why men like Weiner work so hard to achieve the pinnacle of success yet repeatedly and willfully throw away their spoils through scandalous actions.

Let's start with power. Power corrupts, they say. Do men like Weiner think their unique position in business or government insulates them from the same legal and/or moral standards heaped on the rest of society? Do they think they're above the law? Above reproach or prosecution? Has their power so corrupted them that they don't even think their actions are unethical or illegal, or even subject to scrutiny or criticism? Discussing Watergate with David Frost, Richard M. Nixon infamously claimed "When the President does it, that means it is not illegal." The Bushies also used a variation of this when defending the use of torture.

Dovetailing from power is entitlement. These guys may believe that they deserve to abuse the law and engage in all sorts of illicit activity because of their patriotic service to country. That their dedication and devotion, and myriad personal sacrifices they're making, somehow entitle them to monetary and/or sexual 'treats' as a trade-off. Perhaps these guys think their role in government excuses and//or justifies the extras.

Narcissism plays a key role as well. This behavior, according to FreeDictionary.com, can be defined in several ways: (1) Excessive love or admiration of oneself; (2) A psychological condition characterized by self-preoccupation, lack of empathy, and unconscious deficits in self-esteem; (3) Erotic pleasure derived from contemplation or admiration of one's own body or self, especially as a fixation on or a regression to an infantile stage of development. In Weiner's case, one could argue that all three conditions apply. His wanton disregard for his wife's feelings; his unabashed use of social media websites to transmit sexually charged text and lewd photographs; and his obvious insecurities and clear exaggerated desire to be desired are classic traits of a narcissist. There are even elements of his raging narcissism in his bizarre press conferences this week where he seems so enamored of the mike and camera still, rambling on and on as if he's loving all the attention, whether it's been good or bad.

But Weiner's behavior might simply be the result of an overpowering compulsion. I suspect that over the years he's sexually 'chatted/texted/emailed' with many more than the six women he's confessed to contacting. I suspect that he's probably kissed his wife Huma Abedin goodnight on most nights, and then repaired to his home office to 'work' into the wee hours all the while trolling the Internet for women to cyberplay with. By his own admission, he's been committing e-adultery for years, even before he met and married her. It's hard to believe therefore that his 'virtual' sexual escapades involve just six women. I suspect that Weiner simply couldn't help himself. Like most addicts, he probably hated what he was doing, knew it was highly improper, immoral and possibly illegal and could cost him his family and his career, and that he needed to hit rock-bottom in order to begin contemplating seeking help.

Given the sudden shock and awe of WeinerGate and its bigger implications politically, about social media and to society in general, there's been a lot of questions raised these past few days. One of them is, how could he be so stupid in doing the same sort of thing Rep. Chris Lee did just months ago? The married Lee resigned immediately after posting a half naked photo of himself on Craigslist to attract women for sex. His behavior cost his party a historically solid Republican seat in his upstate New York district.

But listen, you can take a drug addict down to the morgue and show him 5 other addicts who just OD'd. He'll say, 'wow, that's too bad,' and then walk out and score some more dope. Merely seeing dead addicts won't make him stop. He has to want to stop. He has to want a better life for himself and be willing and committed to taking the necessary steps do so.

To be sure, Weiner is not alone. The list of adulterous politicians, and those who've engaged in risky sexual behavior, is quite long. In recent history alone there's Bill Clinton, Newt Gingrich, Bob Livingston, George H.W. Bush, Bob Barr, Henry Hyde, Mark Foley, David Vitter, Larry Craig, John Ensign, Mark Sanford, Elliot Spitzer, John Edwards, Arnold Schwarzenegger, Dominique Strauss-Kahn and others, and there'll certainly be more to come. The internet's become a real game-changer. It's redefining 'adultery.' Sex scandals no longer need actual, physical sex. Will social media and its expansive access unleash a torrent of future scandals as the boundaries and floodgates of cheating have opened wide? Is the temptation from this access so great, and the draw of a perceived comfortable, secure, sit-at-home anonymity while 'cheating' so alluring, that even those who might never stray in traditional ways are now susceptible to 'infidelity'?

Time to Tuck Weiner Back Into the Nation's Pants and Move On

Let's be very clear: Rep Anthony Weiner's bizarre sexual journey through Cyberspace, and subsequent lies to cover it up, is irresponsible, reprehensible and deserving of all the shame, embarrassment and public humiliation he's now experiencing since his admission of guilt Monday afternoon. Most important, his sleazy behavior is profoundly hurtful to his wife, Huma Abedin, his bride of less than one year. I can't imagine a marriage so new surviving so many adulterous escapades (virtual or other), but that will be for the Weiner's to assess and decide. But the big question is, is what Weiner did unethical as it relates to his job as a Unites States Congressman?

I'm sure this is a point both parties will argue vehemently over the next many months as the 2012 election nears and Republicans wish to take Weiner down and as his fellow Democrats try to get away with a mere wrist slap. To the left, Weiner's been a fierce warrior, full of righteous rage and not afraid to bully his opponents. In fact, he's just the sort of Democrat the party needs. So now he wears a bulls eye on his back as a result. But are the offenses Weiner committed illegal? Worthy of prosecution? Do they merit his resignation?

The right will argue that Rep. Chris Lee, the former Congressman from New York's 26th District, immediately resigned after a photo appeared of him bare-chested as he was trolling for chicks on Craigslist while married. His resignation opened the door for Democrats to win the historically Republican seat in a special election held last month. They'll also point to former Rep. Mark Foley (FL), who immediately resigned in September 2006 over the scandal involving his sexually suggestive emails and texts to underage teenage boys who had served as Congressional pages. They'll be demanding that Weiner and the Democrats live up to these standards.

But what they won't discuss is how David Vitter, the Louisiana Senator, still serves despite his call-girl scandal. Or how South Carolina Gov. Mark Sanford served the remaining two years of his term following his admission of an affair with an Argentine woman and his misuse of state funds. Same for former Nevada Sen. John Ensign, who stayed in office until last month following the disclosure in November 2009 of an extramarital affair and possible abuses of power in an attempt to cover it up. And they won't talk of Newt Gingrich's cheating or political scandals.

What it boils down to is that each case is different than the next and has its own distinct characteristics. And each politician has to decide for himself whether or not his offenses are serious enough to merit resignation, and whether or not he can withstand the media scrutiny and public excoriation that may haunt him throughout the remainder of his term and during a re-election campaign.

To be sure, Foley deserved to go. His actions were not only perverse but illegal. He broke the law. But when a man cheats on his spouse, that should be between husband and wife, not Congress. While people like Weiner violate their marriages and abuse the trust they have with their wives, they've broken no laws. Their fates belong to their wives, families and to voters.

If what Weiner claims is true, there's been no actual physical sexual contact with any of the six women he's confessed to emailing, texting or calling during the past three years. While his randy acts are certainly despicable, will Weiner be the first politician to lose his job over a sex scandal that had no actual sex involved? Welcome to the age of anti-social media.

"I'm Paul Revere, and You Know Nothing of My Work!"

There's a brilliant scene in Woody Allen's Annie Hall where Allen and girlfriend Diane Keaton are standing in line at a movie theater in front of an arrogant, pompous know-it-all whose misinformed pontifications about the writer Marshall McLuhan's work are driving Allen crazy. He admonishes the blowhard and tells him he doesn't know anything about McLuhan:

Man: "Oh, really? Well, it just so happens I teach a class at Columbia called "TV, Media and Culture." So I think my insights into Mr. McLuhan, well, have a great deal of validity!
Alvy Singer (Allen): Oh, do ya? Well, that's funny, because I happen to have Mr. McLuhan right here, so, so, yeah, just let me...
[pulls McLuhan out from behind a nearby poster]
Alvy Singer: come over here for a second... tell him!
Marshall McLuhan: I heard what you were saying! You know nothing of my work! You mean my whole fallacy is wrong. How you got to teach a course in anything is totally amazing!
Alvy Singer: Boy, if life were only like this!

Well, if only we could present Paul Revere to Tea Party queen Sarah Palin he'd surely echo McLuhan in telling her she knows nothing of his work. And, he'd probably be standing with the Statue of Liberty because she apparently knows nothing about either of them, or of most of our nation's history for that matter.

Up in Boston last Thursday The Wasilla Wonder was asked about Paul Revere’s famed ride and she said he "warned the British that they weren’t going to be taking away our arms. By ringing those bells and making sure as he’s riding his horse through town to send those warning shots and bells that we were going to be secure and we were going to be free."



Palin's blunder, captured on video, quickly swept through the Internet. Taking a break from her "There's-No-Way-I'm Running-For-President-But-I'm-REALLY-Digging-All-This-Attention" bus tour, she appeared on Fox News Sunday and was asked by host Chris Wallace, "You realized that you messed up about Paul Revere, don’t you?" And as only Sarah Palin could do, given her outsized ego and intellectual denial, she replied in her defense:

"You know what? I didn’t mess up about Paul Revere. "Part of his ride was to warn the British that we’re already there. That, hey, you’re not going to succeed. You’re not going to take American arms....Here is what Paul Revere did. He warned the Americans that the British were coming . . . and they were going to try take our arms and we got to make sure that we were protecting ourselves and shoring up all of ammunitions and our firearms so that they couldn’t take it,’’ Palin said yesterday. But remember that the British had already been there, many soldiers for seven years in that area. And part of Paul Revere’s ride — and it wasn’t just one ride — he was a courier, he was a messenger. Part of his ride was to warn the British that we’re already there. . . . You are not going to beat our own well-armed persons, individual, private militia that we have. He did warn the British."

As my grandmother used to say, oy vey! Too bad the Fox-friendly Wallace let her off the hook too easily and didn't press her on the facts. Had she been on a real network, not the GOP Softball Channel, she would've earned the public embarrassment and humiliation she so rightly deserved.

Will someone please get this poor woman a history book?! Just a week earlier she gave a convoluted explanation of the Statue of Liberty's origin and significance. I'm not sure who's more ignorant of American history, Palin or her Tea Party nemesis Rep. Michelle Bachmann, who a few months ago claimed the "Shot heard round the world" was in New Hampshire, not Massachusetts. What is with these Tea Baggers? Is being dumb a requirement?

To set the record straight for Grizzly Mama, here's what PaulRevereHouse.org has to say about the historic ride: "On the evening of April 18, 1775, Paul Revere was sent... to ride to Lexington, Massachusetts, to warn Samuel Adams and John Hancock that British troops were marching to arrest them... On the way to Lexington, Revere "alarmed" the country-side, stopping at each house, and arrived in Lexington about midnight. As he approached the house where Adams and Hancock were staying, a sentry asked that he not make so much noise. "Noise!" cried Revere, "You'll have noise enough before long. The regulars are coming out!" After delivering his message, Revere was joined by a second rider, William Dawes, who had been sent on the same errand by a different route. Deciding on their own to continue on to Concord, Massachusetts, where weapons and supplies were hidden, Revere and Dawes were joined by a third rider, Dr. Samuel Prescott. Soon after, all three were arrested by a British patrol."

So what's next for Palin as she glides her giant PalinMobile-of-Truthiness across America? Perhaps she's preparing for her next speech entitled The Gettysburg Address: Gen. Robert E. Lee's Finest Virginia Speech.