President-elect Barack Obama has yet to attend church services since winning the White House earlier this month, a departure from the example of his two immediate predecessors.
On the three Sundays since his election, Obama has instead used his free time to get in workouts at a Chicago gym.
Asked about the president-elect’s decision to not attend church, a transition aide noted that the Obamas valued their faith experience in Chicago but were concerned about the impact their large retinue may have on other parishioners.
“Because they have a great deal of respect for places of worship, they do not want to draw unwelcome or inappropriate attention to a church not used to the attention their attendance would draw,” said the aide.
Both President-elect George W. Bush and President-elect Bill Clinton managed to attend church in the weeks after they were elected.
In November of 1992, Clinton went to services in Little Rock, Ark., on the three weekends following his election, taking pre-church jogs on the first two and attending on the third weekend a Catholic Mass with the Rev. Jesse Jackson, with whom he was trying to smooth over lingering campaign tensions.
I know I might be a little late to the troff here, but honestly, does this even remotely matter? I mean, honestly. 🙄
Better her than me. Best thing I can come up with, is that I made gawker.com; once. Not the way that I wanted, but I did. 😛 No, I am not linking to it. If you don’t know about it. I’m not going to tell you. I tried to make a point, and it backfired, all I’m saying.
Anyways, congrats Michelle, nice to see that they still pay attention. 😉 😛
It’s when they stop paying attention, is when you swerve into Ann Coulter Territory Worry. 😆
One item that made breaking news this week shouldn’t have surprised anyone – the possible selection of Hillary Clinton by Barack Obama as Secretary of State. And it’s a possible choice that has excited more than a few Republicans.
Neoconservatives afraid that a President Obama might even partially live up his promise to remove troops from Iraq have been warming up to the new administration and hedging their bets where they can. In his ongoing role as neocon concierge, Sen. Lindsey Graham’s arranged meeting between John McCain and Obama was one step, as was Graham’s blustering praise for Obama’s selection for Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel, a man who few conservatives have a kind word about. “This is a wise choice by President-elect Obama” glowingly said Graham of Emanuel.
And one can only assume that if Clinton were to take over for Condoleezza Rice, Graham and his boss John McCain will have the same enthusiasm and for the same reason. Republican Senator John Kyl, who teamed up with Joe Lieberman to get Congress to declare the entire Iranian army a terrorist organization as a precursor to possible war, said of Clinton as possible Sec. of State “It seems to me she’s got the experience. She’s got the temperament for it.” The Weekly Standard’s Michael Goldfarb was just as praiseful and more explicit about his excitement, “On the issues, Clinton’s a hawk. Not only did she vote to authorize the war in Iraq, she… went so far as to connect Saddam to al Qaeda… She threatened to ‘obliterate’ Iran (and) on matters of diplomacy, Clinton’s views are not so different from those held by John McCain and most Republicans. Clinton would be a fine Secretary of State… And perhaps she could even present the case for war with Iran to an insubordinate United Nations.”
Not since Operation Chaos during the primaries have we seen some Republicans so anxious to jump off the “Stop-Hillary Express” and on the Clinton bandwagon. The sort of Republican who cheers for Hillary is the same sort who embraced Lieberman. No matter how many liberal positions either held, socialized healthcare, open borders, higher taxes, anti-2nd amendment, it didn’t matter. As with Lieberman, so long as Hillary is prepared to continue sending U.S. troops around the world to continue the neoconservative mission of American global empire, Clinton would be their gal.
The Atlantic Monthly’s Andrew Sullivan noticed the neocons seeming comfort with Hillary during the presidential primaries “Among the neoconservatives there is obviously sympathy for her (Clinton) against the most decisively anti-war candidates, Obama and Edwards. Many publicly prefer her to the insurgent anti-war candidate in their own ranks, Texas congressman Ron Paul. Privately some neocons see her as an important substantive successor to Bush, perpetuating and retroactively legitimizing the Iraq occupation. She did vote for it, after all, they tell themselves. And her constant attempt to stay to the right of her opponents in the primaries has led to the bizarre spectacle of some well known Republicans showering her with thinly veiled support on Fox News.”
The rise of the neoconservatives to prominence during the Bush administration and the decades old term finally becoming part of the popular lexicon has led many plain, old fashioned conservatives to wonder, “what is it about these ‘neoconservatives’ that is actually conservative?”
Absolutely nothing. Neoconservatism’s main premise, that drastically different cultures in some of the most contentious parts of the world can magically become democratic through sheer force of American will, is arguably the most radical policy ever put forth by any government, anywhere. And conservatives now concerned about “radicals taking over the White House,” need to take a good, hard look at not only the woman Obama might be trusting with foreign affairs, but the Republicans who adore her.
Carol Platt Liebau shares a story about how Code Pink goes to; of all places; Iran. Yeah, that’s right freakin’ IRAN.
The Country whos “justice” system has passed the death penalty to a woman who killed a man who wanted to rape her in self defense.
The Country that allows a penalty called stoning, which is usually used on women and usually for “crimes” such as adultry (it has to be noted that getting raped also counts as adultry and if the rape victim fails to produce several male witnesses who confirm her story, then she is subject to execution by stoning as well, that’s how islamic “law” deals with it.)
The Country that doesn’t allow free speech.
The Country that doesn’t allow real democracy.
The Country which came to be under Khomeini many years ago, doesn’t allow religious freedom (just like all the other islamic countries.)
The Country that has supported terrorists in the past and still supports them
The Country that wants to start a new Holocaust by wiping Israel off the map.
Yeah, that country.
Damned Communists. Maybe we’ll get lucky and they’ll come up missing in Iran. The World would be such a better place.
The villagers and the right made it very clear what they required of Obama — bipartisanship, technocratic competence and center-right orthodoxy. Liberals took cultural signifiers as a sign of solidarity and didn’t ask for anything. So, we have the great symbolic victory of the first black president (and that’s not nothing, by the way) who is also a bipartisan, centrist technocrat. Surprise.
There are things to applaud about the cabinet picks — Clinton is a global superstar who, along with Barack himself, signals to the world that the US is no longer being run by incompetent, extremist, political fringe dwellers. Holder seems to be genuinely against torture and hostile to the concept of the imperial presidency. Gaithner is a smart guy who has the trust of the Big Money Boyz, which may end up being useful considering the enormous and risky economic challenges ahead. Emmanuel is someone who is not afraid to wield a knife and if we’re lucky he might just wield it from time to time against a Republican or a right wing Democrat. Napolitano seems to have a deft political touch with difficult issues like immigration which is going to be a battleground at DHS. And on and on.
None of them are liberals, but then Obama said repeatedly that he wasn’t ideological, that he cared about “what works.” I don’t know why people didn’t believe that. He’s a technocrat who wants to “solve problems” and “change politics.” The first may actually end up producing the kind of ideological shift liberals desire simply because of the dire set of circumstances greeting the new administration. (Hooray for the new depression!) The second was always an empty fantasy — politics is just another word for human nature, and that hasn’t changed since we were dancing around the fire outside our caves.
If you want to press for a cabinet appointment at this late date who might bring some ideological ballast, I would guess that labor and energy are where the action is. It would be really helpful to have somebody from the left in the room when the wonks start dryly parceling out the compromises on the economy and climate change. But basically, we are going to be dealing with an administration whose raison d’etre is to make government “work.” That’s essentially a progressive goal and one that nobody can really argue with. But he never said he would make government “work” for a liberal agenda. Liberals just assumed that.
I could not have said it better myself. I watched as the Left; both moderate and far left, made Obama into a Messiah-like figure, who would right all of America’s wrongs. It was simply a myth. Obama is not superman, nor is he God. He is simply a man. A man who chose to try a make a difference in the political realm. I do not agree with Obama’s Political ideology; but I do admire the guy for deciding to do something to make change, instead of sitting on the sidelines and complaining; which is what a great amount of Americans do.
Another Quote from this that strikes me, as a bit odd, is this:
But Barack Obama is a centrist, establishment politician. That is what he has been since he’s been in the Senate, and more importantly, it’s what he made clear — both explicitly and through his actions — that he intended to be as President. Even in the primary, he paid no price whatsoever for that in terms of progressive support. As is true for the national Democratic Party generally, he has no good reason to believe he needs to accommodate liberal objections to what he is doing. The Joe Lieberman fiasco should have made that as conclusively clear as it gets.
That is because, that is what gets elected, Americans as a rule; tend to back away from extremists. Cynthia McKinney is a perfect example of that. Obama knew that if he was going to get elected, he had to run his campaign as a centerist and as a moderate Democrat, otherwise he would have lost.
Hey, Sister Toldjah. You do mean, “Flag Burning Liberals”, right?
Cause that’s about what them damn hippy liberals are good for. I don’t buy all this stupidity that Liberals love America. That’s Bullshit of the highest order. If they’ve so loved America, they would never elected that floppy-eared fool, that’s going to be our next President.
(Trust me, there’s a ton of other “Not so Christian” or politically incorrect words that I’d like to call him, but it’s Sunday and I’m being cool about it.)
News via the Independent Political Report, that Cynthia McKinney, in attempting to fly to Damascus, Syria; was not permitted to leave the country.
Considering this woman’s track record and very strange past. One would think that this would be one person, that the Government would want to leave the United States… Possibly for good! Because the way I see it, she wants to get all chummy with Islamic terrorists, let her live over there, with her terrorist buddies. 😡
Of course, now I’m a RAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAACCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCIST for saying that. 🙄
Okay, what I want to know is, How did NBC obtain this video? Is it just me, or does this seem like an attempt to make these Hijackers seem less like; well, like criminals or even monsters? It sure does strike me as that. After all, MSNBC and NBC both are Liberal News Networks and the man they’ve elected said he would meet with people like these terrorists without conditions.
Responding to Sophia A. Nelson’s lament about how the Republican Party has not sucked up Pandered to the African-American race. Oliver Willis quips, “They don’t want your black ass!”
Just about made Coffee shoot right out of my nose! 😆
Thanks Oliver, I needed the laugh. 😀
Cookie Consent
We use cookies to improve your experience on our site. By using our site, you consent to cookies.
Used to monitor number of Google Analytics server requests
10 minutes
__utmb
Used to distinguish new sessions and visits. This cookie is set when the GA.js javascript library is loaded and there is no existing __utmb cookie. The cookie is updated every time data is sent to the Google Analytics server.
30 minutes after last activity
__utmc
Used only with old Urchin versions of Google Analytics and not with GA.js. Was used to distinguish between new sessions and visits at the end of a session.
End of session (browser)
__utmz
Contains information about the traffic source or campaign that directed user to the website. The cookie is set when the GA.js javascript is loaded and updated when data is sent to the Google Anaytics server
6 months after last activity
__utmv
Contains custom information set by the web developer via the _setCustomVar method in Google Analytics. This cookie is updated every time new data is sent to the Google Analytics server.
2 years after last activity
__utmx
Used to determine whether a user is included in an A / B or Multivariate test.
18 months
_ga
ID used to identify users
2 years
_gali
Used by Google Analytics to determine which links on a page are being clicked
30 seconds
_ga_
ID used to identify users
2 years
_gid
ID used to identify users for 24 hours after last activity
24 hours
_gat
Used to monitor number of Google Analytics server requests when using Google Tag Manager
1 minute
_gac_
Contains information related to marketing campaigns of the user. These are shared with Google AdWords / Google Ads when the Google Ads and Google Analytics accounts are linked together.