“…in the year 2007, the top 1 percent of all income earners in the United States made 23.5 percent of all income. The top 1 percent earned 23.5 percent of all income–more than the entire bottom 50 percent.”

“From 1980-2005, 80% of all income went to the top 1%.”

Not much question who the winners are, and not much question now whose side President Obama is on. Charles Ferguson, director of Inside Job, wrote in Salon:

“It is…overwhelmingly clear that President Obama and his administration decided to side with the oligarchs — or at least not to challenge them. This raises the question of why they have made this choice, and whether it is a correct (in the sense of rationally self-interested) calculation on their part.

As to the “why,” several explanations have been proposed. One is that the president, as a matter of individual psychology, is extremely conflict-averse, preferring to avoid fights no matter how important. A second hypothesis is that the president is simply doing the most he can, given the political climate and the furious lobbying effort with which he is confronted. This explanation, however, is belied by [his] personnel appointments, among other evidence.”

The latest example of this is in President Obama’s choice for director of OMB. The new one, Jacob Lew, came from Citigroup. The old one, Peter Orszag, went to Citigroup. More Ferguson:

“A more disturbing possibility is that the Obama administration has simply codified a new strategic equilibrium in American politics, one first devised by the Clinton administration, in which both parties are supine with regard to the financial sector and the wealthy.”

President Obama brought out former President Clinton yesterday to endorse his “deal.” Bill Clinton, whose “bi-partisan outreach” during his administration left two ticking time bombs in the economy in the form of the repeal of Glass-Steagall, which created “too big to fail,” and the Commodity Futures Modernization Act, which banned the regulation of derivatives.

Sen. Sanders brought up the subject of free trade. Just last week President Obama signed the South Korean version of NAFTA. I hear Ross Perot’s giant sucking sound again.  All you need to know about the South Korean “deal” it is that it got two thumbs up from those two staunch defenders of the middle-class and working people–the Chamber of Commerce and Mitch McConnell.

As good as it was to hear Sen. Sanders’ speech yesterday, I fear he is just a voice crying in the wilderness. The president’s “deal” is now being loaded up with enough pork to buy enough votes to win passage. In short, the fix is in, the wealthy and powerful will win again. We keep going back to George Carlin, “It’s a big club and we’re not in it.”

If you want to lose the House and possibly the Senate in November, if you want to increase the possibility of the 2 most dreaded words in the English language—President Palin—becoming a reality in 2012, keep the lack of a cohesive message coming. And keep on waiting for the GOP to get on board.

First have President Obama come out on a Thursday with a speech focusing on job creation—saying how we can’t afford to give the keys back to the Republicans because they’re the ones whose policies “gave us the economic crisis” and drove the economy into the ditch. This is called firing up the base for the upcoming mid-term elections. (BTW, mid-term elections are all about turning out the base, and in case you haven’t noticed the Republican base is ready to vote today).

Then have David Axelrod go on This Week on Sunday and say that “there is no great desire on Capitol Hill” for more spending to stimulate the economy and that “we’re hoping we can persuade enough people on the other side of the aisle to put politics aside and join us.”  This makes your base throw up their hands (or just throw up) and say ‘For cryin’ out loud, somebody get a freakin’  clue. The Republicans don’t want anything that resembles economic growth, now or in the next 2 years. When are you guys gonna get it?’

Here are some steps you might want to consider and some advice you might want to listen to. First from Atrios:

“So let’s say Obama’s people have correctly deduced that there’s no chance in hell of getting anything through Congress. They have two basic options. First, they could get on the teevee every day and say, “This is my plan to help. Republicans in Congress won’t pass it.” They could hold rallies in Maine. Allies could run ads. At least people would know who is for and who is against…and just what it was that people are for or against.”

Option two is back off proposals you’ve previously made and have Axelrod get on the teevee and say, “there is some argument for additional spending in the short-run to continue to generate economic activity.”

Paul Krugman adds:

“I have no idea what they’re thinking. It would be one thing if polls suggested a tolerable outcome in November, so that playing it safe could possibly make sense as a political strategy. But that’s not the way it is; and it’s hard to see what possible motivation there is for pulling punches.”

Steve Benen at Washington Monthly:

“My sense is that President Obama really hates — and actively avoids — picking fights he fully expects to lose…The defeat would leave him weaker, exacerbate intra-party tensions, and at the same time signal that the White House lacks confidence in the strength of the economic recovery.

But the current alternative is far worse, especially given the fact that the White House should lack confidence in the strength of the economic recovery. It makes a lot more sense to push an ambitious jobs bill — like, now — invite Republicans to do what they always do, give Democrats something to fight for, and have the debate.

[...]

Yes, Republicans will block any measure intended to improve the economy, and it’s largely too late for a new stimulus effort to boost the economy before November. But it’s still worth having the fight — force the GOP to stand in the way of job creation, and show the public that Democrats are prepared to fight to improve on an unsatisfactory status quo.”

To sum up, you’re quickly approaching (if not already at) ‘nothing to lose’ stage. In sports terminology, this is not the time for basketball’s 4-corner offense or football’s prevent defense. (Long-time Houston fans can tell you how both of those work out, and it ain’t good. See UH–NC State and Oilers vs. Buffalo Bills). For those who don’t follow sports, let’s go with “faint heart never won fair maiden.” And faint heart never kicked the shit out of an obstructionist Republican either. It’s time to go bold and force the other team to re-act to you, not you to them.

Just my $0.02.

“Obama plans to unveil his latest proposal Wednesday, starting at 1:45 p.m., at a White House ceremony, an administration official said, speaking anonymously under White House ground rules.”

It’s a good thing all our economic problems are solved and we’re back to full employment.

Former Vice-President Cheney has used it several times as his justification for the Bush administration’s “enhanced interrogation techniques.” It was the priority of the administration and the aim of it’s policies after 9/11, according to Mr. Cheney.

White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs included it in his press briefing on Wednesday, citing it as “the most important job” of President Obama. The president himself said in his speech it is his “single most important responsibility.”

That phrase is “keeping Americans safe.”

I would argue that Mr. Gibbs,  Mr. Cheney, and President Obama are mistaken. In my opinion, the most important job of the President of the United States, and what should guide every president and their administration, is to fulfill to the presidential oath of office, which is:

“I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.”

Nothing there about keeping the people safe.

In his inaugural address, President Obama spoke of not sacrificing our principles for safety:

“As for our common defense, we reject as false the choice between our safety and our ideals.

Those ideals still light the world, and we will not give them up for expedience’s sake.”

Preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States. The Constitution that includes the protection from unreasonable search and seizure, and the rights of due process, trial by jury, and of the accused to be “informed of the nature and cause of the accusation.”

But in his otherwise excellent speech on Thursday, President Obama included something that was unsettling to me and should be to anyone who holds these protections dear. That is the notion of “preventive detention”–indefinite imprisonment of those whose crimes can’t be proven in a court of law but who are deemed “dangerous” because of what they might do if released.

In Glen Greenwald’s piece for Salon, he explained it this way:

“It’s important to be clear about what “preventive detention” authorizes.  It does not merely allow the U.S. Government to imprison people alleged to have committed Terrorist acts yet who are unable to be convicted in a civilian court proceeding.  That class is merely a subset, perhaps a small subset, of who the Government can detain.  Far more significant, “preventive detention” allows indefinite imprisonment not based on proven crimes or past violations of law, but of those deemed generally “dangerous” by the Government for various reasons.

…After all, once you accept the rationale on which this proposal is based — namely, that the U.S. Government must, in order to keep us safe, preventively detain “dangerous” people even when they can’t prove they violated any laws — there’s no coherent reason whatsoever to limit that power to people already at Guantanamo, as opposed to indefinitely imprisoning with no trials all allegedly “dangerous” combatants, whether located in Pakistan, Thailand, Indonesia, Western countries and even the U.S.”

Not a road I think we want to start down in the name of “keeping us safe.”

To be clear, this isn’t about my not trusting President Obama to do what he thinks is best for our country, which I do. But that trust is not absolute and without limits. It is about trusting government, no matter who the president happens to be, with this kind of power.

The government may keep us safe from the terrorists, our Constitutional protections are there to keep us safe from the government. To me, the second protection is more important than the first.

Lower taxes, reduce spending, cut government programs, the usual suspects. He also found time to misrepresent Barack Obama’s proposals on taxes and health care, although he presented no health care plan of his own, and even get in an “anointed one” reference.

What McCain’s speech had plenty of was his autobiography. You know, the one he doesn’t like to talk about that much. For someone who claims that his experiences made him realize “I wasn’t my own man anymore, I was my country’s” and that he has been his country’s servant “first, last and always”, Senator McCain certainly spends a lot of time attracting attention to himself and his personal ordeal.

I would think that servant’s spirit might include a dose of humility, but then again I could be wrong.

Senator McCain also proclaimed his hatred for war, which is strange coming from the man who less than a month after 9/11 expressed his desire to take retaliation against Al-Qaeda beyond Afghanistan, and on January 2, 2002 said “Next up, Baghdad.”

McCain also continued his assertion that Obama would raise taxes, again leaving out the fact that it would only affect those making over $250,000 a year.

But he didn’t stop there, saying this:

“His plan will force small businesses to cut jobs, reduce wages, and force families into a government-run health care system where a bureaucrat stands between you and your doctor.”

To coin a McCain phrase, my friends, that is not a misrepresentation, that is a lie. Here is Obama’s health care plan. Someone please find for me where it says anything about forcing people into a government-run health care system. Remember the debate between Hillary and Obama over health care mandates? How her plan contained them and his didn’t?

Then there was this:

“I’m not running for president because I think I’m blessed with such personal greatness that history has anointed me to save our country in its hour of need.”

Another cheap shot, but not unexpected. No, Senator McCain is running for president because he wants to “serve a purpose greater than himself.” Hmmm, serve a purpose greater than yourself. That sounds to me like the job description of a community organizer. Nah, couldn’t be.

Finally, on the issue of “changing the way Washington works.” Refresh my memory, but hasn’t John McCain has been in Washington for nearly 30 years? Yet he talks like he has never even seen the place. He is going to suddenly reform something he has been hip-deep in for almost 3 decades. Does anybody see a contradiction there? But excuse me, who am I to question a former POW. Never mind.

With all the gushing praise and the glowing reviews after Sarah Palin’s speech at the Republican Convention last night, one would have thought she was the presidential nominee and not John McCain. Home run, amazing, brilliant, fantastic, the pundits proclaimed. What it was to me was a typical Republican stump speech, with a little personalized biographical information thrown in for good measure.

I’ll give Governor Palin credit for this much, she was well-rehearsed, well-prepared, and well-scripted. She threw enough chum in the water for the Republican sharks on hand and in the television audience to feast on for days and weeks to come.

She repeated the falsehoods and misrepresentations about her record, recounted again for us John McCain’s ordeal in a North Vietnamese prison camp, and took the obligatory shots at Barack and Michelle Obama. Yawn. Same old, same old.

What Governor Palin also did was leave herself wide open for attacks from the Democrats on everything from her alleged status as a reformer during her time as Mayor of Podunk, Alaska, to her support/non-support of the Bridge To Nowhere, to the accusations that she abused her power, to her knowledge, or lack of same, on foreign and domestic policy.

In his remarks to the Convention on Tuesday, President Bush spoke of the “angry left.” What I saw on display last night was the angry right. From Huckabee to Giuliani to Palin, I heard constant attacks on Barack Obama’s lack of experience and his policy proposals. What I didn’t hear were GOP alternatives to those proposals.

Nothing about the economy, other than the tired old ‘Obama will raise your taxes’ line. Nothing about how to deal with our dependence on foreign oil, nothing about the worsening situation in Afghanistan, just a constant stream of one-liners and zingers aimed at Barack Obama.

So I’ll end where I began, calm down Republicans, your main man has yet to be heard from. After all the hubub over Palin’s speech, McCain’s may become anti-climactic. Palin is a base consolidator, nothing more, and this election is not going to be decided by the respective bases, but by the independents and undecideds.

And when those undecideds get beyond Palin’s rhetoric and take a look at her hard-line stance on some issues and her lack of knowledge on others, I believe they will come to the conclusion that she is completely unprepared to be the person a heartbeat away from the most powerful position in the world.

In a nutshell, Obama was magnificent. He answered his critics who say he is all style and no substance by laying out specific objectives that his administration would pursue. He drew stark differences between himself and John McCain, correctly linking McCain with the failed policies of George W. Bush. And he went after McCain, not on personal or character issues, but rather on McCain’s record and what he would do as President. In horse racing that’s called a trifecta, three winners.

Here’s just one reaction to the speech. This is Alex Castellanos, a longtime Republican consultant and a protege of Lee Atwater when it comes to down-and-dirty political warfare. Hearing this should be a cause of concern in the McCain camp.

Then there was the response from the McCain campaign:

“Tonight, Americans witnessed a misleading speech that was so fundamentally at odds with the meager record of Barack Obama. When the temple comes down, the fireworks end, and the words are over, the facts remain: Senator Obama still has no record of bipartisanship, still opposes offshore drilling, still voted to raise taxes on those making just $42,000 per year, and still voted against funds for American troops in harm’s way. The fact remains: Barack Obama is still not ready to be President.”

Here is MSNBC’s Chuck Todd’s assessment of that predictable reaction:

The Republicans definitely have a hard act to follow. If the tone of their campaign against Barack Obama so far is any indication, I expect it to be a 4-day slime and smear festival. The icing on the GOP cake will be the expected riveting acceptance speech by that great orator, Senator John McCain. This much I know, I would love to be the person who has the coffee and No-Doz concession in the arena that night.

On his radio program yesterday, Rush Limbaugh said that since the temples in ancient Greece were built as homes for the gods, Obama has taken his Messiah status one step further and now believes himself to be God.

I hate to be the one to burst the GOP bubble, but I guess a little history lesson is in order. Today is the 45^th anniversary of Martin Luther King’s “I Have a Dream” speech, which was given in front of the structure pictured here, better known as the Lincoln Memorial. Note the columns.

Here is a photograph of Dr. King taken during a portion of that speech. Again, take notice of the columns in the background.

So you see my Republican friends, the stage is not set up to portray Obama as some sort of Deity, it has an historical context. Oh well, back to attacking Obama’s patriotism and smearing him by taking his remarks on Iran and Israel out of context.

I might, however, suggest an appropriate setting for John McCain’s acceptance speech. Maybe in front of a mock-up of a crashed fighter plane, or in light of his many references to his time in captivity, a re-creation of the Hanoi Hilton. He is a former POW, you know.