What a bunch of thoroughly screwed up young women feminism has wrought.

Do you know more about the situations than the rest of us? If so, do tell. If not, you should be ashamed of yourself.

The man is a fool. Even scarier, the more foolish he looks, the more people identify with him and send him money. He needs to be taken down.

The attitude of some here reminds me of what went on when protests started on Vietnam.

Provocative but cryptic though I suppose it's hard to get one without the other.

"Deal with it."

I'll try but it's tough; Obama is the most divisive president I've seen in quite a long time. Maybe since Nixon.

My personal belief is that the people accusing the OWSers as being commie pinkos, and the people labeling TPers as racist bigots are two sides of the same coin: meaning, Obama is not in very good company. I never heard of this Michael Burgess person either, which kind of proves my point.

Cartera, I know Micheal Burgess was at one point pushing to impeach Obama---based on nothing more than a desire to "stop Obama from carrying out his political agenda," but what has he said or done that qualifies as racist? I'll admit I know next to nothing about this guy.

The attitude of some here reminds me of what went on when protests started on Vietnam.

that's why people are curious

No, Poetsheart explained beautifully why they are curious. Nothing else makes sense. There can certainly be no doubt why Tea Party racist Michael Burgess wants them.

Here's the long and the short of it: Republicans want Obama's scores and transcripts for one reason: to call him "an affirmative action admit", to imply that he really didn't earn that Summa Cum Laude from Harvard, to say, "See, he's not that brilliant." They want to comb through those transcipts with a fine tooth, and if he's taken any course that touches on political or religious ideology that in any way can be construed as smacking of Anti-Americanism, they want to want to shake that paper with ire in front of cameras, and rail about how "We were right all along about this guy."

No other candidate has more to lose by publishing his grades and transcripts than Obama, because the words "higher education" and "black man" have been political dry tender in this country since the seventeen hundreds, and the GOP knows this. They'll deny it has anything to do with racial politics, and gnash their teeth in righteous indignation at the very suggestion of it, but they know it's out there, a miasma from America's on-going racial struggle. That's why they're hoping to use whatever they can make of his transcripts as an opportunity for diversion, as a way to pull Obama off message and cause him to have to address their allegations before cameras, to impugn his intelligence, all the while, bristling with indignation that anyone would call out their motive for what it is.

So Bush, Gore, and Kerry, three membes of America's monied elite, went to their respective Ivy League colleges, and at that time earned the perfectly acceptable equivalent of what's been called "the gentleman's "C." No big deal. Any real attempt to make anything significant of these facts fell far short of the mark, as they don't actually say much important about them personally, and certainly never served any racial generality or platform ideology. There's no real political hay to be made in combing through their scores and transcripts. That's why their poor academic showing (certainly, poor by today's uber-standards) was merely a blip on their political radar, a pin not a bazooka, a wry-smile-and-shrug moment beore the cameras. It wouldn't carry any long-term implications as to their fitness to serve as Commander In Chief. Yeah, Bush was later called stupid, or said to be lacking intelligence, but it was only because of his legendary "Bushisms" and verbal gaffs. His college performance was only held up as reinforcement, not absolute evidence. Kerry, the pompous bloviator, was never called stupid, even though his numbers didn't look any better than Bush's. The true impression of his innate intelligence was conveyed in his speech, and his grades were never seen to belie that. Same with Gore.

And that's why even less was made of Bill Clinton's academic performance. Once the words, "Rhodes Scholar" were murmured in tones of respectful awe, nobody bothered to questioned his academic bonafides. Move along, folks. Nothing to see here. The man has a reputation of being bloody brilliant, and it's seen to be as axiomatically true as his reputation as a skirt chaser. But, obama will never have that luxury. His Summa Cum Laude and law review Presidency mean nothing in the face of anti-affirmative action rhetoric. And that's the way it'll remain, as long as there are white applicants who can be said to have deserved his spot at Harvard more; and as long as there are "researchers" who who can "prove" what's been held (or at least strongly suspected) to be true since the first manacled african was stood up on a colonial auction block: that blacks are inherently less intelligent than whites, just as they are better endowed with the brute strength that makes them best suited for manual labor, offensive tackle, or speed out of the running block.

Only a flawless transcript and stratispheric SAT will serve to shut up Obama's detractors. He will be held to today's highest standards, not those of the by-gone Ivy Leaguer from a privileged class. Otherwise, it will undoubtled be implied, if not outright stated, that he "took the spot" of someone more worthy. Someone white or Asian. Because the GOP has a high stake in this issue, and they want the President as their high profile exhibit A.

But no matter what---whether they continue to whine about their lack of access to Obama's transcripts, or manage to strong arm them out of him--- they win. Just as they crowed with delight at having "forced" Obama to produce his long form birth certificate (which still proves nothing to committed birthers), they will do the same if he relents and gives them access to this academic record. Because it's all about manipulation and political brinksmanship. So, the question is: What's in it for Obama? Really, how does it advantage him to bend to the will of his political enemies? They'll be able to spin it to their advantage, no matter what. So, I say, control the direction of the spin. Deny them that which they demand, so that those who have their eyes open will see this constant clamoring for "the transcripts" for what it really is.

And btw, nothing can convince me that nobody in the GOP can obtain a copy of Obama's transcripts if they truly wanted to, just as The Washington Post and The Boston Globe were able to obtain Gore's. But, they know it would be even more unseemly, after more than four years into this Presidency, to breech Obama's confidential records in an attempt to force this agenda. So, for now, they have their ability to continued to whine, like a low grade fever, over the lack of Obama's transcripts, which will keep their base sufficiently exercised with affirmative action outrage. And Obama has the satisfaction of knowing he can keep the issue just where it is---in the background, not the front and center issue many conservatives would like it to be. He can keep them frustrated and hoping-mad, knowing they can't really force the issue without looking petty at best. Good for him!

And some people think he's not politically savvy....

I'm sure there was a clamoring for Bush's Yale grades, seeing as how they wanted to prove he was the total and complete dummy they kept painting him as.  However, as opposed to Obama, he posted his entire Yale transcript on his 2004 election website.

Obviously, Obama graduated magna cum laude from HLS. It's his Occidental and Columbia grades people want to see. If he was accepted at HLS he must have had stellar grades and test scores, so what is the problem? It makes no sense he would not release his transcripts; that's why people are curious. To ascribe that curiosity to racism is pretty nasty. But that's the liberal way, and one of the reasons I'm not one any longer.

If you read my post below, you will note that Gore did not release his grades either, but the Washington Post "obtained them independently." They don't seem to have enough curiosity about Obama to obtain his transcripts "independently," lol. If Obama has put a lock on all that info, it raises even more questions among the public--as it should. Not among the msm, however, lol.

Sorry to go on about this, but truly it fascinates me. Even the Yale Daily News has a lengthy article about the grades of Bush and Kerry. Why should that be of interest to Yale readers, but Obama's grades are only of interest to Republican racists? Of course, O could put an end to all these racism accusations in the interest of uniting the country in a flash, but intentionally chooses not to.

http://www.yaledailynews.com/news/2005/jun/10/kerry-bush-had-similar-grades-at-yale/

A lengthy Washington Post article on Al Gore's Harvard grades:

"Gore has never released his transcripts, which were obtained independently by The Washington Post. Parts of them have been cited as well by Bill Turque, a Newsweek writer who has written a biography of Gore titled "Inventing Al Gore.""

http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn?pagename=article&contentId=A37397-2000Mar18

The real question should be why mainstream media outlets are NOT interested in obtaining Obama's transcripts, as they have been every other recent candidate's.

-- Edited by hope on Thursday 3rd of November 2011 11:54:34 AM

-- Edited by hope on Thursday 3rd of November 2011 11:55:05 AM

I too have no interest in presidential love lives. I didn't care about Monica Lewinsky either, except for the fact that it was a distraction. The difference in the grade thing is that the Republicans have never made a stink and demanded the grades of any other president. If they are out there, it was not because Republicans went after them. President Obama is the only president of whom such a demand has been made. I wonder what is different about President Obama that would make people suspicious of his grades. What could that possibly be?

"If a rival GOP campaign operatives are indeed responsible for this leak, is it still a "high tech lynching of yet another conservative black man?""

Good point.  I think it was a mistake for the GOP to play the race card here.

As for GWB's love life, yes. I am interested. Just like I am in FDR's. A blurb from a book on Amazon called "Lovers and Friends":

"Willis does an efficient job of narrating the already well-known facts of FDR’s relationship with Lucy Mercer. However, this story has been well told more than once by Geoffrey C. Ward, Blanche Wiesen Cook and Kenneth S. Davis. From a socially prominent but cash-strapped Maryland family, the Catholic Mercer became Eleanor Roosevelt’s social secretary in 1914, when FDR was assistant secretary of the navy. An affair between Franklin and the alluring Lucy soon developed, only to be discovered by Eleanor in 1918. Eleanor offered FDR a divorce, but his indomitable mother threatened to disinherit him should he abandon his family, and he feared that a divorce scandal would end his political career. Franklin promised Eleanor that he would drop Lucy, but through the years he repeatedly saw his girlfriend on the sly, even after polio struck, and she married Winthrop Rutherfurd, a wealthy widower with six children. On one now-famous occasion, Franklin sent a limo to bring Lucy to his 1932 inauguration. As a final insult-of which Eleanor learned soon after-Lucy was in residence with FDR at the Warm Springs, Ga., "Little White House" when he died in 1945. Willis, an English professor at Drury University and author of a book about Mark Twain and his wife, tells an interesting tale well, but it’s not revelatory. 32 b&w photos."

We know GWB's grades (transcript is online) and SAT scores; we know Kerry's grades; we know Gore's grades and SAT scores. We know FDR was a "C" student at Harvard. And on and on.

Historians are interested in every detail about American presidents. I think someday we will know all about Obama, but I don't think I'll be around then! :(

I'm sure this is really helpful. Makes you want to respect public school teachers even more, doesn't it.

Occupy Oakland: Hundreds of teachers fail to show up for work

November 2, 2011 |  4:07 pm

 

 

50

4

 

“We do support some of the ideals of Occupy Oakland, particularly the concept that services have been dramatically underfunded,” Flint said. “We wanted to allow teachers who were fighting for public education and children to have their voice.”

Still, he said, parents were urged to send their children to school, and “we were committed to keeping schools open.... It wasn’t a normal day by any means, but it progressed well.”

By late Wednesday afternoon, police and city officials estimated the number of street protesters at about 4,500. They said they expected that number to increase by this evening. 

ALSO:

What are Perry's numbers in Iowa compared to Cain's?  Intra-party politics is a dog-eat-dog world.

http://2012.talkingpointsmemo.com/2011/11/gop-consultant-i-saw-herman-cain-harass-women.php?ref=fpblg

A Republican consultant in Oklahoma who has conducted polling for a Super PAC supporting Rick Perry claims that he personally witnessed Herman Cain harass one of his accusers. And — from what he saw at least — the case is no joke.

“I was the pollster at the National Restaurant Association when Herman Cain was head of it and I was around a couple of times when this happened and anyone who was involved with the NRA at the time, knew that this was gonna come up,” strategist Chris Wilson told local station KTOK in an interview on Wednesday.

According to Wilson, the main incident occurred at a DC-area restaurant and that “everybody was aware of it,” but that for legal reasons he can’t discuss the details. But he added that if Cain’s accuser comes forward — and one of the two woman who reportedly received a settlement has expressed interest in doing just that — her story won’t be pretty. “If she talks about it, I think it’ll be the end of his campaign,” he said.

“It was only a matter of time because so many people were aware of what took place, so many people were aware of her situation, the fact she left—-everybody knew with the campaign that this would eventually come up,” Wilson said.

Wilson’s firm, WPA Research, has conducted polling on behalf of Make Us Great Again, a Super PAC founded by Perry’s former chief of staff Mike Toomey that’s running ads in support of the Texas governor.

http://www.grimmy.com/images/MGG_Archive/MGG_2011/MGG-2011-11-02.gif

Why would you think the public were clamoring for details of Obama's past any more than George Bush's? We all remember the October DUI charge. We remember the allegations of cocaine use and all the analysis of his drinking. I've read the names and comments of many of his girlfriends.

There is a whole wiki entry on "George W. Bush Substance Abuse Controversy."  

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_W._Bush_substance_abuse_controversy

People wonder about the lack of info on BHO because there is a lack of info. Period.

I am not a supporter of Cain for President or even for VP, really. I simply think all this ridiculously unfair. 

And yet, it's okay to drag Herman Cain through the mud for a story based on two anonymous sources? Even the pundits and Politico reporters themselves admit the supposed  "harassment" charge appears to be pretty thin (hand gestures or some such), so now all they are harping on is the man's, in their opinion, poor responses--which, I guess, to them means he is guilty as accused.

Dragging Herman Cain throught the mud, huh? By what---repeatedly claiming that the allegations are probably true? Or by pointing out how the Cain campaign has bungled its efforts at damage control, and speculating as to what that says about the candidate's readiness to launch a effective campaign against an incumbent President? You have to admit he's looked pretty flat footed. Politico approached Cain ten days before they broke the story, asking about the accusations of the women involved. He and his staff had more than a week to formulate a disciplined strategy as how to handle this story. Had they been more adroit, this could have been a mere blip on his campaign's radar. But by making contradictory statements from one day to the next, Cain invited the pundits to speculate as to why he wasn't putting forth a consistent response to these allegations after having had the luxury of such a prior head's-up. 

I've been watching coverage of this story, and many times, pundits (even the ones on MSNBC) have pointed out that the paying-out of some kind of "settlement" didn't necessariy say anything as to the validity of sexual harrassment allegations, that it's often merely an issue of economics, cheaper to pay the accusers a negotiated sum in order to make the problem just go away, than to engage in a far costlier court battle. And in this case, it was pointed out, the pay out was a mere 5 figures, which could be anywhere from ten thousand to 99 hundred, 99 thousand.  Even Donna Brazille (hardly a Cain supporter) pointed out that Herman Cain did not have a reputation as a "skirt chaser", and that usually, such a reputation preceeds a high profile personallity, and is hard to suppress. Having said all that, of course, Cain's political enemies are thrilled to death to see him having to grapple with this. They're all tee-heeing with glee, and those enemies are in both parties. 

And of course also, the media is thrilled to report on any scandal, especially a sexual one involving a politician. Look at how they were recently all over Anthony Weiner, and before that, John Edwards, and before that, Bill Clinton? And what about Mark Sanford, Elliot Spitzer, Larry Craig, David Vitter, Mark Foley and James McGreevy? Political party doesn't matter. These stories are just too juicy to ignore.

But again, where Cain is concerned, until something more damning than sketchy allegations comes forth, the real story has been about how clumsily he's handled the story.

If a story about supposed past sexual impropriety were to be leaked about Obama, you can be sure the mainstream media would be all over it, because that's what they do. Certainly, nobody would be able to shut Fox News or the conservative radio show personalities up about it. In fact, I'm sure Obama's enemies have their ears to the ground 24/7, listening for anything of the sort they could use to hamstring his re-election bid, especially since their own field of challengers is so weak. They've shown themselves willing to go after Obama in any way they can, even using manufactured "guilt by association," such as in the Shirley Sherrod case, wherein Andrew Breitbart thought nothing of using anonymously sourced and doctored video tape to make it look as if the Obama administration tolerates racism from within its own Dept. of Agriculture. But, I'll bet you didn't get your knickers in a twist about that, did you hope?

Too bad the GOP couldn't come up with that supposed footage of Michelle Obama calling white people "whitey," which they swore they were going to bust out during the final days of the '08 campaign....

But, take heart. It may be that the sexual harrassment story is already long in the tooth, and about to fade, espcially sense what they're talking about today is Cain's recent PBS interview in which he warns China is "seeking nuclear capability..."

-- Edited by Poetsheart on Wednesday 2nd of November 2011 08:07:44 AM

-- Edited by Poetsheart on Wednesday 2nd of November 2011 08:18:25 AM

Apparently so. Plug "George W. Bush girlfriends" into Google and see all the entries come up.

As for the rumor, I'm just telling you what the accuser's lawyer said on CNN tonight--that it was the Restaurant Assoc. itself. I know they are not supporting Cain; wonder who they are supporting.

and those calls of racism have stopped the lunatic right from questioning such idiotic matters as his birthplace to this day

We were (are) not even allowed to ask anything about Obama's past, esp. his past relationships with females. And that is not a joke.

What on earth are you talking about? Who cares about his past relationships with women? The last time I checked, harrassment does not a relationship make. I have never heard anyone ask Cain about his past relationships with women. A source, more than likely Karl Rove, gave this story up as a tip that has been proven to be true  - Cain was accused of sexual harrassment. That is all we know - that he was accused. The bigger problem seems to be that, even though he had several days to come up with a resonse to this, he fumbled again, further demonstrating just how inept his campaign is.

Yes it certainly is sad!  I'm sure you can dig up some sexual harassment lawsuits against Obama and perhaps even payoffs.

Listening to this non-stop coverage of sexual harassment allegations (not proven) from the mid-nineties, I just have to wonder.

We were (are) not even allowed to ask anything about Obama's past, esp. his past relationships with females. And that is not a joke. To do that apparently means one is a racist. And yet, it's okay to drag Herman Cain through the mud for a story based on two anonymous sources? Even the pundits and Politico reporters themselves admit the supposed  "harassment" charge appears to be pretty thin (hand gestures or some such), so now all they are harping on is the man's, in their opinion, poor responses--which, I guess, to them means he is guilty as accused.

Pretty amazing and pretty sad.

-- Edited by hope on Tuesday 1st of November 2011 04:29:26 PM

I'm not saying Politico is "covering" for Rove ---- the story could have been leaked to the media from any number of sources.  But you said it was "unlikely" to have come from the right, and I'm pointing out that it is quite plausible that it came from one of the rival campaign camps or from a power player like Rove who wants Romney to be the nominee.

 Rove a sideshow?

 Doesn't his American Crossroads PAC have more money to spend than the RNC?