Camille Paglia, too?

The reaction from the Obama-loving mainstream press following their Messiah’s election has been fascinating. All of a sudden, we’re seeing people like Charlie Rose and Tom Brokaw admitting that they don’t know much about the president-elect or his worldview, Evan Thomas from Newsweek questioning a “slightly creepy cult of personality,” and the Washington Post actually acknowledging that the coverage in the paper was biased.

Now,’s Camille Paglia went a little further and hit the proverbial nail right on the head (after, of course, lavishing praise on Barack and Michelle Obama). In the piece, she mentions the controversy surrounding Obama’s birth certificate, the media’s failure to address Obama’s connection with William Ayers until a few months before the election, and Sarah Palin as the possible new face of feminism in America.

Here’s a lengthy excerpt from her enjoyable column:

As I’ve watched Obama gracefully step up to podiums or move through crowds, I’ve been reminded not of basketball, with its feints and pivots, but of surfing, that art form of his native Hawaii. A photograph of Obama body surfing on vacation was widely publicized in August. But I’m talking about big-time competitive surfing, as in this stunning video tribute to the death-defying Laird Hamilton (who, like Obama, was raised fatherless in Hawaii). Obama’s ability to stay on his feet and outrun the most menacing waves that threaten to engulf him seems to embody the breezy, sunny spirit of the American surfer.

In the closing weeks of the election, however, I became increasingly disturbed by the mainstream media’s avoidance of forthright dealing with several controversies that had been dogging Obama — even as every flimsy rumor about Sarah Palin was being trumpeted as if it were engraved in stone on Mount Sinai. For example, I had thought for many months that the flap over Obama’s birth certificate was a tempest in a teapot. But simple questions about the certificate were never resolved to my satisfaction. Thanks to their own blathering, fanatical overkill, of course, the right-wing challenges to the birth certificate never gained traction.

But Obama could have ended the entire matter months ago by publicly requesting Hawaii to issue a fresh, long-form, stamped certificate and inviting a few high-profile reporters in to examine the document and photograph it. (The campaign did make the “short-form” certificate available to, a project of the Annenberg Public Policy Center at the University of Pennsylvania.) And why has Obama not made his university records or thesis work widely available? The passivity of the press toward Bush administration propaganda about weapons of mass destruction led the nation into the costly blunder of the Iraq war. We don’t need another presidency that finds it all too easy to rely on evasion or stonewalling. I deeply admire Obama, but as a voter I don’t like feeling gamed or played.

Another issue that I initially dismissed was the flap over William Ayers, the Chicago-based former member of the violent Weather Underground. Conservative radio host Sean Hannity began the drumbeat about Ayers’ association with Obama a year ago — a theme that most of the mainstream media refused to investigate or even report until this summer. I had never heard of Ayers and couldn’t have cared less. I was irritated by Hillary Clinton’s aggressive flagging of Ayers in a debate, and I accepted Obama’s curt dismissal of the issue.

Hence my concern about Ayers has been very slow in developing. The mainstream media should have fully explored the subject early this year and not allowed it to simmer and boil until it flared up ferociously in the last month of the campaign. Obama may not in recent years have been “pallin’ around” with Ayers, in Sarah Palin’s memorable line, but his past connections with Ayers do seem to have been more frequent and substantive than he has claimed. Blame for the failure of this issue to take hold must also accrue to the conservative talk shows, which use the scare term “radical” with simplistic sensationalism, blanketing everyone under the sun from scraggly ex-hippies to lipstick-chic Nancy Pelosi.

Pursuing the truth about Ayers, I recently rented the 2002 documentary “The Weather Underground,” from Netflix. It was riveting. Although the film seems to waver between ominous exposé and blatant whitewash, the full extent of the group’s bombing campaign is dramatically demonstrated. It’s not for everyone: The film uses gratuitous cutaways of horrifying carnage, from the Vietnam War to the Manson murders (such as Sharon Tate’s smiling corpse, bathed in blood). But the news footage of the Greenwich Village townhouse destroyed in 1970 by bomb-making gone wrong in the basement still has enormous impact. Standing in the chaotic street, actor Dustin Hoffman, who lived next door, seems like Everyman at the apocalypse.

Ayers comes off in the film as a vapid, slightly dopey, chronic juvenile with stunted powers of ethical reasoning. The real revelation is his wife, Bernardine Dohrn (who evidently worked at the same large Chicago law firm as Michelle Obama in the mid-1990s). Of course I had heard of Dohrn — hers was one of the most notorious names of our baby-boom generation — and I knew her black-and-white police mug shot. But I had never seen footage of her speaking or interacting with others. Well, it’s pretty obvious who wears the pants in that family!

The mystery of Bernardine Dohrn: How could such a personable, attractive, well-educated young woman end up saying such things at a 1969 political rally as this (omitted in the film) about the Manson murders: “Dig it. First they killed those pigs, then they ate dinner in the same room with them. They even shoved a fork into a victim’s stomach. Wild!” And how could Dohrn have so ruthlessly pursued a decade-long crusade of hatred and terrorism against innocent American citizens and both private and public property?

“The Weather Underground” never searches for answers, but it does show Dohrn, then and now, as a poised, articulate woman of extremely high intelligence and surprising inwardness. The audio extra of her reading the collective’s first public communiqué (“Revolutionary violence is the only way”) is chilling. But the tumultuous footage of her 1980 surrender to federal authorities is a knockout. Mesmerized, I ran the clip six or seven times of her seated at a lawyer’s table while reading her still defiant statement. The sober scene — with Dohrn hyper-alert in a handsome turtleneck and tweedy jacket — was tailor-made for Jane Fonda in her “Klute” period, androgynous shag. Only illegalities by federal investigators prevented Dohrn from being put away on ice for a long, long time.

Given that Obama had served on a Chicago board with Ayers and approved funding of a leftist educational project sponsored by Ayers, one might think that the unrepentant Ayers-Dohrn couple might be of some interest to the national media. But no, reporters have been too busy playing mini-badminton with every random spitball about Sarah Palin, who has been subjected to an atrocious and at times delusional level of defamation merely because she has the temerity to hold pro-life views.

How dare Palin not embrace abortion as the ultimate civilized ideal of modern culture? How tacky that she speaks in a vivacious regional accent indistinguishable from that of Western Canada! How risible that she graduated from the University of Idaho and not one of those plush, pampered commodes of received opinion whose graduates, in their rush to believe the worst about her, have demonstrated that, when it comes to sifting evidence, they don’t know their asses from their elbows.

Liberal Democrats are going to wake up from their sadomasochistic, anti-Palin orgy with a very big hangover. The evil genie released during this sorry episode will not so easily go back into its bottle. A shocking level of irrational emotionalism and at times infantile rage was exposed at the heart of current Democratic ideology — contradicting Democratic core principles of compassion, tolerance and independent thought. One would have to look back to the Eisenhower 1950s for parallels to this grotesque lock-step parade of bourgeois provincialism, shallow groupthink and blind prejudice.

I like Sarah Palin, and I’ve heartily enjoyed her arrival on the national stage. As a career classroom teacher, I can see how smart she is — and quite frankly, I think the people who don’t see it are the stupid ones, wrapped in the fuzzy mummy-gauze of their own worn-out partisan dogma. So she doesn’t speak the King’s English — big whoop! There is a powerful clarity of consciousness in her eyes. She uses language with the jumps, breaks and rippling momentum of a be-bop saxophonist. I stand on what I said (as a staunch pro-choice advocate) in my last two columns — that Palin as a pro-life wife, mother and ambitious professional represents the next big shift in feminism. Pro-life women will save feminism by expanding it, particularly into the more traditional Third World.

As for the Democrats who sneered and howled that Palin was unprepared to be a vice-presidential nominee — what navel-gazing hypocrisy! What protests were raised in the party or mainstream media when John Edwards, with vastly less political experience than Palin, got John Kerry’s nod for veep four years ago? And Gov. Kathleen Sebelius of Kansas, for whom I lobbied to be Obama’s pick and who was on everyone’s short list for months, has a record indistinguishable from Palin’s. Whatever knowledge deficit Palin has about the federal bureaucracy or international affairs (outside the normal purview of governors) will hopefully be remedied during the next eight years of the Obama presidencies.

The U.S. Senate as a career option? What a claustrophobic, nitpicking comedown for an energetic Alaskan — nothing but droning committees and incestuous back-scratching. No, Sarah Palin should stick to her governorship and just hit the rubber-chicken circuit, as Richard Nixon did in his long haul back from political limbo following his California gubernatorial defeat in 1962. Step by step, the mainstream media will come around, wipe its own mud out of its eyes, and see Palin for the populist phenomenon that she is.



  1. Anonymous says:

    Paglia’s national cultural treasure. For an academic, remarkable in every way. She has projected so much onto her brethren in the academy and on the left.

    Like so many good and decent Democrats who self-identify as Progressives, the projection of their own good will blinds them to the pernicious psychopathology of the vicious syndicalist party
    core who exploit their misplaced faith to gut the treasury and trample the Constitution.

    To be against what you hate about “republican” is not enough. One must find the courage to confront what you hate regardless of the official Progressive position.

  2. MUJERLATINA says:

    BRAVO!!! Finally somebody who can articulate why Sarah Palin is a rising star of the GOP — and why she is, for intellectual, strong, professional working moms like me, a real feminist. There are millions of us out there who value life, family and country. Thank you for clarifying Sarah Palin to all those MSM ‘thugs’ under whose radar she fell…

  3. California Mom says:

    Wow…this lady is hard-core liberal, but she gave Sarah props and is now questioning Obama’s past…nice. I hope more people wake up out of their post-election stupor and start asking tough questions and holding the media accountable. I just wish it happened BEFORE the election!! We just have to have faith that the truth will come out before it’s too late.

  4. chuck says:

    You ought to read sampling of what her own left “leaning” readers have to say about her article. There were over 600 comments at last count and nearly every one I read was full of bile and contempt. Even in victory the left is consumed with hatred for those that don’t measure up to their elite status. They will turn on their own and even call for her censorship because she dares to challenge the inevitability of Obama. Paglia truly sees both sides of the argument and rater than demonize her opponent, she tries to understand and communicate with them. I’m dyed in the wool Conservative but I can appreciate her insight.

  5. Anonymous says:

    Why, in God’s name, do these people NOW, after the fawning and election, decide to publish this tripe?

    Answer: It’s all calculated so that they can continue to be smarmy towards all of us in the Red states and counties of the USA.

  6. Phil says:

    Already sent her an email about sites covering all the various lawsuits: (good survey of lawsuits) (yes, my blog)


  7. Anonymous says:

    amazing… Obama has already been elected for ‘eight years’, when he hasn’t been elected by the Electoral College.


  8. John Galt says:

    but his past connections with Ayers do seem to have been more frequent and substantive than he has claimed. Blame for the failure of this issue to take hold must also accrue to the conservative talk shows, which use the scare term "radical" with simplistic sensationalism, blanketing everyone under the sun from scraggly ex-hippies to lipstick-chic Nancy Pelosi.>.

    Sorry Jeff but this article is nothing but praise for the Obama's, criticism of McCain and an attack on the Conservatives for the Ayers issue not taking hold with the Drive-Bys.

    I could have done better not wasting my time reading it.

    I do really think a lot of your past left wing attitudes creeps into your attitudes.

  9. Anonymous says:

    Well, everyone can exhale now.

    Obama’s ability to stay on his feet and outrun the most menacing waves that threaten to engulf him

    Puleeze. This little man has had nothing but a little breeze to contend with while the big media, organizers, monied thugs, socialist community organizers and America hating “religious” leaders guarded him like mafia security forces.

    Paglia NOW mentions what she wonders about OTHERS not mentioning before re: the troubling Obama circumstances. How convenient. And it would appear that even SHE still is not aware of so many other questions yet to be mentioned by the media buddies…like how did he even get into Columbia and who has paid his way in his “meteoric rise” and just who, therefore, he owes. And then she ends by nevertheless cheering on two terms for this “creepy” questionable person. I swear, liberals who wish to appear open-minded, always turn out looking more like schizophrenics than balanced critics while even conservative “intellectual wannabes” are willing to take even crumbs of some vestige of right reason from the nonetheless, babblers. People, see through the rhetoric and wait for the conversion in actions to complete the eye opening considerations.

  10. Anonymous says:

    Lots of different coverage on this subject today.

    NPR had a great story. Worth a listen:

    I think, given the circumstances of the election, the more widely-spread coverage of Obama was expect due to the primaries and the fact his campaign never stopped for 21 months. Combine that with his new-comer status, and it makes for a media darling. Fox News even reported more on Obama than it did McCain.

  11. DemocracyRules says:

    Obama Cannot Be President
    by Dr. Robert Coambs

    Dr. Coambs studies human reasoning and logic.

    Obama is Disqualified by the Known Unknowns

    (1) At the time of the November 4 election, Obama' eligibility was unknown to the majority of the American electorate. That is, the vast majority of the American electorate did not know whether Obama was eligible to become the President of the United States (POTUS).

    Furthermore Obama's eligibility remains unknown, even to Americans who are very interested in this question, and have inquired deeply into it. When asked in court to produce evidence of his eligibility, Obama has declined to do so, even in the face of the considerable time, expense and trouble that is needed to avoid providing this evidence. Thus, the US citizenry did not know on November 4 if Obama was eligible, and they still do not know.

    (2) Among the US citizenry are the following:
    The current POTUS
    The current VPOTUS & President of the Senate
    The US Supreme Court
    The US Congress
    The Senior Staff of the Pentagon
    The Senior Staff of the Federal Elections Commission
    The Members of the Electoral College

    To best of my knowledge, none of these individuals have officially and publicly declared Obama to be eligible to be POTUS. They have not produced or provided sufficient evidence to prove this eligibility.

    (3) The news media, television, radio, and the Internet transmit huge amounts of information each day. However, to the best of my knowledge the eligibility of Obama to be POTUS is not known by the general public (See Note 1).

    (4) Until and if that dissemination occurs, there is a method of formal logic that can be applied to this situation. It is called the Categorical Syllogism, and was described by Aristotle (Prior Analytics, 24b18-20). Ordinarily, a categorical syllogism is simply called a syllogism, as I shall do here. We begin with the major premise, which is from the US constitution, Article II, Section 1, which states:

    "No person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty-five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States."

    (5) From this we can construct the following syllogism:

    Major Premise: To be POTUS, the candidate’s eligibility must be publicly known.
    Minor Premise: Obama’s eligibility is not publicly known.
    Conclusion: Therefore Obama is not POTUS.

    (6) How Categorical Syllogisms work

    When we learn logic in school the categorical syllogism is often taught like this. It begins with a Major Premise, like this:
    All humans are mortal.
    Then one introduces a second, or Minor Premise, like this:
    Socrates is human.
    Then we combine the major and minor premises to get this Conclusion:
    Therefore, Socrates is mortal.

    This method of deductive logic is more than 2000 years old and is taught in almost every introductory logic course in the world. According to these rules of deductive logic, as described by Aristotle (Prior Analytics, 24b18-20) if both premises are true, then the conclusion is true.

    Logic is a branch of mathematics, and these rules are like those of arithmetic, where 2+2=4. The result is not negotiable. It is not subject to debate. These rules are universal, they apply everywhere in the known universe. At any time or place one can imagine, 2+2 will equal 4.

    Just like arithmetic, the rules of deductive logic are not time-dependent and can be articulated at any time and place in the Universe. If we were to stand on the surface of Mars, then 2+2 would equal 4, and the syllogism above would also be true. If we were traveling at nearly the speed of light, these rules would be true. If all humans disappeared from existence, and only one computer remained, then it could calculate that 2+2=4, and it would be correct. If the computer disappeared, and there were no sentient beings left, and no computational devices, then still, 2+2=4. The syllogism would also be true. These rules are not the inventions of man, they are the rules of nature, and of the Universe.

    The simple rules of arithmetic and deductive logic transcend space, time, matter, and energy. There is no point in trying to refute a categorical syllogism in which both premises are true. The conclusion must be true.

    The conclusion of this syllogism is self-evident, because it merely requires the combination of two correct premises to produce a correct conclusion.

    As I write this, both premises are true, and therefore, Obama is not POTUS. Right now, this is not a constitutional issue because Obama only the president-elect. The syllogism is written in the present tense, so as time moves forward, the status of the syllogism also moves forward. As time reaches January 20, 2009, if the premises remain true, then the conclusion will remain true: Obama is not POTUS. At that point the syllogism has significant constitutional impact, because Obama will sit as if he is POTUS, but he will not be POTUS.

    Obama has ample time to act. If at any time Obama becomes publicly known to be eligible, then this syllogism would be invalid. That is, Obama might be POTUS, because he would be eligible. The conclusion of the syllogism would be invalid, because the minor premise would be invalid. The minor premise states “Obama’s eligibility is not publicly known”. If his eligibility becomes known, then the conclusion is invalid, and Obama might be eligible. But until his eligibility is publicly known, Obama is not POTUS, either before or after January 20.

    If Obama took office without his eligibility being publicly known, then he is not POTUS. If Obama pretended to be POTUS, and other humans believed that he was POTUS, he would still not be POTUS. Even if 300 million Americans agreed to let Obama sit as if he were POTUS, and run the executive branch of the USA as if he were POTUS, he would not be POTUS.

    The syllogism is compelling, omnipresent, and transcendent in time. So long as the premises remain true, the conclusion is true, and it’s form and meaning cannot be changed by human intervention.

    If Obama sat as President, and left office 8 years later, he never was POTUS. If historians look back from 1,000 years hence, logic will dictate that he was not POTUS. For those 8 years, the USA did not have a POTUS. No element or feature of the past can be changed to make him POTUS. It is not possible to change the past. Obama never was POTUS.

    None of the laws passed in the 8 years that Obama sat in the White House would be valid, because they must be signed into law by POTUS, and there would be no POTUS. Executive orders, Supreme court appointments, and declarations of war would not be valid. Nothing.

    If the military took any action under the command of Obama, they would be in double jeopardy. Because they have sworn to uphold the Constitution, it would be forbidden by law for them to obey Obama, since according to the Constitution, he is not POTUS. POTUS is their commander in chief, not Obama. If they obeyed Obama on any matter, they might be held accountable for war crimes, since they acted without authority from POTUS. Because of the way military law works, there is no middle ground. The military can only obey the POTUS and uphold the Constitution, from the highest general to the greenest private.

    There are two implications of this reasoning which are debatable, and go beyond the strict implications of the syllogism. They are (a) Because the military is charged to uphold the Constitution, by force if necessary, they may or may not be empowered (or required) to remove Obama from office, and (b) It may be correct and patriotic to refuse to follow any orders given by Obama. This may apply to all American citizens.

    If the US Constitution was changed before Jan 20 to make Obama eligible, then everything would change. Then the syllogism would no longer be valid, because the major premise would be invalid. Obama might be eligible to be POTUS. But this would only apply if the Constitution was changed before January 20, 2009. If an effort is made to change the Constitution after Januray 20, it will not succeed under law, because there is no POTUS. Because Obama is not POTUS, he could not sign the Constitutional change into law.

    Obama could step aside in favor of the Vice President. The Vice President would become POTUS, and he could sign the law if he chose to. However, the new POTUS would not be required to sign the constitutional change into law. It would be up to his discretion. Furthermore, once Obama has stepped aside from acting as POTUS, there is no constitutional mechanism by which Obama would be empowered to re-assume the position of POTUS.

    This syllogism is true, prima facie and does not have to be proven in any court. The rules of deductive logic cannot be changed by any court or legislative assembly . These are rules of nature and the Universe, not of man, and no court or legislature can change them. No human can make a law that 2+2 equals 5, or make a law to change the structure of the syllogism. Humans cannot legislate that oxygen shall be nitrogen, or declare that protons are illegal, or that the planets do not orbit the sun.

    Although the arguments articulated here could readily be used in a court of law, the syllogism is true whether or not it is considered by a court, or any human authority. These arguments can be made before various courts and authorities, but logic does not require this. Lawyers are certainly entitled to use these arguments in court to convince a judge that Obama is not POTUS. However, no matter what opinion the judges offer, Obama is not POTUS.

    Therefore, So long as the premises remain true, Obama is not POTUS. If the premises remain true forever, then Obama will not ever be POTUS. Humans have no jurisdiction over the rules of logic. Logic is governed by the rules of nature, not of humanity.


    Major Premise:

    To be POTUS, the candidate’s eligibility must be publicly known.

    Minor Premise:

    Obama’s eligibility is not publicly known.

    This syllogism responds only to rules of deductive logic and cannot be overturned by any human action. If the premises are taken to be true, then the conclusion must be true. There is no law or statute that requires the rules of logic to be proven in a court of law for them to be enforceable. The laws of logic are compelled by nature, and cannot be challenged by any law of man.

    Therefore, the conclusion of this syllogism cannot be questioned by humans of any authority. No human is empowered to alter, rewrite, or adjudicate the laws of the universe.


    Therefore, Obama is not POTUS.


    Note 1. The unknown status of Obama’s eligibility is typified in a current court case in New Jersey.

    It is the case of lawyer Leo Donofrio versus New Jersey Secretary of State, Nina Mitchell Wells. In it, Donofrio claims that it is the duty of Wells, as Secretary of State for the State of New Jersey, to independently verify the constitutional qualifications of the presidential candidates before placing them on the ballot in that state.

    Specifically, Donofrio notes in the brief accompanying the Application for Emergency Stay filed with the U.S. Supreme Court, Wells was required by N.J.S.A. 19:13-22 to make a statement in which she certifies and signs off on the names of the candidates on the ballots. The statute, in relevant part with emphasis added:

    “The Secretary of State, not later than eighty-six days before any election whereat any candidates nominated in any direct petition or primary certificate of nomination or State convention certificate filed with him are to be voted for, shall make and certify, under his hand and seal of office, and forward to the clerks of the several counties of the State a statement of all such candidates for whom the voters within such county may be by law entitled to vote at such election.”

    In other words, Leo Donofrio suggests that the New Jersey Secretary of State appeared unaware of the eligibility of Obama to serve as POTUS. If she was aware of Obama’s eligibility to be POTUS, she did not communicate this to the electorate.

    To reply to Dr. Coambs, please leave a comment on the following thread:—-a-key-known-unknown-sinks-obama.html

  12. Anonymous says:

    New Lawsuit against Obama brought by Talk radio show host Lan Lamphere of patriot brigade radio.

  13. Anonymous says:

    Well said 7:08 p.m. Whether the intellectual elites’ sentiments have been suppressed by the media, or whether they are only now awakening to Obama’s fraudulence, it displays a very disturbing pattern from which the nation might not emerge intact, unless Obama is removed from his position.

  14. Sharolyn says:

    wow….thanks for providing these must reads for us…..I just keep shaking my head wondering when I am going to wake up from this unbelievable nightmare…I keep thinking that this is some Punk’d episode and we are the victims…anyway, thanks again for putting the info up for us. And dont let the posts get you down….everyone is free to read, or not read your posts!!!! And from the responses, it looks like for everyone one negative, there are about 10 positives…so again, and again, thanks!!!

  15. Not Anonymous says:

    We are on our way to becoming the U.S.S.A. (union of socialist states of america)…I already got my hammer and sickle flag to replace the stars and stripes on January 20th, 2009.

  16. Anonymous says:

    From Mainemom:

    Great piece Jeff.

    Camille seems like a great lady, and I am inspired to try to engage in direct communication with her.

    However, if lil ole me way up in Maine, can figure out everything she is saying about the O in this piece, way before the election…..


  17. Dabig says:

    Great Jeff, Thanks

    Mainmom: LOL No kidding about figuring it out before the election, however I believe they call it buyers remorse.

  18. Anonymous says:

    From Mainemom:

    Thanks dabig, for that shared laughter!

    However, I would now like to say to anyone suffering from buyers remorse:

    I will understand.
    But buy your own shovel.

  19. Anonymous says:

    My question on the article is; where was Camille during the Obama campaign? — Was she so drunk on the Obama Kool-Aid that she too failed to do her job like the rest of the main stream media?

    What we’re seeing now is a blatant example of journalistic prostitution. The main stream media sold it soul to the Obama campaign for 21 months and now the carnival ride has ended. So, they pick on Sarah Palin for a while, but realize that’s beginning to lose traction and Palin is actually using them to her benefit – which is not their intent, so whose next…oh, lets do our job! – Well, it’s a little too late for them to begin groveling for their credibility – they lost that and it’s too late to get it back.

    Camille is a smart woman and knows that the Obama journalistic “orgy” as she called it, will come to an end sooner rather than later and writing about how wonderful Obama is will not sell stories, so she’s beginning to hedge her bets. Sorry sweetie, you’re attempt to sucker us into thinking that you’re now beginning to see the light is a shallow attempt at trying to play America like your Messiah did for 21 months.

    As for the media exposure…that all falls on deaf ears. There’s not one Obamanite that believe the birth certificate story nor are they willing to listen to reason or common sense. They can only envision hope and change…which America needs so much of…

    When Putin places missiles in Venezuela like they did in Cuba during the early 60s, and Putin begins to play with Obama like if he was a rag doll, then maybe they’ll sober up and realize that this really wasn’t about that utopian hippy ideology they thought sounded so good and that Obama articulated so well. No, it’s going to be reality time then…unfortunately; our fate was directly tied to their vote for change.

    You wanted change…be careful what you wish for!

  20. greenthum says:

    I disagree with Camille in one respect. Obama is a one term president. His administration will begin to implode within a year after he takes office.

  21. angeljoymom says:

    Did anyone read what democracyrules posted at 9:31pm?????

  22. C says:

    The main illusion that Paglia and other “progressives” make is the assumption that the Democrats core principles are “compassion, tolerance and independent thought” when they are actually “shallow groupthink and blind prejudice.” They easily delude themselves and always do.

  23. Anonymous says:

    Liberals in the media are now just covering their butts for when Obama’s administration goes down in shambles. Don’t forget how they undermine America.

  24. Anonymous says:





  25. Anonymous says:

    Interesting how some of these ‘so-called’ journalists are making feeble attempts at polishing their image and pretending to be objective and at all concerned with journalistic integrity. Ms. Paglia seems somewhat sincere but it feels more like someone throwing a crumb to a segment of the population who had the audacity to question these matters BEFORE the election. Now, some want to pat us on the head and give reluctant credence to these legitimate issues that were never investigated or explored by the MSM. It smells as phony as this election and doesn’t change the fact that we are about to ‘coronate’ the ‘great pretender’ as our divine leader. I wonder how objective these journalists will be the next four years. How many times can we hear ‘I got a tingle up my leg when I heard him speak’?

  26. Anonymous says:

    Ms. Paglia is refreshing–a person who can see many shades of gray of both sides rather than taking the lazy route of labeling it either black or white.

  27. Lil says:

    Thanks, Jeff.

    My guess is Camille finally came out of her hypnotic state and realized the O is simply not right for America. I just wish people would stop taking about O’s 2 terms in office, the guy is not even president yet and everyone’s already talking about his 8 years as Commander-in-Chief. This is simply insane!!

  28. Anonymous says:

    Whatever knowledge deficit Palin has about the federal bureaucracy or international affairs (outside the normal purview of governors) will hopefully be remedied during the next eight years of the Obama presidencies.

    What a joke! After comparing Palin’s experience as better than other past VP nominees, she discontinues her logic re: this Pres. nominee, refusing to also admit here that Palin’s experience and knowledge of Paglia’s chosen categories also out shine her favored 2 term President elect. God figure…but then we’re dealing with an “outstanding and fair and balanced intellect”!

    And this: Pro-life women will save feminism by expanding it, particularly into the more traditional Third World.

    So the logical conclusion here is that Paglia and her ilk have massacred feminism because they didn’t “expand” it to include pro-life women? Sorry, but definitely two different species of “feminism” here…hellooo! Just trying to co-opt the good to attempt to give their own status some moral footings. Those are little “good feminists” you’re killing too you know!

  29. Anonymous says:



    Give me a d**m break…who cares what these freaks think at this point…they’re opinion didn’t matter then, and their affirmation doesn’t matter now…I mean, seriously…what are we suppose to do with this information? After what this same group did to assassinate Palin’s character, credibility, etc, and we’re suppose to forgive and forget? Be interested in the praise-fest after the fact? Scr** that!

    But, I suppose the Obamabots will start waking up soon, too. I’m sure that won’t take long either…

  30. Anonymous says:

    Did Barry falsify his selective service registration too?

Speak Your Mind