David Corn: Obama went too far

David Corn weighs in on the Rick Warren brouhaha. David makes an excellent point. The problem isn't that Obama talks to Rick Warren, or even meets with Rick Warren. Hell, if Obama wants to meet with Ahmadinejad, more power to him. But I don't see him inviting the Iranian leader to the inauguration dais. There's a difference between reaching out to bad guys and legitimizing them.

By all means, Obama should work with Rick Warren when there is common cause. For political reasons, he should not eschew Warren because of his anti-gay views. Warren can be a powerful ally when it comes time to persuade the public to support climate change legislation. Success in governing often depends on forging coalitions with those with whom you disagree.

But Warren's opposition to gay rights is more than a mere policy dispute. It is an act of bigotry. Sure, Warren does not believe he is being discriminatory. But that's what it is. He is denying rights to certain Americans because he disapproves of how they love. By handing Warren this prime slot at the inauguration, Obama is saying that he recognizes Warren as a spiritual leader and is reaffirming Warren's position as such. This is an insult to gay Americans and those who support equal rights in this nation.

Simple question: would Obama allow a minister who opposed granting equal rights to interracial couples to deliver the invocation at his inauguration?

Read the rest of this post...

Greenback crumbling since Fed rate cut

Thanks to Bernanke's rate cut, Wall Street loves him but outside of that bonus rich area, the news is not very positive unless somehow the US stops buying goods from overseas. Oil prices seem to be OK so far but a currency problem could move the prices up again. Only days ago the dollar to euro rate was down around 1.25 and suddenly it jumped back to 1.45.

The dollar tumbled on Wednesday, hitting its lowest in more than 13 years versus the yen and also falling against the euro, one day after the Federal Reserve's historic rate cut.

As you likely know, the Fed on Tuesday cut its federal funds rate target to a record low, setting a range of zero to 0.25 percent compared with the previous level of 1.0 percent, and said it would use "all available tools" to battle recession.

The massive cut further diminished the greenback's yield appeal against the euro, which has registered a staggering 11 percent gain so far during the month.

"The underlying story in the FX market remains yield. The fact that the Fed made this major policy move yesterday really changed the balance of power towards the euro for the time being," says Boris Schlossberg, director of currency research at GFT Forex.

All of this so Wall Street can get a helping hand which of course, doesn't trickle down to Main Street. Brilliant. Read the rest of this post...

FedEx makes profit, but cuts salaries and costs

These people are complete idiots. They should be on Wall Street where they could launch a global recession, take billions from taxpayers in order to stay in business and then hand out bonuses to reward everyone for a lousy job. Heck, they could even find people out there who could support such a half baked idea. What is FexEx thinking?

The package delivery company's earnings appeared to beat analyst estimates by a penny, and FedEx reaffirmed its full-year outlook. Shares rose more than 3 percent in premarket trading.

"Our financial performance is increasingly being challenged by some of the worst economic conditions in the company's 35-year operating history," Frederick W. Smith, FedEx CEO, said in a statement.

The company said it is continuing to take measures to make it competitive and "to help offset weak demand, protect our business and minimize the loss of jobs," Smith said.

FedEx plans $1 billion in cuts that include a hiring freeze, cutting labor hours and line-haul expenses, cutting base salaries and reducing Smith's salary by 20 percent. In addition, other FedEx executives are taking pay cuts of 7.5 to 10 percent while the company also is planning a 5 percent salary reeducation for other salaried exempt personnel.

It also is eliminating merit increases for 2009 and is suspending contributions to its 401(k) plan.

Read the rest of this post...

Markos on Obama and Warren

Markos makes an excellent point, that goes far beyond the Warren controversy.

Obama wouldn't be out there making perhaps the strongest statement in support of gays and lesbians by a president (though he's still not technically one, I know) if it wasn't for the sturm and drang this choice generated. It is precisely this backlash that has forced Obama to clearly affirm his commitment to equality. And it will be continued pressure that will force him to do the right thing on the issue.

If we shut up, he'll take the path of least resistance. And that path of least resistance is kowtowing to the conservative media, the clueless punditocracy, and bigots like Warren.

First off, Markos is correct. The sad lesson we're learning is that we're not going to get squat, any of us, gay or straight, if we don't beat the crap out of our elected officials on a regular basis.

That leads to the larger reason I'm so upset with Obama over this decision. I actually trusted the guy. I know, stupid me. I often see our readers writing in the comments that they can't believe I'm upset about one thing or another that I just read in the paper, and my readers berate me for my political naiveté. It's not that I'm naive. It's that for all of the bad news we seem to report on this blog (and I know, it gets heavy at times), I'm actually quite the optimist when it comes to politics. When someone like Obama tells me he's going to be different, I believe him. When he says he's going to challenge homophobia, even in his own community, I believe him. Now I believe a little bit less. Now I'm waiting to see when rhetoric becomes reality. Read the rest of this post...

Why is Congress ignoring "rate jacking" with credit cards?

I may be as anti-credit card as they come, but this is still offensively over the top, even for the banking industry. The banks have been given a lifeline and yet they never seem to pass that on to consumers. Worse still is that Congress can never find it important enough to make consumer protection an issue. People on both sides are complaining about this though Congress always knows where they get their own cash for reelection and respond accordingly. It's hard to imagine how voters could become cynical.

"In my case, from 9.5 percent to 16.99," the 54-year-old nurse from the Long Island hamlet of Merrick, New York, told CNN. And his wife's rate zoomed from 7.95 percent to 16.99 percent, he said.

Stevens said he did not know why the rates had soared; his credit rating is great.

But, like thousands of other credit card customers around the nation, he has been notified his rate is skyrocketing.

"It almost borders on loan-sharking, from my perspective," he said.

Not to worry though. That consumer "Bill of Rights" is surely just around the corner, sitting there with the economic recovery. Read the rest of this post...

HRC: Warren pick makes you question Obama's commitment to gay civil rights

The president of the Human Rights Campaign, THE gay rights lobby in Washington, just penned an op ed for the Washington Post, to run tomorrow. It's online now. An important point to remember when reading this is that HRC, they're the nice gays. They're the guys in button down shirts and business suits. If anything, they're criticized in the gay community for being too nice to people like Obama, and other Democrats, who stray. So when HRC comes out as strongly as it has against the Warren choice, that should tell you, and Team Obama, something. They seriously screwed up on this one.

It is difficult to comprehend how our president-elect, who has been so spot on in nearly every political move and gesture, could fail to grasp the symbolism of inviting an anti-gay theologian to deliver his inaugural invocation. And the Obama campaign's response to the anger about this decision? Hey, we're also bringing a gay marching band. You know how the gays love a parade....

[I]nviting Warren to set the tone at the dawn of this new presidency sends a chilling message to lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender Americans. It makes us uncertain about this exciting, young president-elect who has said repeatedly that we are part of his America, too.

We understand that the Rev. Joseph E. Lowery, a civil rights icon and a dear friend of LGBT Americans, will close the inauguration ceremony. But would any inaugural committee say to Jewish Americans, "We're opening with an anti-Semite but closing the program with a rabbi, so don't worry"?

... President-elect Obama must now, as my mother used to say, put some meat on the bone. We've seen appointment after appointment of talented Americans who come from constituencies that are part of this country and that helped gain his election. Well, we're one of those constituencies who actually worked and voted for Obama, unlike Warren and probably most of his 21,000 parishioners. Yet, we're the ones left waiting for some real evidence of inclusion.

So, are we angry about Rick Warren? You bet we are. And including a gay marching band in the inaugural festivities doesn't heal this wound. It only serves to make us question the promises that Barack Obama made in his historic quest to be president. We pray we weren't misled.

Read the rest of this post...

Money for nothing - the bonus fiasco

Great piece in the Times today on the fake numbers but real bonuses. Let the bastards go back and reclaim the bonus money based on trash that was so easily handed out instead of asking taxpayers to foot the bill.

For Dow Kim, 2006 was a very good year. While his salary at Merrill Lynch was $350,000, his total compensation was 100 times that — $35 million.

The difference between the two amounts was his bonus, a rich reward for the robust earnings made by the traders he oversaw in Merrill’s mortgage business.

Mr. Kim’s colleagues, not only at his level, but far down the ranks, also pocketed large paychecks. In all, Merrill handed out $5 billion to $6 billion in bonuses that year. A 20-something analyst with a base salary of $130,000 collected a bonus of $250,000. And a 30-something trader with a $180,000 salary got $5 million.

But Merrill’s record earnings in 2006 — $7.5 billion — turned out to be a mirage. The company has since lost three times that amount, largely because the mortgage investments that supposedly had powered some of those profits plunged in value.

Unlike the earnings, however, the bonuses have not been reversed.

So open your wallet and feel free to help pay the 50% bonus rates this year. What $5 million between friends after all? I'm sure they all deserve their bonuses since gosh, they did work hard and all. Read the rest of this post...

Bill Clinton reveals donors to his foundation

The donations to Bill Clinton's foundation are no longer secret -- and there is some big money from some foreign governments. He revealed them today as part of the transparency deal with the Obama operation:

The donations from foreign governments, celebrities and other philanthropists, which had been anonymous for more than a decade, were disclosed today as part of an accord reached with President-elect Barack Obama that enables Clinton's wife, Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton, to become secretary of state.

The Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, the Australian government's overseas aid program and a Dominican Republic government agency that fights AIDS each gave between $10 million and $25 million to the William J. Clinton Foundation, which funds efforts to reduce poverty and improve global health. The nonprofit organization also financed the former president's library in Little Rock, Ark.

Norway gave between $5 million and $10 million, while Brunei, Kuwait, Oman and Qatar each gave between $1 million and $5 million. The Jamaican and Italian governments each donated between $50,000 and $100,000, according to the foundation's donor list.

Read the rest of this post...

When has Obama ever reached out to a racist?

I'm reading a lot about how Obama "reaches out" to his adversaries, and that's why he's building a track record of inviting avowed homophobes to stand front and center at his campaign events and now his inauguration.

Okay, I'm game. So we know being a gay-basher doesn't disqualify you from a seat at the Obama table - in fact, it seems to be an outright qualification for proving Obama's post-partisanship. If Obama prides himself on reaching out to all sides of every debate, then why is it that Obama has never sat down with, or promoted at his events, an avowed racist or anti-Semite?

If you're going to argue, as some have, that respect for the civil rights of gay and lesbian Americans is somehow now "liberal" and "fringe" - funny that Obama didn't think it was fringe during his campaign when he publicly embraced our community and our rights - then respect for the civil rights of African-Americans and Jewish-Americans is no less liberal and fringe. Civil rights are civil rights, and it's well established in American civil rights circles that gay rights are African-American rights are Jewish-American rights are disability rights. We are all one people, our rights are inextricably linked.

It's odd, and therefore telling, that Obama considers all of us equals, yet he only seems to reach out to those who bash gays, and not those who bash blacks, or Jews, or people with disabilities, or any other member of America's civil rights community.

Why is that?

If Obama wants to burnish his independent bona fides with a little Sista Souljah now and then, why is his sista always a dyke?

At some point, when your victim is always the same, your actions are no longer a sign of your independence. They're a sign of your bigotry. Read the rest of this post...

AP: Rep. Hilda Solis (D-CA) will be the Sec. of Labor

The decision on one of the last Cabinet appointments has been made:

A labor official says Rep. Hilda Solis of California will be nominated as labor secretary by President-elect Barack Obama.

The Democratic congresswoman was just elected to her fifth term representing heavily Hispanic portions of eastern Los Angeles County and east L.A. She is the daughter of Mexican and Nicaraguan immigrants and has been the only member of Congress of Central American descent.

Read the rest of this post...

Obama: We have to be able to agree to disagree

Obama said the following today regarding the brewing Rick Warren controversy:

I am fierce advocate for equality for gay and -- well, let me start by talking about my own views. I think it is no secret that I am a fierce advocate for equality for gay and lesbian Americans. It is something I have been consistent on and something I intend to continue to be consistent on during my presidency.

What I've also said is that it is important for America to come together even though we may have disagreements on certain social issues.

And I would note that a couple of years ago I was invited to Rick Warren's church to speak, despite his awareness that I held views entirely contrary to his when it came to gay and lesbian rights, when it came to issues like abortion.

Nevertheless, I had an opportunity to speak, and that dialog, I think, is a part of what my campaign's been all about, that we're never going to agree on every single issue. What we have to do is create an atmosphere where we can disagree without being disagreeable, and then focus on those things that we hold in common as Americans. So Rick Warren has been invited to speak, Dr. Joseph Lowery -- who has deeply contrasting views to Rick Warren about a whole host of issues -- is also speaking.

Great, then where are the racists, Mr. Obama? We don't see you embracing too many of them in the name of learning to agree to disagree. Or does your desire to create a new "atmosphere," and reach out to our enemies, stop when it's your own people, your own children, you'd be betraying? Funny how you only reach across the aisle when it's someone else's family, gay families in particular, getting the shaft. Read the rest of this post...

Global warming trumps gay bashing

A very pathetic statement from the Obama people on the issue of Rick Warren via Ben Smith:

A spokeswoman for President-elect Barack Obama defended the choice of Rick Warren to give the invocation, saying it reflects Obama’s desire to have “the most open and inclusive inauguration in history.” Obama's selection of Warren drew heated criticism from gay activists Wednesday.

“Warren has been a passionate advocate on behalf of the poor and has really led evangelicals to champion the interest who suffer from HIV and AIDS and been an outspoken voice on issue of global warming,” said Linda Douglass. “President-elect Obama has made it clear that he doesn’t agree with Warren on issues around the LGBT community.” Douglass said it’s notable that Joseph Lowery, a pro-gay minister who was a close friend of Martin Luther King, is giving the benediction.

Actually, this statement is such an insult, it makes the situation worse. Warren's concern about global warming trumps his hateful rhetoric on gays? Not really, Linda Douglass. This statement is another major fail and another affront. I think we need to publicly hear Obama reject all of Warren's "Issues around the LGBT community."

This is really weak. You know how this happened. One of the geniuses on Team Obama came up with the idea and sold it by chortling, "What are the gays going to do? Not support you?" That just has the ring of so many D.C. consultant types who will sell allies down the river for a good photo op. In other words, this was a calculated decision made to elicit just these angry reactions from us. Makes them seem so much more centrist, which is apparently the gold standard for Democratic consultants these days.

What the geniuses on Team Obama don't understand is that we're living in a different world after Prop 8. Rick Warren and his allies worked to take away the rights of gay and lesbians. They eliminated rights. We had rights in California, now we don't. It's hard for many Americans to grasp the concept of losing rights. But, when it happens, it's a frightening feeling. And, when our new president puts one of the leading gay bashers on the stage at the inauguration, he's making a statement that can't be undone by a pathetic quote from Linda Douglass. But, then again, the Obama camp doesn't want this undone. They really think this makes them look good. Read the rest of this post...

More on Obama's friend Ricky-the-Homophobe

From an excellent piece in the Nation:

Beneath the sheep's clothing lurks a culture warrior wolf. After the Saddleback forum, he told the Wall Street Journal that the only difference between him and James Dobson was that of "tone." After insisting that his agenda was "broad," and holding himself out as an impartial arbiter of the forum, he declared that voting for a "Holocaust denier" (i.e., someone who is pro-choice) is a "deal-breaker" for many evangelicals. Obama was pressured to talk about "abortion reduction," but Warren likens such rhetoric likening it to Schindler's List: an attempt to save some lives but not end a "holocaust." ...

Warren, a creationist, believes that homosexuality disproves evolution; he told CNN's Larry King in 2005, "If Darwin was right, which is survival of the fittest then homosexuality would be a recessive gene because it doesn't reproduce and you would think that over thousands of years that homosexuality would work itself out of the gene pool."

Warren protests that he's not a homophobe; it's just that two dudes marrying, in his mind, is indistinguishable from an adult marrying a child, a brother marrying his sister, or polygamy. He thinks his AIDS relief efforts represent an elevated form of Christianity over those non-evangelical do-gooders whom he compares to "Marxists" because they're more interested in good works than salvation. The rejection of the "social justice" gospel in favor of the salvation-focused evangelicalism that has come to dominate the definition of "Christian" lies at the heart of the religious right agenda to marginalize liberalism and harness its political power.

Warren represents the absolute worst of the Democrats' religious outreach, a right-winger masquerading as a do-gooder anointed as the arbiter of what it means to be faithful. Obama's religious outreach was intended, supposedly, to make religious voters more comfortable with him and feel included in the Democratic Party. But that outreach now has come at the expense of other people's comfort and inclusion, at an event meant to mark a turning point away from divisive politics.

Read the rest of this post...

Feinstein reportedly had nothing to do with Warren choice; it was Obama.

A powerful Democratic friend contacted me this morning to let me know that they talked to the key players yesterday, and Diane Feinstein, chair of the Joint Congressional Committee on Inaugural Ceremonies, had nothing to do with the pick of Rick Warren as Obama's invocation speaker at the inaugural. The decision was made by Obama himself, I'm told, and Feinstein just assumed that he had vetted it with his staff. Difi went along with Obama's decision, not the other way around. If this is true, then our apologies to Senator Feinstein for suggesting that she was involved.

But Jesus. This is rather uncharacteristic of Obama, making some grand gesture from his gut, and not checking it with his brain, or the brains around him. Unless, of course, his brain trust thought this was a brilliant strategic move. I can easily imagine them thinking, what better than to make a nod to the religious right and the religious left, by having Rick Warren and Joseph Lowery, at his inauguration?

Why stop there? If you really want to show that you're not the typical Democrat, that you're breaking the mold and willing to embrace the other extreme of religion and politics, regardless of how much it ticks off your base, why not invite a racist and an anti-Semite too? Just imagine the thrill - one of America's lead civil rights activists, alongside the first black president of the United States, surrounded by men who think of them as little more than slaves. Talk about change!

But Barack Obama would never invite a high profile racist or anti-Semite to stand next to him during his swearing in, regardless of the bigot's caché. Obama did, however, invite a raging homophobe - and it's the second time now that he's done so - and we're supposed to suck it up and say "oh it's okay." Well it's not okay. It's yet another example of how when the bigot is anti-gay, somehow he's not as offensive, not as non grata, as the bigot who bashes blacks or bashes Jews. None should be acceptable, but one always is.

So the day of Obama's inauguration, millions of Obama's supporters get to watch a gay-basher, who compared our love to incest and pedophilia, who helped rip away our civil rights, share the stage with our new president. That's not change. It's the same old crap we've always had to deal with, and apparently always will. Read the rest of this post...

Thursday Morning Open Thread

Good morning.

Christmas is one week from today. Uh oh.

The TODAY Show is in overdrive today. They are covering two of their favorite topics with stories on Caylee, the missing three year old from Florida, and Drew Peterson, the creepy cop from Illinois whose wives keep disappearing. Matt Lauer is beside himself with excitement.

Like I wrote yesterday, I know Democrats are going to screw up the Obama agenda of change, most likely in the Senate. Expect that. And, I knew at some point, Obama would really disappoint a lot of us. I didn't think it would start at the inauguration. Picking Rick Warren to speak is a betrayal. It's hard to imagine that any other speaker who consistently used hateful and derogatory language about another group of Americans could ever appear at the new president's inauguration. But, in Obama land, we've now learned, rhetorical gay bashing is not only tolerated, but celebrated. I have to admit, that hurts.

Anyway. It is what it is.

Let's thread the news. Read the rest of this post...

Wall Street continues to evade answers on TARP money and bonuses

But to be fair to Wall Street (really) it is not as though the implementation of the TARP funds was very clear or effective. Throwing billions around without any conditions or accountability was bound to lead to this problem so we can thanks Lord Paulson once again. Wall Street remains insulated from the fury around the world, including US taxpayers, who are stuck paying for the Wall Street failure. Like other Americans, I have worked for companies that have gone bust and when that happens, there are no bonuses or anything else. It's over. Period.

Wall Street still thinks that because they were rescued, they are above taking a pay hit. Even a 50% cut, while significant, is still much more than most other Americans are seeing this year. Ask your average American if they'd like to "only" receive $100,000 or $200,000 for a bonus this year and see what they say. Then ask them how they feel about paying more taxes to fund those bonuses for the team that led everyone into this recession.

Banks that were rescued with billions of dollars in public funds have, in most cases, refused to provide specifics about how they have used or intend to use the money.

ABC News asked 16 of the banks that have received money from the Treasury Department's $700 billion Trouble Asset Relief Program the same two questions: How has your financial institution used the money, and how much has your financial institution allocated to bonuses and incentives this year?

Goldman Sachs reported Tuesday that it paid $10.93 billion in compensation for the year, which includes salaries and bonuses, payroll taxes and benefits. That is down 46 percent from a year ago. Goldman Sachs received $10 billion from the Treasury.

"Bonuses across Goldman Sachs will be down significantly this year," a bank representative told ABC News. The spokesman refused to disclose the size of the bonus pool or how much of the compensation fund of $10.93 billion was planned for bonuses.

"We do not break down the components of compensation; however, most of that number was not bonuses," he said. Goldman Sachs added, "TARP money is not being paid to employee compensation. It's been and will continue to be used to facilitate client activity in the capital markets."

Funny how similar the two numbers are. What a coincidence. Read the rest of this post...

Russian legislation to label critics of government as traitors

Yet another step backwards for Russia. As the oil money is slashed it won't be a surprise to see more repressive actions by the government.

Rights activists Wednesday denounced new legislation backed by Prime Minister Vladimir Putin that would allow Russian authorities to label any government critic a traitor, calling it a chilling throwback to times of Soviet dictator Josef Stalin.

The bill, which is expected to become law, would expand the definition of treason to include damaging Russia's constitutional order, sovereignty or territorial integrity. That, activists said, would essentially let authorities interpret any act against the state as treason — a crime punishable by up to 20 years in prison.

Government supporters and Kremlin-allied lawmakers said the bill will tighten up current law. Supporters say prosecutors often have trouble gaining convictions because of ambiguities in the definition of state treason.

Read the rest of this post...

Photos of Obama from college years discovered

Somebody got a shoe to throw? From TIME via Ben Smith.

Read the rest of this post...