John V. Santore at Media Matters makes a convincing case that what Glenn Beck is doing in attacking President Obama's appointees as "communists" and "Marxists" is simply a new form of McCarthyism.

Now, what do we do about it?

Step 1: Expose both Beck and his enablers for what they are: liars, smear artists, and political charlatans.

James Rucker of Color of Change has a superb post up about the nuances of dealing with hatemongers like Beck:

In the wake of Van’s resignation, some have wondered whether kicking the Beck hornet’s nest makes sense. I’ve got two thoughts in response. First, Beck and Fox trying to change the topic and counter-attacking with such force is probably a good indicator that we’re getting to them; if anything, now would be the time to go harder. Second, I believe we have no choice. Beck has promised to take his witch-hunt to others in the administration, and has set his sights on Cass Sunstein as his next target. He has no plans to stop, and neither should we.

But it’s not just “czar”-hunting that’s at stake here. The right wing media machine, of which Beck is now one of the leading members, is the single greatest force standing in the way of change. They have already helped derail the conversation on health care, elevating accusations of Obama’s alliance with the Third Reich to some semblance of credibility. And they will do the same to the upcoming debates over clean energy, immigration, and every progressive policy priority. We simply don’t have the luxury of ignoring them. We must challenge them head on, expose their distortions, take away their advertisers, and position their views where they belong: far outside the bounds of any rational political discourse.

Be sure to read the whole piece.

It's been patently self-evident that Van Jones was just the appetizer for the sharks at Fox, whose ultimate goal is to take down Obama himself.

Beck has been boasting that he took down Jones by simply using Jones' own words and repeating them.

Well, folks in glass houses ought to think carefully about the wisdom of throwing stones, if you know what I mean.

The catalog of Glenn Beck's toxic discourse is long and nasty. When it comes to giving advertisers something to think about, the well is deep and dark. No doubt a lot of it is going to be bubbling back up into public view soon.

Because nothing brings down the liars and crooks like the light of day, shining brightly under the rocks whence they crawl.

You can view this video right here by getting the latest version of Flash Player!

DOWNLOADS: (1110)

PLAYS: (2140)

It was obvious when the Obama White House stood back and let Van Jones get run over by the right-wing bus that he just happened to be first in line.

These wingnuts are just getting warmed up. That was self-evident yesterday on Fox, when not just Glenn Beck, but Sean Hannity and Bill O'Reilly piled on as well. These guys are now headed straight for the rest of Obama's progressive appointees, and ultimately are after Obama himself.

Beck had on Michelle Malkin to help him line up the next row of victims, who appear primarily to be John Holdren and Valerie Jarrett. Hannity, too, clearly has Jarrett in his sights; he featured a clip from her chat at Netroots Nation, talking up the value of having someone like Van Jones in the administration.

But really, this bus isn't just aimed at progressive appointees. It's directed ultimately at Obama himself. Beck made that clear in his segment with O'Reilly (who miraculously comes off as the voice of reason in all this), when he essentially admitted that the purpose of this whole campaign is to paint Obama as a closet Marxist who secretly wants to transform America into a communist state.

In other words, this is about delegitimizing the Obama presidency. That's been their purpose from Day One, and they appear to be right on schedule. With a helping hand from the Obama White House itself.

A lot of us have feared from the get-go that, when it comes to dealing with the viciousness, mendacity and absolute ruthlessness of the wingnuts running the Republican Party, President Obama is bringing a Smurf doll to a street fight, trying to beat shivs and guns with lollipops.

Those fears were fully realized last night:

Van Jones, special adviser for green jobs at the White House Council on Environmental Quality, resigned Saturday, following weeks of pressure from the right and a flurry of revelations about his past statements.

"I am resigning my post at the Council on Environmental Quality, effective today," Jones said in a statement dated Sept 5 released around midnight on Sept 6.

"On the eve of historic fights for health care and clean energy, opponents of reform have mounted a vicious smear campaign against me.They are using lies and distortions to distract and divide," he continued. "I have been inundated with calls -- from across the political spectrum -- urging me to 'stay and fight.' But I came here to fight for others, not for myself. I cannot in good conscience ask my colleagues to expend precious time and energy defending or explaining my past. We need all hands on deck, fighting for the future."

White House officials had offered tepid support last week Jones after he issued two public apologies in recent days, one for signing a petition that questioned whether Bush administration officials "may indeed have deliberately allowed 9/11 to happen, perhaps as a pretext for war."

So this is what we can expect from Obama: When the right gets into full-froth rabid attack-dog mode, he folds. He'll even throw one of his best friends and most loyal liberal allies under the bus.

Best of all, he's just handed the most rabid of the haters who are undermining his agenda -- namely, Glenn Beck and the rest of the Fox crew -- their biggest scalp yet. The crowing that will follow is just the start.

They certainly won't be satisfied with this. Hell, this is just the appetizer. Beck has already made clear that Valerie Jarrett is the next one in his sights.

If President Obama and Rahm Emanuel think that letting the Fox crew drive out his appointees is going to help him win his legislative battles -- this was clearly the product of a White House more intent on trying to get its health-care reform package passed than dealing with the larger, more pervasive problem that threatens not just health-care reform but all of his initiatives -- he is sadly and badly mistaken.

Indeed, this whole fustercluck is an ill omen for health-care reform as well. It sure looks like Van Jones is just a precursor for the eventual fate of a public option, isn't it?

Well, Obama and Co. may get a white feather for their complete and utter lack of spine on this, but the rest of us don't have to take this lying down.

It's time for all-out political war with these wingnuts. Just boycotting Glenn Beck isn't going to be enough; sure, Jones' old organization, Color of Change, may have convinced 57 advertisers to drop out of supporting Beck, but all they did was shift their advertising dollars to other Fox programs. Rupert Murdoch still got their money, and thus eventually so did Beck.

If progressives want to have any hope of enacting their agenda, they have to do something about Fox News and its advertisers. And we obviously are going to have to do it without any help from this weak-kneed White House.

We could have saved a lot of trouble if Obama started out this way, but better late than never, I suppose. The Republicans have already done such a stellar job selling the misperceptions, it might be too late:

This time, the President is going to be specific. Next week, President Obama is going to give Democrats a health care plan they can begin to sell.

He plans to list specific goals that any health insurance reform plan that arrives at his desk must achieve, according to Democratic strategists familiar with the plan. Some of these "goals" have already been agreed to, including new anti-discrimination restrictions on insurance companies. Others will be new, including the level of subsidies he expects to give the uninsured so they can buy into the system.

Obama will also specify a "pay for" mechanism he prefers, and will specify an income level below which he does not want to see taxed.

He will insist upon a mechanism to cut costs and increase competition among insurance companies -- and perhaps will even specify a percentage rate -- and he will say that his preferred mechanism remains a government-subsidized public health insurance option, but he will remain agnostic about whether the plan must include a robust public option. Officials won't say whether the president intends to endorse a specific "trigger" mechanism if the competition mechanism fails, but they say he will make it clear that the final bill must contain language that increases competition.

Though officials would not provide the numbers Obama plans to use, they say that the goal is to give his side -- Democrats -- a true presidential plan that they can sell. That includes the rebranding of several consensus initiatives, like the insurance reforms, as his own. The effect of this sales job, if it works, will be to associate the president with parts of the reform bills that are almost certainly likely to pass -- assuming the Senate doesn't bog down.

The White House hopes the specifics will be specific enough to gradually soothe the concerns of the Democratic caucus. The budget reconciliation process remains a cudgel -- it's still the weapon of last resort, and President Obama has told his advisers that he does not want to ask Congress to use the mechanism until it becomes necessary, politically -- that is, until the public understands that the popular elements of reform will not pass without using it.

It was inevitable Obama's numbers would drop, and although Ohio is typically a bellwether state, it remains to be seen whether this is a trend. (Download complete poll here.)

The fact that the most high-profile administration efforts went to save banks instead of homeowners probably didn't help. People all over the country are barely hanging on, and it will take something like a successful health care plan - or another stimulus package - to win back their confidence:

July 7 (Bloomberg) -- A new poll found that President Barack Obama’s approval rating has dropped by 13 percentage points from two months ago in Ohio, traditionally a critical swing state in presidential elections.

The survey by Quinnipiac University released today showed 49 percent of Ohio voters approved of Obama’s job performance, down from 62 percent in a May 6 poll. The disapproval figure for Obama in the new poll was 44 percent, up from 31 percent in the May survey.

The pollsters termed Obama’s ratings “lackluster” in a release, and said the numbers were his lowest marks “in any national or statewide Quinnipiac University poll since he was inaugurated.”

The White House announced late today that Vice President Joe Biden will travel to Cincinnati on July 9, where he will tout progress being made by the $787 billion economic stimulus Measure passed in February.

“The economy in Ohio is as bad as anywhere in America,” said Peter Brown, assistant director of the Quinnipiac University Polling Institute. The poll numbers “indicate that for the first time voters have decided that President Barack Obama bears some responsibility for their problems.”

Maybe this is why Obama economic adviser Laura Tyson said this yesterday:

"We should be planning on a contingency basis for a second round of stimulus. ... The stimulus is performing close to expectations but not in timing." Reuters: "Addressing a seminar in Singapore, Tyson said she felt the first round of stimulus aimed to prop up the economy had been slightly smaller than she would have liked and that a possible second round should be directed at infrastructure investment."

Also, Biden will head to Ohio Thursday to talk up the stimulus plan.

What are your impressions of Obama's speech? And what about the predictable right-wing whining, carping, and general gnashing of teeth? Join us in the threads ...

Video upcoming, as always.

DOWNLOAD (33)

PLAY (76)

While there have been some disappointments, there's no denying that Barack Obama has accomplished an amazing amount in his first thirty days in office. Considering the absolute clusterf&%k he inherited from his predecessor and how many roadblocks and petty games have been placed in his way, let's give the man some props for getting the job done.

Rachel Maddow lists Obama's presidential accomplishments:

Announced strict new rules for lobbyists
Paycaps for WH staff
Hillary Clinton confirmed Secretary of State
Signed an Executive Order closing Gitmo and secret CIA prisons overseas
Named George Mitchell and Richard Holbrooke Special Envoys to Middle East
Made first agency visit to the State Dept, symbolically reviving diplomacy
Appeared on Arab TV network,
Signed Lily Ledbetter Act,
Eric Holder confirmed;
Signed S-ChIP legislation;
Canceled 77 land leases around Arches National Park;
Signed the Stimulus Bill;
Announced his home foreclosure prevention plan;
Took first foreign trip to Canada;
Banned budget gimmicks, like emergency funding for Iraq;
Met with mayors;
Signed Executive Order for Office of Gulf Coast Recovery.

Perhaps not everything we wanted, but a big list nonetheless. Rick Perlstein, author of Nixonland, speaks with Rachel on just how quickly Obama is fighting the inertia of Washington.

DOWNLOAD (30)

PLAY (81)

DOWNLOAD (85)

PLAY (172)

Something seems strangely off about Rush Limbaugh in his interview with Sean Hannity yesterday on Fox. Of course, there's also the crazy things he says, such as his further explanation of why he hopes Barack Obama's presidency fails:

Hannity: So this raises this question: You are the leading voice of opposition -- conservative. And have defined conservatives for over two decades. You celebrated your twenty years on the air, by the way, congratulations. Coming off a record ratings year for your.

Bu you are a passionate conservative. You've defined conservatives for many people in this country for years. He [Barack Obama] represents the antithesis in terms of his worldview. So then the question becomes, do you want him to succeed?

Limbaugh: No this -- I am so glad that he asked me that question, that you asked me this question. I'll tell you why.

I am hearing many Republicans say that, 'Well, we want him to succeed.' And, uh, prominent Republicans -- "Yes, we want him -- " They have laid down. They have totally -- they're drinking the kool-aid too. They have no guts to stand up for what their beliefs are, because they're afraid of criticism. They're afraid of being called racists. They're afraid of not having gotten with the program.

Now, success can be defined two ways. I said earlier, I don't know about this guy, I really don't. But I've got my suspicions and they're pretty close to convictions, but we're gonna have to wait to see what he does. Now if he turns out to be a Reagan -- if he adds Reagan to his recipe of FDR and Lincoln, and if he does cut some taxes, if he does not eliminate the Bush tax cuts, I would call that success. So yeah, I would hope he would succeed if he acts like Reagan.

But if he's gonna do FDR, if he's gonna do the New New Deal all over, which we will call here the Raw Deal, why would I want him to succeed? Look, he's my president. The fact that he is historic is irrelevant to me now. That matters not at all. If he is going to enact a far-left agenda -- look, I think it's already decided. Two trillion dollars in stimulus. The growth of government.

I think the intent here is to create as many dependent Americans as possible, looking to government as their hope and salvation. If he gets nationalized health care, I mean, it's over. We're never going to roll that back. That's the end of America as we have known it. Because that's then going to set the stage for everything being government owned, operated or provided.

Why would I want that to succeed? I don't believe in that. I know that's not how this country is going to be great in the future, it's not what made this country great. So I shamelessly say no, I want him to fail if his agenda is a far-left collectivism, some people say socialism. As a conservative, heartfelt, why would I want socialism to succeed?

Hannity: You want your country to succeed, and you believe that his views implemented represent a failure, predictable failure. And conservatism would represent predictable success.

Well, yeah, because conservatism has been such a big stinking success.

See, fellas, there was this thing called an election. And in it, the people decided that conservatism -- conservative governance, conservative politics, conservative belief -- was an Epic Fail. They repudiated it for its manifest failures. And they handed over the keys to someone who's going to try something different.

So of course we understand that you're going to oppose his policies. But his success or failure at this juncture in history means more than just the success or failure of an ideology -- it means the success or failure of the American economy. Rich conservatives like yourselves may be immune from that fact, which gives you the luxury to hope for his failure. But the rest of us -- especially the working class you all like to pretend you represent -- do not.

Limbaugh and Hannity only care about their ideological well-being. The rest of us, in contrast, are focused on our national well-being.

Limbaugh goes completely off the deep end, however, later in the interview when he posits that Obama was elected because of the Librul Media and their death grip on American voters:

See Sean, they've got an investment. He's too big to fail. They wanted him elected because they wanted to reassert their power -- the media here -- in being able to sway public opinion to get the result that they wanted. So they were going to cover up the Jeremiah Wright -- all these things that give indications of radicalism in Obama -- cover that up, portray him as he wants to be portrayed, somebody who's not to be questioned. Somebody who's not to be doubted. We're just supposed to accept and trust, because -- most of these guys came alive and came of age in the Civil Rights battles of the '60s. It defines who they are. They've trained the young drive-bys to look at events through the same prism.

You know racism in this country is the exclusive province of the left. We're witnessing racism all this week that led up to the inauguration. We're being told that we have to hope he succeeds. That we have to bend over, grab the ankles, bend forward, backward, whichever. Because his father was black, because this is the first black president. We've got to accept this. The racism that everybody thinks exists on our side of the aisle has been on full display throughout their primary campaign.

Oy. Where to begin.

First, I don't exactly recall the mainstream media covering up the Jeremiah Wright thing. In fact, I recall exactly the opposite -- that for about three weeks, they were absolutely obsessed with it. You couldn't turn on a channel without hearing about Wright. But when Obama gave a major speech on race and then repudiated Wright finally, the story withered on the vine. How long exactly did Limbaugh want people to keep beating that dessicated corpse of a horse?

Second, there's no doubt that racism exists on the left, but it seems Limbaugh believes the only kind that remains in America is anti-white racism -- because that's the only kind he sees. The logical conclusion is that he sees the ascension of a black man to the presidency -- the fall of one of the great racial barriers -- as a racist attack on whites, because that's what we've been celebrating this week.

But trying to claim that anti-black, anti-Latino, anti-Arab, or anti-Asian bigotry, all of which have long been immanations of right-wing belief systems, no longer even exists ... well, that's just outright delusional.

Which seems to pretty well describe not just Rush Limbaugh, but the right in general these days.

RawStory:

"Arizona Gov. Janet Napolitano (D) has been chosen to serve as secretary of the vast and troubled Department of Homeland Security for President-elect Obama," Politico's Mike Allen reported late Wednesday night. "Napolitano is a border governor who will now be responsible for immigration policy and border security, which are part of Homeland Security's myriad functions."

Napolitano has been a big Obama booster through out his campaign. Here she is, introducing Obama in September:

Empirically speaking, Barack Obama possesses a special kind of charisma that inspires and uplifts people, as evidenced by the talk of an Obama baby boom due to the euphoria surrounding his election. What I don't get is the diametrically opposite reaction that the Clintons, both separately and together, seem to evoke in The Villagers. Chris Matthews' obsession is long documented, and there's no one better to get your unhinged, irrational Clinton hatred on with than the drink-soaked popinjay Christopher Hitchens.

Let's keep score, shall we? Hitch is the guy that has been cheerleading the Iraq invasion and occupation (still does, as you can see from the video). Cheering arguably the biggest blunder of foreign policy we've ever committed and one that most people understand to be an epic fail. And he's on to criticize Bill Clinton--who will NOT be a member of Obama's cabinet--and while highly imperfect, did manage to lead the country to a prosperity and global status that we can only distantly and fondly remember. Why? Doesn't his continued support of our actions in Iraq speak for his judgment and grasp on reality?

And can I just object right here and now to the misogynistic and patronizing framing? Apparently the meme is that Hillary is too ambitious and self-serving to actually serve Obama's agenda. Based on what? Running a bare knuckle campaign? I don't think that if his primary rival had been a man that this would come up at all. The media was falling all over itself to talk about how cordial the meeting between Obama and McCain was yesterday. And what does it imply about Obama's strength that the assumption is that Hillary would railroad him (presumably with Bill, because to hear the media talk, you'd assume they were some sort of Machiavellian conjoined twins)? It's completely insulting on many levels.

The back-stabbing Bill and Hillary meme (one entirely conceived by GOP strategists, dutifully regurgitated in the media and swallowed sadly all-too-often by otherwise smart liberals) has gotten so out of hand that as Eric Boehlert reports for Media Matters, Fox News is already openly contemplating how Obama needs to fire her. For a job that (as of this writing) she has not been announced for and that does not take effect for another two months. Strike anyone else as premature?