First Lady Michelle Obama Fires Jackie Norris And Promotes Friend Susan Sher To The Post Of Chief Of Staff!
First Lady Michelle Obama replaced Jackie Norris as her Chief of Staff and named Susan Sher to the post. There has been some speculation as to why this East Wing shake-up occured but one thing about this change should be noted.
Susan Sher and Mrs. Obama are friends, yes. But the connection is an even deeper one. Up until early 2008, Mrs. Obama, Susan Sher and Obama campaign chief strategist David Axelrod were involved in the Urban Health Initative Program. This program that some critics say was crafted by the First Lady, was geared at what is called “dumping” poor and uninsured prospective patients that normally flow through the emergency room of the University of Chicago Medical Center, to ill-equiped and under staffed urgent care facilities across the South Side of Chicago for medical assistance. The logic of this program supposedly would be in the shortened length of time that a ‘really sick and insured patient’ occupied the emergency room.
Needless to say, this program, the Urban Health Initative, met with tremendous opposition in the communities that would be greatly affected and was eventually legally halted pending further review.
WHITE HOUSE ANNOUNCES EAST WING STAFF CHANGES
Jackie Norris to Senior Advisor to Corporation for National and Community Service, Susan Sher to Chief of Staff to First Lady Michelle Obama
WASHINGTON, DC – The White House announced today that the First Lady’s Chief of Staff Jackie Norris has been appointed as Senior Advisor to the Corporation for National and Community Service (CNCS). Susan Sher, a longtime colleague and friend of the First Lady’s, has been promoted to Chief of Staff. The First Lady, Mrs. Norris and Ms. Sher all released statements on the moves, included below:
Statement from Mrs. Obama:
Jackie Norris has been a colleague and friend since the earliest days of the Iowa campaign. She has built a strong organization in the East Wing and made tremendous progress on issues that are important to me and the President, particularly in the area of national service. In assuming the role as Senior Advisor to the Corporation for National and Community Service, Jackie will work closely with my office and the Administration as we move forward to implement the new Serve America Act and we will continue to count on Jackie’s leadership and passion for this cause.
Susan Sher is a trusted advisor, longtime mentor and friend dating back to my work at the City of Chicago and later the University of Chicago. Since the beginning of this Administration, Susan has served as a senior member of the East Wing and West Wing teams providing legal counsel, working as a member of the health care reform task force and leading Jewish outreach, and her transition to chief of staff will be seamless.
Statement from Jackie Norris:
I am grateful to President and Mrs. Obama for the opportunities and friendship they have given me over the last few years and I am looking forward to becoming an integral part of this Administration’s efforts to advance the cause of national and community service.
Statement from Susan Sher:
Mrs. Obama and I have worked together for many years on issues that we both care deeply about and I appreciate the opportunity to be of greater service to her and this Administration.
In its’ never-ending quest to define the official role of First Lady, print media has taken it upon themselves to create a description of Michelle Obama. Supposing that perhaps to have an educated African American First Lady in the White House is a threat of some sort, newspapers and certain magazines have unilaterally taken it upon themselves to throw the intelligent character of Michelle Obama under the bus.
The New York Times has noted attributes of the First Lady that has absolutely nothing to do with what her role will be for the next four years. In an OP ED column, the New York Times chided that Michelle Obama’s fit and sculpted shoulders could stamp out terrorists in one swipe. Where’s the humor in that?
The New York Post, during election season, carried a controversial caricature cartoon of Michelle Obama on its’ cover, dressed as a Black Power militant engaging in a fist bump with President Obama. And guess what? It doesn’t stop.
The March 2009 cover of The New York Post has another cartoon representation of First Lady Michelle Obama. This time, she is being featured as a fashion maven. So, the question is: are Caucasian men really that threatened by an educated African American sista? Or are they masking their adoration by chopping Michelle Obama down into stereotypical bite sized morsels to suit their egos?
Remember the trauma that former First Lady Hillary Clinton endured for being educated and having a viable opinion that might help millions of Americans? Remember the debate that ensued over the fact that the now Secretary of State kept her maiden name, Rodham? Yeah. It was ugly and orghestrated by Caucasian men who felt threatened by an intelligent woman who might know a little bit more about the way the world works than they do.
Well, it is the 21st century and it is high time that not only Caucasian men, but ALL men, bury their enormous and exaggerated egos, and join the rest of us in respecting the contributions of women. We are so much more than a body dressed to attract, a vessel to empty sexual frustrations into, and an object to be seen and not heard.
Hopefully, within these next four years, former unenlightened views as to what the so-called ‘proper role’ of First Lady should be comprised of, will be shattered.
In his acceptance speech for the Democratic nomination, Presidential hopeful Barack Obama revealed his plan of action if he should win the presidency in November. Obama’s plan touched on every aspect of American living from universal health care, tax relief for middle class and lower income families, the education of school age children and the pursuit of a college education for young adults, the “responsible” ending on the so-called ‘war on terror’ and the supplemental support to returning troops. Obama’s plan also sets out to eliminate America’s dependence on foreign oil in ten years and he hopes to explore alternative means of energy for American consumption.
But since that acceptance speech, things have changed. The economic crisis forced the U.S. federal government to step in with a $850B bailout plan. This bailout or rescue plan that essentially gives a free pass to the crooks on Wall Street and greedy mortgage and bank lenders, will more than likely become a albatross around the necks of generations of Americans.
The question is, if Barack Obama is elected to become President in November and January 21, 2009 begins his first day on the job, what campaign promise will he ax first? Realistically speaking, all of this double talk about not increasing taxes on both sides of the campaign trail is misleading. Taxes will spike and taxes disguised as those pesky hidden fees will become more plentiful. How else will the the two current wars in Afghanistan and Iraq be financed at a $10B a day?
The funding of these two wars will make it fundamentally impossible for Obama to establish his health care program. It would be great to increase the wages of teachers and infuse money into the “No Child Left Behind Act.” But that can not happen without the flow of cash. All of this campaign talk about spreading the wealth and growing the wealth is nothing but code wording for more taxation.
Neither one of the Presidential candidates will be able to fulfill their campaign promises because even they know that talk is cheap, but action takes bucks! McCain and Obama know that the ‘war on terror’ is the gaping hole that sucks the money right out of any reasonable budget. But because this ‘war on terror’ was ill-advised and full of incomplete and unreasonable exit strategies, Americans are going to have to suffer the ‘taxing’ consequences by emptying out their wallets and their bank accounts.
Maybe some straight talk from both candidates on what they could realistically do for Americans as opposed to issuing fantastical whimsical ideals that Disney manufactures every day is not a half bad suggestion. Deep down, we all like to escape and dream up a life that makes sense. We all like to taste the cake frosting from time to time. But the frosting is not the cake. Telling the truth is not something that politicians necessarily like to do.
So, perhaps Obama should keep the promises to a minimum and re-access what theoretical policies are feasibly capable of being implemented. That would surely make him ‘fundamentally different’ from his opponent.
ACORN has been in the news these past days because of voters registration fraud. Meaning? There were some dishonest employees of ACORN who took advantage of their employer and decided to get a check for zero work. That is unfortunate. But this type of dishonesty goes further than ACORN. When was the last time you left work early but your check read different? When was the last time you arrived to work late and you didn’t acknowledge it on your time slip?
ACORN has helped thousands upon thousands of low income families for almost forty years with housing, rent, food, jobs and landlord disputes. However, this election is not about Joe Barely Making It, or Single Mom With Five Kids And Three Jobs To Equal One.
ACORN helps the forgotten class of Americans. Now, the organization that helps these people is getting a raw deal itself for campaign brownie points. If you have no clue as to what ACORN IS and what it is ALL ABOUT because you are a Soccer Mom or Middle Class Joe Six Pack or even Joe the Plummer, who makes $45,000 as an unlicensed working plummer, then the below info is for you.
You can locate more about ACORN at www.acorn.org:
ACORN is the nation’s largest grassroots community organization of low- and moderate-income people with over 400,000 member families organized into more than 1,200 neighborhood chapters in 110 cities across the country. Since 1970, ACORN has been building community organizations that are committed to social and economic justice, and won victories on thousands of issues of concern to our members, through direct action, negotiation, legislative advocacy and voter participation. ACORN helps those who have historically been locked out become powerful players in our democratic system.
The Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now (ACORN) aims to organize a majority consituency of low- to moderate-income people across the United States. The members of ACORN take on issues of relevance to their communities, whether those issues are discrimination, affordable housing, a quality education, or better public services. ACORN believes that low- to moderate-income people are the best advocates for their communities, and so ACORN’s low- to moderate-income members act as leaders, spokespeople, and decision-makers within the organization.
ACORN Milestones Timeline
1970 – Wade Rathke begins organizing in Arkansas to unite welfare recipients and working people for shared needs and rights; forms ACORN (Arkansas Community Organizations for Reform Now)
1971 – ACORN leaders organize “Save the City” campaign in Little Rock, establishing ACORN as a force in Arkansas politics. ACORN establishes six regional offices in the state around issues of concern to rural and small town Arkansans, begins to tackle statewide issues
1972 – ACORN’s “Save the City Rally” in Little Rock marks first entrance into electoral politics
1974 – In Pulaski County, 250 ACORN members run for office, 195 win seats
1975 – ACORN expands to Texas and South Dakota; first associate Executive Board and first president (Steve McDonald) elected to handle issues of larger scope
1978 – First national convention, of 1,000 members in Memphis, marks beginning of multi-state campaigns
1978-1980 – Participation in 1980 presidential campaign leads entry into national politics
1980 – ACORN is in 20 states, having added at least 3 states each year since
1982 – ACORN reaches 30,000 member families
1980s – Reagan years very trying for low-income communities and organizing. ACORN launches squatting campaign to get low- and moderate-income people into vacant houses and fix them up, with neighborhood approval. Fifteen thousand ACORN members and allies establish “Reagan Ranches” in over 35 cities, building tent cities to symbolize the homelessness Reagan’s policies created. ACORN develops and strengthens ACORN Political Action Committees (APACs) and legislative office.
1985 – ACORN grows to 27 states, including significant chapters in New York, Washington, D.C., and Chicago
1990 – ACORN has more than 70,000 members in 28 states
1994 – ACORN participation has helped Project Vote register 147,000 voters in Michigan, Missouri, New Jersey and Pennsylvania
2000 – ACORN is 125,000 members strong. ACORN registers 100,000 new voters nationwide.
2004 – Now 720 full-time staff working for ACORN and sister organizations, up from 490 just a year before. ACORN organized in 80 cities (up from 60 at the end of 2003) in 31 states. ACORN also expands internationally, with ACORN Canada opening its first offices in Toronto and Vancouver and ACORN Peru opening an office in Lima.
2005 – ACORN now includes chapters in over 100 U.S. cities in 37 states and in Canada, Peru and Mexico
2006 – More than 350,000 member families organized in over 110 cities in 40 states; added Argentina
2007 – ACORN organizes in India
With the last and final Presidential debate in the can, it is apparent that according to the latest CNN gallop polls, Sen. Barack Obama is leading among independent voters and the like. Obama has been leading Sen. John McCain by as much as six points in the weeks leading up to the Wednesday’s debate and after. But what does this mean?
The final Presidential debate showcased a more aggressively animate Sen. John McCain. That was a relief! The placid and flat-lined behavior McCain exhibited in the last two debates were definitely unacceptable and bothersome. However, the animated version of John McCain attempted to continue to sow the seeds of doubt about the judgement and character of Obama by playing connect the dots with Bill Ayers and ACORN. This strategy, risky at best, was a defining moment for McCain. It would have worked if Americans did not already have prior knowledge of the preemptive strike that McCain planned to remove the blaring spotlight from his and the GOP’s economic nightmare of worthless policies, and shift the focus to Barack Obama’s business relationships of yester years. Really, it could have worked. But the $850B bailout happened first.
Therefore, despite a great debate appearance, McCain failed at the task at hand. Instead of pointing fingers and attacking haphazardly in the attempt to make Obama look shadier than Rev. Jesse Jackson, McCain raised serious questions about his own character. Even though McCain said that he is “not George Bush,” it is evident that he does subscribe to the Bush Doctrine, voting a whopping 94 times for Bush inspired policies. John McCain likes to say that he at times has voted independent of his party. That he is different. Well, the debate proved that to be untrue. When it comes to covering over misdeeds and mistakes caused by lapses in judgement, McCain stands squarely with Bush. Deflections of truth and preemptive strikes are tools that John McCain and President Bush use with precision and pleasure.
The funny thing about the whole matter is that the American public are already hip to what is really going down!
Why Can’t ‘We All Just Get Along’? More Accusations And Attacks! More Mud Slinging! Are You As Sick As We Are?
A Letter From The Editor:
It is quite disheartening to turn on the television these days. The misleading campaign ads, the squabbling between political commentators and Lou Dobbs’ gradual ‘washing that gray right outta his hair,’ makes for some pretty uncomfortable TV viewing.
I have begun to experience migraines again. It is so difficult as a journalist to stay fair, accurate and impartial. At times, the lines become blurred. But I take my cues from the great Barbara Walters and my personal favorite, CNN’s Anderson Cooper. These two bring both sides of the coin without swearing an allegiance. I marvel at that. It is remarkable to stay cool and calm while the country is virtually on fire about one thing or another. Like Obama. See, just could not resist! lol!
But seriously, I suppose that the emotions of everyone in America right about now are stretched to the limit. Not only are Americans stressed by all of this ‘hating’ going on, we have to contend with milk being almost $4 a gallon. Cereal just as expensive. Gas, don’t even think about it! 750,000 people have lost their jobs this year. Automotive plants are getting ready to close their doors. Thousands more will be on the unemployment lines come 2009. Folks are losing everything dear to them.
When all of these real life issues are so much more important to the average American, it makes you wonder how a campaign strategist could advice a presidential candidate to become downright vicious and rabid towards his opponent? Over something so intolerable as distorting the truth about a candidate’s former business associate? Or the witch hunt concerning the rantings of an overzealous former pastor? Or the criminal activities of a former friend named Keating?
Now, the McCain camp are asking Americans “Who REALLY is Barak Obama?” Shouldn’t the question be who are EITHER of these two men, whom were remarkably respected individuals 18 months ago. As of today, it is hard to tell just which is which. So unfortunate, isn’t it?
Here is the latest pres statement sent to my email from the Obama campaign regarding the ‘not so dynamic duo’ of McCain / Palin and their pitbull antics this afternoon:
“It’s now clear that John McCain would rather launch angry, personal attacks than talk about the economy or defend his risky bailout scheme that hands over billions in taxpayer dollars to the same irresponsible Wall Street banks and lenders that got us into this mess – a scheme that guarantees taxpayers will lose money. While Barack Obama ensured that the rescue plan that passed Congress protects taxpayers and homeowners, John McCain’s scheme has been panned by experts and observers from across the political spectrum,” said Obama campaign spokesman Tommy Vietor.
In the famous words of Hip Hop royalty, RUN-DMC (circa 1982):
“Wars going on across the seas / street soldiers killing the elderly / whatever happened to unity / it’s like that / AND THAT’S THE WAY IT IS!”
FOX News refuses to let go of Rev. Jesse Jackson’s jugular!
Now, a FOX News insider confirms that Rev. Jesse Jackson did indeed use the “N” word in the midst of his tirade against Sen. Barack Obama last week. Saying that Obama “was telling “N” how to behave,” and how Obama “was talking down to Black People,” Jackson made these remarks during a break in taping, thinking that his mike was off. It wasn’t.
Jackson has since apologized for his “crude” remarks and faced the rebuke of his son, Jesse Jackson II. He has also faced the wrath of the very community he claims to love and support. So, when will this story die already?
When FOX News says so. One can only hope that Jackson, Sharpton, Farrakhan and any other self-serving public representative who would think that they are the mouth piece for the masses, think twice before accepting a turn in the hot seat at FOX News. So, be prepared. Even though FOX says they will not release the full audio of Jackson’s Obama rant, you can be assured that they will continue to feed the public bits and pieces of it until there is nothing left to disseminate!
It would seem the saying “If it ain’t one thing, it’s another” fittingly applies to the merry-go-round circus called the media. Monday, “The New Yorker” magazine presented the cover of its’ July 21st issue to a wave of criticism. The cover is a cartoonish representation of Barack and Michelle Obama. Barack Obama is wearing traditional Muslim attire while his wife, Michelle, is wearing military fatigues, carries an AK 47 slung over her shoulder with ammo, and sports a hip afro. The Obamas are in the White House with a portrait of Osama bin Laden hanging above the fireplace and the American flag burning brightly in the corner. Oh, the Obamas are also engaging in the gesture they made infamous called fist-bumping.
“The New Yorker” editor in chief, David Remnick, stands by the cover, issuing a statement to Huffington Post that ”I ran the cover because I thought it had something to say.”
Remnick further explained that “we’ve run many, many satirical, political covers. Ask the Bush administration how many…the fact is it’s NOT a satire about Obama, it’s a satire about the distortions and misconceptions and prejudices ABOUT Obama.”
So, Mr. Remnick chose to help Barack Obama’s campaign by green-lighting a controversial cover that does nothing more than advance the ignorant perception that every African American with an African or Arabic name is naturally a follower of Islam, therefore a Muslim extremist that wants to wage a ‘holy war’ against America? If this was Mr. Remnick’s implemented proposal, it definitely gives cause to take a second look at his editorship.
With Obama constantly on the defense about his religious affiliation, his choice of place of worship, his supposed elitist stance and a name that was given him AT BIRTH, it is increasingly suspect on Mr. Remnick’s part to have even considered, at this stage in the election season, to have thought that a satirical cover of this sort would educate the public at large instead of fanning the flames of ignorance. You can not throw a satirical magazine cover to the wolves and expect them to behave and react with a semblance of intelligence.
If the cover has to be explained and re-explained, Mr. Remnick, then it doesn’t work. Perhaps the true intent of this suspect cover is to increase sales revenues. Using the insanity of the minority to sale magazines is the true villain here. Call it what it is. Throwing someone under the bus for profit. In that vain, Mr. Remnick did an excellent job.
Excerpts of David Remnick’s interview were taken from: www.huffingtonpost.com. Thank You Huffington Post!
Yeah. The uproar has begun. Wednesday on “The View”, moderator Whoopie Goldberg passionately commented on the way Michelle Obama carries herself. Whoopie complimented Michelle Obama, wife of presumptive Democratic Presidential nominee, Senator Barack Obama, by suggesting that Michelle Obama persona is a breath of fresh air, for a sista of the chocolate hue. Whoopie then mentioned that most sistas of the chocolate hue are portrayed on television as ghetto…wearing grills on their teeth, not able to string along a sentence, without class, basically.
Now, I admit that Michelle Obama always steps out of the house on point and fabulous. Whenever she is on television, she is stunning and beautiful. And I do admit, to a certain extent, that it IS refreshing to see a chocolate sista representing sistas like me. I mean, I do occassionally get tired of seeing Beyonce’, Mariah, Rhianna, Vanessa and other latte’ sistas getting the lime light. I say occasionally. I’m not a hater. My flesh and blood sister is a latte’ sista and I love her dearly.
But the uproar over Whoopi’s comments makes zero sense. The media, the cable and radio sector, have taken her comments and blown them out of proportion. Whoopie, herself a chocolate brownie sista, was only making the point that nowadays, sistas of the chocolate hue are being unfairly pigeoned-holed by the broadcast media in a negative light. In fact, within our own culture, African Americans have a nasty habit of showing preferential treatment to those of us with a light complexion.
I wasn’t insulted or taken aback by what Whoopie said about Michelle Obama. Michelle Obama not only makes me, a chocolate brownie sista proud, but she makes ALL OF US SISTAS PROUD.
And soon…she will make all women in this country PROUD.
Tuesday, Senator Barack Obama won the state of Oregon but lost Kentucky to Democratic rival Senator Hillary Clinton. To date, Barack Obama has accumulated 1,962 delegate votes to Clinton’s 1,777. In order to secure the Democratic nomination, both candidates will need to win 2,026 votes.
Political analysts conclude that even though Obama is in the lead and the apparent front runner, it is more than likely that he will not make the total numbers allotted. Therefore, the final decision on who will be the Democratic nominee for President will be decided in August.
But this has not slowed down Senator Hillary Clinton. Despite trailing Obama in delegate votes, Senator Clinton has made no indication that she will end her campaign. With the latest win of Kentucky under her belt, Clinton vows to continue to “fight” in her quest to become the first woman President of The United States.
When Senator Barack Obama publicly announced his ‘appalled’ reaction to the statements made by his former pastor and “spiritual adviser,” Rev. Jeremiah Wright on Tuesday, did he do so because he felt political pressures forcing him to react, or was his response a heartfelt and sincere one?
By distancing himself from the public remarks given by Rev. Jeremiah Wright in Detroit over the weekend and then at the National Press Club, Senator Obama set himself up for another media sound-bite, roller-coaster. All the major cable news channels, with their so-called election ‘experts’ and ‘analysts’, still continued their angry mob rants and raves against Senator Obama and questioned his sincerity and honesty.
So, by coming out against his ‘family friend’ and ‘spiritual adviser’ and presenting the face of shock at Tuesday’s press conference, Senator Obama opened himself up to more criticism and debate. Now, the question is: Why didn’t Barack distance himself from Rev. Wright years ago? Why did he see it necessary at this point to end a relationship with Rev. Wright, a man that Obama himself labeled an ’Uncle’?
As Rev. Wright mentioned at the National Press Club, he believed that Senator Obama is guilty of ‘political posturing.’ It would seem that even though Senator Obama took offense of this critique on his persona, in all likelihood, this is the case. How do you end a relationship with such an important person in your life simply because you don’t agree with their politics?
Another key issue to note is that the Obama campaign did not have to dignify or signify anything that Rev. Wright mentioned in either of his speeches. An issue that doesn’t hold merit should not be quantified. This is where the Obama campaign made their fatal error. Believe it or not, Senator Obama lost a significant amount of the African American vote when he denounced Rev. Wright. His ‘political postering’ was evident in his denouncement. To gain the vote of White America, Senator Obama ‘postured’ brightly and radiantly.
But will that be enough? And will African American voters whom supported Obama up until yesterday, throw their weight over to Hillary Clinton’s campaign?