A few words from the late mayor of Atlanta, Maynard Jackson

For those of you who don’t know who Maynard Jackson is, he was the first African-American mayor of a major Southern city (Atlanta).

A few days ago I watched a segment of the PBS Series, Eyes on the Prize: America’s Civil Rights Movement, and found something that Maynard Jackson said to be very pertinent in todays social and political climate:

“Being the first black mayor is what you wish on your enemy. I say that with tongue in cheek… a great pride to be mayor of Atlanta. And every black mayor who’s been the first black mayor I’m sure has felt the same thing, but it truly is part hell…”

“First of all start with exaggerated black expectations… heaven will come on earth, and it’s all because the black mayor’s been elected, and things just don’t work that way. The obligation that I felt was to try with everything in my power, in every legal and ethical way that I could, to move things as quickly as possible in that direction.”

Maynard Jackson

First Black Mayor of a Major Southern City (Atlanta)

Terms: January 1974 – January 1982, January 1990 – January 1994

Source: Episode 13 Eyes on the Prize America’s Civil Rights Movement

Upon hearing his statement I could not help but think about our newly elected President, Barack Obama, and the high expectations placed upon him by many blacks. I believe that people ought to stop looking for a savior and save themselves.

As a point of clarification, I am not saying that people should not look to their leaders for guidance, but instead that they should understand that change does not occur based on the will of the leader alone. There are no shortcuts, and people will have to take change into their own hands on an individual basis. Until they do this, the will continue to look for a savior in each promising leader within the community.

I’m interested in reading your thoughts on this one…

Filed under: Barack Obama, By Cheri Thomas, Maynard Jackson, politics

President Barack Obama Throws VP Joe Biden Under the Bus

VP Joe Biden has put his foot in his mouth again. His “there’s still a 30 percent chance we’re going to get it wrong” quote is put straight to President Barack Obama during the White House press conference last night and he seemed to want to say: “Vice-President Who?”

As reporters started snickering, Obama came close to conceding that Biden was indeed a joke. “You know, I don’t remember exactly what Joe was referring to, not surprisingly.” I am still wondering, after all this time, what was the logic behind President Obama selecting Joe Biden, ‘gaffe machine extraordinaire, as his vice president.

President Obama went on to say that “I think what Joe may have been suggesting, although I wouldn’t ascribe any numerical percentage to any of this, is that given the magnitude of the challenges that we have, any single thing that we do is going to be part of the solution, not all of the solution.” Hello, Biden was saying nothing of the sort and Obama knew that, just like the rest of us.

Biden’s exact quote, which was read out by Faux News’ Major Garrett at the presser was: “If we do everything right, if we do it with absolute certainty, if we stand up there and we really make the tough decisions, there’s still a 30 percent chance we’re going to get it wrong.” Joe Biden has loose lips, the kind that can do some serious damage. Folks, we should all get used to President Obama explaining “what Joe may have been suggesting.” Geez, I wonder if we have another Dan Quayle on our hands? Hmmm.

Filed under: Barack Obama, Dan Quayle, David Axelrod, FOX, Joe Biden, Major Garrett, press conference, White House

IMF Repeatedly Told Timothy Geithner That He Owed Social Security, Medicare Taxes

The drama involving Timothy Geithner continues. His nomination as Treasury secretary has been delayed by his past failure to pay taxes and that is a lowdown, dirty shame. He said that it was a mistake, but the International Monetary Fund begs to differ. Apparently, Geithner was repeatedly advised in writing by the IMF that he owed Social Security and Medicare taxes on the income he earned at the organization between 2001 and 2004.

Questions over his initial failure to pay more than $34,000 in taxes are clouding his prospects for confirmation. The Senate Finance Committee postponed Geithner’s confirmation hearing for the second time this week on Wednesday. It’s now scheduled for next Wednesday, which means President-elect Barack Obama will take office without a Treasury secretary amid the biggest financial crisis in decades.

Here is what I cannot understand. How did Barack Obama’s vetting team missed this? Did they think that it wasn’t a big deal? If so, that is preposterous. It is a big deal. If this man had to be reminded several times by the IMF about his affairs and he did nothing, he does not need to be at the helm of the Treasury department. Imagine what he would do with our money. Geithner acknowledged in writing that he claimed a child care credit for his kids’ summer camp fees. Geez, isn’t that cheating? He also didn’t pay a 10 percent penalty on early withdrawal from a tax-exempt retirement account. Sounds like cheating to me. Why is it that some rich folks are content on finding ways to cheat the system while the IRS tries to scare poor folks? This is strike two for the Obama team. Governor Bill Richardson decided to decline the nomination for Commerce Secretary after the investigation heated up.

To read the entire article, CLICK HERE.

Filed under: Barack Obama, Commerce Secretary, Gov. Bill Richardson, International Monetary Fund, Medicare, Social Security, Taxes, Timothy Geithner, Treasury Department, Vetting Team

Federal Agents Cite Racist Chatter for ‘Higher State of Alert’ in Inauguration

While we worry about Al-Qaida, we should be worrying about the home-grown terrorists in America–the white supremacists who would go to extraordinary lengths to harm Barack Obama just because of the color of his skin. Federal agents are on “a higher state of alert” because of hate talk by white supremacists about Barack Obama’s inauguration.

“That chatter is out there, no doubt about it,” one senior FBI agent in Washington said this afternoon. The Bureau has ordered agents in all 56 field offices to “shake the trees” in advance of the Jan. 20 swearing-in of the 44th President, who will become the first African-American to occupy the Oval Office. “They’re talking to sources to determine if there is any threat information in regard to the Inauguration,” the FBI source said. “Everybody in law enforcement dealing with that particular (white supremacist) ‘clientele’ is on a higher state of alert,” a senior agent at the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives told The News.

The ATF has expertise infiltrating white supremacist groups. A classified threat assessment for the Inauguration by the FBI and Homeland Security Department citing agitated hate groups was sent to police agencies this week. As you recall, during Obama’s campaign, white racists in Colorado and Tennessee were charged in separate plots against the candidate.

A throng estimated between 1.5 and 3 million is expected in Washington D. C. next Tuesday. The historic ceremonies will be the largest National Special Security Event ever. At least 20,000 cops, federal agents and National Guard troops will be deployed.

Filed under: Al-Qaida, Barack Obama, Federal Agents, Inauguration, Terrorism, White Supremacists

Many Students Skipping School to Witness History Being Made with, Barack Obama, the First African American President’s Inauguration

I have been wrestling with the idea of my children skipping school on January 20th to witness history being made, as the first African American becomes the 44th President of the United States. It seems that I am not the only parent faced with this decision. Students are trekking from near and far to Washington D.C. to witness this historic event. It’s a phenomenal civics lesson. Students are showing that the energy and activism Obama’s campaign ignited, even among those too young to vote, in still in full swing.

On Facebook, for example, numerous groups have been formed by students planning road trips and by those angry with class schedules that conflict with the Jan. 20 ceremony. At Harvard University, hundreds of undergraduates have signed an online petition asking administrators to allow students to make up exams scheduled that day. In Montgomery County, officials initially sought to go against a regional trend and keep schools open for the inauguration, but a student petition seeking to close schools drew more than 5,000 signatures.

The Student and Youth Travel Association, based in Michigan, which includes travel agents, tour operators and bus companies, estimates that as many as 500,000 students plan to attend the inauguration. That’s five times the number who attended President Bush’s second inauguration. Debbie Gibb, the association’s associate executive director, said that one bus company recently reported that 30 of its 50 vehicles have been booked by student groups for this inauguration, compared with five in 2005. Source: The Washington Post

Though I believe Barack Obama would want our children to attend school on January 20th, you still can’t help but feel an enormous sense of pride and accomplishment that should be shared by all — young and old; black and white; Jews and Muslims; gay and straight; male and female; Republican, Independent and Democrat. My oldest son has a perfect attendance record at school and my youngest has missed two days due to illness, but I want them to witness history firsthand on television as it is being broadcast live and not later during the re-broadcasts. This will be a poignant moment, when everyone will realize that America has come a long way and finally Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.’s dream has been realized. Barack Obama will go down in history as the first African American President of the United States. Yes, this the culmination of the civil rights struggle when so many gave their lives for basic rights. The historic election was also a time when we came together, despite our ethnic background or our social standing or our educational background, to elevate a black man as the next president of the United States.

Filed under: 2009, Barack Obama, First African American President, Historic Civics Lesson, Inauguration, Inauguration Day, January 20, Students Skipping School

Choice of First Dog Is Narrowed to Two Breeds: Australian Labradoodle and the Portuguese Water Hound

President-elect Barack Obama said that his family is choosing between a Labradoodle, left,
and a Portuguese water dog. (Phil Marino; Gordon M. Grant for The New York Times)

The incoming First Family is reportedly near a decision on the breed of the First Dog. During an appearance on ABC’s Sunday morning show, “This Week,” with George Stephanopoulos, Barack Obama said that they seemed to have narrowed down the choice of a new dog to a Labradoodle or a Portuguese water hound. He said that the next step was to canvas shelters to see if they could find one of those breeds as a rescue dog.

As has been widely discussed, Malia, 10, is allergic to dogs, so the First Family has been focusing its search on breeds with the reputation of being easier on those with allergies. Though no dog is 100 percent hypo-allergenic, some breeds shed less than others, and therefore release less dander — the cause of common dog allergies. I suffer from allergies as well and we have a Miniature Schnauzer who works just fine. He doesn’t shed and he doesn’t trigger an allergy attack. So, I decided to dig around to find out more about the two breeds the Obamas are looking at.

The Portuguese water dog, which doesn’t shed, is among the breeds the American Kennel Club recommends for those with allergies. The breed is a seafaring one that has been known for centuries along the Portuguese coast, “it was prized by fishermen for a spirited, yet obedient nature, and a robust, medium build that allowed for a full day’s work in and out of the water,” the Kennel Club writes on its Web site.

Once used for tasks like carrying messages between boats in the water, it is considered highly intelligent and has either curly or wavy hair. And it has an added endorsement: Senator Edward M. Kennedy owns two Portuguese water dogs, Sunny and Splash. The two dogs frequently flank him as he walks through the halls of the United States Capitol. And Splash, an apparent genius, is also credited by the Senator with ‘writing’ a 2006 children’s book, “My Senator And Me: A Dog’s Eye View Of Washington, D.C.” Source: NY Times

The other dog, the Labradoodle, is a created, or designer, breed: a cross between a Labrador retriever and a poodle. The breed was originally the brainchild of an Australian breeder who needed a service dog for a visually-impaired woman whose husband had dog allergies, it is now bred around the world. According to the web site of the Australian Labradoodle Association of America, its temperament is “clever, sociable, comical, joyful, energetic when free and soft and quiet when handled.”

The Labradoodle’s top endorsement may well be from Vice President-elect Joseph R. Biden Jr., who is reported to own a Labradoodle named Brother. On the other hand, the Labradoodle is not among those dogs recommended by the Kennel Association for allergy sufferers because of its status as a designer breed. Source: NY Times

I have read that designer dogs, often mixed with poodles are not recommended for allergy sufferers due to their unpredictable coat. Consequently, designer dogs have never really appealed to me. As long as the new dog doesn’t have the unpredictable temperament of Barney, President Bush’s Scottish terrier who bit the reporter. The dog was clearly not in the mood to be friendly with anyone, perhaps other than his master, of course. The Obamas’ search for a new dog has created a lot of buzz and I am sure that sales of the Australian Labradoodle and the Portuguese water hound will rise.

Filed under: Allergies, Animal Rescue, Australian Labradoodle, Barack Obama, First Dog, Malia Obama, Portuguese Water Hound

Supreme Court Justices Will Hear Challenge to Voting Rights Act, Brought by Former Clarence Thomas Clerk, Gregory S. Coleman

Every black voter in the United States must pay attention to the latest case brought before the United States Supreme Court. The court has agreed to examine whether a central component of landmark civil rights legislation enacted to protect minority voters is still needed in a nation that has elected an African American president. I fully expected that this would pop up again.

The court will decide the constitutionality of a provision of the Voting Rights Act of 1965 that seeks to protect minority voting rights by requiring a broad set of states and jurisdictions where discrimination was once routine to receive federal approval before altering any of their voting procedures. Funny, wasn’t there evidence of discrimination in the last general election? There were cases across the United States and in predominantly black areas–fewer voting booths, rigid polling hours, less staff and so on.

The Supreme Court has upheld the requirement in the past, saying the intrusion on state sovereignty is warranted to protect voting rights and eliminate discrimination against minorities. But challengers say it ignores the reality of modern America and “consigns broad swaths of the nation to apparently perpetual federal receivership based on 40-year-old evidence.”

The outcome will be very interesting because the court, led by Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr., has become increasingly skeptical of race-based remedies. With Uncle Clarence Thomas on the bench, only too happy to get rid of any provisions to protect blacks, I can only imagine what the outcome is going to be.

The Voting Rights Act was enacted in 1965, at a time when literacy tests and other schemes were routinely used, especially in parts of the deep South, to intimidate and exclude black voters. Its Section 5 “pre-clearance” requirements, which compel the Justice Department or a court to sign off on any changes to voting procedures, were intended to last for five years. Instead, the law was expanded to include other minorities, and its duration was extended four times, most recently in 2006 by overwhelming congressional majorities.

The pre-clearance requirements apply to nine states — Alabama, Alaska, Arizona, Georgia, Louisiana, Mississippi, South Carolina, Texas and Virginia — as well as counties and towns in seven others. Fifteen jurisdictions in Virginia, including the city of Fairfax, have been allowed to “bail out” of the requirement with the agreement of the federal government.

Challengers say the Section 5 designations are an outrageous “badge of shame” on jurisdictions that have never discriminated, at a time when minorities have been elected to public office in record numbers.

“The America that has elected Barack Obama as its first African-American president is far different than when Section 5 was first enacted in 1965,” wrote Gregory S. Coleman, a former Texas solicitor general who brought the suit on behalf of a tiny utilities district in Austin that is covered by the law.

The district was created in the late 1980s to provide sewer services to a new subdivision, and there has never been a charge of discrimination in the way the now-3,500 residents elect their five-member board of directors. But any changes the district makes — such as moving its elections from a resident’s home to a local school — require Justice Department approval.

Coleman, a politically active lawyer who once clerked for Justice Clarence Thomas, testified to Congress in opposition to extending the Voting Rights Act in 2006. He recruited Northwest Austin Municipal Utility District No. 1 for a test case after Congress extended the law for another 25 years. Source: Washington Post

Why am I not surprised that someone associated with Clarence Thomas brought this suit? Clarence Thomas acts as though racism was never a problem of untold proportions in the United States. He acts as though he coasted through college because of his educational merits, rather than with the assistance of Affirmative Action. Clarence Thomas and Gregory S. Coleman are real Uncle Toms in every sense of the word. So, because Barack Obama will become the first African American president of the USA, that means we should discard all protections in place for blacks in America, in terms of suffrage rights? There has been more display of racism towards Barack Obama from the moment he declared his intentions to run for the presidency. He was the first to receive Secret Service protection. So the notion that the playing field has been leveled is furthest from the truth and actually insulting on so many level.

Filed under: Barack Obama, Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr., Clarence Thomas, Discrimination, Gregory S. Coleman, of 1965, US Supreme Court, Voting Rights Act

House votes to Impeach Illinois Governor Blagojevich

Photo: Chicago Tribune

The Illinois House has voted to impeach Governor Rod Blagojevich. Here’s the entire article from the Chicago Tribune.

House votes to impeach Blagojevich

SPRINGFIELD—In a historic vote, the Illinois House has impeached Gov. Rod Blagojevich, directing the Senate to put the state’s 40th chief executive on trial with the goal of removing him from office.

The vote by the House was 114-1 and marks the first time in the state’s 190-year history that a governor has been impeached, despite Illinois’ longstanding reputation for political corruption.

Rep. Milt Patterson (D-Chicago) was the lone vote against impeaching the governor. Patterson, from Chicago’s Southwest Side, said after the roll call that he didn’t feel it was his job to vote to impeach the governor. He declined comment on whether he approved of the job Blagojevich is doing.

A Blagojevich spokesman said the governor will not resign. A 2 p.m. news conference with the governor is scheduled for the James R. Thompson Center in downtown Chicago.

The actions of the House–approving an article of impeachment maintaining Blagojevich had committed abuses of power–represents the equivalent of an indictment.

The impeachment resolution covering Blagojevich’s actions “show a public servant who has betrayed his oath of office, who has betrayed the public trust, who is not fit to govern the state of Illinois,” said Rep. Barbara Flynn Currie, the Chicago Democrat who headed a special panel that recommended Blagojevich’s impeachment a day earlier.

Next week, when the Senate convenes, it will begin the process of setting up a trial of the governor in which each of the 59 state senators act as judge and jurors.

A total of 40 senators are needed to convict Blagojevich which would remove the governor from office and make Lt. Gov. Pat Quinn the state’s new chief executive. A trial is expected to take at least three weeks.

While the debate was free of partisanship, Illinois Republican Party Chairman Andy McKenna was quick to criticize Democrats following the impeachment vote.

“After six years of enabling and endorsing Rod Blagojevich, the Democrats who run this state waited until Illinois faced national embarrassment to act and are now voting to impeach a governor they worked to re-elect only two years ago,” McKenna said in a statement. “To make matters worse, these same Democrats have fed this crisis by refusing to strip the governor of his appointment powers, and are helping to seat Blagojevich’s hand-picked and tainted choice for United States Senator.”

House members had expressed hopes that the impeachment would encourage Blagojevich to resign from office to avoid the Senate trial. But Blagojevich has resisted calls for his resignation following his Dec. 9 arrest at his North Side home on federal corruption charges, including allegations he sought to sell the U.S. Senate seat vacated by President-elect Barack Obama.

On Thursday, after the House investigation’s panel recommended Blagojevich’s impeachment, the governor said he looked forward to a trial in the Senate, presided over by the chief justice of the Illinois Supreme Court, and “believes the outcome will be much different” from the House action.

Posted at 10:24 a.m.

Gov. Rod Blagojevich is planning an afternoon press conference to address the House vote on impeachment, a spokesman said this morning.

The appearance is tentatively scheduled for 2 p.m. at the James R. Thompson Center in Chicago.

Posted at 10:22 a.m.

Rep. Al Riley (D-Hazel Crest) told young people that while lawmakers are sad to impeach Blagojevich, it’s not a sad day because “it proves that the system works.”

Riley recalled that the sun still came up and the mail was delivered the day after President Kennedy was shot.

Posted at 10:20 a.m.

Rep. Eddie Acevedo (D-Chicago) said Blagojevich’s situation is a distraction from all the other work to be done in state government.

“He is simply unable to govern as a governor should,” he said.

Posted at 10:15 a.m.

Where, you might ask, is Gov. Rod Blagojevich as the Illinois House debates his impeachment?

A Tribune photographer took pictures of Blagojevich going jogging in his Ravenswood Manor neighborhood at about 10 a.m.

Posted at 10:10 a.m.

Rep. Careen Gordon (D-Morris) said Blagojevich can attempt to repair his image, but shouldn’t be allowed to do so “on state time.”

“Our time is being wasted on the shortcomings of one man,” she said.

Gordon also talked a lot about the various times she took the oath of office, saying that politicians should mean it when they do so.

“Sadly, the governor of the state of Illinois never meant a word when he said that he would uphold the Illinois Constitution,” Gordon said. “He is not the rule. He is the exception.”

Posted at 10:00 a.m.

Rep. David Miller (D-Calumet City) is asking Reps. Currie and Durkin about Blagojevich’s due process rights, apparently to get on the record an explanation of why Blagojevich could be impeached despite not being found guilty in a criminal court.

Had some technical difficulties and did not hear the remarks of Rep. Monique Davis (D-Chicago).

Posted at 9:55 a.m.

Rep. Jack Franks (D-Woodstock), a longtime Blagojevich critic, said it’s the House’s duties to “clean up the mess” and “stop the freak show” that has become Illinois government.

“The plague that has been brought upon our state by Rod Blagojevich will be lifted,” he said.

Franks said voting for impeachment is his “finest moment as a state legislator.”

Posted at 9:45 a.m.

State Rep. Susan Mendoza (D-Chicago) said the impeachment report is “astounding.”

“The governor has clearly, clearly been unable to govern for far too long,” she said. “It’s been an ugly and shameful spectacle. Rod Blagojevich, you should be ashamed of yourself…take your sullied place in history.”

Posted at 9:40 a.m.

Rep. Lou Lang (D-Skokie), an impeachment panel member, laid out the standard for impeachment: it’s up to the individual members to decide what constitutes “cause” for impeachment.

“This report is all about a governor abusing his power,” Lang said. He then noted it’s President Nixon’s birthday and compared Blagojevich to Nixon, who resigned before being impeached.

“Ladies and gentlemen, we deserve better,” said Lang, calling the impeachment resolution the most important vote of his career.

Posted at 9:35 a.m.

Rep. John Fritchey (D-Chicago), whose district includes Blagojevich’s North Side home, said he never thought he’d be voting on an impeachment resolution. He then quoted from Abraham Lincoln’s “A House Divided” speech.

“This House is not divided against itself, it is united…It is united to restore the faith in state government,” said Fritchey, an ally of Blagojevich’s estranged father-in-law, Chicago Ald. Richard Mell.

Fritchey then went on to tweak President-elect Barack Obama’s campaign slogan, saying when it comes to restoring the people’s faith, it’s not a matter of “Yes, we can,” but “Yes, we will.”

Posted at 9:30 a.m.

Rep. Jim Durkin (R-Western Springs), the minority spokesman on the impeachment panel, told his colleagues the evidence against Blagojevich is overwhelming and went without rebuttal by the governor. He then ticked off a list of the governor’s alleged offenses.

Impeaching Blagojevich “ensures the public and everyone in the state that a system of checks and balances works.” But Durkin also warned that impeaching the governor doesn’t remove him from office—that job will fall to the Senate during a trial later this month.

Posted at 9:20 a.m.

House Republican Leader Tom Cross of Oswego, a onetime personal friend of Blagojevich who jogged with him in a photo op during the governor’s first week in office, said there’s no doubt the governor has violated the oath of office. Cross’ minister father also baptized Blagojevich’s daughters.

“You ought to be angry. You ought to be disgusted,” said Cross, likening Blagojevich’s actions in office to a home break-in. “We have no choice today but to vote yes on this resolution.”

Posted at 9:07 a.m.

House Speaker Michael Madigan is running the floor today, which isn’t usually the case on a garden-variety session day. He threw it to House Majority Leader Barbara Flynn Currie, who chaired the impeachment panel.

“We stand here today because of the perfidy of one man, Rod Blagojevich,” Currie said. “Instead, he said he would fight, fight, fight and he castigated us as nothing better than a political lynch mob. Well, we’re anything but that.”

Currie said “vigilante” justice would have seen Blagojevich impeached within days of his Dec. 9 arrest. Currie said Blagojevich did not appear before the impeachment panel and the governor’s lawyer didn’t offer much of a defense for him.

Currie cited what she said is Blagojevich’s betrayal of the public trust: allegations he tried to dole out state jobs and a Senate appointment and sign legislation all with an eye toward enriching himself, his wife or his campaign fund.

“They show a public servant who has betrayed his public office, who betrayed the public trust…. His silence in this grave matter is deafening,” said Currie, adding Blagojevich is unfit to hold his office.

She urged the House to vote “yes” on impeaching Blagojevich.

Posted at 9:01 a.m.

The House is in session, with the invocation delivered by the brother of Rep. Mike Bost (R-Murphysboro). “Let truth stand over preference,” said Rev. Milton Bost of Chatham Baptist Church, while acknowledging the state and nation will be watching today.

Rep. Bost then led the Pledge of Allegiance.

Rep. Ken Dunkin (D-Chicago), a Blagojejvich ally, is the only lawmaker reported absent, though only 115 of the 118 answered the roll call.

Filed under: Barack Obama, Governor Blagojevich, Illinois Gov. Rod R. Blagojevich, Illinois Senate Seat, Impeachment, Roland Burris

Mystery Guest at Blair House Who Took Precedence Over the Obamas is John Howard, Former Australian Prime Minister and Friend of President Bush

Guess who is a more important guest at Blair House than Barack Obama? John Howard, the former Australian prime minister. As you will recall, Howard was one of the leading members of President Bush’s coalition of the willing in Iraq.

Howard and his entourage will be bunking at Blair House on Jan. 12, the night before he, former British prime minister Tony Blair and Colombian President Álvaro Uribe are to be awarded the Presidential Medal of Freedom by Bush, said Sally McDonough, a spokeswoman for first lady Laura Bush. The three current and former heads of state are longtime political allies of the president’s, and Blair and Howard were key partners in the Iraq war.

Blair and Uribe also were invited to stay at Blair House but declined Bush’s invitation, said a second White House official who spoke on the condition of anonymity. Blair, who traditionally stays at the British Embassy, and Uribe apparently found other accommodations, the source said.

There are other scheduled events at Blair House, but no other overnight visits between now and Jan. 15, when the Obama family is scheduled to move in, McDonough said. Source: The Washington Post

Barack Obama had requested an early move0-in at the 70,000-square-foot, 119-room mansion so that his children could settle in to start school this week at Sidwell Friends School. But the Obamas was told the residence had been booked, so they took a suite at the Hay-Adams. At the time, the White House would not say which events were bumping the Obamas. Once again, President Bush has his priorities mixed up.

Filed under: Barack Obama, Blair House, John Howard, President George W. Bush

General Motors Delivers Armored 2009 Cadillac Presidential Limousine, Set to Make its Debut at Barack Obama’s Inauguration

THE OBAMOBILE

President-elect Barack Obama’s new limo has been unveiled. The only problem is that it looks like a Batmobile. I see why General Motors Corp. is having money troubles. It is a hideous car, in my opinion. The car has been delivered to the Secret Service.

The armored 2009 Cadillac Presidential Limousine will make its debut at Obama’s Jan. 20 inauguration in Washington. The Secret Service and GM say they’ll reveal more about the custom vehicle’s specifications next week.

Older-model presidential limos will remain in use. The previous model, a modified Cadillac DTS, was introduced at President George W. Bush’s second inauguration in 2005.

The reviews are brutal:

“Ugly as sin,” says one car enthusiast on an auto Web site. “Can’t we make a hotter ride for our pres?”

“Sheesh,” says another, “why don’t they just transport the president around in an Abrams tank.”

One news agency, noting its 8-inch-thick doors, says the limo can withstand a “direct hit from an asteroid.” But GM spokeswoman Joanne K. Krell laughed off the comments.

“And it will fix you a latte if you ask,” she jokes.

If you ask me, it belongs in a rap video or a Batman movie. By the way, the car will be all-black, but hideous nonetheless.

Filed under: Armored Limousine, Barack Obama, Cadillac, Presidential Limo