We're not big fans of Drew Westen (above in his Emory University faculty photo) for reasons that should be obvious but tend to instead leak out to the public slowly.
Westen wrote a column earlier this month entitled "What Happened To Obama?" (New York Times). While many on the left praised it through the roof, community wide we avoided it for numerous reasons including that an unrepentant whore is not a whore you can trust.
But give them time and whores will expose themselves.
As usual, Tom Hayden wrote with the brain turned off and ended up giving up more than he intended.
Lashing out at anyone who would challenge the Corporatist War Hawk, Unckle Crakker (as we like to think of Tom-Tom) wrote, "When I asked Westen about this omission, he replied in an email today that it was 'mostly space' that caused him to ignore a 'great question.' Westen, a white professor at Emory University, helped Obama with the renowned speech on race he delivered as candidate in Philadelphia in 2008."
We don't like whores. We don't like whores because they lie. We don't like whores because they have no ethics.
We don't like Drew Westen.
Though the take-away from Unkle Krakker's piece was supposed to be why Westen avoided a topic, the really important point was that Drew Westen "helped Obama wih the renowned speech on race he delivered as a candidate in Philadelphia in 2008."
Remember that speech?
We weren't impressed. But a lot of people were.
Let's note some of the praise for the speech Drew Westen helped write:
"Obama delivered a message that spoke to the conflicts and contradictions around race that have existed since the earliest days of this nation, and he delivered it in a personal way that spoke to his own history and his own complex response to his pastor's messages over many years."
"The speech brought to mind a passage written by the psychoanalyst Erik Erikson a half century ago in his psychobiography of Martin Luther, which could just as easily have been written last night."
"As numerous commentators described it, Obama led us to our better angels."
"Is he a moving orator who speaks pretty lines but lacks substance? No one can seriously ask that question today, after Obama offered the most eloquent, intellectually penetrating, and most moving description of the complexities of race in America of any politician in recent history."
"He offered a progressive vision of patriotism, integrating a more traditional view -- referring to his grandfather's service under General Patton, and the military service of Reverend Wright -- with the notion that love of country is not blind love, that forming a more perfect union -- the essence of progressivism -- is part of what it means to love one's country."
"Yesterday, he led us as a nation, and he showed a firm, steady, and unflinching hand."
"Not only did he utter words most Democratic politicians don't speak in polite company but should have spoken years ago, but he refused to take the low road -- to denounce and cast aside someone who clearly matters dearly to him simply because he had become a political liability -- displaying both courage and conviction."
Are you gagging yet? Cracking a window to let in some fresh air?
Woops!
We forgot to cite the source on each of those quotes.
Our bad.
Those quotes praising Barack's speech?
They were all from the same person.
Want to guess who that was?
Drew Westen.
Drew Westen wrote all that and much more at The Huffington Post in "The Meanings of Obama's Speech" the day after Barack delivered the Philadelphia speech.
Westen wrote much, much more in praise of the speech. In fact, in that column, he goes on for 1261 words.
But none of those words are ever used to disclose, "I helped write this speech."
He never lets the reader know, in all of his 1261 words praising the speech, that, "I'm praising a speech I co-wrote."
Ward Churchill was run off for supposed ethical violations.
Emory University is going to look the other way when one of their professors is unethical enough to write a 1261 word column praising a speech they co-wrote without ever informing readers of that fact?
That says a great deal about the university and none of it good.
And if Emory University can't grasp that, maybe they ought to take a look at this news release they issued, THEY ISSUED, on Westen adding a chapter to the paperback edition of a book, a chapter on Hillary Clinton -- a chapter and a news release that both fail to note he was working for Barack's campaign. Generally, universities frown on such conflicts of interests even when there is disclosure. But Drew Westen and Emory University offered none.
Again, it says a great deal about Emory University and none of it good.