On Wednesday Dame Reginald Dwight (a.k.a. Elton John) sang to a crowd of Hillary Clinton supporters at Radio City Music Hall.  The benefit raised about $2.5 million in a state that Clinton already won, but it was necessary because she is nearly $20 million in the red and the polling data from the upcoming Pennsylvania primary does not look good as Clinton’s 20 point lead dwindled to almost nothing (some polls have her losing).

Clinton, her family, friends and supporters all leapt to their feet to applaud an idiotic rant from Dwight where he opined on why Clinton was floundering in the polls and fundraising. Before they began applauding they really should have thought about the comments that Elton made because the only people who already voted for or against Clinton are Democrats.

I'm pretty sure that even in Britain it is considered bad form to bite the hand that feeds you and Clinton needs fed!  She lags in both votes and money and is in desperate need of both if she wants to fend off her doom on April 22nd.

Sir Elton (oh, did I call him Dame – well a title is a title and he wanted Queen, but Elizabeth has that one) addressed the crowd and his remarks are being reported as if they mattered because he made them.  They mattered because what he said was endorsed (with a smile and a bad joke by Clinton herself) and because they had to do with Democrats - not Republicans.

Republicans have not had a crack at voting for or against Hillary yet and one would think that even in the heat of being serenaded by someone as talented as the 300 pound poof from Britain - the Clinton camp would have realized that playing the "they don't like me because I'm a woman" card - again - would not be very smart this late in the campaign.  They don't think well when things are scripted, as this clearly was since stand up is not exactly Hillary's greatest asset.

Dwight started out innocent enough, “I've always been a Hillary supporter,” said the 61-year-old drag queen.  “There is no one more qualified to lead America.”  I don’t know about that – surely there is someone better than a woman who has no experience in running anything except interference for “bimbo eruptions” when her husband was POTUS.  Then he said this:

“I'm amazed by the misogynistic attitudes of some of the people in this country. And I say to hell with them.... I love you Hillary, I'll be there for you.”

Instead of attempting to smile and crack a joke – Clinton should have done something to distance herself from the broad generalization that Democrats are not voting for her because they like an anti-Semitic black guy more than they like women in general.  What a stupid remark and silly argument, but Clinton stood by and laughed and giggled while it was made.

The idea that a Brit is worried that Americans hold contempt or an unfounded hatred of women is almost as silly as thinking that because Great Britain elected Margaret Thatcher to the Premiership in 1979 that there is an affinity toward powerful conservative women in that country.

Besides, tolerance is hardly a virtue of Britain and it has nothing to do with the fact that they lack freedoms that we have in America and have a system of governance that allowed a radical and racist group to not only go unchecked for a decade, but to be exported to the rest of the world is evidence that we should probably ignore anyone that wears more sequins than Gay Aiken.

Skinheads trace their roots to the 1950s in Britain.  The British government ignored their violence and hatred for Pakistanis and other Asian minorities as well as Jews and blacks until Margaret Thatcher became the Prime Minister in 1979.  Skinheads were unapologetic for their violent attacks and made no attempt to distinguish between men and women (I guess that is great for Sir Elton).  Skinheads found all people belonging to minority groups to be “dogs” and less than human and therefore ripe for the kicking (with heavy black boots).

They saluted like Nazis, styled their “uniforms” like the SS and modeled their organization like something from 1930s Germany and now we have a Brit coming to America to give speeches about how much Democrats hate women?  Far be it from me to stop Dwight from speaking, but British entertainers should come to America and embrace the nation and entertain us.  They should get their nose out of our politics.

What is really amazing is that no matter what happens Democrats are going to put forward either a woman or a black for the most powerful job in the world – hardly intolerant is it?

Elton John should hop on a plane and take himself back to his native Britain and worry about the problems of that country.  A place where Muslim youth feel persecuted, where unemployment is rampant and poverty immense and where the most powerful minority in the British government is the modern day equivalent of the Groom of the Stool.

Using Dwight's logic Democrats are the only people that have a problem with women.  We already know what happens when Clinton begins losing ground to Obama: undoubtedly she will cry at some point before the Pennsylvania primary and some people on cable will pretend it was genuine.  She will take to the stage and give a speech about how hard she works and then, and only then, will she remind people about the anti-Semitic preacher loving Obama.  Unfortunately for her - it is too late.  Obama is virtually unstoppable.

It is far more likely that Hillary Clinton is not ahead in this race because she carries the name Clinton.  Her husband’s legacy of impeachment and scandal are reminders of what another Clinton Administration would be.  Is it possible that, like Benedict Arnold, people with the last name Clinton will forever be treated more harshly than those who are lucky enough not to carry that name?  Are we going to come up with a word for those who were affiliated with the former president and are now considered political pariahs?  It is not misogyny taking away Hillary's last chance to be the President of the United States - it is the American people's desire to throw out the dynastic players belonging to the Clinton and Bush families.

Dame Elton just needs to go home.  If some in the celebrity set really wanted to help Democratic candidates they should just be quiet because these endorsements have a way of backfiring (remember Whoopie Goldberg’s outburst for John Kerry).  There is a fine line before supporters become liabilities and for Elton John that line was crossed when he showed just how uninformed he was and declared the Democratic Party a place where women are unwelcome.

Hillary Clinton needs the votes of the people that Elton declared misogynists and she is not going to get them if the sequins jacket wearing poof comes to America bashing people in the very party he wants to replace President George Bush.

Steve Yuhas is a radio talk show host on AM 600 KOGO in southern California and may be reached atsteve@steveyuhas.com or www.steveyuhas.com

Former President Bill Clinton took to the campaign trail on Thursday and reminded people exactly why the Clintons should never be permitted back inside (besides the fact that the maids have to count the towels and comforters when they arrive and depart): they cannot tell the truth.

Here is what the former president told a crowd, “"I remember when we were young, right out of law school, she went down and tried to join the Army and they said 'Your eyes are so bad, nobody will take you.'"

I thought something sounded familiar about the story, but I did not remember the specifics so off to Lexis I went and there it was.  Hillary Clinton told a similar story back in 1994 that went something like this.

After she graduated from Yale Law School she walked into the Marine Corps recruiting office in Fayetteville, Arkansas and told the Marine inside she wanted to enlist.  The year was 1975 and the exchange that followed allegedly went something like this:

"He [the Marine recruiter] looked at me, and in those days that was before I learned how to wear contact lenses; I had these really thick glasses on. He said, ‘How bad's your eyesight?' I said, ‘It's pretty bad.' …Finally said to me, he said, 'You're too old. You can't see. And you're a woman.…But maybe the dogs (Army) would take you.'"

Did nobody brief Bill on the lies told during the 1990s?  Did her campaign learn nothing from the gaffe over her Bosnia combat experience?  Since this is not the first time Hillary Clinton has had trouble remembering things having to do with the military – maybe someone should inquire further because if anyone keeps good records – it is the United States military.

First someone just needs to look at the facts: Hillary Clinton was just out of law school (and not just any law school – Yale Law School) and that would mean she would enter the USMC as an officer.  Recruiting stations (including the one that used to be in Fayetteville) were for enlisted men and women.  Lawyers go through an entirely different process when they want to serve – in her case she would have been permitted to commission as an officer as a Judge Advocate General (or JAG) and her age would not have mattered (and neither would her glasses).  Everything has an ability to be "waived" and that is as true today as it was as far back as the 1950s.  Do we really believe that the USMC would just say - "Nope" to a Yale Law grad who wanted to VOLUNTEER?

The problem with the story she was telling a group of female veterans is that whoever wrote the speech looked up the requirements for ‘enlisting’ in the military.  She was not going to enlist as a lawyer – she would have been a commissioned officer at a time in our history when the military needed volunteers to be officers (and enlisted folks) in the military.

Prior to Bill Clinton re-telling the story of his wife’s unfortunate inability to serve our country (something only brought up every decade and a half or so) the last thing military that Hillary Clinton did was take a wild ride into Bosnia in 1996.  She told the world, and she did it many times not just once, that she ‘mis-spoke’ when she talked about running to the waiting cars as they (she and her daughter) came under sniper fire. 

It is too bad that video was found that showed Hillary Clinton and her daughter accepting flowers from a little girl (or was that Hillary shielding her from the snipers) and having a little meet and greet when they arrived in Tuzla.

Far be it from me to be cynical about the Clintons, but all these stories do is remind us why they should not be put back in a position of power.  That is not to say that Obama is ready for the Oval Office either – his anti-Semitic awarding, Hamas manifesto printing, church membership is evidence of that, but the Clintons are pathological.

Hillary Clinton tells stories over and over and over again about arriving under fire when she visited Bosnia and it is called a mis-speak, but ask any member of the military if we do not recall the exact moment that we first felt in danger during our service.  During my program the other night I received no less than two dozen stories from veterans ranging from Korea to the present who remember their first contact with the enemy.  How does Hillary Clinton remember being fired upon to such a degree that if she were in the Marine Corps that she would warrant a Combat Action Ribbon and get away with calling it a mis-speak instead of a lie when it is proved false?

There were calls from the press (to be fair only some of the press) for John Kerry to release all of his military records (something he still has not done) and it is almost certain that John McCain will be asked to sign, if he has not already, a Standard Form 180.  That is the form used to release every record that the Department of Defense or any of the services maintain on members of the military – from the Revolution to the present.  What is unknown by some is that if you so much as step foot inside a recruiters office a form is generated and it is maintained by an office in St. Louis, Missouri.

So sign the form Senator Clinton and let’s see if your eyes were bad because no recruiter would tell you in 1975 that you could not join – they’re not qualified to do it.  Their job is to enlist men and women – not to turn them away.  It is asking the American people to engage in “a willing suspension of disbelief” to think that the military would ever turn away a Yale Law graduate in a time in our history when the military needed people to fill JAG positions like never before.

Bill and Hillary Clinton have told some real whoppers over the years, but nothing gets under my skin the way they talk about the military and the real life military encounters they allegedly had when, in reality, nobody has ever bothered to check.  The Clinton campaign will say that no records exist, but I know enough about military recruiting to know that they keep records on you from the minute you walk in the door and a recruiter (a retired Marine who was recruiting around the same time as Hillary Clinton walked in the door) told me the following:

Can you think of anything more idiotic than a Marine turning away a Yale lawyer who wanted to serve during the end of the Vietnam War?  He would have had his nuts handed to him for that.  We kept ‘contact’ sheets back then and they all got turned in, I’m sure it is somewhere in Saint Louis.  Maybe she remembers the name of the recruiter and if she doesn’t I’m sure the Corps does!

That’s true and he’d be young enough to remember since a recruiter would be about the same age as Clinton.  Surely the guys from Arkansas can be identified quite easily and we can put this story in the same bin as the one from Bosnia.  Let’s get this SF 180 signed and delivered to the records folks and will the reporters out there please start taking some notes because when a story has four endings it is a fable – not reality.  Start fact checking.  Why is it that talkers and bloggers can pick this stuff up, but journalists (you know the kind of people that write news) can’t seem to figure it out?

Steve Yuhas is a radio talk show host on AM 600 KOGO in southern California and may be reached atsteve@steveyuhas.com or www.steveyuhas.com

You know there is trouble in Democratic circles when NOBODY that I know who is Jewish that supported Barack Obama before Wright-Gate hit is willing to say that they support Obama today.  And with good reason - when you allow the stench of anti-Semitism into your church, into your heart and into your 'crazy uncle' - you alienate a large part of the Democratic electorate.  That large part is necessary for victory and Obama may very well have turned his chances for strong Jewish backing away when he refused to go further than "don't listen to him - he's a product of segregation speech."  Well, a lot of Jews have been the target of of discrimination all over the world and for thousands of years so forgive me if my Jewish-ness does not feel for a group of people who applaud when anti-Semitic, anti-American and anti-white remarks are made as part of the 'best-of' segment of a church.

You would have thought, from the tapes sold by the church, that this whole thing with Obama was an act, but it is real and it is costing him the Jewish vote - maybe not all of it, but certainly some.

Little more than 48 hours after Senator Barack Obama (D-IL) stepped to the microphones to address the anti-Semitic, anti-American and anti-white rage of his ‘spiritual advisor’ and pastor, Rev. Jeremiah Wright, many Jews are taking a second look at the junior Senator and Democratic frontrunner.

By Wednesday the Obama campaign was trying to make Jews understand that his 20-year relationship with a preacher and church that gave an award to Louis Eugene Walcott (sorry, Louis Farrakhan, do all racists change their names?) and who blamed America for everything from the AIDS virus to the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001 was just a relationship of a man sitting in the pew of a preacher from the “old black school.”

Unfortunately for Obama he did not talk until the controversy was out of control and when that happens it is far too late.  As of this writing I know Jewish leaders and Israeli politicians who are willing to say that an Obama Administration would be “the worst for Israel” of all the candidates and that Obama was “unacceptable” to the Jewish population not only in Israel, but the Diaspora abroad.

Jewish voters give their votes anywhere between 25 and 27% to Republicans – the balance of Jewish voters in strongholds like New York and California vote in a huge Democratic bloc.  Even more than counting on Jewish votes to get Democrats over the top it is almost equally important to get Jewish money.  Obama now has a problem: why would any Jew give money to a man who associates with a pastor and a church that awards anti-Semites and bigots?

It is a bit more difficult to tally Jewish money in politics since there is no record kept of the faith of the voter.  But, taking the afternoon to compare the directory of membership at my synagogue with records of political contributions it is clear that Jewish political contributions are equally important to Democrats.

So did Obama go far enough in his flag draped explanation about his relationship with a preacher who is willing to honor an anti-Semite and treat Israel like a dirty word?  And why all the flags for a guy who won’t wear a flag on his lapel for fear of looking like he was pandering?

Instead of explaining with a condescending “it’s a black thing” and “we all disagree with our pastors” (no we don’t) not quitting his church he brought out of the woodwork people like the Black Panthers and other black separatists who admire anti-Semitism.  They also believe that America is a bastion of evil where whites and especially Jews cause there to be inequity in America not unlike that seen during the 1950s in the south.

With friends like Wright, Farrakhan and the Black Panther Party on his side Obama does not need any enemies.  The relationship with Wright puts him in the pantheon of black separatism and worse than that is Obama raised more questions than answers when he gave his address.  His campaign called his remarks courageous, but courage would have been taking the anti-Semite to task; not telling us that he is like our crazy uncles.

Truth be told I probably would not have voted for Obama whether or not the highlights of Wright’s hate-filled sermons came to the public record or not, but I was willing to give Obama the benefit of the doubt with regard to his judgment.  It is that judgment that Obama is using as his only qualification to be Commander-in-Chief and the leader of the free world – a world that has enemies throughout and enemies that would love a person in the White House who did not care if Israel was wiped off the map.

Obama has not explained how in 20 years of sermons, personal contact and experience that he never heard an utterance of an inappropriate or anti-Semitic nature by his own pastor.  I’ve not been an adult for 20 years, but in the time I’ve been an adult I would remember well sermons, particularly those during High Holy days, that involved hatred for America or the kind that paint Israel as a demon.

The worst part of Obama’s non-explanation was that he gave it with the hope that it would end the questions concerning his pastor, but it hasn’t.  In fact it gave us more to think about.  How could a church release a “best-of” DVD of hate and Obama be oblivious to it?  How could Wright blame America for everything from AIDS to crack and Obama be oblivious to it?  How could Wright be the leader of Obama’s church and be part of his life for 20 years and Obama not be aware that he blamed Israel for the ills of the Middle East – including the fact that Wright and Obama believe that “cynicism” is the reason that there is not peace in the Middle East.

Cynicism?  Does Obama, through Wright’s instruction, really believe that the people of Israel want peace so little that it is cynicism rather than the hatred of the Arab governments and people that surround her that keep peace from happening?  If Obama misjudges the Middle East in theory – how will he do when he is in the Oval Office and is called upon to judge issues for real?

All Obama did on Tuesday was show just how poor his judgment is.  His association with Wright’s church in Chicago may have made him a hero with the black left and helped in a segment of Chicago politics, but for someone that aspired to the highest office in America he should have known better.

Obama knew that Wright was a problem.  When he announced his candidacy for the White House – the New York Times reported that Wright was “dis-invited” by an Obama staffer before his announcement.  Obama’s knowledge that Wright was a problem a year ago makes it that much more difficult to believe that Obama did not know Wright was a problem ten years ago.  That kind of bad judgment cannot be permitted in the White House – particularly when the only thing helping the Jewish vote make a decision is party affiliation.

The Jewish leaders and lay people that I talked to today are just as willing to vote for John McCain, who was at the Western Wall in Jerusalem today, as they would be willing to vote for either of the two Democrats.  One unanimous thing that happened today is that I could not find one person in the Jewish leadership willing to say that they support Barack Obama’s run for the White House and it was not lost on Jewish leaders that while McCain was at the Wailing Wall in Jerusalem that Obama was trying to damage control for his association with anti-Semitic and anti-American people that he chose to associate with for two decades.

Jewish people need to examine Obama’s record much more closely and if Obama refuses to not only stand up and “renounce” or “repudiate” the comments and awards that he clearly knew were going on around him then the Jewish vote and Jewish money has an obligation to Israel to stay home or to go to McCain.

Barack Obama’s campaign has done little more than trot out supporters who happen to be Jewish elected leaders in order to explain and disassociate him from his preacher and his church.  My microphone is open to the Obama campaign and I suggest that they take me or another Jewish broadcaster up on the offer because two days ago I was willing to go quietly if Obama was the Democratic nominee.  Today I am unwilling to see him get to the White House and will do everything in my power to see that Jews are not only aware, but outraged, at his conduct and the pretense that he didn’t know anything untoward was happening right under his nose. 

Steve Yuhas is a radio talk show host on AM 600 KOGO in southern California and may be reached by email at  steve@steveyuhas.com or www.steveyuhas.com

Silda Wall Spitzer is not the first, and will by no means be the last, political wife to stand by her embattled husband – soon to be former New York Governor Eliot Spitzer. Spitzer announced his resignation Wednesday morning after it became public that he was involved with an international hooker ring – perhaps for the last decade.

Imagine the horror of standing next to the person who shamed you and your family and looking at them with endearing love as they apologize to their constituents for straying from the marriage (or dating) bed. The whole thing is unseemly and it would not be a big deal if it did not happen over and over and over again.

The most famous example is Hillary Clinton who went out defending her husband after news broke on the Drudge Report that he was involved with a White House intern. Former President Bill Clinton took to a podium and pounded his fist and pointing at the camera to deny the charges and the next day his wife and surrogates took to the airwaves to stand by Clinton.

Then the truth came out and the nation was thrust into the first impeachment of an elected President in the history of our nation.

Other political wives stood next to their husbands when they were caught up in sex scandals. Think back to the bathroom arrest of Idaho Senator Larry Craig when he denied charges of soliciting sex from an airport cop in a Minneapolis International Airport bathroom. Sure as anything there his wife stood looking on in shame as her husband defended himself, after pleading guilty to misconduct, declaring that he was not being gay and did not do anything wrong.

I have been cheated on and it was a devastating experience that sticks with me to this day, but I cannot imagine having to go through what I went through in the glare of the public eye. I find the level of privacy that is invaded in simply being a talk show host and therefore a public figure bad enough, but the scrutiny of a bad marriage on top of that - not me! And to have to stand next to a philandering ex would be far too much to deal with and one has to ask what is wrong with these political wives?

What brings political wives to the podium when their husbands find themselves in trouble with the law or caught in the midst of marital infidelity?

Perhaps it is the perks that come with being a political spouse since many of them are treated almost as good, if not better, than their husbands. In the case of the former First Lady, Hillary Clinton, outside of the health care debacle that brought her public scorn, she was able to travel the world and end up with a U.S. Senate seat in a state she was a mere visitor and is now fighting for the Democratic nomination for the White House.

The other issue could be one of force. Maybe not the physical force that comes in domestic abuse, but I find it hard to believe that so many of these women are not privy to the private lives of their husbands. There is something to be said about women’s intuition that nobody in the public should believe does not apply to the wives of political figures. Maybe they know and simply do not care what their husbands are up to because they become used to the good life as the spouse of a political figure.

Whether the wife is someone like that of former New Jersey Governor James McGreevey, who resigned in disgrace after his homeland security advisor (a person uniquely unqualified for the position) turned out to be the former governor’s gay lover or Hillary Clinton who knew of her husbands infidelities and was in charge of helping cover them up – the wives of politicians are willing to stand by their men no matter the case.

I find that simply amazing.

Granted, I am not a psychologist and have no desire to attempt to psychoanalyze any of these women (I've been on that couch and there is nothing I gleaned from it that qualifies me to analyze them), but there is something odd about women who are willing to throw away their dignity and publicly support the men that scorn them.

My experience with infidelity was one of personal turmoil and the last thing I wanted to do was talk about it. I certainly did not want to hear from the person who hurt me, but these women are trotted out as political props for disgraced politicians and look upon them, sometimes ashamedly, but sometimes with adornment and love.

There must be something that can be gleaned about their public appearances by someone in the psych world who can teach us all about what it means to stand next to a person who willfully destroys a partnership in the most public of ways. Surely if these political spouses have some gene or type of personality that makes them more amiable to public humiliation many of us would like to have a bit of it injected, but there are too many from too many walks of life for there to be anything there except force in helping the person they love make it through a very tough time.

From looking at these people on television, none of them are comfortable in their role as political prop and none of them appear outwardly stupid. Their body language and eye movements look disgusted at the people they stand next to and whether they are separated by a dog (as was Hillary Clinton when she and Bill Clinton left the White House for the first time) or a simple podium – it makes no difference if they were forced to stand next to their spouses or not – they consistently do.

They seem ashamed and humiliated and the fact that their spouses put them through it is sick.

Politicians and public figures lead lives that are tough and the scrutiny that they (we) undergo on a daily basis is something that you are not always aware of going in, but once you know that the scrutiny is there you lay your cards on the table and hope that you do the right thing. We've all made mistakes and Lord knows I've wronged people in my life, but you learn from it and the thought of taking the person I love on the walk of shame with me (should there ever be one) is something I cannot fathom.

To think that I would read one day that my significant other was paying for sex or having an affair with interns would be something that I could not ignore and would never stand next to as even a tacit observer. I would hold my head up with some dignity and let him carry the burden of his sin, but that is from a guy who went through a messy break up that hinged on infidelity, but surely even a guy like me learns and if I only had women's intuition things may have been different.

Let’s just hope that Spitzer’s prenuptial agreement left him open to a huge settlement to be paid to his wife who is standing next to him in public, but if she is anything like a normal man or woman is sleeping alone and wondering where to get her next home.

The Lincoln Bedroom at the White House is where Hillary Clinton took refuge – not even the 5th Avenue apartment of Eliot Spitzer is enough to separate the former Empire State first lady from the man who ruined their marriage with $80k in prostitutes over eight to ten years.

Steve Yuhas is a radio talk show host on AM 600 KOGO in southern California and may be reached at steve@steveyuhas.com or www.steveyuhas.com

On Wednesday’s edition of the O’Reilly Factor on the Fox News Channel Bill O’Reilly made an observation about the Academy Awards, more affectionately known as the Oscars, saying, “nobody cares.”  I’m all for O’Reilly coming to our fair city, but come on – nobody cares about the Academy Awards?  Have you tried to book a hotel, car or restaurant on the days leading up to the ceremony on Sunday evening?  People do care – they may not like all of the movies, but Hollywood is hardly poised to fold.

So what is it about Hollywood that O’Reilly is willing to pretend that nobody cares about the biggest night in Hollywood?  He put forward the argument that nobody cares about Hollywood anymore and people (presuming he means the ‘folks’ that he so often references) feel disassociated with movies and entertainment.  He even said, “It’s over out here.”

Nothing could be further from the truth and for a guy who had to book the Four Seasons in April and for those less fortunate who are now on a waiting list for rooms within 20 miles of the theater – I’m hard pressed to find anyone who would agree with O’Reilly on the downfall of Hollywood.

One thing is certain, though, and that is too many people in politics and in the media (including my fellow conservative commentators and talk show hosts) attempt to paint Hollywood as a bad guy because movies are made that do not meet with one side or the others social or political agenda.  It may be true that some movies are not exactly the wave the flag dramas that we saw after or during the war years, but Hollywood is no less patriotic than any other city in America – it is just Hollywood has a lens pointed to it every single day of the year where a place like Madison, Wisconsin or Houston do not.

The problem with O’Reilly’s analysis is not only that Hollywood is far from dead – it did have a tumultuous few months with the writer’s strike, but dead – is that the evidence he uses is how many millions of dollars a film grosses and whether or not George Clooney made movies that he liked.  According to the intrepid analyst for Fox News Clooney made “anti-American” movies over and over again – same movie; same message: America is bad.

Kind of harsh and completely untrue; not because Hollywood has done a lot of good in not only making movies that are worth seeing, but also because over the years I have been lucky in life and have been able to get to know people who work in the industry and no matter where I go or who I talk to – people in Hollywood (and the general area) all want greatness for the country.

Let’s be clear – I disagree with much of the political positions taken by a lot of the people in Hollywood, but the paradox is that I can disassociate the Hollywood full of entertainers and hard working people behind the scenes with the Hollywood activists who try to bring their political issue to the forefront by using their well-known brand.  It sounds almost “insider” and ostentatious, but it is true: people in Hollywood may be “misguided” as it relates to my political world view, but for them it works and like it or not they are involved in the American culture.

A culture, by the way, that is not distinct to Hollywood, but is shared with liberal places around the country, but focused on Hollywood because of the glitz, glamour and shows devoted to watching the famous arrive and depart from red carpets and the mediocre trip to a restaurant or store.

The other day I was at Jose Eber in Beverly Hills and I overheard one of the most interesting things.  When a person is getting a manicure the ears wander and you can be taken in any direction – this day I was taken to the chair behind Rosa and the conversation was about politics.  The stylist asked her client (a client most of you would recognize), “Do you want Clinton or Obama to win?”  Client’s answer, “Neither, I’m supporting McCain.”

Huh?  I wasn’t the only Republican – and not in the closet either – in the salon?  It was like I saw a straight guy doing hair or something from another planet.  This client is Hollywood to the 9th degree – don’t get more Hollywood and he openly gave his opinion of the race for the White House not by hiding behind the salon’s namesake either – he was out and out saying, proudly, that he was voting for McCain.  Hollywood may be a place where people make controversial films about controversial topics (some may very well have the feel of an anti-American movie), but when it comes to politics there is nothing about Hollywood that makes it any different than any other city in America – except you can recognize everyone… even in the comfort zone of a salon.

People like Bill O’Reilly are smart and I’m sure he didn’t mean to say that Hollywood was an irrelevant entity simply because he disliked a few movies this year.  Moreover, it was probably not his intention to say that people are walking away from movies (they’re not) because they no longer relate to the American people.  If that were the case studios and production companies would be folding up shop and that is not happening.

What is happening is that people are being given a choice in what to watch.  Want a kids movie? Sure, Disney will make one.  Want something that makes you think about America’s foreign policy?  Clooney will make one.  And if you want a romantic comedy or something with a bit of action, thrill or horror – that can be had as well – so what is changing in Hollywood that makes many in the GOP (my party) and many in the press believe (or wish) that Hollywood was going away?

Simple: it is an applause line.  It is very easy when you need a sip of water or need to turn the page on the stump to say “I don’t want Hollywood culture; I want American culture.”  Emphasize the American part for a few sips – it assures more and longer applause.  Hollywood does not want you to adopt the values of a film; Hollywood would rather raise questions about issues and entertain.  Movies are a business, after all, and it can only sustain people ‘walking away’ for so long before it gets back on track and people are not walking.

As to the Oscars: people may not be as excited about them this year as they were in years gone by, but that is a result of many things – not the least of which is choice.  To compare the Academy Awards ratings of today against those of even a decade ago is to ignore the advent of new technologies and mediums to be entertained.  Cable allows you to keep up with the Jones’ while the Internet allows you to know who won what with a ticket across the bottom of the computer screen.

Hollywood is not evil, the people working in television and film are not evil and nobody wants any harm to come to our nation – least of all those people who work in film (I think their work after 9-11 proves their patriotism regardless of the movies they make).  They rally around the flag like anyone else, but they are also provocateurs when it comes to things happening in the country.  Some are nutty, but the loons are booed off the stage (Michael Moore).

Counting Hollywood out today is just the wrong way to look at the multi-billion dollar industry that it is.  There is an easy way to test whether or not the Oscars excite people in the industry: try to book a room, reservation at a good restaurant or a car on Sunday.  You won’t be able to get it and that, more than anything else, is proof positive that Hollywood is not only relevant, but cares – whether or not O’Reilly or anyone else does.

The funny thing is that with all the talk about the irrelevance of Hollywood there are sure a lot of politicians and pundits who spend time talking about it.

Steve Yuhas is a radio talk show host on AM 600 KOGO in southern California. He may be reached at steve@steveyuhas.com or www.steveyuhas.com

Cable programs, desperate for another missing person or cop killing husband, broke in with news alerts last week as word came from Holland that a tape was being released that purported to show Joran van der Sloot confessing to killing Alabaman Natalee Holloway while she vacationed in Aruba in 2005. So compelling was the tape that Beth Twitty jumped on a plane to travel to Holland to see it.

When she returned to the United States she took to the talk show circuit and began telling the tale of watching pieces of the tape where van der Sloot talks openly, while smoking pot, about how her daughter died in Aruba in 2005.

It could be that the tape is true and Joran is guilty of disposing of a body because nothing in the tape remotely comes close to the cloak and dagger style of death that Twitty has been touting over the years as the way her daughter met her unfortunate fate.  Van der Sloot does not mention passing Holloway any drugs nor does he participate in the disposal of her body (he called his body disposal friend for that) – so with all of the scrutiny of the tape why is Joran still free?

Quite simply it is because Twitty trained the world that van der Sloot was a liar and pariah who could not be trusted.  So, when parts of the taped ‘confession’ began falling apart we (and investigators) did as we’ve been trained: we did not believe him.

The conundrum for Beth Twitty is now that America has bought into her “Joran drugged then killed Natalee and threw her into the ocean” scenario – when the tape fell apart so too did the confession.  For anyone else in the world this tape would be pay dirt, but for Twitty the tape is the beginning of the end for the re-re-re-re-arrest dream for Joran van der Sloot.  Even if the re-re-re-re-arrest happens all an attorney need do is play all of the countless appearances where Beth Twitty spins her tale and then tells us all to discount all that comes out of the mouth of van der Sloot.

Twitty, and only Twitty, can be blamed for the situation where a confession is insufficient to convict a person of any crime since he cannot be believed.  Twitty pushed a scenario so forcefully that her daughter was drugged and murdered by van der Sloot that anything as simple as an accidental death followed by a terribly callous disposal is too simple to believe.

But, no matter how the world media cuts up the tape at most van der Sloot comes across as an uncaring cad who called a friend after Holloway died after having suffered some kind of seizure.

There is no way to verify the story because the person, who was named in the tape, was located and he was not in Aruba at the time of the disappearance.  You have to question, though, would someone really remain quiet about disposing of a body that captivated the world for more than two years?  It is hard enough to find a designated driver when you are in college – can you imagine a designated body disposer?

It is just an odd story that doesn’t add up.  Even so –Twitty would have had hope in punishing those responsible for her daughters death, but the tape doesn’t show van der Sloot admitting anything illegal except the disposal of a body and that, I’m told from an Aruba attorney, is little more than the equivalent of a misdemeanor.  Driving drunk in Alabama gets you more time in prison than getting rid of a body so even if Joran is telling the truth about what happened – he didn’t kill her and he didn’t do anything that wrong.  Disgusting yes, but hardly illegal.

Over the last few days I have received hundreds of emails asking me if I owe the Twitty’s an apology for the things I said and written about Beth Twitty and her kin-folk over the years.  The answer is a very short no.  Nothing ever said about Twitty was untrue or not supported by facts.  Is van der Sloot the model of what I’d want one of my nephews or brothers to be?  Never.  But his being a cad does not make him a murderer.

Beth Twitty did not just accuse Joran of disposing of a body – she accused him, quite specifically, of slipping Natalee Holloway drugs while in a club then killing her.  There has never been a time when Twitty changed that scenario because her daughter could not have been drinking or doing drugs because she just didn’t “do that.”

Joran’s tape is salacious and it made for good television, but because it is van der Sloot something, anything, has to be verified before any legal action is taken against him and there simply is nothing new in the tape – other than a ‘confession’ under the influence of pot that says nothing happened. Joran’s story, if anything, exonerates him of murder.  All he did, if we can believe him now, is call a friend to get rid of a body.  A horrible thing, but not murder.

The sad thing here is that Beth Twitty is partly to blame for people being skeptical of the ‘confession’ of van der Sloot.  Perhaps had she not been so forceful in desiring to paint a teenager a killer people would believe him today.  Twitty said everything that comes out of his mouth is a lie and to discount that two year training program today would be silly unless something in the tape can be verified.  As of this writing nothing has.

Steve Yuhas is a radio talk show host on AM 600 KOGO in southern California and may be reached atsteve@steveyuhas.com or www.steveyuhas.com

Since the invasion of Iraq was little more than speculation one word kept creeping into the lexicon of the American political scene: Vietnam.  Whether the talk was about how many lives would be lost compared to Vietnam or the “exit strategy” that would lead us into a Vietnam-like quagmire the idea was constantly being put into the back of our heads that Iraq is another Vietnam.

Once the invasion happened the talk of Vietnam began again.  It took a little bit longer, but first came the bloggers and then the politicians who were all too willing to begin branding the battle of Iraq as George Bush’s Vietnam.

Debate over Iraq and the non-stop front page stories about either wrong doing of individual servicemen (Abu Ghraib, Haditha or other individual acts of so-called misconduct) or the inability of the Bush Administration to get a handle on Iraq kept the front pages sufficiently filled with anti-war fodder for the left.  As payback to the Democrats, the American people allowed them to gain control of the Congress in 2006.  The front page offensive was working.

Since the War on Terror began the American people were consistently assured by war critics that they opposed the war, but supported the troops. The position is insane since you cannot support men and women at war if you believe the war they are fighting is illegal, unethical or in opposition to the opinion of the people in Luxembourg or leaders in France, but the facade of support held.

So convincing was the barrage of “I support the troops” that even I started to believe it was possible to support troops, but not their mission (it was a momentary lapse I assure you).

Then came General David Petraeus and the troop surge designed to actually make Iraq a more stable place so that the political reconciliation that was necessary for Iraq to move forward could take place.  After a series of hearings on Capitol Hill and a backfiring ad campaign bought and paid for by a far lef