TOBY PETZOLD

John Nichols of The Nation pens a paean to Obama Soter on the occasion of the savior’s now-legendary speech before the Seduction of the Bratvolk. It is like a long mash note —full of girlish daydreams and the first suggestions of cocklonging. Enjoy (emphases mine):

The young senator from Illinois needed to establish himself as a credible world leader by going to Iraq and Afghanistan evidencing both his recognition of George Bush’s manifest mistakes and his willingness and ability to wage a functional fight against legitimate terrorist threats. Check!

He needed to establish himself as respected commander-in-chief by not just appearing for photo-opportunities with troops in the field but by connecting with soldiers so that that all Americans who recognize their confidence in the man who seeks the authority to send these young men and women into life-and-death battles. Check!

Mind you, these are just Nichols’ first thoughts on the subject. He goes on and on like this through much more of a very insubstantive and hugely egocentric speech —never once seeming to take notice of the stupidity in his own puerile and uncritical squeezings.

Is it really possible for a grown man —assuming that’s what Nichols is— to believe that the act of travelling to other countries and having your picture taken there “establishes” you as the most powerful man in the world? Seems like nobody thought too much of Bush the Younger declaring “Mission Accomplished” prematurely —but this unqualified liar is somehow made into a leader of men by no more virtue than being seen? What an embarrassing thought to be responsible for!

It is liberal-Left political analyses like Nichols’ that makes absolute nonsense of the truth. He and the people who think like him are nothing but propagandists for a totalitarian-minded demagogue. Where is the intellectual integrity in supporting Barack Hussein Obama when there is another candidate in this race whose patriotism, competence, experience, and recognizable humility are not in doubt?

Dan Collins said I had to read this, so I did. Of Barack Hussein Obama, Michael Knox Beran writes:

His charisma is grounded in empathy rather than authority, confessional candor rather than muscular strength, metrosexual mildness rather than masculine testosterone. His power of sympathetic insight is said to be uncanny: “Everybody who’s dealt with him,” columnist David Brooks says, “has a story about a time when they felt Obama profoundly listened to them and understood them.” His two books are written in the empathetic-confessional mode that his most prominent benefactress, Oprah, favors; he is her political healer in roughly the same way that Dr. Phil was once her pop-psychology one. The collectivist dream, Obama instinctively understands, is less scary, more sympathetic, when served up by mama (or by mama in drag).

My greatest concern now is that the deconstructions of this unqualified liar will become so numerous and varied that they will merely add kindling to the fire of his fascination —and make Obama the indispensable man of the age. Are we Americans far enough removed from the sinister influences of Big Media? Can someone such as The One —as McCain is now said to be calling him— really wield that much power over the minds of enough people to seize the most powerful office in the world? The contempt of the Democratic Party for this country deeply alienates me when I can bear to think of it. Their choice strikes me as nothing short of anti-American.

Just caught the last few minutes of Madame Couric fluffing Obama Soter —and it turns out that the reason he’s going to hold a campaign rally in front of Hitler’s favorite monument to Prussian militarism is to get the krauts “to feel good” about America again. And to say we’re sorry to our “old enemies.” So very, very sorry.

Obama is an abomination. Inshallah, this wankfest he’s been on this past week will be the beginning of the end of his hopes. Surely Americans won’t reward this degree of narcissism.

At this point, all I can hope for is that hubris will destroy Obama Soter:

Senator John McCain’s trip to Iraq last March was a low-key affair: With a small retinue of reporters chasing him abroad, the NBC News anchor Brian Williams reported on Mr. McCain’s visit there from New York, including it in the “in other political news” portion of his newscast.

But when Senator Barack Obama heads for Iraq and other places overseas this summer, Mr. Williams is planning to catch up with him in person, as are the other two network evening news anchors, Charles Gibson of ABC and Katie Couric of CBS, who, like Mr. Williams, are far along in discussions to interview Mr. Obama on successive nights.

And while the anchors are jockeying for interviews with Mr. Obama at stops along his route, the regulars on the Obama campaign plane will have new seatmates: star political reporters from the major newspapers and magazines who are flocking to catch Mr. Obama’s first overseas trip since becoming the presumptive Democratic nominee. A “Meet the Press” interview is also being planned.

Mind you, this is the New York Times, so don’t laugh too much at this:

But the coverage also feeds into concerns in Mr. McCain’s campaign, and among Republicans in general, that the news media are imbalanced in their coverage of the candidates, just as aides to Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton felt during the primary season.

There are many quick and simple tests to know if you’re dealing with a goddamned idiot. The surest of them is this: if the person arguing with you claims that there’s no pro-Democrat bias in Big Media, then you’ll know that the person you’re arguing with is a goddamned idiot.

A lot of people I read have been linking to Joseph A. Palermo’s ham-handedness at today’s Huffington Post because it is so monumentally stupid:

Jon Stewart and The Daily Show should be mindful whenever Obama is the target of their satire that they don’t end up regurgitating Republican talking points. The Daily Show is far more influential than it was four years ago when Bush still had millions of people duped. The producers should be careful when poking fun at Obama not to provide fuel for the right-wing slime machine. Poke fun at Obama all you want, but do it in a way that also reveals the Republicans’ mendacity and hypocrisy.

Palermo’s fear of what his party has done is so fragrant that he needs someone to follow him around to clear the stink lines emanating from his head. Threatening Jon Stewart with the disapproval of the Obamatons? Giving Stewart directions on how to criticize Obama?  What a childish head-zealot. There are three things I will never understand: veganism, scat, and liberals who don’t notice liberal bias in Big Media. I mean, Jee-zus.

Oh, and I don’t want to let a single calendar month between now and November go by without my explicit request that the Democratic Party apologize to me for permitting this nonsense. What have you done to my former party? The one that Bill and Hillary Clinton invited me into before the Big Dog’s lies became too much and I went into protest voter mode until 11 September 2001. You Eleven Percenters are crap to me and I have zero respect for the Democratic Party for this effrontery. Is Obama in any way remarkable on the merits? Look at someone like Ted Kennedy. That’s a guy you can really get a hate-on for. I once had a boss who would routinely excuse himself with newspaper in one hand and his spit-cup in the other to go “take a Ted Kennedy.” Love him or hate him, the man inspires genuine reaction and occupies a large place in our lifetimes. In mine, I’ve never known an America without Ted Kennedy —and I’m pushing forty! What claim on History and Americanism can Obama make? Very little. He showed up without warrant and the idiots went to drooling. I don’t like him. I don’t trust him. And it’s hard to respect people who think he is qualified to be the most powerful man in the world in this season of his life. Maybe another season. Fine. But Obama will have to lose much if ever hopes to win again.

Know how you can tell Olbamamann’s crazier than a shithouse rat? Because he only poses these tedious, self-regarding, and clause-laden questions —Germanically long and so leading that you’d have to hire a lawyer to object to them all— in which he pretty much gets the answer he was looking for: the one that echoes his own. And along the way of these huge bursts of rhetorical slurry are inferences and associations and outright lies, linking any two or more of his enemies on that day in any sort of libtard-Leftist strokefest he wants. Such spluttering extravagance of what must pass for thought with him is a sure sign of mental decay.

Moreover, there’s no question, if you’ll simply look, that Olbamamann’s head occupies more of the screen than any other propagandist on TV. This isn’t an ad hominem point to make, but to point out that he has this done deliberately because it’s all part of his performance artist’s homage to Big Brother and the Two Minute Hate. He’s an utter moran. I hope some day to hear the low-down on what Russert thought of this clown. I’ll bet Russert thought he was an asshole.

Only two months ago, Tim Russert asked Barack Obama:

“What has the controversy over Reverend Jeremiah Wright done to your campaign?”

To which the junior Senator from Illinois said:

Well, obviously it’s distracted us.  I mean, we ended up spending a lot of time talking about Reverend Wright instead of talking about gas prices and food prices and the situation in Iraq.  And so it, it’s, it wasn’t welcome.

The attention that’s been paid to the issue of Jeremiah Wright is a function of how little we know about this man who presumes to seek the Presidency before his time. There’s no actual reason to suppose that Obama would have anything specific to say about energy or food inflation or a war he doesn’t understand, anyway, so where else should the country’s curiosity run?

But, you know, I think that the American people understand that when I joined Trinity United Church of Christ, I was committing not to Pastor Wright, I was committing to a church and I was committing to Christ.

I don’t know how to believe this statement. Where would one begin, Senator? The American People don’t “understand” anything about your religious choices because they don’t even know you. Do you understand that? The American People’s understanding of you as a religious person of any kind consists of watching you get busted belonging to a radical anti-American church and then —subsequent to Russert’s question here, having owned and disowned Wright— leaving that church altogether when it became too much of a “distraction.” What kind of man abandons his church for political gain? Why, the very same kind of man who would join a church for political gain.

And it is a wonderful church.  It’s a member of the United Church of Christ, a denomination that dates back to the battles around abolition.  It has lived out, I think the, the social gospel by dealing with poverty and providing shelter to the homeless and, and working on critical issues that make me very proud.  And, as a consequence, when Reverend Wright, who married me and baptized our, our children, when he made those statements, or I learned of those statements that I found so objectionable, I, I felt that they didn’t define him. 

“Or I learned of those statements”? This is a subliminal word-tool he’s using to provide a temporal space between all of the bigoted crap Wright was spewing and himself. See, he’s absolved of any responsibility for adhering to such rhetoric because he just happened to have become informed of these “objectionable” outbursts only later. Is this a lie that he really hopes to sustain? If it is ever shown that Obama was in attendance when Wright was holding forth on the evils of America —which would be pretty much any time, I suspect— then the baptist will have drowned his messiah right there on the Chicago River.

And so I spoke in Philadelphia about these issues and tried to construct, you know, a, a conversation about issues of race.  But when I saw, this week, him come out and speak in a way that was just as divisive, that didn’t explain or apologize, but rather worsened some of the comments that he had made previously, I felt it was very important to make clear that that’s not who I am, that’s not who I stand for.  I don’t think it represented well the church or the African-American church.  And I had to make a clear statement.  Hopefully we’ve been able to put it behind us.

Not a chance, gasbag. Then again, now that NBC’s integrity quotient has sustained a devastating loss, it’s possible that your abettors on that network —as well as similarly-minded hacks elsewhere in Big Media— will help to paper over your despicable lack of religious authenticity and keep marketing you as a religion unto yourself.

Let’s see if we have this straight: it’s a “distraction” to talk about Obama’s associations with Left-wing terrorists, neo-Marxist Black Liberationists, and crooked businessmen, but it’s a legitimate and relevant political tactic for Obama to constantly refer to McCain’s associations with George W. Bush without any acknowledgement of those two men’s very real differences.

Got that?

It’s interesting what Big Media shows itself to be when faced with a simple fact: John McCain is a great talker and is very open to the press. Barry Obama, on the other hand, is too good to talk to the press and keeps them at arm’s length. Yet, there is no serious question that Obama has derived every benefit of being the one and only media darling in this cycle while McCain is ridiculed as a poor speaker and a cranky old geezer. What’s driving this huge lie? Ideology? Money? Cocksuckery (i.e., Chris Matthewsism)?

That’s amazing. Not five minutes ago, I read two reports linked from Google News about the resignation of Obama’s running mate vetter Jim Johnson —and what happens when I go back to that page for a third source? All of the links are gone. Not a trace of this story. No mention of anything to do with Johnson. There’s a story about Obama building an ”advantage among women” from the Baltimore Sun and another bit of fellatio propaganda in a prominent link headlined “Obama scolds credit card companies, McCain” from the Los Angeles Times, but a story about a negative event in the Obama campaign today? Here one minute and down the memory hole the next.

I thought that site worked on some sort of algorithm thing that reflected traffic. Is that not true? Is there some tool sitting around somewhere in California with a soy milk latte in one hand and a judicious mouse in the other?

UPDATE: The story came back to Google News’ main page a little while later, but what happened? Is there a plausible technical explanation for that? I doubt it. It’s not like the links to the Johnson story left a large white space on the page; it was completely extracted and prettied over. Strange.

CNN are some straight-up dopes:

In a reference to Barack and Michelle Obama’s celebratory fist bump on Tuesday, Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-California, and Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison, R-Texas, ended their conversation on CNN’s Late Edition with their own version of the “hand shake.”

Yep. They’re white. They’re all very, very white.

Obama, of course, gets a royalty check any time someone locks knuckles with a homey. Well, it’s the wife who actually invented this wonderful bit of ethnic expression that’s now sweeping the country, but we never give her credit for anything, anyway. That’s what it’s like being oppressed.