| GREG-STRANGE.COM |
"If you haven't found something strange during the
day, it hasn't been much of a day." -- John A. Wheeler
day, it hasn't been much of a day." -- John A. Wheeler
PROVIDING SUBSTANTIVE COMMENTARY ON THE
PEOPLE, POLITICS, EVENTS AND ABSURDITIES OF
OUR TIME. SERVED UP WITH ACERBIC WIT, YOU
SHOULD FIND IT QUITE SATISFYING.
PEOPLE, POLITICS, EVENTS AND ABSURDITIES OF
OUR TIME. SERVED UP WITH ACERBIC WIT, YOU
SHOULD FIND IT QUITE SATISFYING.
Barack Obama: Leader of a New Camelot or Just a Vacant Lot
How cool is it to be a presidential candidate and have a
network television reporter admit that it’s difficult to cover you
objectively because, well, you’re just so gosh darn fabulous that
it’s nigh on impossible for anyone to keep their head out of the
clouds while following you around?
For the candidate in question, Barack Obama, it must have
seemed totally cool. In reality, it is totally vacuous, but when
it comes to mainstream media coverage of important events
like presidential campaigns, what else is new?
The bedazzled reporter was NBC’s Lee Cowan, who put it
something like this: “From the reporter’s point of view it’s
almost hard to remain objective because it’s infectious energy.
It sort of goes against your core to say that as a reporter.”
Yeah, well, don’t worry about it too much, Lee. No one’s
particularly surprised at the sentiment, just the candid
admission. Later, NBC anchor Brian Williams ruminated on
air about his fellow journalist’s divulgence:
“I interviewed Lee Cowan, our reporter who covers Obama. . . .
Lee says it’s hard to stay objective covering this guy.
Courageous for Lee to say, to be honest. The e-mail flood
started out, aw, we caught you guys, we never did trust you.
That kind of thing. I think it is a very interesting dynamic. I
saw middle-aged women just throw their arms around Barack
Obama, kiss him hard on the cheek and say, you know, I’m with
you, good luck. And I think he feels it, too.”
Yep, it’s enough to make a grown reporter gush and stammer
and lose his objectivity like it was nothing more than a wad of
pocket lint. That, of course, is assuming he had any objectivity
to begin with and wasn’t just another left-leaning automaton
filling up the ranks of this manifestly tainted profession.
It can’t have been often that someone like Hillary Clinton
would have regretted the existence of such a predominantly
liberal media. After all, it’s been behind her pretty much ever
since she first publicly admitted to the impending possibility of
considering whether or not she would mull over the question of
maybe thinking about setting up an exploratory committee to
look into the plausibility of a presidential run. It was the
liberal media that established the idea of her candidacy -- and
most likely her election -- as unalterable inevitability.
But then a funny thing happened in Iowa on the way to her
coronation. She got trounced, Obama-mania was borne and
the Second Coming was declared posthaste. Reporters got
bewitched en masse and polls in New Hampshire seemed to
declare the viability of Hillary’s candidacy as all but done.
The seeming implosion of his wife’s run for the Oval Office due
to a popular, substanceless swoon over Obama was enough to
get Bill Clinton to say at a New Hampshire campaign stop,
“Give me a break. This whole thing is the biggest fairy tale I’ve
ever seen.”
Okay, so he was specifically referring to Obama’s position on
the war in Iraq, but his language suggests something larger.
In a last ditch effort, Hillary pulled some vulnerability out of a
hat, put it on display for the public and that was enough to
bring out the sympathetic women voters to propel her over
Obama in a squeaker in the New Hampshire primary. Now we
can expect a dogfight from here on out.
Still, this looming question remains: What is so almighty great
about this Obama fellow with his thus far unremarkable
achievements and his standard issue, left-wing politics that
makes reporters and “middle-aged women” and first-time
voters swoon with idol worship?
Joe Biden was among the first to try and explain it almost a
year ago: “I mean, you got the first mainstream African-
American who is articulate and bright and clean and a nice-
looking guy. I mean, that’s a storybook, man.”
Slow Joe subsequently got lambasted for what was perceived as
a condescending description shot through with unconscious
racial bias, but he may have been onto something. It may be
that Obama is being anointed as the Democrat most likely to
pull off the achingly longed-for return to Camelot at long last.
What do I mean by that? Well, for those too young to
remember and/or unfamiliar with the history, the word
“Camelot” sometimes refers to the JFK presidency which,
because of Kennedy’s youth, personality and charisma, was
seen as a time of great hope, potential and promise of a
brighter future for mankind.
Camelot originally referred to the court of King Arthur and was
associated with ideals like justice, bravery and truth. There
was a musical “Camelot” in 1960 and after Kennedy’s
assassination his widow, Jacqueline, quoted the following line
as being from his favorite song in the score:
“Don’t let it be forgot, that once there was a spot, for one brief
shining moment, that was known as Camelot.”
It can be argued that after the last 45 years spent mostly in the
wilderness without a truly Kennedyesque leader, Democrat
inclined people may be latching onto Obama as the walking,
talking embodiment of their hopes and dreams. Why him?
Because of a rare combination of youth, personality, demeanor,
charisma and, on top of it all and if it dare be said, his
multicultural bona fides.
In other words, Obama, if elected president, could usher in an
updated, 21st century, multicultural version of Camelot. It
could happen on the strength of him being a New Age man of
mixed race background and international heritage who is
profoundly articulate and good looking, who presents himself
as the head of a new generation of leadership, who speaks of
the obligatory much needed “change” and who wants to unite
all Americans of every race, ethnicity, religion and political
stripe.
Glory be! The very thought of it is enough to send shivers down
the liberal spine and make one giddy at the Utopian,
Camelotian prospect of it all.
But if we can come back down to reality for a moment . . . we
can see that most comparisons between Obama and Kennedy
are superficial rather than substantive. For instance, Kennedy
was a resolute Cold Warrior who said in his inaugural address,
“Let every nation know, whether it wishes us well or ill, that we
shall pay any price, bear any burden, meet any hardship,
support any friend, oppose any foe, in order to assure the
survival and the success of liberty.”
Can you, in your wildest reveries, imagine Obama saying such a
thing? He is a classic, anti-war, left-wing Democrat, fully
imbued with and unable to get beyond Vietnam Syndrome, who
wants to precipitously pull American troops out of Iraq so fast
it would make our heads spin, regardless of the potential
disastrous consequences for that country, the region and
American security.
Kennedy cut taxes to spur the economy. Today’s left-wing
Democrats like Obama rail against the rich and encourage
class warfare among their constituents. Kennedy committed
the nation to putting a man on the moon. Today’s left-wing
Democrats like Obama cringe at the thought of pouring money
into such nationally inspiring endeavors until every last social
problem and hard luck case has been solved first (which, of
course, can never happen).
And interestingly, while Kennedy had to overcome some bias
against the idea of electing the nation’s first Catholic
president, Obama attends a nutty Afrocentric church and
nobody makes a peep about it.
But the main point is that when it comes to comparisons
between Obama and Kennedy, it’s all superficial. On most
substantive issues, neither Obama nor the modern Democrat
Party as a whole are fit to shine the shoes of JFK.
Universal government healthcare, class warfare, higher taxes,
soak the rich, global warming orthodoxy, constitutional rights
for terrorists, weak national defense. Can a party ensconced in
such ideas, even when led by someone as congenial and
winsome as Obama, possibly lead America to a new Camelot?
More like a vacant lot.
How cool is it to be a presidential candidate and have a
network television reporter admit that it’s difficult to cover you
objectively because, well, you’re just so gosh darn fabulous that
it’s nigh on impossible for anyone to keep their head out of the
clouds while following you around?
For the candidate in question, Barack Obama, it must have
seemed totally cool. In reality, it is totally vacuous, but when
it comes to mainstream media coverage of important events
like presidential campaigns, what else is new?
The bedazzled reporter was NBC’s Lee Cowan, who put it
something like this: “From the reporter’s point of view it’s
almost hard to remain objective because it’s infectious energy.
It sort of goes against your core to say that as a reporter.”
Yeah, well, don’t worry about it too much, Lee. No one’s
particularly surprised at the sentiment, just the candid
admission. Later, NBC anchor Brian Williams ruminated on
air about his fellow journalist’s divulgence:
“I interviewed Lee Cowan, our reporter who covers Obama. . . .
Lee says it’s hard to stay objective covering this guy.
Courageous for Lee to say, to be honest. The e-mail flood
started out, aw, we caught you guys, we never did trust you.
That kind of thing. I think it is a very interesting dynamic. I
saw middle-aged women just throw their arms around Barack
Obama, kiss him hard on the cheek and say, you know, I’m with
you, good luck. And I think he feels it, too.”
Yep, it’s enough to make a grown reporter gush and stammer
and lose his objectivity like it was nothing more than a wad of
pocket lint. That, of course, is assuming he had any objectivity
to begin with and wasn’t just another left-leaning automaton
filling up the ranks of this manifestly tainted profession.
It can’t have been often that someone like Hillary Clinton
would have regretted the existence of such a predominantly
liberal media. After all, it’s been behind her pretty much ever
since she first publicly admitted to the impending possibility of
considering whether or not she would mull over the question of
maybe thinking about setting up an exploratory committee to
look into the plausibility of a presidential run. It was the
liberal media that established the idea of her candidacy -- and
most likely her election -- as unalterable inevitability.
But then a funny thing happened in Iowa on the way to her
coronation. She got trounced, Obama-mania was borne and
the Second Coming was declared posthaste. Reporters got
bewitched en masse and polls in New Hampshire seemed to
declare the viability of Hillary’s candidacy as all but done.
The seeming implosion of his wife’s run for the Oval Office due
to a popular, substanceless swoon over Obama was enough to
get Bill Clinton to say at a New Hampshire campaign stop,
“Give me a break. This whole thing is the biggest fairy tale I’ve
ever seen.”
Okay, so he was specifically referring to Obama’s position on
the war in Iraq, but his language suggests something larger.
In a last ditch effort, Hillary pulled some vulnerability out of a
hat, put it on display for the public and that was enough to
bring out the sympathetic women voters to propel her over
Obama in a squeaker in the New Hampshire primary. Now we
can expect a dogfight from here on out.
Still, this looming question remains: What is so almighty great
about this Obama fellow with his thus far unremarkable
achievements and his standard issue, left-wing politics that
makes reporters and “middle-aged women” and first-time
voters swoon with idol worship?
Joe Biden was among the first to try and explain it almost a
year ago: “I mean, you got the first mainstream African-
American who is articulate and bright and clean and a nice-
looking guy. I mean, that’s a storybook, man.”
Slow Joe subsequently got lambasted for what was perceived as
a condescending description shot through with unconscious
racial bias, but he may have been onto something. It may be
that Obama is being anointed as the Democrat most likely to
pull off the achingly longed-for return to Camelot at long last.
What do I mean by that? Well, for those too young to
remember and/or unfamiliar with the history, the word
“Camelot” sometimes refers to the JFK presidency which,
because of Kennedy’s youth, personality and charisma, was
seen as a time of great hope, potential and promise of a
brighter future for mankind.
Camelot originally referred to the court of King Arthur and was
associated with ideals like justice, bravery and truth. There
was a musical “Camelot” in 1960 and after Kennedy’s
assassination his widow, Jacqueline, quoted the following line
as being from his favorite song in the score:
“Don’t let it be forgot, that once there was a spot, for one brief
shining moment, that was known as Camelot.”
It can be argued that after the last 45 years spent mostly in the
wilderness without a truly Kennedyesque leader, Democrat
inclined people may be latching onto Obama as the walking,
talking embodiment of their hopes and dreams. Why him?
Because of a rare combination of youth, personality, demeanor,
charisma and, on top of it all and if it dare be said, his
multicultural bona fides.
In other words, Obama, if elected president, could usher in an
updated, 21st century, multicultural version of Camelot. It
could happen on the strength of him being a New Age man of
mixed race background and international heritage who is
profoundly articulate and good looking, who presents himself
as the head of a new generation of leadership, who speaks of
the obligatory much needed “change” and who wants to unite
all Americans of every race, ethnicity, religion and political
stripe.
Glory be! The very thought of it is enough to send shivers down
the liberal spine and make one giddy at the Utopian,
Camelotian prospect of it all.
But if we can come back down to reality for a moment . . . we
can see that most comparisons between Obama and Kennedy
are superficial rather than substantive. For instance, Kennedy
was a resolute Cold Warrior who said in his inaugural address,
“Let every nation know, whether it wishes us well or ill, that we
shall pay any price, bear any burden, meet any hardship,
support any friend, oppose any foe, in order to assure the
survival and the success of liberty.”
Can you, in your wildest reveries, imagine Obama saying such a
thing? He is a classic, anti-war, left-wing Democrat, fully
imbued with and unable to get beyond Vietnam Syndrome, who
wants to precipitously pull American troops out of Iraq so fast
it would make our heads spin, regardless of the potential
disastrous consequences for that country, the region and
American security.
Kennedy cut taxes to spur the economy. Today’s left-wing
Democrats like Obama rail against the rich and encourage
class warfare among their constituents. Kennedy committed
the nation to putting a man on the moon. Today’s left-wing
Democrats like Obama cringe at the thought of pouring money
into such nationally inspiring endeavors until every last social
problem and hard luck case has been solved first (which, of
course, can never happen).
And interestingly, while Kennedy had to overcome some bias
against the idea of electing the nation’s first Catholic
president, Obama attends a nutty Afrocentric church and
nobody makes a peep about it.
But the main point is that when it comes to comparisons
between Obama and Kennedy, it’s all superficial. On most
substantive issues, neither Obama nor the modern Democrat
Party as a whole are fit to shine the shoes of JFK.
Universal government healthcare, class warfare, higher taxes,
soak the rich, global warming orthodoxy, constitutional rights
for terrorists, weak national defense. Can a party ensconced in
such ideas, even when led by someone as congenial and
winsome as Obama, possibly lead America to a new Camelot?
More like a vacant lot.