The Rock Star Obama

For those that don’t follow politics closely, and who could blame them, or appreciate the beliefs of Conservatism versus Liberalism, an obsession with Barack Obama can almost be considered logical. After all, he is young and good looking by politician standards, or at least compared to Barney Franks, highly educated, clean (to borrow the words of a certain senator from Delaware), and speaks through pearly whites just about as articulately as they come. In other words, the dude knows how to speak. This kind of individual is going to be a natural magnet to a) black people in general - because he is evidently one of “us” according to Sherry Shepherd, as opposed I guess to just a fellow-American; b) women who hate Hillary; c) college students duped by the 87% liberal professors; d) the millennial generation (simply because BO is cool, but who aren’t going to vote anyway, and e) middle-aged men who vote the way their fathers did, because dear old dad was around for FDR. This might also be considered the Democratic base to some.

OK, the American voter is entitled to their choice of candidate, regardless of what this writer thinks. In fact, it is their right, and good people have died to give them that right. But can anyone explain the media’s school-girl-like infatuation with BO? I realize journalists are just naturally liberal. (I don’t understand why, but I have come to a certain awareness that the vast majority spin their craft decidedly to the dark side.) It is presumed that most of the media have been educated in journalism at most of our countries finest universities. And they have certainly been out of school long enough to discern that the utopia their afternoon Starbucks forums dreamed about exists only in their professors head. They all have had to go to work, stomach over-bearing bosses, pay taxes, take out the garbage, and attend to the same mundane affairs as the rest of us. So one would think that by now at least half of them would be moderate or conservative, mirroring the rest of the country, instead of only the 20% that have actually “grown up.”

For fourteen years, Hillary could do absolutely no wrong from a media point-of-view. Every one of her many flaws were entirely overlooked. It didn’t matter if she was berating her minions, meddling in her then-President husband’s affairs, being greedily opportunistic with her status, lying through her teeth, or even stealing anything not nailed down in the White House, the press would look the other way. And don’t forget that she received a tremendous amount of sympathy for her husbands shameful diddling.

Then Barack “the Rock Star” Obama burst on to the presidential-wanna-be arena. With a fervor that could make even Pamela Des Barres blush, journalists flocked to throw their underwear and hotel keys at the junior senator from Illinois, fawning for the next opportunity to flatter and be flattered. (I guess it could be worse – it could have been the senior senator from Illinois!) In the process they pulled the rug out from underneath poor old Hillary, flipping her head-over- appetite, leaving little journalistic foot prints on her chest in a mad dash to rush the stage. Reporters gush, news anchors swoon, and newspapers dispense column space as freely as air. (You remember free air – the one thing Democrats haven’t figured out how to tax…yet.)

This was before we knew of BO’s relationships with the Reverend Wrong or the Weathermen. (Sounds like the name of a rock band, doesn’t it?) This was before his “bitter Midwestern” comments or his wife’s prior disgraced feelings of her country. And the media’s reaction has been one of lukewarm concern. A yawn and an attitude of “Well, I suppose we better look into this and give him a chance to explain himself. But we will blend it in subtly with our raves of his many accomplishments. ”

Could you imagine the furor, wringing of hands, and gnashing of teeth if Hillary had complained about debate moderators being unfair at a debate, or her refusing to debate again? (For those of you that have been in a coma, I’m referring to that noted Dynamic Ultra-Conservative Duo of ABC moderators Charlie Gibson and George Stephanopoulos.) Hillary’s refusal to debate would make for front page, albeit bottom, news in most papers across the continent. It would be the leading national news story for the 10:00 o’clock news after we find out who murdered who. And if McCain were actually in a race and he had had the audacity to defer all future debates – the New York Times would have to run a special edition. The Chicago Tribune would assign six reporters and devote three pages over four days to this gigantic devious disregard of the American publics’ right to know. There would be breaks in major television programs such as “American Idol” or “ER” for the bubble-headed bleach blondes to inform us of McCain’s blatant disrespect of the political system. Clarence “Jesse-Al” Page would have editorial fodder for weeks to whine about the inhumanity of it all. Daryl Cagle’s political cartoon index would be over loaded. But BO gets a pass on this news…again.

It just seems that the media, for whatever reason, has decided upon their candidate this year – the aforementioned BO, and by the sheer force of their blathering, they intend to affect the outcome of the next election, as if they know better than the American public. This worked for the first act of the Clinton partnership, (assisted by Bush 41’s famous “read my lips” debacle) but despite the media’s best efforts has failed since. It will fail again this year.