Lighten up, everybody - Obama's not hurting anybody! Enjoy the fun!

[beaconess]

Why all the hateration about the rock star coverage that Barack Obama is getting these days? It's two years before the general election and more than a year before the first primary. Plenty will happen between now and then and you can bet that either 1) Obama will decide to run, get into the daily rough and rumble of the race and have to sink or swim with everyone else; or 2) he will decide not to run and he'll fade away to a large degree as people lose interest in him as a flavor of the month and shift focus to the primaries and the people who will actually be vying for the presidency.

So why get all worked up trying to knock Obama down now? Why not just enjoy the fact that, for a change, a Democrat is getting good press? In my view, good press about ANY Democrat (well, besides Lieberman and Zell Miller) benefits ALL Democrats. And it's not like he's taking anything away from the other Democrats. If the press weren't covering Obama right now, they'd be talking about something altogether different - and no doubt trashing the Dems at every turn. They certainly wouldn't be covering any of the other candidates in any meaningful way this early in the game.

I could understand some of the DU Obama-bashing if Obama were out trashing the other Democrats. But he's not. He's been extraordinarily graceful and gracious. He campaigned his ass off for his fellow Democrats in the midterms and since then he hasn't had a negative word to say about any Democrat, including those whom he might face if he decides to run.

Would it be so hard to just enjoy the madness for a minute before things start to turn serious and ugly? I'm having a ball watching the hoopla - I love the fact that a Democrat is being treated like a rock star and is, at least for the time being, shaking things up a little bit. Whether he decides to go for it or not, I will always appreciate this period of hope, optimism, fun and downright wacky political enthusiasm about a DEMOCRAT!

I'm going to enjoy Obamania while it lasts.

[goclark]

1. What a awesome post ! K and R

[SaveElmer]

2. The probelm for most...

Is he isn't their candidate...probably galls folks that a relative newcomer is getting this kind of coverage!

I personally think it is good for the party...I mean Obama is a really appealing person, and he represents the Democratic Party well in public.

As to his working for other Democrats...I can vouch for that. He came here to Virginia for Webb on more than one occasion...

[Sapphocrat]

3. I used to deliver cookie dough...

...big, 10-pound buckets of the stuff, as well as pre-made chocolate chip cookies, for a Mrs. Fields-type outfit. I spent eight hours a day stuck in a Ford Vega packed with chocolate chip cookies and chocolate chip cookie dough. I once loved chocolate chip cookies. After my first week on the job, I never wanted to come within a mile of a chocolate chip cookie again.

[oasis]

5. Mmmmmm....cookie dough.

:9

[beaconess]

13. I love cookie dough

I don't think I would EVER get tired of it! :-)

[GenDem]

4. Thanks for posting! K & R

I'm relishing in this moment myself...and admit I am also caught up in the frenzy. This man has a contagious effect, and why not celebrate a politician that people are connecting with? It's not like we're following some dumb ass, brush clearing, idiot.

[rocktivity]

6. Way ahead of you--after nearly of week of gloating over the election

I officially "got back to work" by making this banner!

Lets's enjoy Obama indeed, because the NSA may have already have given the MSM some deep dark secret about Obama which will ruin him, and they're sitting on it until just the right moment in '08.

:evilgrin:
rocknation

[beaconess]

7. :-)

[livingonearth]

8. I agree! Let's enjoy it.

The right is a little worried about all this and getting squirmy. What's funny is to hear people like Rush Limbaugh try to discredit Obama and not be able to. In his typical juvenile fashion, Limbaugh has resorted to emphasizing that Obama's middle name is Hussein whenever he talks about him. Rush has no problem making a fool of himself.

[Hekate]

9. KnR. Well said. I like the guy and his bio is very appealing...

... Altho he doesn't walk on water, it may turn out that he can swim very fast. Obama has potential, and I'm enjoying the moment.

Hekate

[Clark2008]

10. Sorry - I'm just wary of ANYTHING the corporate media does.

Anything.

And I WAS a reporter for 12 years.

That acid in my stomach has nothing to do with Obama or HRC or anyone else - it's residue from past elections when the corporate media didn't mention certain candidates at all - no matter WHO they beat.

[beaconess]

11. As I said, lighten up . . .

If a year from now the "corporate media" (what in the hell is that anyway?) isn't mentioning any of the Democratic candidates then we can get our shorts in a bunch. But right now they ARE mentioning a Democratic candidate and they're giving him great publicity - and while they're doing that, they're not spending as much time trashing other Dems.

Would you feel better if, instead of giving Obama all of this favorable publicity, they were either beating up on all of the Democratic candidates or ignoring them altogether?

[Clark2008]

16. As I said, "No. I won't 'lighten up'."

And, if you don't know the entity of the corporate media, I suggest you read further here and here: www.mediamatters.org

I would rather the media do their fucking jobs and report on EVERYONE'S positions - not the rock star du jour.

[ripple]

17. By refusing to give Obama a fair shake

simply because the media likes him right now, you are indeed allowing the corporate media choose your candidate for you. It goes both ways.

Media matters is a a good organization (as is www.fair.org )and they rightly point out a lot of media bias. Is it happening right now with Obama? Most certainly. Is it happening because people like Obama and want to see more of him? Absolutely. You make a good point about the media reporting on other candidates, but media organizations are interested in the bottom line: ratings and readership. It sucks and it's unfair, but that is the reality we are faced with.

While I would prefer to see the media be completely impartial and fair, for now I at least enjoy seeing a dem candidate in such good favor for a change (even if it's only temporary). I honestly don't recall it happening to this degree since Clinton's first presidential run.

[arendt]

20. Why do you say that opposing corporate agenda control is anti-Obama?

Its about the fact that this whole campaign was blown up out of nothing.
Obama didn't DO anything in the last campaign that created this
"groundswell". It is manufactured. If you don't understand that, you
don't understand anything about politics in America today.

And, the media has not been doing progressives any favors for the
last fifteen years. So, excuse me if I doubt their sincerity in promoting
any candidate.

And, what will you say down the road when some hideous action of
Bush goes unreported and unchallenged because of this inane
horse-race politics? "Who could have forseen that all this fluff
coverage was preventing people from understanding reality?"

arendt

[ripple]

23. I've seen a number of posters indicate they wouldn't support Obama

because the corporate media likes him. MAybe I was too hasty with that assumption in my last post, but my point is that anyone who won't support a candidate simply because the media likes them is also allowing the media to choose their candidate. I don't trust the media, either, and I'm well aware that Obama could easily fall out of good grace with them today, tomorrow, or a year from now. For now, as the OP indicated, we might as well enjoy the ride while it lasts.

I think I understand politics pretty well and while I agree that the media has overplayed Obama's image, I also believe there has been a simmering fascination with him (and not just from the media) since his speech in 2004. The release and promotion of his new book reawakened that interest, and then his speculation about a possible run practically brought it to a fevered pitch. In other words, while I agree that the media has been unfairly biased in their coverage of him, not all of it came out of thin air.

I'm a bit baffled by your last statement. Even if the media were to abstain from 2008 speculation, do you seriously believe they wouldn't replace it with other, even less substantive coverage?
:shrug:

[arendt]

24. I am neither for nor against Obama. I am against corporate media driving the discussion

You are giving the media a pass because you happen to like THIS INSTANCE
of their manipulation of the agenda. You say this instance is somehow OK,
and that it is better than what else might have been aired.

I say, the opposite. By giving you something you like at this utterly irrelevant
moment for a campaign that is two years in the future, they give themselves COVER when
its 2008 and they are mercilessly bashing the Dems. They will pull your
praise of their coverage in 2006 out and beat you with it.

My point is that this whole line of "who's going to be pres?" is displacing
"column inches" about what a mess the government is.

And, maybe, in three months, the media will turn around and bash the
Dems for prematurely gearing up for 2008 instead of doing their jobs.

----

All I ask is that you acknowledge that free good press for Dems is always
completely suspect.

arendt

[ripple]

27. I'm not giving the media a free pass

I'm just saying that Obama's sudden notoriety didn't appear out of thin air- interest in him has been bubbling under the surface since 2000. His book put him on the media circuit and his speculation a possible 2008 run elevated attention for him considerably. I agree that the media is overplaying him, but they like ratings and Obama is a likeable candidate. As soon as they have the slightest gaffe or piece of dirt on him, they will sensationalize the hell out of that, as well. They're a fickle bunch. Still, I don't think it's harmful to have Obama out there talking about ways to fix the mess we're in. Find me a candidate that won't take full advantage of opportunities to get their name and message out into the media and I'll show you a losing candidate.

As far as the media or others blaming dems for anything and everything in the future, that's par for the course. It seems a bit counter-productive to turn down any good press we might get in anticipation of such an occurrence.

With regard to your assertion tha 2008 speculation takes press coverage away from today's sad state of affairs, that is what candidates talk about. They talk about our nation's problems and how to fix them. Personally, I would rather have our respected democratic leaders framing the dialogue (or at least participating in it), rather than leaving it up to washed out pundits and cable news puppets.

And BTW, Al Gore has also been in the media quite a bit since the release of his movie. I consider this a positive, as well. We've got to get our message out there, whether we like the tool for doing that or not.

[arendt]

31. The media are just drug dealers handing out free "tastes" to the Dems

> Find me a candidate that won't take full advantage of opportunities to get their name and
> message out into the media and I'll show you a losing candidate.

But, that's exactly what's so insidious about this particular hijacking of the agenda. No candidate
will turn the publicity down, so the media gets to play all the candidates off against each other.

My point is that we just had a major election. Now we are suppose to govern for a little while
before the next major election. The media doesn't want the Dems to be shown to be leading,
or even proposing things. So, they contrive to pre-empt any such activity by starting this
bogus "who will be candidate in 08" crap.

> that is what candidates talk about. They talk about our nation's problems and how to fix them.

Baloney. These days, they talk in poll tested soundbites that are usually lacking in detail or
substance. When somebody gives out details, the press rolls their eyes. All part of conditioning
the candidates to tow the media party line or get bad or non-existent coverage.

I will agree that the Al Gore coverage is good, because the media cannot figure out if he is or
is not a politician anymore. Because of that, they give more time to his message than to the
damnable election horse race.

[ripple]

34. As much as I distrust the media,

I think you're reading far too much into their motivations this time. They want ratings, pure and simple. Obama is a hit and people like to watch him. If they have a political segment on, non-politicos will be less likely to flip the channel, because they want to see what he's all about.

Don't get me wrong, there are obviously entire networks (Fox) that are biased through and through. Channels like MSNBC put their finger in the wind and select their programming accordingly. Hell, I doubt they ever would have allowed Keith O. to deliver his special commentaries(at least the type he's delivering now)in, say, 2003, when Bush was riding high.

I agree that candidates don't usually talk in much detail, especially this early in the game, but they are at least putting the issues that matter into the public arena. I still don't believe that if the media refrained from talking about 2008 and replaced that newsprint/television coverage with something else, they would be covering substantive, detailed material. They rarely do that, because people would rather hear about the Natalie Holloways and Britney Spears' of the world. That's why, other than Countdown or The Daily Show and Colbert, I mostly stick to CSPAN for television news coverage.

I understand and can relate to your cynicism, as the media has left me fuming on quite a number of occasions. Still, if you honestly think this is all a ploy to attack democrats at a later date, why are they also speculating so much on possible rethug candidates?

[arendt]

41. ...you don't distrust it enough. Here is one last try to see the big picture.

The Middle East is melting down. The Saudi ambassador to the U.S. just resigned
"to spend more time with his family". The Saudi's are now in the open that they
will support Sunni's in Iraq if the US pulls its troops.

And what information do we get from the media about these critical events that
are certain to impact us long before 2008? We get some "pretty girl missing"
stories about "pretty girl" presidential candidates (plural - this has nothing to
do with Obama, and everything to do with the refusal of the media to do its
job).

How can we have a democracy if the media refuses to tell the country what is
happening in the world?

I want to hear news about what is happening and what is the US strategy right
now. If Obama will risk saying anything about such an explosive subject, I am
more than happy to listen. If not, then give me someone who will say something
substantive and/or informative.

DU is wasting an immense amount of time on this stupid cocktail party chatter
when it should be holding the inc oming Congress's feet to the fire to find out
what new dirty deal Bush is planning to save his ass.

This is my last post on this subect in this thread. You either acknowledge that I
have a point or go back to the breathless reporting about the "missing pretty girl".
Its your choice. And the corporate media is counting on your being easily
distracted. I'm betting they are right.

arendt

[ripple]

45. I appreciate your point, minus the insult -

that was completely uncalled for, especially considering the fact that you certainly didn't answer my points in this discussion, except to take my criticism of the media and reverse it and stereotype me in an effort to insult me. Luckily, I'm not that easily insulted.

I'm well aware of the Saudi situation and I'm watching it closely, particularly the offer to come to the rescue in Iraq. The manner in which you presented the issue could use some improvement, however I do agree that it's a situation worthy of a great deal of discussion, both in this forum and by the media.

I'm more than capable of walking and chewing gum at the same time and believe it or not, I rarely become 'breathless' when doing so. In fact, I very much believe that we need to look to the future, knowing full well that our very narrow (get well soon, Senator Johnson!) margin in the Senate will not be enough to ignite a substantial shift in policy from our executive branch. In other words, we can NOT afford to lose the next presidential election and as much as we might dislike the long campaign, the speculation about 2008 isn't at all unprecedented, as most viable presidential candidates campaign in some form or another for a couple of years. I think it might just feel worse coming off of such a hard-fought midterm.

I'll say it again: Even if the media pulls all of their election 2008 coverage, it is HIGHLY unlikely that they would fill those spots with something more substantive than what they are covering now. Ratings and readership drive coverage and unfortunately, not too many people are interested in watching real news that doesn't include sensationalism. That's precisely the reason I prefer CSPAN.

I realize you probably won't be responding to this post and frankly, after reading your last post, I don't mind a bit.

Peace, anyway.


Edit: spelling/typo

[arendt]

46. Thanks for the most literate and polite (minus my insult) discussion...

that I have had in quite a while on DU. You are a welcome addition to the
membership. In fact, if there were more peole like you, I would post more.
But the prevalence of one-liner posts generally makes me feel like I'm
wasting my time to compose something thoughtful.

As for "the manner in which you presented it could use some improvement",
I was posting from work, and did not feel I had the luxury of struggling to
get the style perfect. I rarely post from work. The fact that I did was an
(unknown to you) compliment.

I have seen this kind of reaction before ( I take your criticism of the media and
reverse it ) to my attempts to snap people out of media hypnosis. I take it
as proof that people are buying the general frame that the media is, if
not honest, at least only dishonest in the interest of ratings.

If that were true, please explain why Mark Foley got deepsixed ASAP.
Please explain why stories about the drunken Bush daughters barely
get into the tabloids. Please explain how, for example in Massachusetts,
where only 12% of the population votes GOP, 90% of the talk radio
hosts are hard right or raving libertarian.

When bashing the Dems, "ratings based" is a convenient cover story. The
truth is on display when sensational stories about the GOP manage not
to get much airtime at all, and certainly no "legs" in terms of being repeated
ad nauseam.

Sorry about the cheap shot, but five indirect words is pretty mild at DU these
days. You are more discerning than the average DU poster. In the future,
I will recalibrate my level of frustration when speaking to you.

Peace - now there's a concept.

arendt

[ripple]

47. No problem, thanks for your response

I think you have a point that the bias isn't strictly ratings based, but I do believe ratings play a large factor, especially when it comes to cable news. In the newspaper business, I don't think that's so much the case. Most newspapers have a pretty consistent slant one way or another.

Since I don't watch much mainstream news, I'm not very clear about how much coverage the stories you mentioned received in that venue. I know NPR and CSPAN had a lot about Foley, but the only mention I remember about the Venezuela Bush twin incident came from a Washington Journal caller. With regard to talk radio, I think you're spot on. The predominance of right-wing stations can only be explained by the concentrated corporate ownership currently allowed by law.

I appreciate your compliment and I realize how easy it is to use certain phrasing to drive a point home, only to have the reader view it as an attack. I’ve done the same thing on a few occasions myself. I was actually pretty surprised when I read that post, as I thought we were having a decent discussion up to that point. Thanks for explaining the point you were making. You’re probably not that far off when it comes to the reasons Obama will appeal to a lot of otherwise non-political voters. He’s young, articulate, and good-looking. I support him for other reasons, but I personally won’t be disappointed if he picks up some votes from those breathless swooners who would otherwise stay home on election day. That's IF he runs and IF he gets the nod. I suppose I do tend to get a bit ahead of things, eh?

I think we pretty much agree about the overall slant in the media and the impact such bias plays when it comes to getting vital information to the average citizen. I think cable news in particular has tremendously accelerated the decline in real, relevant news coverage. Corporate control is definitely a huge culprit, but I also blame the public. People want to be entertained. If people simply refused to watch O’Reilly, Scarborough, Nancy Grace, and similar sensationalistic crap, networks would stop airing it. Ok, maybe Fox wouldn’t, but the rest might. I’m not sure how to improve the situation, but the more I think about it, perhaps the FCC should actually define news and force self-proclaimed “news” shows to at the very least adhere to facts, rather than spinning the facts to suit an agenda and then calling it news. Of course, that might open the door to First Amendment concerns, I suppose. I just wish there could be some sort of disclaimer on some of the programs that are so intentionally distorting. All of the misinformation running around out there didn't get there on it's own- it was spoon-fed to people who confuse news with entertainment.

The more I think about it, I think I might be doing myself (and the cause of media reform) a disservice by not watching at least some of the news coverage presented by the mainstream media. As much as I detest it, I think it’s easy to forget it’s there when one avoids it altogether. I’ll try to hold my nose and tune in now and then, just to see what is and isn’t being said.

Despite a couple of bumps, this has been a good conversation and while I’ve long recognized the problems with the media and been a vocal critic myself, you’ve reminded me not to take my eye off of the ball. I’ll admit I’ve probably done that a little bit since the midterms, mainly because Bush has finally been getting some long overdue bad press and dems have received a little more positive coverage. Thanks for the reminder. I won’t let my guard down and hopefully, Obama (and the other dem hopefuls) won’t either.

Thank you for the interesting and thought-provoking discussion.

[Clark2008]

33. Fair shake?

Obviously, you read into my post what you wanted. I would comment on Obama, but since he's the rock star du jour around here, I'll not. It has nothing to do with him, anyway.

What my post said was that it is about the media. And I can already tell that when the media is playing up someone like they're doing Obama, then it's curtains for him when they're ready to pounce.

[ripple]

35. I'm actually worried about that, too

And I apologize for reading more into your post than you intended. Since the thread was about Obama, I assumed your skepticism of the media's interest in him made him undesireable to you as a candidate. That obviously isn't what you meant.

[AtomicKitten]

12. I'm having a good time on the Obama-rama ride.

I think it is effin brilliant that such positive press is given a Democrat. And he deserves every bit of it. I'm just glad he's on our side. He will sink or swim if he decides to run. Until then, I'm have a great time basking in his glow.

[ripple]

14. K&R- excellent post

Even people who don't support him should realize that Obama's noteriety is giving democrats a refreshing new image and a lot of positive press. And coming off of the recent elections, the timing couldn't be better. WE ARE THE PARTY OF HOPE and like him or not, Obama does an excellent job of articulating that to the average person.

[Catchawave]

15. Obama brings positive Dem vibes to the mainstream

And that's a good thing :toast:

[autorank]

18. Lets all support PRIMARIES - intra party democracy KR

We're the party, not the people who refused to rally behind Ned Lamont as the PARTY candidate, either through direct support of "another" candidate or failure to support Lamont. Those people are the "leaders." We need to be a good example for "the leaders" and say just what this OP says - it's an open primary, lets see how he does - and watch how much or little power the corporate media and party donors have to brainwash us.

It's pre-silly season politics. Besides Gore will crush everybody when he gives the nod.

[arendt]

19. Its not Obama, its the corporate kool aid that 08 is the top item right now...

We should be discussing, floating trial balloons, releasing postion papers on
how the Dems are going to GOVERN for the next two years - we should not
be acquiescing in the media's push to turn politics into one "continuous campaign".

This whole food fight over presidential candidates is the ULTIMATE DISTRACTION.
It is a waste of IRRETRIEVABLE time to lay out the Democratic position, to
bring the debate back to reality.

Instead, we are supposed to plunge right back into the totally unreal world
of campaing polling and horse race/inside baseball politics.

If someone doesn't do some governing in the next two years, we may not
have a planet, much less a country, on which to have an election.

----

So, I respectfully disagree that this is "harmless". It is the most indisidiously
harmful example of sound-bite media driving the political agenda instead of
merely reporting it.

arendt

EDIT: changed phrasing.

[Gelliebeans]

21. Agreed

I like this coverage way better than what would be covered right now if they weren't talking about the buzz about Obama like St. McCain or another repuke.

[Imagevision]

22. Obama is Repugs nightmare -

[Bullet1987]

25. ...

Why all the hateration about the rock star coverage that Barack Obama is getting these days? It's two years before the general election and more than a year before the first primary. Plenty will happen between now and then and you can bet that either 1) Obama will decide to run, get into the daily rough and rumble of the race and have to sink or swim with everyone else; or 2) he will decide not to run and he'll fade away to a large degree as people lose interest in him as a flavor of the month and shift focus to the primaries and the people who will actually be vying for the presidency.

So why get all worked up trying to knock Obama down now? Why not just enjoy the fact that, for a change, a Democrat is getting good press? In my view, good press about ANY Democrat (well, besides Lieberman and Zell Miller) benefits ALL Democrats. And it's not like he's taking anything away from the other Democrats. If the press weren't covering Obama right now, they'd be talking about something altogether different - and no doubt trashing the Dems at every turn. They certainly wouldn't be covering any of the other candidates in any meaningful way this early in the game.

I could understand some of the DU Obama-bashing if Obama were out trashing the other Democrats. But he's not. He's been extraordinarily graceful and gracious. He campaigned his ass off for his fellow Democrats in the midterms and since then he hasn't had a negative word to say about any Democrat, including those whom he might face if he decides to run.

Would it be so hard to just enjoy the madness for a minute before things start to turn serious and ugly? I'm having a ball watching the hoopla - I love the fact that a Democrat is being treated like a rock star and is, at least for the time being, shaking things up a little bit. Whether he decides to go for it or not, I will always appreciate this period of hope, optimism, fun and downright wacky political enthusiasm about a DEMOCRAT!

I'm going to enjoy Obamania while it lasts.

If you think DU is bad...you should head over to Daily Kos. It's borderline hate over there.

[natrat]

28. hardly-they know a black will not currently come close to winning in this country

[beaconess]

30. Oh, Lord - here we go with the "a Black man can't win."

Apparently, that's a requirement for every Obama thread.

[The Count]

26. I'd rather talk about ending the war, but you're right

Unfortunately, the 2008-mania has gripped DU as well.

[architect359]

29. It's only natural

I mean, how can we not? Especially after the past 2 presidential elections. This shouldn't be a free pass, I agree, but I completely understand why this is happening. Here's a person that has captivated a number of us since his debut on the national stage with his speech at the Democratic Convention.

[Fire Walk With Me]

32. I wish the Hon. Conyers would run.

[blueblitzkrieg]

36. AMEN!!! nt

[DeepModem Mom]

37. You're post is RIGHT ON! The deadly serious stuff around here...

the meanness and vitriol, doesn't have to suck up every bit of air in the room. A fresh new Democrat is setting hearts afire. This is not manufactured by the press; this comes from people, who see something appealing and hopeful in this man. Rock on, Barack -- OBAMARAMA!

[beaconess]

42. I recall how annoyed people were with the adulatory treatment McCain was getting in the press

Folks complained and bitched and moaned about media bias, etc. But now that a Democrat is, for one brief shining moment, getting similar treatment, people are whining that the media is up to something.

Frankly, I think that a good number of the people who are so pissed off about the coverage that Obama is getting would be perfectly ok with it if it were their candidate getting the love.

[blm]

38. Better good coverage for now, the pile-on will come when they think it matters

most - that is the presscorps' method of operation.

Democrats being a wholly unloyal bunch do not rally round their pols when they are being targetted unfairly by the press, instead they distance themselves and pile on with the GOPs and the RW noise machine.

[beaconess]

40. Hell - Democrats don't wait until the press unfairly target to pounce on our own

Plenty of them are pouncing on Obama right now BECAUSE he's not being treated unfairly by the press!

[sendero]

39. I'm not sure what I think of him..

.... as a presidential candidate, but I did hear a radio interview with him and was very impressed with what he had to say.

I don't know if he'd be the best candidate, but I'm certain we could do worse.

[cadmium]

43. Ha Ha good post! I'm with you. I am enjoying.

He has one of our local right-wing reactionaries --- reacting. If he is pissing off Howie Carr he is doing something right.

http://news.bostonherald.com/columnists/view.bg?articleid=171759


Deval we hardly knew ye! Moonbats flock to Obama
By Howie Carr
Boston Herald Columnist
Wednesday, December 13, 2006

The Deval Patrick era is over.
These moonbats are a tough crowd. As the Eagles once sang, they will never forget you ’til somebody new comes along.
And now somebody new has come along - Barack Obama, or, as Ted Kennedy once called him, “Osama Obama.” Did you see those crowds for him in New Hampshire on Sunday - it looked like nothing less than the continuation of the Deval-apalooza south of the border here this year.
The fine silk scarves, the leather hats, the ponytails - and these are the males I’m talking about.
As they listened to Barack’s inane pap, their mouths dropped, their eyelids fluttered. Their knees grew weak. Timber, they’re falling in love again.
Let’s be clear, the moonbats still adore Deval. But really, there are some things about Barak that make him an even more attractive politician for moonbats to crush on.
Barak is taller than Deval.
He doesn’t have that squeaky Deval voice.
Then there’s his middle name - Hussein. Some old fogeys think sharing a name with the Butcher of Baghdad is a drawback, but they don’t know moonbats like we do, do they? It makes him even more perfect. After all, George Bush hates Saddam Hussein, ergo, Hussein is Good People.
If only he didn’t smoke cigarettes.
So here’s Barak Obama, on top of the best-seller lists and the polls, and what is Deval reduced to? Planning his five-day coronation and wondering whether he needs to build an invisible fence around Tim Murray’s office to keep him from wandering off for yet another feed with Good Time Charlie Flaherty.
Poor Deval. He hasn’t been inaugurated yet, and already he’s yesterday’s news. From Together We Can to Together We Did - once upon a time.
But events move fast in a moonbat world - just ask another of yesterday’s Daily Kos heroes, Ned Lamont. He feels your pain, Deval.
And how does Hillary Clinton deal with this Obama-mania? Every time I see her on TV now, I imagine her slowly morphing into Tom Reilly. Of course, her top political adviser is Bill Clinton, and Tom Reilly’s was Marty Meehan. Edge: Hillary.
Another thing this last weekend confirms is that New Hampshire is gone. The Union Leader described Barack’s reception as “rapturous,” which it was, but by God William Loeb would have red-penciled that pro-Obama headline faster than you can say Sam Yorty for President.
If I am Sen. John Sununu, I am very, very concerned about 2008.
New Hampshire is Blue Hampshire. It’s gone from the Granite State to the Granola State. From Live Free or Die to just plain Live Free. No wonder the Old Man of the Mountain toppled over. Who would have ever predicted that New Hampshire would someday send clones of Bernie Sanders and Cindy Sheehan to Congress?
This is all very depressing to the Massachusetts natives who fled north thinking they could escape the insanity. “Where do I go next?” one of them moaned to me Monday.
In 2004, many New Hampshire Republicans thought the state was stolen from George Bush by busloads of Bay State students who allegedly took advantage of notoriously lax same-day registration.
Now the moonbats will be heading north, and they’ll be staying, at least until the presidential primary.
But there is a silver lining to this dark cloud. This blue tidal wave should save the New Hampshire primary. New Hampshire is no longer out of the mainstream. It’s as nutty as everywhere else.

[beaconess]

44. :-)