Obama and the Media Still Play Snuggle-Puppies

The recent theories being floated are that the honeymoon between President Obama and the media is ramping down. I think the media is simply miffed. After all, they threw their full weight behind the messiah to get him elected.


Now that he's in office, rather than running for office, the campaign promises are going away like so much pot smoke drifting out of the dorm rooms of a liberal university campus. And gasp! Robert Gibbs, the White House Press Secretary, was supposed to be their buddy.

After all, during the campaign, the press limited themselves to softball questions of the Democrat nominee. Shouldn't there be payback now? No, Gibbs sports an arrogant attitude when it comes to returning the favor.

He's better known for laughing serious questions off or evading them than he is giving a straightforward answer.

It's interesting to reflect on Obama's campaign rhetoric. We were going to bring the troops home. Well, actually, they might be, eventually, but it will be via Afghanistan. And while at the time this political bloviating was going on, the media was giving kudos to all the righteous anti-war liberal mobs.

"Bush evil! Bush evil!"

Hmm, now the media delights in telling us the grandmothers, veterans, and hard-working citizens that are peacefully questioning their "representatives" at town hall meetings are mobs. Those protesting against Bush were citizens using their constitutional rights.

Nancy Pelosi is down with that. She has a conspiracy theory that today's dissent is being organized by some secret wing of the Republican party. No, something that organized would take some type of community organizer, wouldn't it?



Other Democrats go so far as to compare them to Nazis. That's quite pathetic, but understandable, given the source.

Obama and the media may seem to be pouting like quarreling adolescent sweethearts, but they'll kiss and make up. And before anyone berates me for calling the president childish, it was he not I that said, “There’s something about August going into September where everyone in Washington gets all ‘wee-weed’ up."

It's Spending, Not Stimulus, Stupid

That's the problem, isn't it? Everyone wants to stimulate the economy, but unfortunately, Obama's "stimulus" package is not the way to do it. The main problem with it (other than the bloated nature of it), is that it's pretty slim on production.

It might put people to work, but it doesn't really produce any durable goods. That equals a lot of money chasing a dwindling pool of goods. The end result? Economic Inflation. The goods that will be available will all be produced elsewhere. Bonehead Jimmy Carter all over again.

So what does that mean? Stimulating someone else's economy, if anything. Like China. Would you like a little lead with that?

The whole thing stinks of the huge government spewing of greenbacks that Pelosi and the other socialists on the hill claim brought us out of the Great Depression. Wrong. It extended the depression. It was the war that got us out of that particular problem.

Why? Because it shifted paychecks to people producing things that could be marketed and purchased. That is stimulation. Get those dollars circulating. To people to make things, other people have to produce the raw materials. Other people have to move it, and others have to sell it. See where all this is going?

Paying poets to write didn't do it back then and it won't today either, sheeple.

Clinton Superdelegates Threaten the Will of the People

Why does the whole idea of Superdelegates give most citizens the heebie-jeebies? Because the whole concept goes against what we perceive as the American election process that we're so proud of: one citizen, one vote.

Unfortunately, since 1984, the Democrat party has allowed the use of superdelegates; these are nearly 800 party insiders and elected officials who are allowed to back whichever candidate they please.

This not only implies that the party is free to appoint individuals who are free to work as party agents, but it renders the entire Democrat primary system a sham.

For example, a group of 20 prominent Clinton supporters delivered a letter to Nancy Pelosi, House of Representatives Speaker, in which they spanked her for her recent public comments regarding the superdelegate process.

So what was her egregious statement? She said that the superdelegates should support whoever emerges from the primaries with the majority of pledged delegates. That sounds reasonable, right? The problem is that it's becoming increasingly likely that that candidate will be Barak Obama.

And that's got the Clintons running scared. That's right, the same Clintons that have proven over and over again that scruples shouldn't stand in the way of getting what one wants.

The letter states, "This is an untenable position that runs counter to the party's intent in establishing superdelegates in 1984." Huh? And we thought they were intended to be tie-breakers.

It should be noted that all the signers are wealthy Clinton backers. It's obvious that this snarling pack of Hillary zealots care little for the "will of the people." If the delegate count is close at the convention with Obama leading, these wealthy Clinton insiders intend to sweep aside one of the most basic premises of a free society - one of the tenets we preach to the world.

Sometimes it doesn't really take a village, Hillary, it just takes a couple dozen of your stooges.