Patrick.net

"Wall Street Journal Sizes up Obama - They've Got Him Figured Out

A "deadly" article regarding Obama, at the Wall Street Journal, which
today is the most widely circulated newspaper in America .

Article from the Wall Street Journal - by Eddie Sessions:

"I have this theory about Barack Obama. I think he's led a kind of
make-believe life in which money was provided and doors were opened
because at some point early on somebody or some group took a look at
this tall, good looking, half-white, half-black, young man with an
exotic African/Muslim name and concluded he could be guided toward a
life in politics where his facile speaking skills could even put him in
the White House.

In a very real way, he has been a young man in a very big hurry. Who
else do you know has written two memoirs before the age of 45? "Dreams
of My Father" was published in 1995 when he was only 34 years old. The
"Audacity of Hope" followed in 2006. If, indeed, he did write them
himself. There are some who think that his mentor and friend, Bill
Ayers, a man who calls himself a "communist with a small 'c'" was the
real author.

His political skills consisted of rarely voting on anything that might
be deemed controversial. He went from a legislator in the Illinois
legislature to the Senator from that state because he had the good
fortune of having Mayor Daley's formidable political machine at his
disposal.

He was in the U.S. Senate so briefly that his bid for the presidency was
either an act of astonishing self-confidence or part of some greater
game plan that had been determined before he first stepped foot in the
Capital. How, many must wonder, was he selected to be a 2004 keynote
speaker at the Democrat convention that nominated John Kerry when
virtually no one had ever even heard of him before?

He outmaneuvered Hillary Clinton in primaries. He took Iowa by storm. A
charming young man, an anomaly in the state with a very small black
population, he oozed "cool" in a place where agriculture was the
antithesis of cool. He dazzled the locals. And he had an army of
volunteers drawn to a charisma that hid any real substance.

And then he had the great good fortune of having the Republicans select
one of the most inept candidates for the presidency since Bob Dole. And
then John McCain did something crazy. He picked Sarah Palin, an unknown
female governor from the very distant state of Alaska . It was a ticket
that was reminiscent of 1984's Walter Mondale and Geraldine Ferraro and
they went down to defeat.

The mainstream political media fell in love with him. It was a
schoolgirl crush with febrile commentators like Chris Mathews swooning
then and now over the man. The venom directed against McCain and, in
particular, Palin, was extraordinary.

Now, year plus into his first term, all of those gilded years leading up
to the White House have left him unprepared to be President. Left to his
own instincts, he has a talent for saying the wrong thing at the wrong
time. It swiftly became a joke that he could not deliver even the
briefest of statements without the ever-present Tele-Prompters.

Far worse, however, is his capacity to want to "wish away" some terrible
realities, not the least of which is the Islamist intention to destroy
America and enslave the West. Any student of history knows how swiftly
Islam initially spread. It knocked on the doors of Europe, having gained
a foothold in Spain .

The great crowds that greeted him at home or on his campaign "world
tour" were no substitute for having even the slightest grasp of history
and the reality of a world filled with really bad people with really bad
intentions.

Oddly and perhaps even inevitably, his political experience, a cakewalk,
has positioned him to destroy the Democrat Party's hold on power in
Congress because in the end it was never about the Party. It was always
about his communist ideology, learned at an early age from family,
mentors, college professors, and extreme leftist friends and colleagues.

Obama is a man who could deliver a snap judgment about a Boston police
officer who arrested an "obstreperous" Harvard professor-friend, but
would warn Americans against "jumping to conclusions" about a mass
murderer at Fort Hood who shouted "Allahu Akbar." The absurdity of that
was lost on no one. He has since compounded this by calling the
Christmas bomber "an isolated extremist" only to have to admit a day or
two later that he was part of an al Qaeda plot.

He is a man who could strive to close down our detention facility at
Guantanamo even though those released were known to have returned to the
battlefield against America . He could even instruct his Attorney
General to afford the perpetrator of 9/11 a civil trial when no one else
would ever even consider such an obscenity. And he is a man who could
wait three days before having anything to say about the perpetrator of
yet another terrorist attack on Americans and then have to elaborate on
his remarks the following day because his first statement was so lame.

The pattern repeats itself. He either blames any problem on the Bush
administration or he naively seeks to wish away the truth.

Knock, knock. Anyone home? Anyone there? Barack Obama exists only as the
sock puppet of his handlers, of the people who have maneuvered and
manufactured this pathetic individual's life.

When anyone else would quickly and easily produce a birth certificate,
this man has spent over a million dollars to deny access to his. Most
other documents, the paper trail we all leave in our wake, have been
sequestered from review. He has lived a make-believe life whose true
facts remain hidden.

We laugh at the ventriloquist's dummy, but what do you do when the dummy
is President of the United States of America ?"

This was my response:

I have a big isue with this "article." The problem is that the writer has a few good points. However, those points are lost in a sea of partisan propoganda and half-truths. This is a similar tactic Michael Moore uses in his documentaries. The end result is that the good points tend to get associated with the nonsense, thus whitewashing the valid criticisms. This Pavlovian method trains the other side of the debate to assume any criticism of Obama is coming from some bad steretypical tea-party republican racist. Sound familiar?

Aside: the 1985 neo-cons and the 2001/2002 warmongers did the same thing. Remember when any criticism of the Afghan war would be called a pinko/commie/US hater? The democrats of today sweepingly believe all naysayers to be redneck racists. Its the same propoganda, just coming from the opposite direction.

This writer makes it more difficult for the valid criticisms coming from any source to gain public traction. The legit critiques are guilty by association to the BS propoganda. The author talks about a conspiracy to get a well-spoken, but naive Obama into the whitehouse. I would argue that this author is part of the problem.