On yesterday's stop of Obamapalooza 2008, The World Tour, 200,000 Germans showed up for Obama's speech in Berlin. That is a mighty impressive turnout for my old country relatives from the Fatherland. Then again, we Germanic types have always had an affinity for charismatic men with a flair for public speaking. We get all worked up, and it doesn't always turn out well. Ask the Jews. We are well served to pay attention to a political candidate's substance, instead of focusing only on the style and glitz. So, it was kind of weird for me to watch Barack Obama speaking at the Siegessaule monument (Adolph's favored Nazi winged victory column) yesterday, not that Obama said anything wrong. He didn't. I'm not trying to equate Obama with Hitler either. That would be very unfair. Hitler HAD an economic plan.
Obama's Berlin speech was just fine. Most of it concerned Obama telling Germans about their own history, which the Germans know far better than Barack Obama does, obviously. That was kind of weird too. However, Obama read his speech very well, and didn't make too many mistakes. He read the speech better than I'd guess John McCain would have read it, so there you go, Barack Obama should be the next president, because he's the better speech reader, the better speech deliverer. What else could possibly matter in a presidential election ? I'm certain Obama's public relations arm, formerly known as the Mainstream Media, would agree. If we have settled any debates during Obama's excellent foreign adventure, I hope it is the question of whether there is a liberal media bias or not. I've long known the answer to that question (YES !), but it's reached such egregious levels with the Obama campaign that even the liberal media is commenting on it. Maybe only the New York Times is still in faux denial about their own bias. The Times wouldn't print John McCain's op-ed about Iraq, one week after they did print Obama's op-ed about Iraq. The Times excuse basically amounted to, 'well, McCain's op-ed was different than Obama's. If McCain wants to write another op-ed that is more Obama-like, like with Iraq withdrawal timetables, we'd be happy to print it'. Gotta love that New York Times. Can we stop referring to them as journalists now, and start calling them what they really are, left wing propagandists ? The NY Times won't even give the presidential candidates equal time in their newspaper, for god's sake. What more do you need to know ?
What I liked better than Obama's Berlin speech was Obama's previous speech to the Israelis. Before I get into the substance of that speech, I have to say, I think the Obama campaign missed a golden opportunity by not having their Messiah ride into Jerusalem on a donkey, with bystanders waving palm branches. What a photo op that would have been. Who needs to look presidential, when you can look simply divine ??? Politicians don't often get chances like that. Oh well. Opportunity lost.
I like the Obama who spoke to the Israelis, the Obama who realizes Iran is a grave threat. I call him Obama 2.0, the one who surfaced after the Democratic primaries were over. Obama 1.0, the liberal douche, said Iran was a tiny country who didn't pose a serious threat. As much fun as it would have been to hear Obama 1.0 try to tell the Israelis that Iran wasn't a threat (after they booed him off the stage, the Israelis would have carried him to the Western Wall and thrown him OVER it), Obama 2.0 is a much more responsible guy. He says things like this:
"The threats to Israel security...include outrageous acts of terror like the attack we just saw yesterday in Jerusalem. Rearming Hezbollah in Lebanon and an Iranian regime that sponsors terrorism, pursues nuclear weapons and threatens Israel's existence. A nuclear Iran would pose a grave threat and the world must prevent Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon...I think there are opportunities for us to mobilize a much more serious regime of sanctions on Iran, but also to offer them the possibility of improved relations in the international community if they stand down on these nuclear weapons. What I have also said, though, is that I will take no options off the table in dealing with this potential Iranian threat. And understand part of my reasoning here. A nuclear Iran would be a game changing situation not just in the Middle East, but around the world."
Exactly right, Barack. Get down with your bad self. No nukes for Iranian religious extremists.
But didn't liberals call Dubya a fearmonger and a warmonger when he said the EXACT SAME THINGS about Iran ? Why yes, they did. I wonder what they say now that their Messiah is on board the Bush foreign policy express (until next week, at least, when Obama is speaking in front of a group with different interests). I imagine the Mainstream Media will be talking about how "presidential" Obama sounded. Not that there's a liberal media bias or anything.
About This Blog