President of the World

Some 200,000 Germans came out to hailBarack Obama . Does that make you like him more–after all, he would surely make America more popular around the world–or does it make you like him less, with global politicking and his talk of “global citizenship” giving you the creeps?

About Gene Veith

Professor of Literature at Patrick Henry College, the Director of the Cranach Institute at Concordia Theological Seminary, a columnist for World Magazine and TableTalk, and the author of 18 books on different facets of Christianity & Culture.

  • http://thebookbeast.blogspot.com Darren

    I’m torn between the two. I wouldn’t mind having a president who recognizes that other countries in the world exist for purposes other than invading, and I tend to be less creeped out by the idea of global citizenship than a lot of my friends (I am Canadian by birth, maybe that’s part of it), but it’s hard for me to “like him more” due to his die-hard abortion rights stance.

  • http://thebookbeast.blogspot.com Darren

    I’m torn between the two. I wouldn’t mind having a president who recognizes that other countries in the world exist for purposes other than invading, and I tend to be less creeped out by the idea of global citizenship than a lot of my friends (I am Canadian by birth, maybe that’s part of it), but it’s hard for me to “like him more” due to his die-hard abortion rights stance.

  • richard

    Read this for a very funny Brit take on Obama’s trip:
    He ventured forth to bring light to the world
    The anointed one’s pilgrimage to the Holy Land is a miracle in action – and a blessing to all his faithful followers
    Gerard Baker

    And it came to pass, in the eighth year of the reign of the evil Bush the Younger (The Ignorant), when the whole land from the Arabian desert to the shores of the Great Lakes had been laid barren, that a Child appeared in the wilderness.

    The Child was blessed in looks and intellect. Scion of a simple family, offspring of a miraculous union, grandson of a typical white person and an African peasant. And yea, as he grew, the Child walked in the path of righteousness, with only the occasional detour into the odd weed and a little blow.

    When he was twelve years old, they found him in the temple in the City of Chicago, arguing the finer points of community organisation with the Prophet Jeremiah and the Elders. And the Elders were astonished at what they heard and said among themselves: “Verily, who is this Child that he opens our hearts and minds to the audacity of hope?”

    In the great Battles of Caucus and Primary he smote the conniving Hillary, wife of the deposed King Bill the Priapic and their barbarian hordes of Working Class Whites.

    And so it was, in the fullness of time, before the harvest month of the appointed year, the Child ventured forth – for the first time – to bring the light unto all the world.

    He travelled fleet of foot and light of camel, with a small retinue that consisted only of his loyal disciples from the tribe of the Media. He ventured first to the land of the Hindu Kush, where the

    Taleban had harboured the viper of al-Qaeda in their bosom, raining terror on all the world.

    And the Child spake and the tribes of Nato immediately loosed the Caveats that had previously bound them. And in the great battle that ensued the forces of the light were triumphant. For as long as the Child stood with his arms raised aloft, the enemy suffered great blows and the threat of terror was no more.

    From there he went forth to Mesopotamia where he was received by the great ruler al-Maliki, and al-Maliki spake unto him and blessed his Sixteen Month Troop Withdrawal Plan even as the imperial warrior Petraeus tried to destroy it.

    And lo, in Mesopotamia, a miracle occurred. Even though the Great Surge of Armour that the evil Bush had ordered had been a terrible mistake, a waste of vital military resources and doomed to end in disaster, the Child’s very presence suddenly brought forth a great victory for the forces of the light.

    And the Persians, who saw all this and were greatly fearful, longed to speak with the Child and saw that the Child was the bringer of peace. At the mention of his name they quickly laid aside their intrigues and beat their uranium swords into civil nuclear energy ploughshares.

    From there the Child went up to the city of Jerusalem, and entered through the gate seated on an ass. The crowds of network anchors who had followed him from afar cheered “Hosanna” and waved great palm fronds and strewed them at his feet.

    In Jerusalem and in surrounding Palestine, the Child spake to the Hebrews and the Arabs, as the Scripture had foretold. And in an instant, the lion lay down with the lamb, and the Israelites and Ishmaelites ended their long enmity and lived for ever after in peace.

    As word spread throughout the land about the Child’s wondrous works, peoples from all over flocked to hear him; Hittites and Abbasids; Obamacons and McCainiacs; Cameroonians and Blairites.

    And they told of strange and wondrous things that greeted the news of the Child’s journey. Around the world, global temperatures began to decline, and the ocean levels fell and the great warming was over.

    The Great Prophet Algore of Nobel and Oscar, who many had believed was the anointed one, smiled and told his followers that the Child was the one generations had been waiting for.

    And there were other wonderful signs. In the city of the Street at the Wall, spreads on interbank interest rates dropped like manna from Heaven and rates on credit default swaps fell to the ground as dead birds from the almond tree, and the people who had lived in foreclosure were able to borrow again.

    Black gold gushed from the ground at prices well below $140 per barrel. In hospitals across the land the sick were cured even though they were uninsured. And all because the Child had pronounced it.

    And this is the testimony of one who speaks the truth and bears witness to the truth so that you might believe. And he knows it is the truth for he saw it all on CNN and the BBC and in the pages of The New York Times.

    Then the Child ventured forth from Israel and Palestine and stepped onto the shores of the Old Continent. In the land of Queen Angela of Merkel, vast multitudes gathered to hear his voice, and he preached to them at length.

    But when he had finished speaking his disciples told him the crowd was hungry, for they had had nothing to eat all the hours they had waited for him.

    And so the Child told his disciples to fetch some food but all they had was five loaves and a couple of frankfurters. So he took the bread and the frankfurters and blessed them and told his disciples to feed the multitudes. And when all had eaten their fill, the scraps filled twelve baskets.

    Thence he travelled west to Mount Sarkozy. Even the beauteous Princess Carla of the tribe of the Bruni was struck by awe and she was great in love with the Child, but he was tempted not.

    On the Seventh Day he walked across the Channel of the Angles to the ancient land of the hooligans. There he was welcomed with open arms by the once great prophet Blair and his successor, Gordon the Leper, and his successor, David the Golden One.

    And suddenly, with the men appeared the archangel Gabriel and the whole host of the heavenly choir, ranks of cherubim and seraphim, all praising God and singing: “Yes, We Can.”

  • richard

    Read this for a very funny Brit take on Obama’s trip:
    He ventured forth to bring light to the world
    The anointed one’s pilgrimage to the Holy Land is a miracle in action – and a blessing to all his faithful followers
    Gerard Baker

    And it came to pass, in the eighth year of the reign of the evil Bush the Younger (The Ignorant), when the whole land from the Arabian desert to the shores of the Great Lakes had been laid barren, that a Child appeared in the wilderness.

    The Child was blessed in looks and intellect. Scion of a simple family, offspring of a miraculous union, grandson of a typical white person and an African peasant. And yea, as he grew, the Child walked in the path of righteousness, with only the occasional detour into the odd weed and a little blow.

    When he was twelve years old, they found him in the temple in the City of Chicago, arguing the finer points of community organisation with the Prophet Jeremiah and the Elders. And the Elders were astonished at what they heard and said among themselves: “Verily, who is this Child that he opens our hearts and minds to the audacity of hope?”

    In the great Battles of Caucus and Primary he smote the conniving Hillary, wife of the deposed King Bill the Priapic and their barbarian hordes of Working Class Whites.

    And so it was, in the fullness of time, before the harvest month of the appointed year, the Child ventured forth – for the first time – to bring the light unto all the world.

    He travelled fleet of foot and light of camel, with a small retinue that consisted only of his loyal disciples from the tribe of the Media. He ventured first to the land of the Hindu Kush, where the

    Taleban had harboured the viper of al-Qaeda in their bosom, raining terror on all the world.

    And the Child spake and the tribes of Nato immediately loosed the Caveats that had previously bound them. And in the great battle that ensued the forces of the light were triumphant. For as long as the Child stood with his arms raised aloft, the enemy suffered great blows and the threat of terror was no more.

    From there he went forth to Mesopotamia where he was received by the great ruler al-Maliki, and al-Maliki spake unto him and blessed his Sixteen Month Troop Withdrawal Plan even as the imperial warrior Petraeus tried to destroy it.

    And lo, in Mesopotamia, a miracle occurred. Even though the Great Surge of Armour that the evil Bush had ordered had been a terrible mistake, a waste of vital military resources and doomed to end in disaster, the Child’s very presence suddenly brought forth a great victory for the forces of the light.

    And the Persians, who saw all this and were greatly fearful, longed to speak with the Child and saw that the Child was the bringer of peace. At the mention of his name they quickly laid aside their intrigues and beat their uranium swords into civil nuclear energy ploughshares.

    From there the Child went up to the city of Jerusalem, and entered through the gate seated on an ass. The crowds of network anchors who had followed him from afar cheered “Hosanna” and waved great palm fronds and strewed them at his feet.

    In Jerusalem and in surrounding Palestine, the Child spake to the Hebrews and the Arabs, as the Scripture had foretold. And in an instant, the lion lay down with the lamb, and the Israelites and Ishmaelites ended their long enmity and lived for ever after in peace.

    As word spread throughout the land about the Child’s wondrous works, peoples from all over flocked to hear him; Hittites and Abbasids; Obamacons and McCainiacs; Cameroonians and Blairites.

    And they told of strange and wondrous things that greeted the news of the Child’s journey. Around the world, global temperatures began to decline, and the ocean levels fell and the great warming was over.

    The Great Prophet Algore of Nobel and Oscar, who many had believed was the anointed one, smiled and told his followers that the Child was the one generations had been waiting for.

    And there were other wonderful signs. In the city of the Street at the Wall, spreads on interbank interest rates dropped like manna from Heaven and rates on credit default swaps fell to the ground as dead birds from the almond tree, and the people who had lived in foreclosure were able to borrow again.

    Black gold gushed from the ground at prices well below $140 per barrel. In hospitals across the land the sick were cured even though they were uninsured. And all because the Child had pronounced it.

    And this is the testimony of one who speaks the truth and bears witness to the truth so that you might believe. And he knows it is the truth for he saw it all on CNN and the BBC and in the pages of The New York Times.

    Then the Child ventured forth from Israel and Palestine and stepped onto the shores of the Old Continent. In the land of Queen Angela of Merkel, vast multitudes gathered to hear his voice, and he preached to them at length.

    But when he had finished speaking his disciples told him the crowd was hungry, for they had had nothing to eat all the hours they had waited for him.

    And so the Child told his disciples to fetch some food but all they had was five loaves and a couple of frankfurters. So he took the bread and the frankfurters and blessed them and told his disciples to feed the multitudes. And when all had eaten their fill, the scraps filled twelve baskets.

    Thence he travelled west to Mount Sarkozy. Even the beauteous Princess Carla of the tribe of the Bruni was struck by awe and she was great in love with the Child, but he was tempted not.

    On the Seventh Day he walked across the Channel of the Angles to the ancient land of the hooligans. There he was welcomed with open arms by the once great prophet Blair and his successor, Gordon the Leper, and his successor, David the Golden One.

    And suddenly, with the men appeared the archangel Gabriel and the whole host of the heavenly choir, ranks of cherubim and seraphim, all praising God and singing: “Yes, We Can.”

  • http://heresyhunter.blogspot.com Bob Hunter

    The New World Order Conspiracy theorists will have a field day with that one.

  • http://heresyhunter.blogspot.com Bob Hunter

    The New World Order Conspiracy theorists will have a field day with that one.

  • eric

    I hope the next President, Obama or McCain, can restore some truth to this title. President of the United Sates, leader of the free world.

  • eric

    I hope the next President, Obama or McCain, can restore some truth to this title. President of the United Sates, leader of the free world.

  • http://www.bikebubba.blogspot.com Bike Bubba

    Somehow the idea of hundreds of thousands of Germans “hailing” a political leader near the Siegessaule bothers me, especially if hoping for victory.

  • http://www.bikebubba.blogspot.com Bike Bubba

    Somehow the idea of hundreds of thousands of Germans “hailing” a political leader near the Siegessaule bothers me, especially if hoping for victory.

  • Rose

    For me, it was another Obama bomb.
    Krauthammer has an excellent column on the Audacity of Vanity:
    http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/07/17/AR2008071701839.html
    Hope McCain slays Unable in November.

  • Rose

    For me, it was another Obama bomb.
    Krauthammer has an excellent column on the Audacity of Vanity:
    http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/07/17/AR2008071701839.html
    Hope McCain slays Unable in November.

  • Anon

    The presumably intentional use of Nazi and Stalinist symbology in Obama posters, phrases and appearances is disturbing. He even has a blimp standing in for the zeppelins by the Siegessaule.

    I think he thinks he is running for Antichrist, not president of the executive branch of these united States.

  • Anon

    The presumably intentional use of Nazi and Stalinist symbology in Obama posters, phrases and appearances is disturbing. He even has a blimp standing in for the zeppelins by the Siegessaule.

    I think he thinks he is running for Antichrist, not president of the executive branch of these united States.

  • http://StevenAdkins.blogspot.com Steven

    Ok. Dude, it freaks me out.

    On the other hand, it probably won’t appeal to a large swathe of voters. In fact, it might give them reason to believe that is elitist or “above” the common man.

    Frankly, as someone else mentioned, I more bothered by his stance on abortion. Call me one-sided, but…

  • http://StevenAdkins.blogspot.com Steven

    Ok. Dude, it freaks me out.

    On the other hand, it probably won’t appeal to a large swathe of voters. In fact, it might give them reason to believe that is elitist or “above” the common man.

    Frankly, as someone else mentioned, I more bothered by his stance on abortion. Call me one-sided, but…

  • Tom Baden

    Just about everything about Obama concerns and bothers me except his race. The presidential election is about principle and positions, not pigment and paternity.

  • Tom Baden

    Just about everything about Obama concerns and bothers me except his race. The presidential election is about principle and positions, not pigment and paternity.

  • Carl Vehse

    Regarding the clymer press report of 200,000 people and the carefully cropped photo with the story about those attending Obamessiah’s World Tour speech in Berlin -

    In World Politics Review’s “200,000 . . . or 20,000? Obama’s Crowd in Berlin”, John Rosenthal points out that German TV estimated and showed a considerably smaller number of people present. Rosenthal also notes the source of the inflated “200,000″ (or has it become 2,000,000 by now?) number – the rally organizers (surprise, surprise!!).

  • Carl Vehse

    Regarding the clymer press report of 200,000 people and the carefully cropped photo with the story about those attending Obamessiah’s World Tour speech in Berlin –

    In World Politics Review’s “200,000 . . . or 20,000? Obama’s Crowd in Berlin”, John Rosenthal points out that German TV estimated and showed a considerably smaller number of people present. Rosenthal also notes the source of the inflated “200,000″ (or has it become 2,000,000 by now?) number – the rally organizers (surprise, surprise!!).

  • http://www.reformationucc.org Charles

    I believe he believes he is a Messianic figure. Frightening.

  • http://www.reformationucc.org Charles

    I believe he believes he is a Messianic figure. Frightening.

  • BKW

    Oh, brother….

  • BKW

    Oh, brother….

  • Cate

    Oh, I’m creeped out. Big time.

  • Cate

    Oh, I’m creeped out. Big time.

  • http://www.toddstadler.com/ tODD

    Carl (@10), it’s interesting how you pick and choose which members of the media you will trust. It is true that one ZDF reporter initially reported crowds of 20,000. The basis of that “article” (actually, in large part, it is guesswork) is that that one estimate was the only correct one. Ever. Period. And then begins the conspiracy!

    Later, ZDF also reported a different number. Could it have been that someone back in the office estimated differently? No, says World Politics Review, the Obama team fed them artificially inflated numbers. Their proof? WPR links to an article in German that says that the Obama organizers announced at one point a crowd of 100,000. There’s your proof! No jury in the world could ignore evidence this strong!

    (As always, “clymer” = clever. You stay classy.)

    Also, you cannot “run” for Antichrist. You have to be elected by a small cadre of insiders. Explicit politicking is considered declasse, even in Antichrist circles.

  • http://www.toddstadler.com/ tODD

    Carl (@10), it’s interesting how you pick and choose which members of the media you will trust. It is true that one ZDF reporter initially reported crowds of 20,000. The basis of that “article” (actually, in large part, it is guesswork) is that that one estimate was the only correct one. Ever. Period. And then begins the conspiracy!

    Later, ZDF also reported a different number. Could it have been that someone back in the office estimated differently? No, says World Politics Review, the Obama team fed them artificially inflated numbers. Their proof? WPR links to an article in German that says that the Obama organizers announced at one point a crowd of 100,000. There’s your proof! No jury in the world could ignore evidence this strong!

    (As always, “clymer” = clever. You stay classy.)

    Also, you cannot “run” for Antichrist. You have to be elected by a small cadre of insiders. Explicit politicking is considered declasse, even in Antichrist circles.

  • http://castingoutnines.wordpress.com Robert

    I’m most just irritated at how distracting this German display of Obama-love is from the real problems Obama has, namely his stance on the issues and primarily abortion and education. Many of Obama’s supporters just really, really want to be liked, especially by Europe, and at whatever cost. And they point to this massive turnout as evidence that he is the superior candidate. As for me, diplomacy and good relations with the rest of the world are important, but honestly I could not possibly care less of whether the Europeans think America is cool or not, and I wish people would focus on the issues and not on the popularity contest. If it were about popularity and dreaminess, Obama would clearly be the superior candidate. But it isn’t.

  • http://castingoutnines.wordpress.com Robert

    I’m most just irritated at how distracting this German display of Obama-love is from the real problems Obama has, namely his stance on the issues and primarily abortion and education. Many of Obama’s supporters just really, really want to be liked, especially by Europe, and at whatever cost. And they point to this massive turnout as evidence that he is the superior candidate. As for me, diplomacy and good relations with the rest of the world are important, but honestly I could not possibly care less of whether the Europeans think America is cool or not, and I wish people would focus on the issues and not on the popularity contest. If it were about popularity and dreaminess, Obama would clearly be the superior candidate. But it isn’t.

  • Carl Vehse

    Talk about picking and choosing, tODD. Several reporters mentioned crowd numbers of less than 200,000, which was not mentioned until afterwards. Also you forgot to mention the photo that showed crowd thinness, as well as the comment of Christian J. Heinrich comparing the crowd with that of a much larger demonstration few years ago.

    In his “More Obama B.S.?” Bill Dupray includes photos from Obamessiah’s Portland rally (Is that you in the crowd, tODD?!?) where 75,000 attended. There is clearly a difference in size of the Portland and Berlin crowds.

    But hey, if you think The Obama brought in more than 20,000 people, go ahead – count ‘em.

  • Carl Vehse

    Talk about picking and choosing, tODD. Several reporters mentioned crowd numbers of less than 200,000, which was not mentioned until afterwards. Also you forgot to mention the photo that showed crowd thinness, as well as the comment of Christian J. Heinrich comparing the crowd with that of a much larger demonstration few years ago.

    In his “More Obama B.S.?” Bill Dupray includes photos from Obamessiah’s Portland rally (Is that you in the crowd, tODD?!?) where 75,000 attended. There is clearly a difference in size of the Portland and Berlin crowds.

    But hey, if you think The Obama brought in more than 20,000 people, go ahead – count ‘em.

  • Mary Ann

    Um, maybe someone needs to remind him that we already have a president. Last I checked, Obama has not been elected, and should that happen, he won’t take office until Jan.. He looks rediculous and arrogent as he plays president across the pond.
    And yes, he creeps me out. He doesn’t have a clue, yet because he’s a good speaker (when there’s a telepromptor in front of him), he is our new savior. No thanks.

  • Mary Ann

    Um, maybe someone needs to remind him that we already have a president. Last I checked, Obama has not been elected, and should that happen, he won’t take office until Jan.. He looks rediculous and arrogent as he plays president across the pond.
    And yes, he creeps me out. He doesn’t have a clue, yet because he’s a good speaker (when there’s a telepromptor in front of him), he is our new savior. No thanks.

  • Jenn W

    I’m creeped out! As to Dan’s comment that it might be nice to have a president aware of what’s going on in the world outside the US…. I don’t doubt that most (if not all) of our presidents have been acutely aware of the rest of the world. However, most of our populace is acutely unaware of and unconcerned with the rest of the world. This is a big country and it can take an awfully long time to get to another one so many people don’t think much about the rest of the world, understandable. That’s why those of us living on the borders do. It concerns us b/c we interact more with it. That’s how people function. Germany cares about what France does b/c if you sneeze in France the wind blows in Germany (by comparison – I realize they’re not that small). And because we’ve worked so hard to be more isolated from the rest of the world in the past Americans tend to think about things only as they directly affect us. We don’t plan for a future we can’t envision, we don’t worry about who’s sewing our clothes, it doesn’t directly affect us. However, having lived overseas more than once, I’d say that most people function this way, they just have their own things that are important – in Germany it is international politics. It’s called sin. Me, I’m the most important thing in my life – as a sinner. The whole world suffers from it – just manifests itself in different ways.
    Back to Barack, He’s scary and creepy, and I really, really, really, for the sake of my children, hope he doesn’t get elected!

  • Jenn W

    I’m creeped out! As to Dan’s comment that it might be nice to have a president aware of what’s going on in the world outside the US…. I don’t doubt that most (if not all) of our presidents have been acutely aware of the rest of the world. However, most of our populace is acutely unaware of and unconcerned with the rest of the world. This is a big country and it can take an awfully long time to get to another one so many people don’t think much about the rest of the world, understandable. That’s why those of us living on the borders do. It concerns us b/c we interact more with it. That’s how people function. Germany cares about what France does b/c if you sneeze in France the wind blows in Germany (by comparison – I realize they’re not that small). And because we’ve worked so hard to be more isolated from the rest of the world in the past Americans tend to think about things only as they directly affect us. We don’t plan for a future we can’t envision, we don’t worry about who’s sewing our clothes, it doesn’t directly affect us. However, having lived overseas more than once, I’d say that most people function this way, they just have their own things that are important – in Germany it is international politics. It’s called sin. Me, I’m the most important thing in my life – as a sinner. The whole world suffers from it – just manifests itself in different ways.
    Back to Barack, He’s scary and creepy, and I really, really, really, for the sake of my children, hope he doesn’t get elected!

  • FWw

    “he´s scary and creepy.” …..”he actually seems to believe he is the messiah”….

    Dr Martin Luther´s Small Catechism:

    “Defend him, speak well of him, and put the best interpretation on everything”

    When Senator Obama makes policy statements that are wrong, as on abortion, or Iraq or the economy, or whatever, it is good to voice a contrary opinion. Respectful of his office as Senator, and respectful of him as a person.

    “creeps me out” sounds more like a grade school taunt. It is unbecoming of a christian. It is “ad homem”.

    Question and disagree wht the man´s public policy pronouncements (please! you are a good citizen to do so!). Please don´t attack the man´s person and character.

    Even just criticism should be winsome, mild, and reluctant, ever looking for a way to see things in a more positive light.

    Feel very free to judge this post in a similar way. Turnabout is fair play.

  • FWw

    “he´s scary and creepy.” …..”he actually seems to believe he is the messiah”….

    Dr Martin Luther´s Small Catechism:

    “Defend him, speak well of him, and put the best interpretation on everything”

    When Senator Obama makes policy statements that are wrong, as on abortion, or Iraq or the economy, or whatever, it is good to voice a contrary opinion. Respectful of his office as Senator, and respectful of him as a person.

    “creeps me out” sounds more like a grade school taunt. It is unbecoming of a christian. It is “ad homem”.

    Question and disagree wht the man´s public policy pronouncements (please! you are a good citizen to do so!). Please don´t attack the man´s person and character.

    Even just criticism should be winsome, mild, and reluctant, ever looking for a way to see things in a more positive light.

    Feel very free to judge this post in a similar way. Turnabout is fair play.

  • Bruce

    FRank, it is not an ad hominem attack to state that a person “creeps me out”. That statement reflects the overall effect on someone. Now, if Obama wants to just deal with issues, GREAT! But he seems to be a lot about image, don’t you think? And, if the image he is portraying is dismaying to someone–so that it creeps him or her out–then saying so is factual and not an attack.

    He creeps me out, by the way…

  • Bruce

    FRank, it is not an ad hominem attack to state that a person “creeps me out”. That statement reflects the overall effect on someone. Now, if Obama wants to just deal with issues, GREAT! But he seems to be a lot about image, don’t you think? And, if the image he is portraying is dismaying to someone–so that it creeps him or her out–then saying so is factual and not an attack.

    He creeps me out, by the way…

  • DALE BAGENSKI

    If Obama is elected president this country will have a monarcy (one who surpasses others in powerr or preminence)

  • DALE BAGENSKI

    If Obama is elected president this country will have a monarcy (one who surpasses others in powerr or preminence)

  • Brigitte

    I talked on Friday with my mother in Munich, who was not impressed by Obama. I suspect thinking Germans will not be terribly impressed. Angela Merkel did not give hime official representative status. As far as the numbers of Germans hailing him in Berlin, maybe they think anybody has to be better than Busch and McCain just isn’t quite as carismatic.

  • Brigitte

    I talked on Friday with my mother in Munich, who was not impressed by Obama. I suspect thinking Germans will not be terribly impressed. Angela Merkel did not give hime official representative status. As far as the numbers of Germans hailing him in Berlin, maybe they think anybody has to be better than Busch and McCain just isn’t quite as carismatic.

  • http://www.toddstadler.com/ tODD

    I’m glad to see so many Republicans laying the groundwork for Obama’s presidency with such ridiculous and/or petty complaints. Perhaps this means I’ll finally stop hearing about how Clinton ruined everything, and they can move on to finally blaming Obama for the world’s ills. That’s change I can believe in. “Creeps me out! Creeps me out! Creeps me out!” I really hope to see all future voters guides with columns for “creeps people out” and “is accused of having an Antichrist/messiah complex”. The other issues pale in comparison.

  • http://www.toddstadler.com/ tODD

    I’m glad to see so many Republicans laying the groundwork for Obama’s presidency with such ridiculous and/or petty complaints. Perhaps this means I’ll finally stop hearing about how Clinton ruined everything, and they can move on to finally blaming Obama for the world’s ills. That’s change I can believe in. “Creeps me out! Creeps me out! Creeps me out!” I really hope to see all future voters guides with columns for “creeps people out” and “is accused of having an Antichrist/messiah complex”. The other issues pale in comparison.

  • Orianna Laun

    Two questions:
    1) Why is he campaigning in Europe?
    2) How can one be proud and critical of the USA at the same time? Sounds oxymoronic to me.

    Messiah or not, he definitely is the “golden boy” of the American media. If the Europeans and the media absolutely love him, that should be enough to make anyone the slightest bit wary of him. People should look at any political candidate critically and see what they stand for before backing them wholeheartedly. I don’t think many have done that for Obama.

  • Orianna Laun

    Two questions:
    1) Why is he campaigning in Europe?
    2) How can one be proud and critical of the USA at the same time? Sounds oxymoronic to me.

    Messiah or not, he definitely is the “golden boy” of the American media. If the Europeans and the media absolutely love him, that should be enough to make anyone the slightest bit wary of him. People should look at any political candidate critically and see what they stand for before backing them wholeheartedly. I don’t think many have done that for Obama.

  • http://www.toddstadler.com/ tODD

    Carl (@16), if “several reporters mentioned crowd numbers of less than 200,000,” then it would bolster your case for you to mention them. Other than your cited “media” articles, I have heard nothing. In fact, you’re the only person flogging this story that I know of.

    “Also you forgot to mention the photo that showed crowd thinness, as well as the comment of Christian J. Heinrich.” It is difficult for me to forget what I have not heard of.

    As for Bill Dupray, would that be the blog entry that starts, “Was The Crowd in Berlin 200,000 or Just 20,000? … I have no idea,” and then goes on to extensively quote from World Politics Review? One might get the impression it’s only WPR trying to move this story.

    As for me, I’ve never been to an Obama rally. Sorry.

  • http://www.toddstadler.com/ tODD

    Carl (@16), if “several reporters mentioned crowd numbers of less than 200,000,” then it would bolster your case for you to mention them. Other than your cited “media” articles, I have heard nothing. In fact, you’re the only person flogging this story that I know of.

    “Also you forgot to mention the photo that showed crowd thinness, as well as the comment of Christian J. Heinrich.” It is difficult for me to forget what I have not heard of.

    As for Bill Dupray, would that be the blog entry that starts, “Was The Crowd in Berlin 200,000 or Just 20,000? … I have no idea,” and then goes on to extensively quote from World Politics Review? One might get the impression it’s only WPR trying to move this story.

    As for me, I’ve never been to an Obama rally. Sorry.

  • http://www.toddstadler.com/ tODD

    Orianna (@24), you asked, “How can one be proud and critical of the USA at the same time?” Ask a parent, they do it all the time. To love something is not to think that it is flawless. Indeed, to delude yourself that the object of your love is flawless is hardly to love it — it is to not truly care about that thing, which is the opposite of loving it.

    Also, if having the media love him disqualifies Obama, then it would have long ago disqualified McCain, who has referred to the media as his “base” and his “friends”.

    “People should look at any political candidate critically and see what they stand for before backing them wholeheartedly. I don’t think many have done that for Obama.” I’d love to find out how you arrived at this conclusion.

  • http://www.toddstadler.com/ tODD

    Orianna (@24), you asked, “How can one be proud and critical of the USA at the same time?” Ask a parent, they do it all the time. To love something is not to think that it is flawless. Indeed, to delude yourself that the object of your love is flawless is hardly to love it — it is to not truly care about that thing, which is the opposite of loving it.

    Also, if having the media love him disqualifies Obama, then it would have long ago disqualified McCain, who has referred to the media as his “base” and his “friends”.

    “People should look at any political candidate critically and see what they stand for before backing them wholeheartedly. I don’t think many have done that for Obama.” I’d love to find out how you arrived at this conclusion.

  • CRB

    Another commentary: http://www.victorhanson.com/articles/hanson072508PF.html
    This one may be of interest as well as others on his webpage. The man is a military historian and know what he’s talking about in the realm of politics as well!

  • CRB

    Another commentary: http://www.victorhanson.com/articles/hanson072508PF.html
    This one may be of interest as well as others on his webpage. The man is a military historian and know what he’s talking about in the realm of politics as well!

  • CRB
  • CRB
  • http://gpiper.org/katiesbeer Theresa K.

    FWIW, my husband is a die-hard Democrat (of the old DFL party). He has told me that for the first time in his life, he will be voting Republican for president. His father has also told me that. I would guess that among the old-style conservative Democrats (they do exist), there will be a strong negative reaction to Obama. Why? My husband is convinced (for the first time) that Obama’s presidency will result in higher taxes and further instability in the world.

  • http://gpiper.org/katiesbeer Theresa K.

    FWIW, my husband is a die-hard Democrat (of the old DFL party). He has told me that for the first time in his life, he will be voting Republican for president. His father has also told me that. I would guess that among the old-style conservative Democrats (they do exist), there will be a strong negative reaction to Obama. Why? My husband is convinced (for the first time) that Obama’s presidency will result in higher taxes and further instability in the world.

  • Carl Vehse

    With the admissions quoted in the Newsbusters article, “PBS Acknowledges Media Bias in Campaign ’08″, now maybe MSM clymers will acknowledge something more subtle… like the Pope is Catholic.

  • Carl Vehse

    With the admissions quoted in the Newsbusters article, “PBS Acknowledges Media Bias in Campaign ’08″, now maybe MSM clymers will acknowledge something more subtle… like the Pope is Catholic.

  • Carl Vehse

    From Powerlineblog’s article, “Passing Through Berlin”:

    “One of the ironies of Obama’s sermon to the Germans last week was his praise of the 1948 airlift that broke the Soviet blockade of Berlin. The heart of the sermon to the Germans was Obama’s “one world” message: “This is the moment to stand as one.” By avoiding any historical detail regarding the airlift, Obama integrates the airlift into his theme of unity….

    “Jeff Jacoby usefully supplies the history missing from Obama’s potted reference to the Berlin airlift.”

  • Carl Vehse

    From Powerlineblog’s article, “Passing Through Berlin”:

    “One of the ironies of Obama’s sermon to the Germans last week was his praise of the 1948 airlift that broke the Soviet blockade of Berlin. The heart of the sermon to the Germans was Obama’s “one world” message: “This is the moment to stand as one.” By avoiding any historical detail regarding the airlift, Obama integrates the airlift into his theme of unity….

    “Jeff Jacoby usefully supplies the history missing from Obama’s potted reference to the Berlin airlift.”

  • http://www.toddstadler.com/ tODD

    One has to wonder about the quality of a media critic that creates such specious headlines as “PBS Acknowledges Media Bias in Campaign ’08″, based on an interview done on PBS, but with quotes almost entirely pulled from people who do not represent PBS in the least: Andrew Tyndall, publisher of the Tyndall Report, and Tom Rosentiel, director of the Project for Excellence in Journalism. I suppose whenever Bush gets interviewed, the network broadcasting it also “acknowledges” bias in his direction?

    From a more credible source, one with actual data, one might look to the recent study by the Center for Media and Public Affairs (CMPA) at George Mason University (whose founder, Robert Lichter, once held a chair in mass communications at the American Enterprise Institute and was a Fox News contributor. Which presumably makes him more credible in some circles.) According to the LA Times (whoops, the conservatives just tuned out), the latest study by the CMPA found that, since Hillary conceded,

    During the evening news, the majority of statements from reporters and anchors on all three networks are neutral, the center found. And when network news people ventured opinions in recent weeks, 28% of the statements were positive for Obama and 72% negative.
    Network reporting also tilted against McCain, but far less dramatically, with 43% of the statements positive and 57% negative.

  • http://www.toddstadler.com/ tODD

    One has to wonder about the quality of a media critic that creates such specious headlines as “PBS Acknowledges Media Bias in Campaign ’08″, based on an interview done on PBS, but with quotes almost entirely pulled from people who do not represent PBS in the least: Andrew Tyndall, publisher of the Tyndall Report, and Tom Rosentiel, director of the Project for Excellence in Journalism. I suppose whenever Bush gets interviewed, the network broadcasting it also “acknowledges” bias in his direction?

    From a more credible source, one with actual data, one might look to the recent study by the Center for Media and Public Affairs (CMPA) at George Mason University (whose founder, Robert Lichter, once held a chair in mass communications at the American Enterprise Institute and was a Fox News contributor. Which presumably makes him more credible in some circles.) According to the LA Times (whoops, the conservatives just tuned out), the latest study by the CMPA found that, since Hillary conceded,

    During the evening news, the majority of statements from reporters and anchors on all three networks are neutral, the center found. And when network news people ventured opinions in recent weeks, 28% of the statements were positive for Obama and 72% negative.
    Network reporting also tilted against McCain, but far less dramatically, with 43% of the statements positive and 57% negative.

  • Anon

    Apparently, official German sources indicate that there were fewer than 20,000 Germans present at the statue of Victory, and that they came for the free beer and two rock concerts that BHO’s campaign provided them with. Not for BHO himself.

  • Anon

    Apparently, official German sources indicate that there were fewer than 20,000 Germans present at the statue of Victory, and that they came for the free beer and two rock concerts that BHO’s campaign provided them with. Not for BHO himself.

  • Carl Vehse

    Easily linkable through the Newsbusters article I gave earlier, another “left-leaning journalism foundation”, Project for Excellence in Journalism, also admitted media bias in their report, Character and the Primaries of 2008:

    “From January 1, just before the Iowa caucuses, through March 9, following the Texas and Ohio contests, the height of the primary season, the dominant personal narratives in the media about Obama and Clinton were almost identical in tone, and were both twice as positive as negative, according to the study, which examined the coverage of the candidates’ character, history, leadership and appeal—apart from the electoral results and the tactics of their campaigns….”

    “On the Republican side, John McCain, the candidate who quickly clinched his party’s nomination, has had a harder time controlling his message in the press. Fully 57% of the narratives studied about him were critical in nature, though a look back through 2007 reveals the storyline about the Republican nominee has steadily improved with time.”

  • Carl Vehse

    Easily linkable through the Newsbusters article I gave earlier, another “left-leaning journalism foundation”, Project for Excellence in Journalism, also admitted media bias in their report, Character and the Primaries of 2008:

    “From January 1, just before the Iowa caucuses, through March 9, following the Texas and Ohio contests, the height of the primary season, the dominant personal narratives in the media about Obama and Clinton were almost identical in tone, and were both twice as positive as negative, according to the study, which examined the coverage of the candidates’ character, history, leadership and appeal—apart from the electoral results and the tactics of their campaigns….”

    “On the Republican side, John McCain, the candidate who quickly clinched his party’s nomination, has had a harder time controlling his message in the press. Fully 57% of the narratives studied about him were critical in nature, though a look back through 2007 reveals the storyline about the Republican nominee has steadily improved with time.”

  • http://www.toddstadler.com/ tODD

    Unfortunately, Carl, the data in your cited article (@33) is now almost five months old, so it doesn’t contradict the study by the Center for Media and Public Affairs, whose study covers only media reports since June 8.

    It is not surprising that reports covering Obama were more positive when he was making his surprising and historical race for the Democratic nomination — the media loves new people, challengers, mavericks, if you will (that is, after all, why they fawned over McCain for so long), since it apparently makes for more compelling stories to them.

    But the point of the CMPA story is that this is no longer the case. All the Republicans have to do is whine about biased media, and now we see the results: since June, the media has been 25% more negative in reporting on Obama than on McCain. Obama is no longer the new challenger, he is just the Democratic candidate. And McCain will play the biased media card, it seems, rather than try to make news (he has no public events scheduled for today, and the only thing I know he did while Obama was on his tour — at McCain’s taunting request, of course — was to eat at a German restaurant).

  • http://www.toddstadler.com/ tODD

    Unfortunately, Carl, the data in your cited article (@33) is now almost five months old, so it doesn’t contradict the study by the Center for Media and Public Affairs, whose study covers only media reports since June 8.

    It is not surprising that reports covering Obama were more positive when he was making his surprising and historical race for the Democratic nomination — the media loves new people, challengers, mavericks, if you will (that is, after all, why they fawned over McCain for so long), since it apparently makes for more compelling stories to them.

    But the point of the CMPA story is that this is no longer the case. All the Republicans have to do is whine about biased media, and now we see the results: since June, the media has been 25% more negative in reporting on Obama than on McCain. Obama is no longer the new challenger, he is just the Democratic candidate. And McCain will play the biased media card, it seems, rather than try to make news (he has no public events scheduled for today, and the only thing I know he did while Obama was on his tour — at McCain’s taunting request, of course — was to eat at a German restaurant).

  • Carl Vehse

    tODD has problems with providing links to his leftist propaganda excerpts, like his earlier (#32) quote from LATimes James Rainey’s article.

    And no wonder! Otherwise the readers here could note (in addition to the study being ONLY about the network evening news) the actual time frame of the study, and that the number of positive or negative statements (from which the ratio was calculated) was a small percentage of the total statements made about the candidates.

    “The media center’s most recent batch of data covers nightly newscasts beginning June 8, the day after Hillary Rodham Clinton conceded the Democratic nomination, ushering in the start of the general-election campaign. The data ran through Monday, as Obama began his overseas [World Tour de Farce] trip.

    “Most on-air statements during that time could not be classified as positive or negative, Lichter said. The study found, on average, less than two opinion statements per night on the candidates on all three networks combined — not exactly embracing or pummeling Obama or McCain. But when a point of view did emerge, it tended to tilt against Obama.” [Emphasis added]

    tODD, your method of selective excerpting and lack of any linked source produce little credibility in your posts.

  • Carl Vehse

    tODD has problems with providing links to his leftist propaganda excerpts, like his earlier (#32) quote from LATimes James Rainey’s article.

    And no wonder! Otherwise the readers here could note (in addition to the study being ONLY about the network evening news) the actual time frame of the study, and that the number of positive or negative statements (from which the ratio was calculated) was a small percentage of the total statements made about the candidates.

    “The media center’s most recent batch of data covers nightly newscasts beginning June 8, the day after Hillary Rodham Clinton conceded the Democratic nomination, ushering in the start of the general-election campaign. The data ran through Monday, as Obama began his overseas [World Tour de Farce] trip.

    “Most on-air statements during that time could not be classified as positive or negative, Lichter said. The study found, on average, less than two opinion statements per night on the candidates on all three networks combined — not exactly embracing or pummeling Obama or McCain. But when a point of view did emerge, it tended to tilt against Obama.” [Emphasis added]

    tODD, your method of selective excerpting and lack of any linked source produce little credibility in your posts.

  • http://www.toddstadler.com/ tODD

    Carl, you assume too much. And don’t read very carefully. I expect better of a scientist.

    The reason I avoid linking is that doing so tends to flag one’s comment on this blog, such that it will not appear until Dr. Veith approves it. I’d prefer to not wait that long, as the conversation can move on by the time the comment gets approved. I believe I’ve said as much before. I have no idea why you think my failing to link to the article you clearly found quite easily undermines my credibility. I assume that people here are conversant with Google. What’s the issue?

    And you also decry my “selective excerpting” again, noting how I shockingly left out the facts that it only covered (a) “the network evening news” and (b) “the actual time frame of the study”. Except you seem to be ignoring (a) the part of the quote (@31) that says “the majority of statements from reporters and anchors on all three networks” and (b) the parts where I said (@31) “since Hillary conceded” and (@34) “since June”. Who’s being selective here?

    And I can’t figure out whether you actually have any issue with the report or not, to the degree that you’ve concentrated on my purported failings. After all, it backs up the finding you (apparently approvingly) pointed to yourself (@33), the 57%/43% negative/positive split for McCain comments (though over different time periods).

  • http://www.toddstadler.com/ tODD

    Carl, you assume too much. And don’t read very carefully. I expect better of a scientist.

    The reason I avoid linking is that doing so tends to flag one’s comment on this blog, such that it will not appear until Dr. Veith approves it. I’d prefer to not wait that long, as the conversation can move on by the time the comment gets approved. I believe I’ve said as much before. I have no idea why you think my failing to link to the article you clearly found quite easily undermines my credibility. I assume that people here are conversant with Google. What’s the issue?

    And you also decry my “selective excerpting” again, noting how I shockingly left out the facts that it only covered (a) “the network evening news” and (b) “the actual time frame of the study”. Except you seem to be ignoring (a) the part of the quote (@31) that says “the majority of statements from reporters and anchors on all three networks” and (b) the parts where I said (@31) “since Hillary conceded” and (@34) “since June”. Who’s being selective here?

    And I can’t figure out whether you actually have any issue with the report or not, to the degree that you’ve concentrated on my purported failings. After all, it backs up the finding you (apparently approvingly) pointed to yourself (@33), the 57%/43% negative/positive split for McCain comments (though over different time periods).

  • Carl Vehse

    tODD, you again selectively quote “the network evening news”, which phrase in fact was taken from my parenthetical reference to the first four words in your message #32 quote. But it is the rest of the sentence in that paragraph that actually asserts the two points you did leave out, with Rainey’s substantiating quotes on each of the two points then presented.

    Furthermore, while you did refer to the June 8th beginning of the study (in #35, but not in #32), you did not mention that the study was ended right at the start of The Obamessiah’s World Tour with network news anchors. That is a significant termination time.

    And, tODD, that you “left out the facts” is not really shocking.

    P.S. From my experimentation, a single url link does not appear to flag one’s comment on this blog.

  • Carl Vehse

    tODD, you again selectively quote “the network evening news”, which phrase in fact was taken from my parenthetical reference to the first four words in your message #32 quote. But it is the rest of the sentence in that paragraph that actually asserts the two points you did leave out, with Rainey’s substantiating quotes on each of the two points then presented.

    Furthermore, while you did refer to the June 8th beginning of the study (in #35, but not in #32), you did not mention that the study was ended right at the start of The Obamessiah’s World Tour with network news anchors. That is a significant termination time.

    And, tODD, that you “left out the facts” is not really shocking.

    P.S. From my experimentation, a single url link does not appear to flag one’s comment on this blog.

  • http://www.toddstadler.com/ tODD

    Carl (@37), I honestly have no idea what your problem is at this point. The study is there. Dispute its conclusions if you will or can. Apparently all you have against it is accusations of cherry-picking time frames. Okay, let’s just assume you’re right for a second. How does that change the facts that it did present, that there were more negative Obama stories than negative McCain studies? But, back to your assumption, what evidence do you have for timeframe cherry-picking? Is it the leftist lean of the CMPA or Robert Lichter? Would the CMPA even have had time to put that data in its study, or did it take a week to write up its report? I have no idea — do you?

    You again cry that I am selectively quoting, as if I was trying to hide what very obviously appears on this page. You seem to enjoy calling everything I do selective, and I can see no value in it except to malign me, as if I had some secret motive, whatever that may be. You cry about things I should have mentioned, and rather than discuss the points made, you claim that I have (malicious fellow that I apparently am) left out the facts. Indeed, why discuss the evidence of conservative bias (at least for a time), when I’m not quoting things to your satisfaction, even though you’re clearly capable of working out what I’m referring to for yourself?

    It is staggering that you have ever lectured me on putting the best construction on things and wrongly accusing people.

  • http://www.toddstadler.com/ tODD

    Carl (@37), I honestly have no idea what your problem is at this point. The study is there. Dispute its conclusions if you will or can. Apparently all you have against it is accusations of cherry-picking time frames. Okay, let’s just assume you’re right for a second. How does that change the facts that it did present, that there were more negative Obama stories than negative McCain studies? But, back to your assumption, what evidence do you have for timeframe cherry-picking? Is it the leftist lean of the CMPA or Robert Lichter? Would the CMPA even have had time to put that data in its study, or did it take a week to write up its report? I have no idea — do you?

    You again cry that I am selectively quoting, as if I was trying to hide what very obviously appears on this page. You seem to enjoy calling everything I do selective, and I can see no value in it except to malign me, as if I had some secret motive, whatever that may be. You cry about things I should have mentioned, and rather than discuss the points made, you claim that I have (malicious fellow that I apparently am) left out the facts. Indeed, why discuss the evidence of conservative bias (at least for a time), when I’m not quoting things to your satisfaction, even though you’re clearly capable of working out what I’m referring to for yourself?

    It is staggering that you have ever lectured me on putting the best construction on things and wrongly accusing people.

  • Carl Vehse

    President of the World?!?

    The title of an editorial by former UN Ambassador John Bolton described it even better, “One world? Obama is on another planet”.

    Referring to Obama’s Berlin speech, Bolton noted:

    “[T]he Obama speech actually reveals an even more naive view of the world than we had previously been treated to in the United States….

    “Having earlier proclaimed himself ‘a fellow citizen of the world’ with his German hosts, Obama explained that the fall of the Berlin Wall and the reunification of Europe proved “that there is no challenge too great for a world that stands as one.’

    “Perhaps Obama needs a remedial course in Cold War history, but the Berlin Wall most certainly did not come down because “the world stood as one.” The wall fell because of a decades-long, existential struggle against one of the greatest totalitarian ideologies mankind has ever faced. It was a struggle in which strong and determined U.S. leadership was constantly questioned, both in Europe and by substantial segments of the senator’s own Democratic Party. In Germany in the later years of the Cold War, Ostpolitik — ‘eastern politics,’ a policy of rapprochement rather than resistance — continuously risked a split in the Western alliance and might have allowed communism to survive. The U.S. President who made the final successful assault on communism, Ronald Reagan, was derided by many in Europe as not very bright, too unilateralist and too provocative….

    “Second, Obama used the Berlin Wall metaphor to describe his foreign policy priorities as President: ‘The walls between old allies on either side of the Atlantic cannot stand. The walls between the countries with the most and those with the least cannot stand. The walls between races and tribes; natives and immigrants; Christian and Muslim and Jew cannot stand. These now are the walls we must tear down.’

    “This is a confused, nearly incoherent compilation, to say the least, amalgamating tensions in the Atlantic Alliance with ancient historical conflicts… But beyond the incoherence, there is a deeper problem, namely that “walls” exist not simply because of a lack of understanding about who is on the other side but because there are true differences in values and interests that lead to human conflict.”

    You know, having Bolton on the GOP ticket might be a good idea, regardless of what Romulan Obama picks.

  • Carl Vehse

    President of the World?!?

    The title of an editorial by former UN Ambassador John Bolton described it even better, “One world? Obama is on another planet”.

    Referring to Obama’s Berlin speech, Bolton noted:

    “[T]he Obama speech actually reveals an even more naive view of the world than we had previously been treated to in the United States….

    “Having earlier proclaimed himself ‘a fellow citizen of the world’ with his German hosts, Obama explained that the fall of the Berlin Wall and the reunification of Europe proved “that there is no challenge too great for a world that stands as one.’

    “Perhaps Obama needs a remedial course in Cold War history, but the Berlin Wall most certainly did not come down because “the world stood as one.” The wall fell because of a decades-long, existential struggle against one of the greatest totalitarian ideologies mankind has ever faced. It was a struggle in which strong and determined U.S. leadership was constantly questioned, both in Europe and by substantial segments of the senator’s own Democratic Party. In Germany in the later years of the Cold War, Ostpolitik — ‘eastern politics,’ a policy of rapprochement rather than resistance — continuously risked a split in the Western alliance and might have allowed communism to survive. The U.S. President who made the final successful assault on communism, Ronald Reagan, was derided by many in Europe as not very bright, too unilateralist and too provocative….

    “Second, Obama used the Berlin Wall metaphor to describe his foreign policy priorities as President: ‘The walls between old allies on either side of the Atlantic cannot stand. The walls between the countries with the most and those with the least cannot stand. The walls between races and tribes; natives and immigrants; Christian and Muslim and Jew cannot stand. These now are the walls we must tear down.’

    “This is a confused, nearly incoherent compilation, to say the least, amalgamating tensions in the Atlantic Alliance with ancient historical conflicts… But beyond the incoherence, there is a deeper problem, namely that “walls” exist not simply because of a lack of understanding about who is on the other side but because there are true differences in values and interests that lead to human conflict.”

    You know, having Bolton on the GOP ticket might be a good idea, regardless of what Romulan Obama picks.

  • Carl Vehse

    Bolton’s editorial is located here.

  • Carl Vehse

    Bolton’s editorial is located here.

  • Carl Vehse

    Or here.

  • Carl Vehse

    Or here.

  • richard

    The media isn’t biased in favor of Obama? Check out this pricless excerpt: http://starbulletin.com/2008/07/28/news/story05.html
    “When Obama walked on stage at the McCormick Center, many journalists in the audience leapt to their feet and applauded enthusiastically after being told not to do so. During a two-minute break halfway through the event, which was broadcast live on CNN, journalists ran to the stage to snap photos of Obama.

    The Illinois senator talked about his trip overseas, reiterating his opinion that violence is down in Iraq but worsening in Afghanistan. And he expressed his approval of the Senate’s passage of a major housing bill to help homeowners avert foreclosure.

    Obama, who acknowledged that he needed a nap, stood up to say farewell to the audience of journalists, many of whom gave him another standing ovation.”

  • richard

    The media isn’t biased in favor of Obama? Check out this pricless excerpt: http://starbulletin.com/2008/07/28/news/story05.html
    “When Obama walked on stage at the McCormick Center, many journalists in the audience leapt to their feet and applauded enthusiastically after being told not to do so. During a two-minute break halfway through the event, which was broadcast live on CNN, journalists ran to the stage to snap photos of Obama.

    The Illinois senator talked about his trip overseas, reiterating his opinion that violence is down in Iraq but worsening in Afghanistan. And he expressed his approval of the Senate’s passage of a major housing bill to help homeowners avert foreclosure.

    Obama, who acknowledged that he needed a nap, stood up to say farewell to the audience of journalists, many of whom gave him another standing ovation.”

  • http://www.toddstadler.com/ tODD

    Richard (@43), you’re confusing the journalists’ actions as individuals with what they report. A person can have an opinion and not have that opinion color what they do — nothing in my work reflects my dislike of McCain’s candidacy. So the question isn’t “do journalists personally like Obama?”, it’s “does their reporting favor Obama?” Your anecdote does not answer that question. The survey I cited above does, at least in part.

    I also have no idea why it’s apparently telling that “journalists ran to the stage to snap photos of Obama” during a break in filming. Perhaps they were asked not to take photos during broadcasting, and so were limited to that time. The article does not indicate if the journalists taking pictures were those attending the event or those covering it.

    Furthermore, can you think of any reason why this particular group of journalists, in this particular city, might be more likely to support Obama than McCain, whether or not their reporting reflects such a preference?

  • http://www.toddstadler.com/ tODD

    Richard (@43), you’re confusing the journalists’ actions as individuals with what they report. A person can have an opinion and not have that opinion color what they do — nothing in my work reflects my dislike of McCain’s candidacy. So the question isn’t “do journalists personally like Obama?”, it’s “does their reporting favor Obama?” Your anecdote does not answer that question. The survey I cited above does, at least in part.

    I also have no idea why it’s apparently telling that “journalists ran to the stage to snap photos of Obama” during a break in filming. Perhaps they were asked not to take photos during broadcasting, and so were limited to that time. The article does not indicate if the journalists taking pictures were those attending the event or those covering it.

    Furthermore, can you think of any reason why this particular group of journalists, in this particular city, might be more likely to support Obama than McCain, whether or not their reporting reflects such a preference?

  • richard

    tODD,

    Well, the article does say it was a gathering of “minority journalists,” so I think there is a clue about why they would more likely support Obama than McCain.
    I’m glad that your work isn’t colored by your dislike of McCain; that is the way it should be. I wish more journalists were like you–I see most treating Obama like a rock star instead of as a presidential candidate; with few asking him tough questions. Part of this could be bias, part of this is the nature of the media itself (see “Amusing Ourselves to Death.”)

  • richard

    tODD,

    Well, the article does say it was a gathering of “minority journalists,” so I think there is a clue about why they would more likely support Obama than McCain.
    I’m glad that your work isn’t colored by your dislike of McCain; that is the way it should be. I wish more journalists were like you–I see most treating Obama like a rock star instead of as a presidential candidate; with few asking him tough questions. Part of this could be bias, part of this is the nature of the media itself (see “Amusing Ourselves to Death.”)

  • http://www.toddstadler.com/ tODD

    Richard (@45), in case there’s any confusion, I’m not a journalist.

    I find accusations of media bias usually tell me more about the accuser than the media. For instance, you don’t like Obama (politically, at least, I’m guessing), and you think the attention focused on him should be less than it is. But what should it be? A 50-50 split for McCain and Obama? But doesn’t that assume that the two candidates are equally newsworthy? Are they?

    Obama is the first black presidential candidate of any major party. He attracts unusually large crowds when he speaks. Being newer to the political scene, his policies and personality are less well known than those of McCain, who has been a news subject and talk-show invitee for at least a decade now. Don’t all of these things lean towards more coverage of Obama (note: not favoritism, but coverage)? McCain was once himself subject to this type of coverage, back when he was a “maverick” and “straight-talker”. Was that unfair?

    And how does your perception jibe with the study done by the Center for Media and Public Affairs (cited above)? Does that study figure in or color your perceptions? Or are you going to ignore it? If so, why?

    You complain that he hasn’t been asked enough tough questions. Has McCain been? Has Bush? Is it possible that the media just doesn’t ask enough tough questions in general?

    Enough sites exist on “both” sides of the debate to make a strong case that the media in no way consistently or monolithically leans left or right. If you believe it’s only biased to the left, I have to assume you’re unaware of or merely ignoring all the evidence against your conclusion.

  • http://www.toddstadler.com/ tODD

    Richard (@45), in case there’s any confusion, I’m not a journalist.

    I find accusations of media bias usually tell me more about the accuser than the media. For instance, you don’t like Obama (politically, at least, I’m guessing), and you think the attention focused on him should be less than it is. But what should it be? A 50-50 split for McCain and Obama? But doesn’t that assume that the two candidates are equally newsworthy? Are they?

    Obama is the first black presidential candidate of any major party. He attracts unusually large crowds when he speaks. Being newer to the political scene, his policies and personality are less well known than those of McCain, who has been a news subject and talk-show invitee for at least a decade now. Don’t all of these things lean towards more coverage of Obama (note: not favoritism, but coverage)? McCain was once himself subject to this type of coverage, back when he was a “maverick” and “straight-talker”. Was that unfair?

    And how does your perception jibe with the study done by the Center for Media and Public Affairs (cited above)? Does that study figure in or color your perceptions? Or are you going to ignore it? If so, why?

    You complain that he hasn’t been asked enough tough questions. Has McCain been? Has Bush? Is it possible that the media just doesn’t ask enough tough questions in general?

    Enough sites exist on “both” sides of the debate to make a strong case that the media in no way consistently or monolithically leans left or right. If you believe it’s only biased to the left, I have to assume you’re unaware of or merely ignoring all the evidence against your conclusion.

  • Carl Vehse

    Well-known for its lack of leftist political bias, the Washington Post reports (apparently with a straight face):

    “Speaking at a packed [Springfield, MO] town hall meeting, Barack Obama said he was ready to take on John McCain thanks in part to his ancestry. It seems, he said, that he is a distant cousin of legendary gunman Wild Bill Hickok.”

  • Carl Vehse

    Well-known for its lack of leftist political bias, the Washington Post reports (apparently with a straight face):

    “Speaking at a packed [Springfield, MO] town hall meeting, Barack Obama said he was ready to take on John McCain thanks in part to his ancestry. It seems, he said, that he is a distant cousin of legendary gunman Wild Bill Hickok.”

  • Carl Vehse

    OTOH, the leftist NYTimes angsts over McCain calling Obama “Dr. No”, although there was no problem for them to use the “Dr. No” label on a conservative senator.

  • Carl Vehse

    OTOH, the leftist NYTimes angsts over McCain calling Obama “Dr. No”, although there was no problem for them to use the “Dr. No” label on a conservative senator.

  • Bass

    tODD (@23) is right – the GOP will get Obama elected.
    A WELS Lutheran, I was first attracted to Obama by his gracious (“Christian”) responses to the GOP’s nutty attacks. But to call Obama the AntiChrist (see @7) gives me “the creeps” and is surely beyond the pale, even for this (otherwise excellent) website, where contributors have done everything from mock his ears to cite old Reformed confessions to prove that it’s a sin to vote for him.
    Well, keep it up. And keep saying that he’s disloyal because he disagrees with the GOP’s war policy and inferring (since few will say it outright) that he’s scary because he’s black (and, did you hear? he’s a stealth Muslim).
    I say more power to him.

  • Bass

    tODD (@23) is right – the GOP will get Obama elected.
    A WELS Lutheran, I was first attracted to Obama by his gracious (“Christian”) responses to the GOP’s nutty attacks. But to call Obama the AntiChrist (see @7) gives me “the creeps” and is surely beyond the pale, even for this (otherwise excellent) website, where contributors have done everything from mock his ears to cite old Reformed confessions to prove that it’s a sin to vote for him.
    Well, keep it up. And keep saying that he’s disloyal because he disagrees with the GOP’s war policy and inferring (since few will say it outright) that he’s scary because he’s black (and, did you hear? he’s a stealth Muslim).
    I say more power to him.

  • Carl Vehse

    Bass: But to call Obama the AntiChrist (see @7) gives me “the creeps” and is surely beyond the pale

    While it may be beyond the pale to call Obama a title that has already been given to the pope, it is simple sloppiness to parenthetically imply such a thing was stated in #7, whether one agrees or not with what was actually stated in #7.

    What is really beyond the pale is for a person to claim he both is a WELS Lutheran and is attracted to a political candidate who is an avowed pro-abortionist.

  • Carl Vehse

    Bass: But to call Obama the AntiChrist (see @7) gives me “the creeps” and is surely beyond the pale

    While it may be beyond the pale to call Obama a title that has already been given to the pope, it is simple sloppiness to parenthetically imply such a thing was stated in #7, whether one agrees or not with what was actually stated in #7.

    What is really beyond the pale is for a person to claim he both is a WELS Lutheran and is attracted to a political candidate who is an avowed pro-abortionist.

  • http://www.toddstadler.com/ tODD

    Gee, Carl (@50), I can only wonder who you’re talking about. But at least it’s off-topic. And “claim”? Yes, perhaps I’ve been faking my WELS membership all this time.

    Anyhow, I’ve already addressed your distraction in previous entries’ comments, so feel free to go back and read those if you’re actually interested in what I have to say.

    Meanwhile, for someone who “claims” to be a Lutheran, you have never said one word of gospel that I have read in comments on this blog. Care to disprove that?

  • http://www.toddstadler.com/ tODD

    Gee, Carl (@50), I can only wonder who you’re talking about. But at least it’s off-topic. And “claim”? Yes, perhaps I’ve been faking my WELS membership all this time.

    Anyhow, I’ve already addressed your distraction in previous entries’ comments, so feel free to go back and read those if you’re actually interested in what I have to say.

    Meanwhile, for someone who “claims” to be a Lutheran, you have never said one word of gospel that I have read in comments on this blog. Care to disprove that?

  • Carl Vehse

    Despite the usual leftist spin-doctoring, out-of-context excerpts, and red herrings earlier this week against the evidence of media bias favoring The Obamessiah by the network evening newscasts, the Media Research Center states in its report, “Networks Tilted 10-to-1 In Favor of Obama World Tour”:

    “Compared to a very similar trip by John McCain last March, the ABC, CBS and NBC evening newscasts gave Obama more than ten times the coverage — 92 minutes for the Democrat’s eight-day trip, compared to just eight and a half minutes for the Republican’s seven-day tour.”

    In fact, one network (whose former talking head resigned in disgrace after using a forged document in an attempt to discredit President Bush) gave “more than 34 minutes of Obama coverage during the eight days from July 20 through July 27. Back in March, McCain’s seven-day trip garnered a piddling ten seconds.”

    To this additional evidence of leftist media bias it will be no surprise to see more spin-doctoring, out-of-context excerpts, and red herrings.

  • Carl Vehse

    Despite the usual leftist spin-doctoring, out-of-context excerpts, and red herrings earlier this week against the evidence of media bias favoring The Obamessiah by the network evening newscasts, the Media Research Center states in its report, “Networks Tilted 10-to-1 In Favor of Obama World Tour”:

    “Compared to a very similar trip by John McCain last March, the ABC, CBS and NBC evening newscasts gave Obama more than ten times the coverage — 92 minutes for the Democrat’s eight-day trip, compared to just eight and a half minutes for the Republican’s seven-day tour.”

    In fact, one network (whose former talking head resigned in disgrace after using a forged document in an attempt to discredit President Bush) gave “more than 34 minutes of Obama coverage during the eight days from July 20 through July 27. Back in March, McCain’s seven-day trip garnered a piddling ten seconds.”

    To this additional evidence of leftist media bias it will be no surprise to see more spin-doctoring, out-of-context excerpts, and red herrings.

  • Carl Vehse

    As a result of the MSM’s infatuated reporting of every move and utterance (except his gaffes) of The Obama we now have the report “Poll: Nearly half hearing too much about Obama”.

    Ironically, this comes from major league clymer news agencies, the Associated Press, perhaps prompting the PowerLine blog comment:

    “Maybe this year, at least, the press will play the role of Mephistopheles, who wills evil but does good.”

  • Carl Vehse

    As a result of the MSM’s infatuated reporting of every move and utterance (except his gaffes) of The Obama we now have the report “Poll: Nearly half hearing too much about Obama”.

    Ironically, this comes from major league clymer news agencies, the Associated Press, perhaps prompting the PowerLine blog comment:

    “Maybe this year, at least, the press will play the role of Mephistopheles, who wills evil but does good.”


CLOSE | X

HIDE | X