Barry may be losing the media here in America, but he sure has Der Spiegel in the bag

Anyone who saw Barack Obama at Berlin’s Siegessäule on Thursday could recognize that this man will become the 44th president of the United States. He is more than ambitious — he wants to lay claim to become the president of the world. (massive snip)

George W. Bush is yesterday, the Texas version of the arrogant world power. Obama is all about today — the “everybody really just wants to be brothers and save the world” utopia. As for us, we who sometimes admire and sometimes curse this somewhat anemic, pragmatic democracy, we will have to quickly get used to Barack Obama, the new leader of a lofty democracy that loves those big nice words — words that warm our hearts and alarm our minds.

Let’s allow ourselves to be warmed today, by this man at the Victory Column. Then we’ll take a further look.

The editorial by Gerhard Spörl, chief editor of DER SPIEGEL’s foreign desk, has it all. The idolatry of the Messiah as the savior of all the world, Bush Derangement Syndrome, insulting the South, the Barry Love, and, to end it off, a realization that Barry is all talk, and “what the hell does he really stand for?”

And the New York Times notices Barry’s sweeping rhetoric in a piece entitled Obama, Vague on Issues, Pleases Crowd in Europe

But he was vague on crucial issues of trade, defense and foreign policy that currently divide Washington from Europe and are likely to continue to do so even if he becomes president — issues ranging from Russia, Turkey, Iran and Afghanistan to new refueling tankers and chlorinated chickens, the focus of an 11-year European ban on American poultry imports.

That’s what Barry is about. He’s the kind of guy giving a presentation in a meeting who keeps going on and on and on, and everyone is thinking “can we get to the actual action plans, please?”

I have to mention this bit of slightly off subject BDS foolishness, if you will induldge me

Europeans admire Mr. Obama’s political skills, and welcome his apparent readiness to respect opposing points of view. For many here, that raises the prospect of a sharp break with the policies of the Bush administration, especially in its first term, when the United States chose to ignore the Geneva Conventions at Guantánamo Bay, Cuba, rejected the Kyoto accord on global warming and invaded Iraq, starting a war that some of America’s European allies opposed.

Um, no. Clinton rejected it, as did the Democrat led Senate. Is it possible for the Credentialed Media to get it right? Also, most Americans were against the two massive wars started by Europeans, where we had to come and rescue Europe once they started.

But the Gun Toting Liberal says that Barry blew it.

But, let’s not forget, as Six Meat Buffet puts it, “A taxpayer funded Benetton campaign ad culminating in ditching a visit to US forces stationed in Germany.”

But, good news! Sister Toldjah reports on the Obama campaign using the Berlin stop to raise cash. I recieved the email myself this morning. But, Berlin wasn’t a campaign stop.

But, why did Barry snub the troops? No photo op allowed.

More: It gets better, as David Brooks chimes in on Barry’s sweeping rhetoric and vague ideas

When I first heard this sort of radically optimistic speech in Iowa, I have to confess my American soul was stirred. It seemed like the overture for a new yet quintessentially American campaign.

But now it is more than half a year on, and the post-partisanship of Iowa has given way to the post-nationalism of Berlin, and it turns out that the vague overture is the entire symphony. The golden rhetoric impresses less, the evasion of hard choices strikes one more.

Kumbaya, baby, kumbaya. Perhaps this could explain why so many of the younger crowd is not so thrilled and excited for the elections in November. Even the young folks, who are more entranced by yap yap then actual issues, are starting to get fed up.

As proven by the Credentialed Media. IBD - Putting Money Where Mouths Are: Media Donations Favor Dems 100-1

The New York Times’ refusal to publish John McCain’s rebuttal to Barack Obama’s Iraq op-ed may be the most glaring example of liberal media bias this journalist has ever seen. But true proof of widespread media bias requires one to follow an old journalism maxim: Follow the money.

Even the Associated Press — no bastion of conservatism — has considered, at least superficially, the media’s favoritism for Barack Obama. It’s time to revisit media bias.

True to form, journalists are defending their bias by saying that one candidate, Obama, is more newsworthy than the other. In other words, there is no media bias. It is we, the hoi polloi, who reveal our bias by questioning the neutrality of these learned professionals in their ivory-towered newsrooms.

Wait for it

An analysis of federal records shows that the amount of money journalists contributed so far this election cycle favors Democrats by a 15:1 ratio over Republicans, with $225,563 going to Democrats, only $16,298 to Republicans.

Read the whole thing.

Sa-wing, batter batter batter, sa-wing!

We here at Vanity Fair maintain a kind of affectionate rivalry with our downstairs neighbors at The New Yorker. We play softball every year, compete for some of the same stories, and share an elevator bank. (You can tell the ones who are headed to the 20th floor by their Brooklyn pallor and dog-eared paperbacks.)

And heaven knows we’ve published our share of scandalous images, on the cover and otherwise. So we’ve been watching the kerfuffle over last week’s New Yorker cover with a mixture of empathy and better-you-than-us relief.

We had our own presidential campaign cover in the works, which explored a different facet of the Politics of Fear, but we shelved it when The New Yorker’s became the “It Girl” of the blogosphere. Now, however, in a selfless act of solidarity with our downstairs neighbors here at the Condé Nast building, we’d like to share it with you. Confidentially, of course. (I hate to excerpt the whole thing, but, it is only three paragraphs long.

And what does the cover look like?

Click for full size

I suppose it would be easy to pitch a fit over portraying Cindy McCain as a druggie, we see the burning Constitution, McCain with the walker, but, why bother? People in politics have to have thick skins.

The point here is that Vanity Fair has completely missed the point of the The New Yorker cover, which was intended to make fun of people on the right (and Hillary supporters!) who were painting Obama as a Muslim, Michelle as …. well, you know the deal. So, instead of putting the cover out there as making fun of the Liberal talking points, which are portrayed, VF is making fun of TNY and McCain.

Far be it for me to say that Liberals just don’t get it, but, screw it, they just don’t get it. Reality Based Community. Strike 3!

See tons more at Memeorandum.

Early morning thought: will those on the Port side accuse Obama of going to Iraq for a photo op? IHT - Media stars will accompany Obama overseas

Senator John McCain’s trip to Iraq last spring was a low-key affair: With his ordinary retinue of reporters following him abroad, the NBC News anchor Brian Williams reported on his arrival in Baghdad from New York, with just two sentences tacked onto the “in other political news” portion of his newscast.

But when Obama heads for Iraq and other locations overseas this summer, Williams is planning to catch up with him in person, as are the other two evening news anchors, Charles Gibson of ABC and Katie Couric of CBS, who, like Williams, are far along in discussions to interview Obama on successive nights.

And while the anchors are jockeying for interviews with Obama at stops along his route, the regulars on the Obama campaign plane will have new seat mates: star political reporters from the major newspapers and magazines who are flocking to catch Obama’s first overseas trip since becoming the presumptive nominee of his party.

I wonder if Obama will have any time to meet with the commanders and troops on the ground? WIll he have some preconditions to meet with General Patreaus? How many photos will they have that make it look like he is wearing a halo? Will Katie Couric ask Obama what’s on his iPod? Will Barry find time to talk to the “insurgents?”

The extraordinary coverage of Obama’s trip reflects how the candidate remains an object of fascination in the news media, a built-in feature of being the first African-American presidential nominee for a major political party and a relative newcomer to the national stage.

Well, not completely. If it was Hillary, or Biden, or Dodd, or any of the other myriad Democrats who were the presumptive nominee, the media would be fawning virtually the same way.

Interestingly, the International Herald Tribune discusses something most media outlets won’t: the appearance of massive bias in the media towards Barry.

All in all, how pompous will this trip make Obama look?

While the Grey Lady keeps up with their “just wondering” line of attacks on John McCain, as well as outright attacks barely disguised as journalism, they give us balanced pieces like this

In the breathless weeks before the Oregon presidential primary in May, Martha Shade did what thousands of other people here did: she registered as a Democrat so she could vote for Senator Barack Obama.

Now, however, after critics have accused Mr. Obama of shifting positions on issues like the war in Iraq, the Bush administration’s program of wiretapping without warrants, gun control and the death penalty — all in what some view as a shameless play to a general election audience — Ms. Shade said she planned to switch back to the Green Party.

“I’m disgusted with him,” said Ms. Shade, an artist. “I can’t even listen to him anymore. He had such an opportunity, but all this ‘audacity of hope’ stuff, it’s blah, blah, blah. For all the independents he’s going to gain, he’s going to lose a lot of progressives.”

Now we get to the point of the story

As Ms. Shade herself noted, while alarm may be spreading among some Obama supporters, whether left-wing bloggers or purists holding Mr. Obama’s feet to the fire on one issue or another, the reaction among others has been less than outrage.

For all the idealism and talk of transformation that Mr. Obama has brought to the Democratic Party — he managed to draw a crowd of more than 70,000 here in May — there is also a wide streak of pragmatism, even among many grass-roots activists, in a party long vexed by factionalism.

“We’re frustrated by it, but we understand,” said Mollie Ruskin, 22, who grew up in Baltimore and is spending the summer here as a fellow with Politicorps, a program run by the Bus Project, a local nonprofit that trains young people to campaign for progressive candidates. “He’s doing it so he can get into office and do the things he believes in.”

Moral of the story: it is OK that Barry has lied and will continue to lie in order to get power. Democrats in a nutshell.

Nate Gulley, 23, who grew up in Cleveland and is also here as a Politicorps fellow, said too much was being made of Mr. Obama’s every move.

“It’s important not to get swept up in ‘Is Obama posturing?’ ” Mr. Gulley said. “It’s self-evident that he’s a different kind of candidate.”

How? What makes him different? The fact that not only is he the most liberal/progressive person to ever run for President? Or that he is simply the most inexperienced? Or, he is the candidate who will lie the most?

Sidenote: the Times repeats the truthiness about those 75K people coming to see Barry speak, rather then for the concert.

Yeah, I am a bit late to the party been kinda iBusy.

Way back on the February 8, 2008, I caught some Lefties whining about McCain’s birth, and whether that made him inneligible to become President. I said it would become the next lefty meme.

Then the NY Times tried it on for size. They were “just wondering.” And Lefties have been pushing on that meme ever since.

Now, the Times tries it yet again

In the most detailed examination yet of Senator John McCain’s eligibility to be president, a law professor at the University of Arizona has concluded that neither Mr. McCain’s birth in 1936 in the Panama Canal Zone nor the fact that his parents were American citizens is enough to satisfy the constitutional requirement that the president must be a “natural-born citizen.”

The analysis, by Prof. Gabriel J. Chin, focused on a 1937 law that has been largely overlooked in the debate over Mr. McCain’s eligibility to be president. The law conferred citizenship on children of American parents born in the Canal Zone after 1904, and it made John McCain a citizen just before his first birthday. But the law came too late, Professor Chin argued, to make Mr. McCain a natural-born citizen.

“It’s preposterous that a technicality like this can make a difference in an advanced democracy,” Professor Chin said. “But this is the constitutional text that we have.”

OK. Sure. Whatever.

Back to my first post

McCain was born at Coco Solo Air Base in the Panama Canal Zone, August 29, 1936. Unfortunately for liberals, the Panama Canal Zone was a U.S. Territory from 1903 to 1979 (thanks, Carter!), so, any person born there was automatically considered a U.S. citizen, except if born to foreign diplomatic personnel. Woops!

It just goes to show the lengths liberals will go to gain power. Lie, cheat, make shat up.

Sister Toldjah: Could the NYT be more obvious in its repeated attempts at casting doubts on McCain’s natural born US citizen status?

James Joyner: Frankly, it might be time to simply fix the Constitution in the manner the Framers intended: by amendment. It’s wholly unclear to me why all of the restrictions on whom Americans may elect president (age, citizenship, number of years previously served) shouldn’t be swept away.

Funniest headline of the day: NY Times - McCain Plan to Aid States on Health Could Be Costly

 Health economists say it could take untold billions to transform the patchwork of programs into a viable federal safety net. The McCain campaign has made only a rough calculation of how many billions would be needed and has not identified a source for the financing beyond savings from existing programs. Finding the money will only get more difficult now that Mr. McCain has pledged to balance the federal budget by 2013, which already requires a significant reduction in the growth of spending.

Mr. McCain’s proposal stands in sharp relief to that of his Democratic rival, Senator Barack Obama of Illinois, who wants to require insurers to accept all applicants, regardless of their health. That is now the law in five states, including New York and New Jersey.

Nice try, Grey Lady. The Times just gives us the phrase “untold billions,” and that is to transform the existing programs. Hmm, I guess they missed the stories of how Obama’s plan will cost $50-$65 billion per year.

But, hey, it does get better. Kevin Sack, who wrote the Times story, probably should have checked with board of loons member Paul Krugman first

Mr. Gruber finds that a plan without mandates, broadly resembling the Obama plan, would cover 23 million of those currently uninsured, at a taxpayer cost of $102 billion per year. An otherwise identical plan with mandates would cover 45 million of the uninsured — essentially everyone — at a taxpayer cost of $124 billion. Over all, the Obama-type plan would cost $4,400 per newly insured person, the Clinton-type plan only $2,700.

Woops.

You just know that the Grey Lady is dying to question the timing, but had to soft shoe around it, and call it “fortuitous”

 Senator John McCain congratulated President Alvaro Uribe of Colombia on Wednesday for the Colombian government’s rescue of 15 hostages, including three Americans, held by the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia, or FARC, a Marxist-inspired insurgency that Mr. McCain repeatedly criticized this week during a trip to Latin America.

“This is great news,” Mr. McCain told reporters on his campaign plane enroute to Mexico City from Cartagena, Colombia, after Mr. Uribe called Mr. McCain in the air to inform him of the success of the operation. “Thank God they are released.”

The timing of the rescue, which occurred while Mr. McCain was in Colombia, was in many ways a fortuitous turn of events for a presidential candidate who is using a three-day trip to South America and Mexico to try to show that he is a more agile foreign policy hand than his Democratic competitor, Senator Barack Obama. Although the timing of the rescue was a coincidence and Mr. McCain’s trip to Colombia had nothing to do with it, the event nonetheless put him in the middle of classified talks about covert operations with the head of another government.

I think we need to have some sort of congressional hearing over this! Maybe another one of those basement ones by John Conyers with the Be A Judge! playset from Toys R Us.

Update: Allahpundit catches MSNBC soft toeing the “question the timing” meme which is going around the left-o-sphere.

Whew! A big kerfuffle in the ’sphere today is over a comment that John McCain made, as pushed by Think Progress - McCain: I ‘Don’t See How It Matters’ That I Don’t Know The Price Of Gas, from the original story at the OC Register

WICKSOL: When was the last time you pumped your own gas and how much did it cost?

MCCAIN: Oh, I don’t remember. Now there’s Secret Service protection. But I’ve done it for many, many years. I don’t recall and frankly, I don’t see how it matters.

I’ve had hundreds and hundreds of town hall meetings, many as short a time ago as yesterday. I communicate with the people and they communicate with me very effectively.

And, of course, Think Progress, as well as many other lefties, such as the Huffington Post and Balloon Juice, and even some of those on the right (at least originally), bought in to the line of thinking that McCain is divorced from reality, and has no clue about the cost of gas. (See a ton of links at Memeorandum)

In fact, is it a question, which was coming not from the reporter, but one that was sent in by an OC Register reader. And, does it really matter? Sure, as James Joyner points out, he could have answered better, but, it is exactly the type of question that Obama rarely answers, says is a distraction, and is let off the hook on. Second, see that part about the Secret Service? That is because he was doing the interview over the phone after just getting off a plane, and was waiting for the USSS to get going. So, yup, he was in a bit of a hurry.

I’d like to ask how many people in a lot of states pump their own gas. Quite a few states do not allow you to. And, when was the last time you did it yourself? Me, a couple days ago, but, guess what? Can’t remember exactly which one.

But, there is also another pretty good reason for the answer, given later in the interview

I’ve been on the campaign trail for so long I don’t remember when I last filled up my own gas tank, but I certainly did for many, many, many years and I understand the difficulties and challenges that it poses for the people of California and my home state of Arizona.

Oops. Guess Think Progress forgot that one!

And, as Patterico points out

So, does John McCain know the cost of a gallon of gas in America? Yes, he does. Here’s a news story from June 18:

“The price of a gallon of gas in America stands at more than four dollars. Yesterday, a barrel of oil cost about 134 dollarsm” said McCain.

Again, that McCain quote is from June 18 — six days before the O.C. Register interview that Think Progress uses to claim McCain doesn’t know the price of gas.

He recommends you post the quote in bold at every blog who got it wrong.

Brought to you by the same folks who have published national security programs designed to defend the United States from terrorist attacks, and were asked by the White House and Congress members of both parties to not publish, the NY Times provides the name of a CIA interrogator so that al Qaeda knows who to look for, along with his family, to torture and kill

The interrogator, Deuce Martinez, a soft-spoken analyst who spoke no Arabic, had turned down a C.I.A. offer to be trained in waterboarding. He chose to leave the infliction of pain and panic to others, the gung-ho paramilitary types whom the more cerebral interrogators called “knuckledraggers.” (snip)

Mr. Martinez declined to be interviewed; his role was described by colleagues. Gen. Michael V. Hayden, director of the C.I.A., and a lawyer representing Mr. Martinez asked that he not be named in this article, saying that the former interrogator believed that the use of his name would invade his privacy and might jeopardize his safety. The New York Times, noting that Mr. Martinez had never worked undercover and that others involved in the campaign against Al Qaeda have been named in news articles and books, declined the request. (An editors’ note on this issue has been posted on The Times’s Web site.)

Apparently, the Times feels that it is OK to play semantic games which put Martinez and his family in mortal harm simply for a story about KSM’s interrogation. I notice that the Times was in high outrage over the release of Valerie Plame’s name, which had been featured on Joe Wilson’s Who’s Who web page, despite her being a staff officer working at CIA headquarters, and not having been undercover for over 5 years.

For the most part, if they had just left Martinez’s name out of it, it would be a good story. But

(From the Editors Note) The newspaper seriously considered the requests from Mr. Martinez and the agency. But in view of the experience of other government employees who have been named publicly in books and published articles or who have themselves chosen to go public, the newspaper made the decision to print the name.

Will the Times take responsibility if something happens to him and/or his family? Freedom of the Press does not mean they can put someone in mortal danger. BTW, since Martinez was working undercover in a foreign nation, possibly within the last 5 years, doesn’t that mean he is covered by the Intelligence Identities Protection Act?

See Dubya: Like hell I’ll link these worthless blackhearted anti-American ass-grommets.

Allahpundit: Too bad, because an otherwise fascinating story about the scramble to build a counterterror apparatus after 9/11, the merits of coercive vs. non-coercive interrogation, and the stings that nailed Abu Zubaydah and KSM is going to be submerged in a debate over their decision to publish the lead interrogator’s name against his wishes and those of CIA chief Michael Hayden.

Fausta: ….tells us that the NYT has revealed the full name of the CIA man who managed to get Khalid Shaikh Mohammed to talk. Funny how the Times and other media were full of outrage when Valerie Plame, who used to drive into the CIA parking lot every morning with the top down of her Mercedes, was “outed”, but they have no problem in outing anyone else employed by the CIA.

Macsmind: The identity of CIA employee is classified, and although illegal under the Intelligence Identities Protections ACT, the CIA did ask that his name not be published. Therefore the Ny Times is in legal jeopardy for publishing his name.

Six Meat Buffet: Valerie Plame was a desk jockey but Martinez was actually out in the field interrogating the planners of 9/11. I hope the Congressional investigations will start shortly into these traitors who claim to have agonized over this decision to intentionally putting this man at risk.

Flopping Aces: Yes, if only he were an “undercover” operative like Valerie Plame Wilson. Then the NY Times would have kept him anonymous. [/sarcasm]

Gateway Pundit: this time by releasing the name of the CIA interrogator in their article on the interrogation of Khalid Shaikh Mohammed the Times has put the interrogator and his family in grave danger.

For an opposing view, Talk Left thinks outing Martinez is a great thing, vis a vis releasing Martinez’s name (and is also trying to smear Martinez for being a former “Narcotics officer”: Good for the Times.

Crossed at Pirate’s Cove and Right Wing News.