To be sure, I am not interested in popular songs. I refer to them as a metaphor for today’s political process. As we saw last year, success in politics can be achieved when a politician becomes the equivalent of the pop star. President Obama’s speeches are without classical substance – yet his popularity cannot be denied. Whatever your political persuasion, it must be admitted that America’s new leader titillates as he entices. What is the basis of this popularity? There are two primary factors at work: (1) Obama is attractive and well-suited to television; (2) the spread of certain ideas and cultural tendencies paved his way to power.

The first point reminds me of a passage from Neil Postman’s book, Amusing Ourselves to Death: Public Discourse in the Age of Show Business. Because images are primary and words are secondary on television, the medium itself turns everything into entertainment. As television has become the chief medium of politics, it is only natural that the central figure of televised politics should be likened to a pop star. Consider, noted Postman, “how you would proceed if you were given the opportunity to produce a television news show for any station concerned to attract the largest possible audience. You would, first, choose a cast of players, each of whom has a face that is both ‘likable’ and ‘credible.’”

According to Postman, some faces “are not suitable” for television. “This means that you will exclude women who are not beautiful or who are over the age of fifty, men who are bald, all people who are overweight or whose noses are too long or whose eyes are too close together.” As Postman goes on to explain, “It is frightening to think that this may be so, that the perception of the truth of a report rests heavily on the acceptability of the newscaster.” In point of fact, television, as the central medium of our time, eliminates serious consideration of issues and replaces this consideration with a popularity contest in which the attractiveness of a person – of a personality – becomes the alpha and the omega.

There is something more, as well, that relates to the second factor at work: the spread of certain ideas and cultural tendencies. Modern society has become, over time, increasingly permissive and lax. We have adopted ideas and behaviors that our grandparents would have shuddered at. And our grandparents were not stupid; for they survived the Great Depression and won the Second World War. They understood – for as long as they ruled – how to avoid another depression and yet another world war. The same cannot be said for today’s ruling generation, which itself is ruled by television (and by the permissive notions that have everywhere crept into popular thinking).

As a simple exercise, compare today’s pop star politician to a statesman. Is he more powerful, more effective than the old-style politician, or is he less effective? This week President Obama was in Moscow, and he impressed the average Russian – though the Russian government found him tedious. As one diplomat observed privately, Russia gave nothing away at the arms reduction talks, but the Americans mistakenly think otherwise. Of course, Obama wanted to finally put aside the last vestiges of the Cold War. This is hardly original. In fact, Kremlin leaders are slightly annoyed; for they are building yet another generation of nuclear weapons as an ongoing project, while the Americans let their weapons fall into disrepair. Real nuclear disarmament is out of the question. For them America is the “main enemy,” and war is being prepared. But Russia’s leaders are beginning to wonder if the Americans are a proper enemy at all.

How many American presidents have come and gone, each arriving in Moscow to put aside the last vestiges of the Cold War? The first go-round was charming. The humorless and earnest continuance of the process is like a bad tune that keeps cycling through your head. The joke in Moscow is that Putin prefers George W. Bush. The KGB looks back with nostalgia on the visits of Ronald Reagan and Margaret Thatcher. “Can we get Thatcher?” Putin asked a Russian diplomat the other day. According to Thatcher’s daughter Carol, the former British prime minister has difficulty finishing sentences, doesn’t know her own address, and recently forgot that her husband Denis had passed away. But yes! Let us have Thatcher! At least she was a serious person!

President Obama wants all nuclear weapons to be eliminated in every country. The Russians cannot believe their ears. Is he stupid? Does he understand what he is saying? American military power sits on a nuclear foundation, and the U.S. president wants to remove the foundation? This catches the Kremlin short. Perhaps it’s a trick. Perhaps the Americans have a new super-weapon. On the other hand, look at how the U.S. economy is failing. Is Moscow preparing for war against the wrong country? Are the Americans worthwhile enemies at all? Whatever happened to presidents like John F. Kennedy, who championed a stronger nuclear arsenal?

The late James Burnham was not a pop star, and his take on nuclear disarmament deserves to be quoted. “The past century has been studded with proposals for partial or total disarmament. These are a derivative, in one root, of spreading pacifist sentiment. The idea of doing away with lethal weapons is, one might say, the lazy mind’s road to peace.”

Which is why this particular tune qualifies as a “hit.”

“The narcissist is a coward, terrified of his True Self and protective of the deceit that is his new existence. He feels no pain. He feels no love. He feels no life.

The narcissist (Obambi) is aware of his propensity to lose everything that could have been of value, meaning, and significance in his life. If he is inclined to magical thinking and alloplastic defences, he blames life, or fate, or country, or his boss, or his nearest and dearest for his uninterrupted string of losses. Otherwise, he attributes it to people’s inability to cope with his outstanding talents, towering intellect, or rare abilities. His losses, he convinces himself, are the outcomes of pettiness, pusillanimity, envy, malice, and ignorance.”

The Losses of the Narcissist – Sam Vaknin

- George W. Bush, June 2001″

A lot has happened since 2001. What is Obama’s excuse

The fake troll Kim Zigfeld (if you look her up, you’ll find ’she’ does not exist as anything by the fevered outgrowth of somebody’s mad imagination, just like much of what ’she’ writes) won’t answer this question. Or any other sensible questions

This site is perfect self-parody, I have to give it that. And you still publish this pseudonymous PR project called “Kim Zigfeld” who used to publish in Russia! magazine. Go look up the owners of that magazine–they have ties to the Kremlin, and were behind the takeover of the Russian internet. If you don’t understand Russian corruption and cynicism, you can’t understand the game that this “Kim Zigfeld” project is playing. Sorry, folks.

The long-term funding of the Chicago New Party pays off, probably happened easier than they thought. Acorn, Hayden and ayers hooked up with soros funding.

Che-O is easy to see but how they seized the dems in congress especially the blue dogs is a mystery to be revealed.

But it is not over.

This this very article, the title of which is: “Obama’s Moscow Retreat –
The president showed the Russians equivocation and weakness. The ball is now in the GOP’s court.” But into the article itself, you find this jewel of an admission:

“Before even arriving in Moscow, Obama had seemed to set a genuinely new foreign policy tone that offered the possibility of reestablishing American moral leadership. Where George Bush met with and honored Putin’s homicidal goons in the White House — namely Chechnya war criminal General Vladimir Shamanov, who also led the Russian invasion and annexation of Abkhazia last August — Obama offered defiance of neo-Soviet aggression.”

Obama and Medvedev met on Monday and announced a ‘framework agreement’ on cutting nuclear weapons. The agreement works overwhelmingly in America’s favor.”

So Obama did good, but admitting that would amount to treason, so you have to spin it any which way you can to somehow still make him look bad.

Your long vilified “MSM” boogieman on its worst day (not counting Fox News, which I count as a right wing nut house) still had 10x the journalistic integrity of this BS that’s so typical than not of the so called “new media”.

Y’all need to huddle and get your Bush story straight.