In so far as the usual suspects will doubtless try and cite yesterday's kicking as proof that Obama is just damn too smart for those stoopid Americans, it's worth having a look at this post over at the WSJ:

Yet Hartman's remark about Obama's "academic background" is revealing. Professors imagine Obama is one of them because he shares their attitudes: their politically correct opinions, their condescending view of ordinary Americans, their belief in their own authority as an intellectual elite. He is the ideal product of the homogeneous world of contemporary academia. In his importance, they see a reflection of their self-importance.

Kloppenberg's thesis reminds us of another elaborate attempt at explaining Obama: Dinesh D'Souza's "The Roots of Obama's Rage." D'Souza, like Kloppenberg, imputes to Obama a coherent philosophy, in D'Souza's case "anticolonialism." It is a needlessly elaborate explanation for an unremarkable set of facts.

Occam's razor suggests that Obama is a mere conformist--someone who absorbed every left-wing platitude he encountered in college and never seems to have seriously questioned any of them. Kloppenberg characterizes Obama as a skeptic, not a true believer. We're not sure he has an active enough mind to be either one.

All of which sounds strangely familiar.

The British MSM has slaughtered thousands of innocent trees to try and prove that our own Messiah is a Certified Super Genius, yet what does the term 'Cameronism' actually evoke? Endless triangulation, bleeding into outright capitulation, for sure. Epic narcissism plus entitlement? Of course. But actual ideas? Nada.

Liberalism: Where Even The Intellectuals Are Morons

Yep, it's a real mystery why the right doesn't respect our self-appointed intellectual class.

IF YOU liked George W. Bush, it wasn't because of his brain

Say, would that be Yale grad, Harvard MBA, ex-fighter pilot George W Bush? 'Cause I'm thinking that the whole 'facts' thing used to be kind of important in science.

Then again, you'd think intellectuals would be familiar with the fallacy of begging the question:

The Bush administration's extensively documented attacks on science (discussed in my book The Republican War on Science, among other places), and his exaltation of Jesus as his "favourite philosopher", further cemented the idea that here was not a mind to be respected.

Hey, did I sleep through the bit where we decided that liberals incessantly claiming something makes it true? Creationism is 'extensively documented' too. But it gets better:

Add to that the malapropisms, the apparent uneasiness with any kind of verbal improvisation, and the scripted debating, and one could easily conclude the US was being governed by the consummate anti-intellectual.

Well, at least that's over with!

I'd love to ask Freud what he made of this strange desire amongst liberals to pay fulsome tribute to the genius of Captain 57 even in the teeth of all the evidence? Then again, I wouldn't understand him anyway - I don't speak Austrian.

But don't go thinking that this guy is merely ignorant of current affairs. He's ignorant of history too. That's why we get this:

As expertise grew in stature in an increasingly science-dominated world, smarts came to be resented - at least in the eyes of the burgeoning modern conservative movement: its adherents saw intellectuals putting themselves above everybody else, speaking with dripping disdain and walling themselves off in ivory towers where their liberal politics made them even more suspect. This is very much what the Reagan revolution was all about, and George W. Bush was its heir.

Considering that the 1980s was the decade when the American economy boomed and the USSR went bang, just think what could have happened if Reagan hadn't been such a moron?

On the other hand, maybe the Reagan boom came about precisely because Ronaldus Magnus was up to speed on the latest thinking in economics, even while his supposed betters were still firmly mired in the intellectual equivalent of British Leyland....

Hmmm, where are these 'smarts' parked anyway? And isn't there something ridiculous about a guy whining about anti-intellectualism even while he calls a fighter pilot stoopid! I guess flying a fighter must be easy, or they'd teach it at university, right?

That's point number one right there. All this talk about how supa smart these people are is strictly blathersgate. "Smart' maps exactly to 'leftist'. But there's more to it than that:

John McCain and Sarah Palin certainly did try out the rhetoric of anti-intellectualism on Obama. Palin mocked the fact that he'd made much of his personal wealth through the sale of books and sneered at research on fruit flies and grizzly bears in a bid to make science sound like a self-indulgent pursuit that spends money but doesn't produce anything useful.

Actually, this is one for the intellectuals (real ones): is it ironic, or just stupid, that people who jabber endlessly about their 'smarts' come up with such moronic arguments? Maybe they ought to research getting some new lines? Never mind that Palin mocked Obama because his books were all about himself, complaining about calling researchers self-indulgent would work better if it wasn't followed by approvingly quoting this:

If the message makes its way through the vacuous, dollar-driven media, Obama will have changed America

Yep: Nasty old dollars. Fancy producing stuff people actually choose to spend their money on. Far better to be a taxpayer-funded parasite.

This is point two. Not only is the whole distinction between smart people and idiots every bit as scientific as gossip columnists drawing up lists of who's hot and who's not, it betrays an underlying contempt for the public at large.

You can talk all you want about the need for blue skies basic research, how the space program produced teflon and how studying the sex lives of dung beetles could lead to a cure for the Welsh and how.... No, enough already. They truly believe that producing stuff that people want is squalid and demeaning and, as a corollary to that, that they - the enlightened! - have the right to waste other people's money on scientific stamp collecting.

See, that's the bottom line. The right isn't attacking science. We just don't believe in paying good money to support the self-indulgent hobbies of an incestuous cesspit of bigoted loonies.

Liberals In Hell

Heh. The Obamamessiah has cited Sir Winston as proof that nations don't need to use torture in time of war. Libs just won't know what to do. They've been trying to push the 'Churchill as war criminal' line for years. No wonder the Guardian's commenters are having a melt down.

Lost Without Trace

Could the BBC's slobbering love affair with The One get any more ludicrous?

That's not to say the Obamamessiah doesn't have his own...uh...style:







The BBC: the Special Olympics of journalism.

UPDATE:

Even the Guardian is mocking the Obamamessiah now, and then there's this:



UPDATE II:

Oh yeah - here's the video that inspired that Guardian article:

Victim in Chief

Ann Coulter has a new book out and it makes a great point about one of the strangest perversions of modern culture. In less than two generations we've gone from a society which celebrates the guy who scores the winner in the FA Cup Final to one that celebrates the guy cruelly robbed of his chance to play for Chelsea just because he's a paraplegic.

The ultimate in liberal victimhood worship though is the Obamamessiah. The left spent years fantasising about Bush being assassinated, but as soon as The One was elected, they switched to Obama murder fantasises. Of course. Just because their loony messiah is the most powerful man on Earth doesn't mean he still can't claim victimhood, albeit pre-emptively.

Say, Did Something Happen Today?

Given the MSM's coverage today, it's a wonder they didn't just borrow a line from 'Flash Gordon' and announce 'all beings shall make merry under pain of death'. On the plus side, this does mean the week after the death of Princess Di is no longer the stupidest moment in modern pop culture.

The BBC in particular rose to the occasion, with even the regional news managing to feature interviews with various race hustlers claiming to be inspired by 'The One' - although none apparently inspired enough to get a job in the private sector.

By the way, in case you're wondering: no, none of these Obama-supporting blacks gave any, specific policy-based reasons why they supported him and, no, that wasn't commented on either.

Of course, the left's sudden respect for racial block-voting is only as weird as their decision that, actually, dissent isn't the highest form of patriotism after all. Apparently, everyone in the world wishes The One well in his mission to screw up America.

Whatever concessions Obama makes to political pragmatism, he is still - as exemplified by his 'bitter, clingers' line - an outright Marxist. At the least, Obama's vision of America is just Europe with better movies. Why would anyone on the right want him to succeed?

Still, on the plus side, at least the Obamamessiah has managed to restore America's position in the world.

'Cult'? What Cult?

Wacedemia plus the Obamamessiah? You know it's going to be good!

Today's 'Non-Cult' News

But wait... I thought every day was a holiday in the new era?

The Obamamessiah Meets Spinal Tap!

There's a fine line between arrogance and self-parody, and the Chosen One might just have crossed it.

The comments are a scream too.

Obamamessiah Latest

In so far as we've about eight years now of the MSM ramming hilarious - not really - Bushisms down our throats, you'd think Obama's verbal diarrhoea would be worth the odd comment.

Just this week we've had the uncle in the Red Army....

Then there's the dead rising screw up.

Note that second one. Unlike Bushisms, which prove Dubya is barely coherent, but not much else, Obama's gaffes frequently suggest a more profound ignorance of basic facts. Which may be why he comes out with loopy policies like this.