There's one thing I love about recent Democratic presidents; or should I say, the treatment they receive at the hands of those in the national press who worship at their feet. Before their elections, in the interminable months leading up to their nominations, we are inundated with innumerable references to their vast and nuanced intellectual capacities, lovesongs to their honesty, paeans to their eloquence and tributes to the crystal clear transparency of their administrations; should they deign to bless us with same.
But soon after the inauguration, the media quickly switch from their roles as lionizers to deodorizers; cleaning up after their idols like a mother who follows her children around with wet naps to tidy up any embarrassing accidents her little darlings might inflict on society. It's hard to decide which is worse: their tortured defense of Democrat duplicity or their steadfast refusal to acknowledge it.
It really began with Bill Clinton. The media never blinked an eye at such glaring evasions as "it depends what the meaning of the word 'is' is." And where was the outrage when the draft-dodger-in-chief scaled the heights of hypocrisy with his pernicious claim of executive privilege based on his being head of the military? And what about his various and sundry exploitations of women? You could almost hear them clucking with maternal pride, "Poor little Billy… always in trouble! Well, after all, everybody does it!"
And now they are tasked with marshalling along the career of their latest offspring, Barack Obama; truly the product of their laudatory and worshipful propaganda. We are constantly reminded that he is a paragon of truth and master of elocution, who has but to toss his teleprompter onto the stage to vanquish any and all who dare challenge his abilities as a master communicator and wizard of wordplay. Yet, when this orator of Churchillian proportions speaketh the words "If you've got a business, you didn't build that," his guardians feel the need to change his diapers, as it were.
Of course the first and most predictable response from the media was the thunderous howling that it was taken out of context. Unlike say, the sound of crickets that accompanied a quote that was pointedly and purposely manipulated: Andrea Mitchell's blatant re-editing of Mitt Romney's speech at a Wawa restaurant. In this age of 24/7 blogging and cell phone cameras, it's amazing that the media are so arrogant as to think they can still get away with this nonsense. But such is the impenetrable attitude of Dan Rather and his acolytes.
But what of Obama's actual statement? Can it be that he actually meant what he said in exactly the way he said it? Absolutely. Smooth talking socialists like Obama are fond of pointing out the benefits of building upon common achievements but fail to credit the people or ideas upon which the original structures were founded. They want prosperity for all, but sneer at the market capitalism that has historically produced it; they claim to love freedom, but have little use for our soldiers who defend it; and they are fond of professing love for the rule of law when their radical agenda is advanced by our legal system, but ridicule the religious tenets upon which it is based.
In short, liberal politicians are closely mirrored by their canonizers in the press who proudly cite their First Amendment protections while ignoring those of the rest of us and claim as their divine right an aura of impartiality, while failing miserably to live up to the integrity of their predecessors of only a few short decades ago. And given their lack of on-the-ground research coupled with their unholy reliance on secondary and tertiary sources, they have become little more than op-ed writers posing as real journalists.
But let us not question their work ethic. After all, with the Democratic convention only a few weeks away and tons of exposure for Mr. Biden and Mr. Obama in the offing, there's plenty of babysitting to be done. After all, a man may work from sun to sun but a mother's work is never done.