Desperately Seeking Significance: At "Obama's" Nuremberg Rally

by Nicholas Stix

While covering Barry Dunham/Soetoro/Barack Hussein Obama's Nuremberg rally tonight, CNN keeps flashing banal numbers on the screen, seeking to hype them into signicance. Thus, we learn that 14 percent of the delegates are 36 or under, and "almost 17 percent of the delegates are senior citizens 65 years of age or older." This is supposed to tell us that Dunham/Soetoro/Obama/Whoever is bringing together the youth and the senior citizens.

Let's do some subtraction. Less the "youth" and the "senior citizens," 69 percent of the delegates are between 37 and 64 years of age. How is this breakdown demographically unusual? And those 36 and 65 year olds are wealthy, connected people.

Before that, a white Omamanoid employed by CNN (in earlier versions, I assumed he was a Dunham/Soetoro/Obama/Whoever staffer), maybe 48-50 years old, with a helmet of silver hair and a football in his hand (old jock?), intoned, "If Barack Obama accepts the Democratic nomination tonight, he will literally change the face of American politics."

"If"? Is this brain-dead head of hair trying to inject drama into this choreographed-to-death event, as if anything isn't going to go according to script?

Helmet-head and some black Obamanoids also praised "the organization" going back to the beginning, and gushed about "the text-messaging." This is apparently supposed to make The Dunham/Soetoro/Obama Show seem young, hip, and spontaneous.

Obsessive text-messaging is for children, and those who would manipulate them.

Yes, by all means, let us emphasize the organization and the text-messaging.

It takes a middle-aged, white heterosexual male campaign consultant like David Axelrod, to fashion a properly anti-white-heterosexual- male political campaign.

An Obamanoid emphasizes that Obama's acceptance speech will constantly talk about America and barely mention the world. This is supposed to rope in the "stupid white people," you know, the ones who "cling to guns and religion" in places like Pennsylvania and Ohio, who are going to suddenly see in this traitor a homespun, patriotic, Amurrican hero.

CNN emphasizes that "Colorado elected a Democratic Senator in 2004 ands a Democratic governor in 2006": Change! I have a dream! I have a dream today!

(The truth is that in Dick Lamm and Roy Romer, Colorado had Democratic governors for 24 consecutive years, from 1975-1999. Nice try, CNN.)

Wolf Blitzer is repeatedly tying in MLK. He tells us that "coincidentally," today is the anniversary of MLK's "I Have a Dream" speech.

David Gergen, auditioning for a job in a Dunham/Soetoro/Obama White House, insists, "Race is an issue in this campaign...."

For weeks, Gergen has combined the parroting of D/S/O talking points with his own campaign to get back in the West Wing, by emphasizing how much more racially enlightened he is than millions of puportedly racist white Americans.

"The diversity ... we're seeing is the future," but whites may not yet be ready for it.

And if the Great Black Hope should lose, Gergen has covered his butt, and will be guaranteed future TV analyst work. It's a win-win situation.

Meanwhile, Jeffrey Toobin emphasizes that The One is not comparing himself to MLK, other people are doing it. Toobin thus wants us to give The One credit for being like MLK, and give him credit for modesty for having flunkies to make the allusions and comparisons.

Tenured racist Michael Eric Dyson says that King's speech was great for anyone else, but a bit "wooden" for King -- "A 'C' for Martin."

Dyson conjures up a racial fairy tale, whereby King had been speaking, and suddenly Mahalia Jackson called on him to do better, "and he threw away the script," and spontaneously produced the "I Have a Dream" passages.

Bull...oney! They weren't even King's words, let alone spontaneously spoken. He plagiarized them from a speech the Rev. Archibald Carey gave at the 1952 Republican National Convention. That's why none of the marchers at the Lincoln Memorial that day in 1963 caught his plagiarism--they were all socialists and communists!

I have to agree with Dyson on one thing, however. King's speeches before black groups, with no live TV hookups were much better, because he didn't have to throw in phony quotables for the white folks that King didn't for one second believe, like the nonsense about being judged by "the content of one's character" instead of the color of one's skin.

As one black Obamanoid emphasized, the name of the 1963 march included "jobs." He failed to note, however, that those jobs were for blacks, and blacks alone.