Democrats Begin to Fear Super Obama
By Gary DeMar
“President Barack Obama’s decision to launch his own political organization has some Democrats wondering: Is he just in it for himself?”
Welcome to the Fear Super Obama club. The Frankenstein story comes to mind. Beware what you create; the monster might turn on you.
Of course Obama is in it for himself. He’s waited decades to get back at the United States.
President Obama has created Organizing for Action, an organization that “will focus on his policy agenda – not on electing Democratic candidates – by raising unlimited amounts of cash and accessing the president’s secret list of 20 million supporters, volunteers and donors.”
Here’s the kicker. The newly formed organization “won’t share money, resources or the priceless Obama email list with the Democratic National Committee or campaign committees that help elect members of Congress, governors and legislators.”
Supporters of Obama “worry that it will take money and manpower away from the party as it heads into the 2014 elections for control of Congress.”
Obama is looking beyond 2016. He’s beginning to believe what his followers believe about him, that he’s the people’s savior. He’s nothing of the sort. But they believe he is, and that’s all that matters. It’s not surprising that an Adolf Hitler or a Hugo Chavez could come to power by the will of the people when we read stories like the following:
“Appearing on Sunday night’s Soul Train awards in Las Vegas, Oscar-winning actor Jamie Foxx called Barack Obama ‘our lord and savior.’
“‘It’s like church over here. It’s like church in here. First of all, give an honor to God and our lord and savior Barack Obama. Barack Obama,’ he said.”
It’s been said that the rejection of one God only results in the creation of another God.
**Written by Gary DeMar**
Progressives/Marxists Meet to Plan a Massive New Liberal Plan to Remake American Politics….Then Ten Days Later Obama Announces his New Organizing for Action… Coincidence?
AP: OBAMA ‘LIMITING PRESS ACCESS IN WAYS THAT PAST ADMINISTRATIONS WOULDN’T HAVE DARED’
April 1, 2013
WASHINGTON (AP) — A photo of the Obamas hugging that was released on Election Day 2012 has become the world’s most popular tweet on Twitter. A dressed-up version of Barack Obama’s State of the Union speech, packed with charts and graphs, is huge on YouTube. A playful picture of the president cavorting with a 3-year-old in a Spiderman costume is a favorite online.
It’s all courtesy of the Obama image machine, serving up a stream of words, images and videos that invariably cast the president as commanding, compassionate and on the ball. In this world, Obama’s family is always photogenic, first dog Bo is always well-behaved and the vegetables in the South Lawn kitchen garden always seem succulent.
You’ll have to look elsewhere for bloopers, bobbles or contrary points of view.
Capitalizing on the possibilities of the digital age, the Obama White House is generating its own content like no president before, and refining its media strategies in the second term in hopes of telling a more compelling story than in the first.
At the same time, it is limiting press access in ways that past administrations wouldn’t have dared, and the president is answering to the public in more controlled settings than his predecessors. It’s raising new questions about what’s lost when the White House tries to make an end run around the media, functioning, in effect, as its own news agency.
Mike McCurry, who served as press secretary to President Bill Clinton, sees an inclination by the Obama White House to “self-publish,” coupled with tactics “I never would have dreamed of in terms of restricting access” for independent news organizations.
“What gets lost are those revealing moments when the president’s held accountable by the representatives of the public who are there in the form of the media,” says McCurry.
Obama himself took note of complaints about limited access in his jokes last month at the Gridiron dinner, an annual event where political leaders, journalists and media executives poke fun at one another.
“Some of you have said that I’m ignoring the Washington press corps, that we’re too controlling,” Obama said. “You know what, you were right. I was wrong and I want to apologize – in a video you can watch exclusively at whitehouse.gov.”
Three days later, it was no laughing matter when the White House live-streamed on the Internet Obama’s meeting with his export council and allowed just one reporter in the room.
Still, the White House rejects the notion that it is turning to new media it can control at the expense of the old, instead describing an all-of-the-above strategy.
“From press conferences to interviews with national, regional and constituency press, to new social media platforms, we have worked to both expand the scope of communication and also deepen the level of engagement between the American people and the work of the White House,” says Jamie Smith, deputy press secretary.
Statistics compiled by Martha Kumar, a political science professor at Towson University in Maryland who studies presidential communication, show how Obama’s strategy has differed from his predecessors’.
In his first term, Obama engaged in 107 short question-and-answer sessions with reporters during events in the Oval Office, the Cabinet Room and similar settings. President George W. Bush, by contrast, had 354.
By the same token, though, Obama held twice as many solo press conferences as Bush: 36 compared to 17. And in the first term Obama did 674 interviews – TV, radio, Internet, print – compared to 217 for Bush and 191 for Clinton.
With interviews, the president has more power to choose his timing, questioners and format, in hopes of delivering a certain message in a setting that’s not always hard-hitting. In impromptu Q-and-A’s, the questions fly about anything and everything from the national press corps – and these wide-open opportunities to challenge the president on the events of the day have become increasingly rare.
Even in regional interviews, though, Obama can and does sometimes get asked about breaking or embarrassing news of the day.
“There’s no question that he’s opening and closing the door at his choice,” says Gerald Shuster, a professor of political communication at the University of Pittsburgh. “He’s controlling the flow as much as he can.”
The will for presidents to get their story out without media intervention has always been there.
What’s different now, says Mark Jurkowitz of the Pew Research Project for Excellence in Journalism, is new technology that allow the White House to distribute its own content far more widely and effectively than past presidents could. At the same time, it’s getting harder for cash-strapped news outlets to resist using photos, video and other content supplied by the White House.
Obama’s strategy is part of a broader mass communications trend in which politicians, corporate leaders and others in public life are using digital tools to send their messages directly to the public without a media filter.
“It’s all about control,” says Eric Dezenhall, an image consultant who has worked for years with politicians, celebrities and business people.