The Presidential Smackdown

In days of yore, when a King employed (such as was employment in the Middle Ages) a court jester, the clown had the distinct privilege of being able to poke criticism at a King and his policies under the guise of comedy. That's probably how satire evolved.

Today, comedians - those who don't think of themselves as political pundits - are supposed to do that; but once annually, at the White House Correspondents' Dinner celebrityfest, the President gets to turn the tables and get in a few digs at his own critics ... in a purely sporting way, of course.

The President is only human, and he's an intelligent man; so bitchy ratfuckery amongst people who purport to be from his side of the political spectrum simply wouldn't go unnoticed - especially when that bitchy ratfuckery emanates from a person who jumps at the earliest opportunity to be on the White House guest list for any occasion.

Watch the President's comic takedown of Arianna Huffington. Listen to the tone of his voice, and watch his body language. This was more than a joke. This was a long overdue and well-deserved smack.



I thought that was positively wonderful. A Southern girl couldn't have passed a backhanded compliment better to someone she disdained. Our President sure did learn a lot from his Southern mamma. Because that was a coded message to Queen Ratfucker Omnipotent of Medialand. Put bluntly, the President was saying, "I got your number, baby, and I know what you're about."

Being less of a Southern lady and more of an open bitch, I'd have pointed out that Newt and Callista were in the room also, and would Arianna be meeting up with them at the Mayflower Hotel later in the evening?

His attitude, his inflection, even the look on his face and the cadence of his words revealed beyond a shadow of a doubt that the President was very prescient of the game Huffington was playing and had been playing ever since he'd taken office - one, which she played with an evil vengeance especially during the Midterm campaign of 2010, wherein she presented herself as a more viable champion of the Middle Class instead of the President.

The result was the Do-Nothing-Know-Nothing Congress which pretends to function today, dominated by the Party which claimed Huffington's allegiance for most of her adult sojourn in America.

Anyway, the woman who likes to think of herself as the epitome of professional journalism reacted just a wee bit unprofessionally and came up with this, quasi-endorsement of Mitt Romney - at least in respect of the President using his achievement of ridding the world of Osama bin Laden as political fodder, compared with a remark made by Willard five years ago indicating that it wasn't worth the time, the effort or the money to track down one man. Her reaction was petty, vindictive, bitter and the epitome of a vengeful bitch.

Appearing on CBS This Morning, she ranted:-

“I don’t think there should be an ad about that. I think it’s one thing to celebrate the fact that they did such a great job, it’s one thing to have an NBC special from the ‘Situation Room’ … all that to me is perfectly legitimate, but to turn it into a campaign ad is one of the most despicable things you can do,” said Huffington on “CBS This Morning.”

So "despicable" is the latest pejorative adjective Huffington has used in describing this President. I'll tell you what's despicable ... unpaid labour used in the 21st Century to garner even more millions for Arianna Huffington. As the President said with subtle sarcasm, that's a great business model, and one of which only a Republican would be proud - but then, this is the woman who learned all she knows on her knees at the foot of Newt Gingrich - he, who would happily reinstate child labour.

As the prescient Angry Black Lady warns:-

 Stop calling this woman a liberal. She’s not liberal. She’s been claiming she might not vote for Obama for over a year. She and Newt Gingrich are best buds. She pals around with Darryl Issa.

Do you need any more proof? Well, just let me remind you of this:-

And this:-

Cosy, yes?

At the end of the day, we know why Huffington is stabbing the knife deep within the President's back (which, as she ceaselessly reminds us, is spineless) and twisting the blade. Yes, we know she's a ratfucker, and like the Republican brand (brands being so close to Arianna's heart), she knows very well how to distract the public's attention from the real issues surrounding this election and how very important it is that the President wins. You see, if she keeps us hyperventilating about "despicable" Obama, "spineless" Obama, "Nowhere Man" Obama - all of which are clever euphemisms for what she really wants her readers and listeners to say in the depths of their minds ... Black Obama ... then we'll miss the point entirely about the significance of retaining President Obama's services for another four years.

Charles Blow doesn't miss the significance, and he's ready to call bullshit.

 I won’t play along. It’s not a game, particularly if you are one of the millions of Americans stretching your body and mind to their limits to make the ends meet. It’s not a game if you don’t make money from outrage, but are outraged by how little money you have. It’s not a game if you fear, rightfully, that your “unalienable rights” to “life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness” are being treated as an alien concept — threatened or denied altogether.

So before I start hyperventilating myself, I’m going to throw up my hands and throw down a gauntlet. I’m going to give you meat. You can get your cake elsewhere.

Let’s talk about the importance of the president in determining the composition of the Supreme Court and the critical role the court is playing in our lives.

Nominating Supreme Court justices is one of the most profound and enduring legacies of any presidency, and yet the subject gets so little airtime that Americans display a staggering degree of misunderstanding of the court and dissatisfaction with it.

(snip)

 In his first term, Obama has appointed Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan, two relatively liberal justices. Not only has Mitt Romney chosen Robert Bork, a rejected Supreme Court nominee, as one of the chairmen of his Justice Advisory Committee, he has made it clear that he will choose extremely conservative justices.

"Supreme Court" is the only phrase you need remember when you're thinking about how to vote in November ... the other word is "corporations." And for all you diehard Progressives or limousine liberals who still worship at Arianna's corrupt altar, you'd do well to remember that she's now a corporation also, and she's been looking for the perfect opportunity to ditch the President and enter into the sacred fold of the Republican party like a self-perpetuating virgin, a status which I'm certain she's claimed for herself as well.