Update: ALLAHPUNDIT appreciates Hanks’ self-deprecation and candor:

There’s no nutrootsy pretense here about having closely studied anyone’s platform; he wants a black president and he likes what he’s seen of the guy’s character, case closed.

True enough, although I think a truly self-deprecating celebrity–especially one of Hanks’ magnitude–would just keep his or her opinion to his- or herself. 

Original Post: For years I’ve said that Tom Hanks is my favorite actor of all time.  Somewhere in the back of my mind I knew that he was a liberal—or a Democrat, at least—but I didn’t let that bother me because he always seemed to keep his political opinions to himself—unlike other celebrities such as Sean Penn.  (Or at least I never heard of him shooting his mouth off about things political.)  Well, yesterday he finally did it.  As reported by the Huffington Post, Mr. Hanks is now officially in the tank for Barack Obama, as evidenced by the following video—apparently filmed by Hanks himself—that can now be found all over the internet.

Hello.  I’m Tom Hanks and I want Barack Obama to be the next president of our country.  As an official celebrity, I know my endorsement has just made your mind up for you.

I know—it’s just a tongue-in-cheek introduction to the video.   But I’d really like to know what the phrase “official celebrity” means.  Or maybe I’d just like to have an example of an “unofficial celebrity” so I could make a comparison….

At any rate, Hanks begins to explain why he’s voting for Barack:

He has the integrity and the inspiration to unify us, as did FDR and Harry Truman and John F. Kennedy—and even Ronald Reagan—when they ran for the job.

Ooooh!  Right off the bat he’s comparing Obama with heavyweights like Roosevelt, Truman, JFK, and the Gipper.  (I’m not exactly sure what his thing with Truman is.  I mean, if Hanks thinks Truman ranks up there with the rest of them simply because he’s the only leader in the history of mankind to have dropped a nuke in anger, I can’t agree with him.  It was a necessary evil, but the act in itself was certainly so sign of greatness.  And let’s face it, the only other claim to fame Truman has is his status as “the president who didn’t actually lose the Korean War”.)

Anyway, Hanks continues to try and explain his newfound devotion to the candidacy of one Barack Hussein Obama:

This November we have a chance to witness another moment like in 1797, when George Washington transferred power to president-elect John Adams, and for the first time in recorded human history leadership of a great nation was passed from one man to a non-relative without death, rebellion, or violence being the cause.

Hmmmm.  I dunno ‘bout that.  There he goes again comparing the pipsqueak from Illinois with giants like George Washington and John Adams.  And I suppose by inference he’s comparing Obama’s lack of accomplishments with the superlative accomplishments of our founding fathers.  He blathers on:

It was a seismic shift in the political and social fabric of the eighteenth century, and here in the third millennium we need another seismic shift.

Seismic shift, eh?  By “seismic shift” does Hanks imply that it’s somehow imperative for America to elect an inexperienced one-term senator (with little to no foreign policy experience) to the office of President simply on the basis of his (black-ish) skin color?  Is that what Hanks means?  Because if it IS what he means, he’s a fucking lunatic.

Anyway, let’s hear more from Tom:

In November Americans will have redefined our republic when President George W. Bush watches president-elect Barack Obama swear on the Holy Bible to preserve, protect, and defend our constitution.  Around the world, to friend and foe alike, our nation will live up to the great promise once shaped by our founding fathers when they came up with the grand American idea.

For what it’s worth, that’s why I’m supporting Barack Obama as president in 2008.

Well, I guess he’s right about that “for what it’s worth” thing.  But what is this “great promise” thing to which he alludes?  Did the founding fathers promise us somewhere, sometime that a skinny black kid with “street cred” and no experience would be our president?  Did they REALLY promise that?  If Mr. Hanks thinks they did, he needs to think again.

But the thing about this endorsement that really gets my goat is the bit after the introduction that goes:

My support for Obama isn’t just about breaking boundaries.  It’s because of his character, and vision, and the high road he’s taken during this campaign.  He has the integrity and the inspiration to unify us….

Character and vision.  High road.  Yes, indeed, those are traits that Barack has been showing us recently.  He’s endowed with that unique sort of character and vision that would allow him, for twenty long years, to attend a church whose pastor spewed venomous, racist, hate-filled sermons that promoted black separatism, hatred of whites, and anti-Americanism.  And then he has the integrity to look millions of Americans in the eye and tell them that he had no idea that Pastor Jeremiah Wright had been saying such nasty things.

And his ability to inspire us is of the highest order, as well.  To be inspired we need only to listen to Obama’s comments about white middle class Americans being gun-totin’, Bible-thumpin’ bigots….

Indeed, all of these characteristics make Barack Obama the only truly unifying candidate in the 2008 presidential race.

Not.

Thank you, thank you Mr. Hanks for setting us straight about our obligation to bend over kneel down before the Messiah.

In closing, I wonder what the boys in Captain Miller’s rifle squad are saying about their leader now?

Chickenshit.

Technorati Tags: Tom Hanks, favorite actor, liberal, Democrat, political opinions, celebrities, Sean Penn, Huffington Post, in the tank, Barack Obama, video, president, our country, celebrity, endorsement, voting, integrity, inspiration, unify, FDR, Harry Truman, John F. Kennedy, Ronald Reagan, Roosevelt, JFK, the Gipper, nuke, Korean War, devotion, candidacy, Barack Hussein Obama, 1797, George Washington, president-elect, John Adams, human history, death, rebellion, violence, Illinois, seismic shift, social fabric, third millennium, inexperienced, one-term senator, no foreign policy experience, skin color, Americans, George W. Bush, constitution, grand American idea., founding fathers, skinny black kid, street cred, breaking boundaries, Jeremiah Wright, unifying candidate, 2008 presidential race, the Messiah

Bookmark:

Update:  Serr8d at The Cutting Edge has the same idea about Liberal Fascism as I do.  Check out his Obama logo.

Original Post: I repeat:  The only legitimate result now for the November election is a win by Obama.

Who do you think uttered that gem of an “analysis”?  Chris Matthews?  Keith Olbermann?  Jack Cafferty?  Tim Russert?

No, the pundit in question was someone going by the name of AbtractImp who submitted a comment on the Huffington Post yesterday.  The post they were responding to was a piece of drivel by Greg Mitchell called “The Debate: A Shameful Night for the U.S. Media”:

In perhaps the most embarrassing performance by the media in a major presidential debate in years, ABC News hosts Charles Gibson and George Stephanopolous focused mainly on trivial issues as Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama faced off in Philadelphia. They, and their network, should hang their collective heads in shame.

Wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, the health care and mortgage crises, the overall state of the economy and dozens of other pressing issues had to wait for their few moments in the sun as Obama was pressed to explain his recent “bitter” gaffe and relationship with Rev. Wright (seemingly a dead issue) and not wearing a flag pin — while Clinton had to answer again for her Bosnia trip exaggerations.

Then it was back to Obama to defend his slim association with a former ’60s radical — a question that came out of rightwing talk radio and Sean Hannity on TV, but was delivered by former Bill Clinton aide Stephanopolous. This approach led to a claim that Clinton’s husband pardoned two other ’60s radicals. And so on. The travesty continued.

More time was spent on all of this than segments on getting out of Iraq and keeping people from losing their homes and — you name it. Gibson only got excited complaining that someone might raise his capital gains tax. Yet neither candidate had the courage to ask the moderators to turn to those far more important issues. Talking heads on other networks followed up by not pressing that point either. The crowd booed Gibson near the end. Why didn’t every other responsible journalist on TV?

To top it off, here is David Brooks’ review at The New York Times: “I thought the questions were excellent.” He gives ABC an “A.” Of course, “A” can stand for many things.

Yes, “A” can stand for many things: Appropriate, Accurate, Astute, to name just a few.

It also can stand for apoplectic, which is what the large majority of Obama-Goons seem to be this morning.  Let’s surf on over to that other bastion of all things Obama, and read an over-the-top rant posted by Billary Redux at the Daily Kos.  Keep in mind that this tirade was posted before the debate even happened.  Also keep in mind that the grammatical errors are in the original.

Below is the history of how we saw the Okie-Dokie coming a mile away and how a network Subverted Democracy.  President Barack should pull their Broadcasting License.

Tonight’s debate will be moderated in part by ABC News Political Director, and former Clinton War Room lieutenant, George Stephanopoulos.  Yesterday, George was documented conspiring with TWO Right Wing Blowhards against Obama.  Expect a GOTCHA tonight, and ahead of that, We need to let ABC News know we are watching …  If this is his standard, why not let Cheney Moderate the debate, or McCain even!

To put it bluntly, should a Former Clinton Official be the one asking GOP questions to Barack Tonight?!?

George spent time yesterday taking Notes on Sean Hannity’s Show.

Billary Redux recounts Stephanopoulos’ appearance on Sean Hannity’s radio talk show yesterday, as well as an appearance with Steve Malzberg on WOR radio (New York).  Interestingly, Hannity was suggesting questions for Stephanopoulos to ask Obama at the debate, and Stephanopoulos seemed willing to consider Hannity’s suggested line of questioning.  The Billary Redux tantrum continues:

So George Stephanopoulos is out there chatting with Newsmax columnists and Sean Hannity…

The Same George Stephanopoulos who is the Political Director of ABC, whose Good Morning America was the first National Network Program to break the Reverend Wright Story.  And the Very Same ABC that’s owned by the Disney Corporation, whose other network, ESPN is in the news for Canceling not one but TWO Obama Exclusive Interviews at the executive level….

Let ABC Know what you think about this Garbage!  We Expect Objectivity, not force fed conspiracy guilt by association Gotcha Controversies (and Hannity wet dreams).

We expect Objectivity George!  We’re Watching you!

A little background here: One of the questions Sean Hannity suggested that Stephanopoulos ask was the one about Barack Obama’s association with former Weather Underground member William “Bill” Ayers.  Billary Redux seems particularly piqued about that one.  So much so, that he/she wrote the following note to ABC/Disney:

Its come to my attention that tonight there will be a conflict of interest on stage in Pennsylvania.  As a voter, there is little I can do about your placing George on stage, but I can assure you as a viewer and vocal blogger (I’m the one who started this little letter writting campaign on dKos) we can certainly turn up the heat, including a straight up boycott of DISNEY if you include the Weather Underground/Hannity Question in tonight’s Debate.

Do what’s right. Stick to the issues and be fair.

Ah, so objectivity and fairness seem to be the key issue for Billary Redux.  But for Billary Redux, the fair and objective thing to do at the ABC debate last night would have been to serve up nothing but softballs to candidate Barack Obama.  Again.  As usual.  No questions about his association with a certain nut-job pastor.  No questions about his association with an admitted terrorist.  No questions about why he thinks lunchbox Democrats in Middle America are bitter gun-totin’, Bible-thumpin’ bigots….

But that seems to be the overriding meme within the Obamista culture—information control.  Thought control.  Why, just last week, I was watching a YouTube video of one of Obama’s lame attempts to explain his “clinging to religion and guns” faux pas.  I read some of the comments under the video, and was thoroughly disgusted by the perfect unanimity displayed by the fawning, drooling boobs who were making the comments.  So I thought I’d spice things up in the comments section by informing them that they were behaving like morons.   But lo and behold, the comments were being moderated.  Ergo the unanimity.

Information control.  Thought control.  The Obama freaks enforced it with Stalin-esque rigidity in the comments to the YouTube video.  And that’s what the nutroots on Daily Kos and the Huffington Post wanted to enforce during last night’s Democratic debate.  They wanted to prevent Stephanopoulos from asking Obama probing questions about the Wright/bitterness/Ayers situations.

It’s kind of scary, really.  The Obamista approach to information control is eerily echoed in the words of a certain earlier politician:

The receptivity of the great masses is very limited, their intelligence is small, but their power of forgetting is enormous. In consequence of these facts, all effective propaganda must be limited to a very few points and must harp on these in slogans until the last member of the public understands what you want him to understand by your slogan. As soon as you sacrifice this slogan and try to be many-sided, the effect will piddle away, for the crowd can neither digest nor retain the material offered. In this way the result is weakened and in the end entirely cancelled out.

[…]

But the most brilliant propagandist technique will yield no success unless one fundamental principle is borne in mind constantly and with unflagging attention. It must confine itself to a few points and repeat them over and over. Here, as so often in this world, persistence is the first and most important requirement for success.

[…]

The purpose of propaganda is not to provide interesting distraction for blasé young gentlemen, but to convince, and what I mean is to convince the masses. But the masses are slow moving, and they always require a certain time before they are ready even to notice a thing, and only after the simplest ideas are repeated thousands of times will the masses finally remember them.

[…]

[T]he example of enemy war propaganda [in World War I] was typical; limited to a few points, devised exclusively for the masses, carried on with indefatigable persistence. Once the basic ideas and methods of execution were recognized as correct, they were applied throughout the whole War without the slightest change. At first the claims of the propaganda were so impudent that people thought it insane; later, it got on people’s nerves; and in the end, it was believed.

I leave it up to you to figure out which earlier politician said those things.

The simplest ideas repeated thousands of times, the man said.

Change.  Change.  Change.  Change.  Change.

Hope. Hope.  Hope.  Hope.  Hope.

Watch out, Obamistas, you’re treading down a dangerous path.

The masses are slow moving, the man said.  Obama thinks you’re slow moving, too.  And dim-witted.  He thinks he just has to repeat himself over and over and over again until you eventually believe him.

Some of you have already capitulated.

Technorati Tags: November election, Chris Matthews, Keith Olbermann, Jack Cafferty, Tim Russert, pundit, Huffington Post, Greg Mitchell, The Debate: A Shameful Night for the U.S. Media, media, major presidential debate, ABC News, host, Charles Gibson, George Stephanopolous, trivial issues, Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama, Philadelphia, network, Wars, Iraq, Afghanistan, health care, mortgage crises, state of the economy, pressing issues, bitter, gaffe, relationship, Rev. Wright, Bosnia, ’60s radical, rightwing talk radio, Sean Hannity, Bill Clinton, capital gains tax, important issues, journalist, TV, David Brooks, The New York Times, Obama-Goons, Billary Redux, Daily Kos, tirade, politician, great masses, their intelligence is small, effective propaganda, slogan, convince the masses, repeated thousands of times

Bookmark: