'Obama-Remorse'? Media Sycophant Pretends Slobbering Press Will Turn on The Messiah

It's quite amusing to see the media start covering their tracks and rewriting history before Barack Obama is even sworn in. After spending the better part of two years ignoring the skeletons in Obama's closet, now we have this guy advising him to enjoy the adulation while it lasts. I have some news for him. The adulation will never end.

I'm starting to feel a little guilty about the media's treatment of President-elect Barack Obama -- and I may not be the only one.

Chalk it up to a phenomenon I'd like to call "Obama-remorse." You know how you feel buyer's remorse after you've spent a lot of dough on some big-ticket item, only to realize that you might have made a mistake? Well, it's going to happen to the president-elect as well.

Perhaps this sort of recognition prompted Washington Post media writer Howard Kurtz to do an incisive piece called "A Giddy Sense of Boosterism" on Nov. 17. As Kurtz noted, the media have tripped over themselves to celebrate and cash in on Obama's victory.

NBC News is preparing a DVD called "Yes, We Can: The Barack Obama Story." ABC and USA Today are racing to publish a book on the election. HBO is readying a documentary on the campaign, too.

As I see it, the media are having second thoughts about their performance over the past year.

They sure have a funny way of showing it.

To the contrary, the bulk of the Obama worshipping media have invested what little credibility they have in propping Obama up no matter what happens during his term. Do you honestly believe they'll ever admit they sold the American public on an inexperienced neophyte? Never will happen. The media likes to rewrite history as much as possible. Just look back ten years to the days of the Clinton impeachment.

After spending six years fawning over the wonder-boy from Arkansas, we thought they'd shift gears when Clinton was caught with his pants down, literally. So, what did they do? They doubled down to protect Clinton. Instead of an honest look at the cover-up of the Lewinsky affair, they instead savaged Linda Tripp and Ken Starr, quickly turning them into modern-day caricatures of Tokyo Rose and Adolf Hitler. By the time the Clintons and their media spin-machine were done with them, Tripp was in hiding, Starr was reviled for his salacious report and horny Republicans everywhere were cowering in fear on Larry Flynt and his smut merchants.

Do we really expect anything different from the media this time around? No way. If Obama is criticized in the least it will be portrayed at attacks from the right-wing smear machine, talk radio spewing hate or simply racist, take your choice. But you can guarantee the liberal press will never admit they were hoodwinked.

Still, for sheer breathtaking dishonesty, get this part.

But I also feel guilty because I know that the media's Adulation Express -- never to be confused with McCain's old Straight Talk Express -- is going to hit a few speed bumps before it inexorably grinds to a halt.

It's inevitable. Look at what happened to Sarah Palin, McCain's running mate.

When McCain first nominated her, she could do no wrong in the media's eyes.

Say what? She could do no wrong?

If that was the case, how come less than 72 hours after Palin burst on the scene we had the following stories (courtesy of Memeorandum)?

Sarah Palin hit by internet rumours over fifth child

No Experience Necessary

Sadly Nuts

Biden: Palin's Good Looking

Agasin, this less than 72 hours after Palin was announced, and Jon Friedman wants us to believe she was treated fairly and could do no wrong? Within another 72 hours, it got far uglier: the endless tales of her giving birth to Trig, how she wasn't vetted, Troopergate, etc.

In other words, the media spent two years ignoring Obama's dubious associations and within three days were well on their way to mercilessly savaging Palin.

But we're to believe they'll turn on Obama.

It's inevitable, too, that Obama will eventually have his turn under the microscope. When the media start picking apart some of his Cabinet choices or his pronouncements on the state of the economy or his declarations about Iraq, he may be surprised to find that the afterglow of his stunning victory turns sour so fast.

He cannot be serious. Thus far, I've seen nothing but gooey praise for his deft selection of the Clinton administration to stock his cabinet, he's widely praised for his economic team (even Karl Rove is now starry-eyed) and you can be sure that any good news trickling out of Iraq will be credited to him.

But with all that, we can expect the media to soon turn on him.

Sure, and I've got a good line on some Bear Stearns stock for you.