Is the Honeymoon Over?

The main stream media has been falling in love with Barack Obama right before our eyes day in and day out. They travelled together overseas for what seemed like a honeymoon. The scenario was right out of a political fairy tale.

Then Barack Obama threw his buddies in the press under that old bus of his. Well, of course he did! He's a gaffe machine whose on/off switch is not easily controlled. He can't risk having reporters with microphones there. I mean, one of them could develop a conscience and actually air the footage of another gaffe. Heaven forbid.

I'm sure they will forgive and forget. They're just working out the kinks in this budding romance. And it's a brilliant move on Obama's part, he's giving them cover since everyone with eyes and ears knows he has them in his pocket.

Brietbart has the video of Andrea Mitchell complaing to tingly-legged Chris Matthews on Hardball about the lack of reporting going on during Obama's trip to the middle east.

Is Obama running for President of the USA or the EU?

Barack Obama is planning his big tour of Europe, details to be announced. He wanted to give a speech at Brandenburg Gate in Germany, but ran into a snafu when PM Angela Merkel raised objections as he is not a sitting president and why should a presidential hopeful use one of Germany's most historic places for political gain?

Barack Obama is billing (to us) his visit abroad as a "fact finding mission". He's as popular in Europe as he is with the left in the US. He's going over there on an adulation mission, on our dime.

He will also travel to Iraq, hoping to enhance his national security credentials. According to ABC News that may not be as easy as he thinks. Apparently the American troops over there aren't on board with his plan for defeat. They spoke to Major General Jeffrey Hammond about Obama's withdrawal plan.

Asked if he considered it dangerous to pull out if the withdrawal is not based on "conditions," Hammond said, "It's very dangerous. I'll speak for the coalition forces, men and women of character and moral courage; we have a mission, and it's not until the mission is done that I can look my leader in the eye and say, 'Sir, Ma'am, mission accomplished,' and I think it is dangerous to leave anything a little early."

At this point, who really knows what Obama plans to do if he's elected, he waffles so much it's hard to tell. But judging by what he has consistently said until recent weeks, it's a good bet that he will withdraw our troops before there is lasting stability in Iraq.

Our troops aren't on board with his withdrawal plan, they want to stay until the job is done. So what is his motivation to go to Europe and the Middle East? He knows that he's wildly popular with Europeans, Palestineans and the rest that are jealous, resentful and downright hostile to the United States. He wants to say to Americans "Look at me! The whole world loves me!" The problem with his plan is he's running to represent the United States of America. Rather than spend our money to go overseas, why doesn't he remain in the US, having a dialogue with the American people about his big spending, defeatist plans for us?

How can anyone say there is no media bias?

Barack Obama is planning his trip to Iraq, and low and behold, all of the major news outlets will send their star reporters along with him to cover his trip. According to the International Herald Tribune:

Senator John McCain's trip to Iraq last spring was a low-key affair: With his ordinary retinue of reporters following him abroad, the NBC News anchor Brian Williams reported on his arrival in Baghdad from New York, with just two sentences tacked onto the "in other political news" portion of his newscast.

But when Obama heads for Iraq and other locations overseas this summer, Williams is planning to catch up with him in person, as are the other two evening news anchors, Charles Gibson of ABC and Katie Couric of CBS, who, like Williams, are far along in discussions to interview Obama on successive nights.

They're trying to play it off like their biased coverage is due to Obama's "newness". Excuse me, but have we not been getting non-stop coverage of this guy since his appearance on Oprah a few years ago and his speech at the 2004 Democratic convention? If someone buys a new pair of underpants and wears them every day for three years, are they still "new"?

That these news execs say with a straight face that they devote the same amount of time to candidates from each side is utterly ridiculous. Obama will be the recipient of free campaign commercials. If he makes any major gaffes while in Iraq (which is very likely) do you think the MSM will fill us in?