Oh! the humanity...of Obama

  Over at The New Yorker, we find another shameless love letter to Leftists, this time (again) Barack Obama.  Valerie Jarrett is depicted as showing "high mindedness" and Obama as a well-mannered, earnest achiever whose dreams of  making America whole through his steady leadership have been dashed, along with his disapproval of football. (Gee, a man's man disapproving of footbal? One can't imagine.)
  You know the Remnick column is deeply felt because it waxes on about the difficulty of Obama having his dreams of being a uniter dashed; Obama's human, Remnick writes, as exhibited by:

Obama worried his lip with his tongue and the tip of his index finger. 

Obama chewed furtively on a piece of Nicorette.

...he seemed efficient but contained ...

Obama bruised some feelings once or twice with remarks about “fat-cat bankers” and “reckless behavior and unchecked excess,” but, in general, he dares not offend.

  Really?
  Really? Mr. Remnick is obviously a Leftist.
  If he weren't, he'd know why so many of us are offended, from the continual affronts to religious liberties, the expansion of government rates while individual rights are curtailed to the repeated insult after outright insult of conservatives, their values and their beliefs.

  And here's the biggest laugher of all, in which Remnick presents Obama as someone who has actually tried not to offend, regardless of his habitually derogatory remarks about red staters with whom he disagrees.

And yet Obama still makes every effort to maintain his careful, balancing tone, as if the unifying moment were still out there somewhere in the middle distance. 

  He tried, tried so hard, Remnick says, but those Republicans would have none of it. 
  Witness that Obama wanted a "post=partisan era," one in which everyone got along. 
  He dreamed, did Obama, and dreamed big, dreamed of an America where no one fought and only the public good was considered in policy making. He was "forced" into relinquishing that beautiful dream by "grubby" battles by people who are overcome with resentment.

His biggest early disappointment as President was being forced to recognize that his romantic vision of a post-partisan era, in which there are no red states or blue states, only the United States, was, in practical terms, a fantasy. It was a difficult fantasy to relinquish. The spirit of national conciliation was more than the rhetorical pixie dust of Obama’s 2004 speech to the Democratic National Convention, in Boston, which had brought him to delirious national attention. It was also an elemental component of his self-conception, his sense that he was uniquely suited to transcend ideology and the grubby battles of the day. ...[SNIP]

The Republican Party is living through the late-mannerist phase of that revolution, fuelled less by ideas than by resentments. The moderate Republican tradition is all but gone, and the reactionaries who claim Reagan’s banner display none of his ideological finesse. Rejection is all. Obama can never be opposed vehemently enough.

The dream of bipartisan coöperation glimmered again after Obama won reëlection against Mitt Romney with fifty-one per cent of the popular vote.

  Who are those people, those who are so angry with Obama? Those who are resentful and probably racist? Why, of course, they are described perfectly in Alinsky terms:

The popular opposition to the Administration comes largely from older whites who feel threatened, underemployed, overlooked, and disdained in a globalized economy and in an increasingly diverse country.

  Apparently older whites are the primary unemployed group of disgruntled Americans, notwithstanding that young people can't find jobs and that Black unemployment rates are "consistently twice than whites." 
  I confess I stopped reading Remnick's saccharine love story at page four of an obscene eighteen pages.
  But The One isn't so popular these days, so the formerly mainstream media, whose credibility approaches Pravda's, often chooses to attack the opposition, ie the Christie "scandal" while focusing on the conservative obsession concerning the Benghazi deaths, not the deaths themselves.
  Employing Saul Alinsky tactics( perfectly exhibited here) to the right wing means the press frames everything to promote Democrats, particularly Leftists.
  Thus the press shifts away from the sinking Obama to gushy, plummy articles about Michelle! who they claim remains popular in spite of rumors of reported discomfort in the Obama marriage and the disappointing results of her Move On and food initiatives.
  So here's the propaganda gushery from an objective media who pilloried Nancy Reagan and ignored Laura Bush. Consuming anything at these links will convince you you're wrong about Michelle! if you don't like her.

Time Mag: Can anyone stop Hillary ?

AARP: Happy 50th Birthday, Michelle Obama

The New York Times:  A First Lady at 50, Finding Her Own Path and "Glamorous Mystery Woman"

Outlet Shoppers: Michelle Obama Fashion Icon

People: [Michelle] is dancing into her fifties. 

Washington Post: A First Lady for the Ages

ABC: 50 ways to celebrate Michelle Obama's birthday

  So there ya go. It's all I can take for today. One can only hope that the anonymous informants over at Ulsterman are right and this bunch is on their way out the door.
  God save the Republic.