On yesterday's CNN Newsroom, anchor Kyra Phillips made no effort to curb her enthusiasm for Barack Obama. She spoke with feminist author and Democratic activist Naomi Wolf about a recent cover of Ms. Magazine featuring Obama in a Superman pose. Some feminists took exception to the cover; others, like Wolf, did not. As the segment ended, Kyra Phillips summed up as follows:
PHILLIPS: Well, if anything, I think this just exemplifies how Barack Obama is going to be out of the box on everything, whether it's who he decides to have speak at the inauguration or what covers he decides to go on the front of or who he puts into his administration. It is all going to be about going out of the box and making people talk and bringing everybody together, whether it's gender, race, whatever it is.
Thinking out of the box, that's Obama alright. Mr. Originality's stacked his administration with loads of Clinton administration retreads. In terms of magazine covers, it's doubtful that he decides which periodicals feature him. Did he pose as Superman for Ms.? Not likely. That would have been a step down for his messiahship.
Then there is Phillips's belief that Obama is "bringing everybody together, whether it's gender, race, whatever it is." That's patently unrealistic. The notion that any politician can bring everyone - regardless of life experiences, political views, values, opinions, and traditions - together is a liberal pipe dream. And a selective pipe dream at that. After years of bashing President Bush and other Republicans, it's expected that magically all Americans will suddenly, joyously unify as one big happy family under Obama.
Earlier this week, Phillips mentioned in an exchange with Tony Harris, another CNN Newsroom anchor, that she's attending the inauguration on her own time:
HARRIS: Good stuff. OK. We are one week, one day out from Inauguration Day. Look at that scene.Kyra, can you imagine Washington, D.C.?
KYRA PHILLIPS, CNN ANCHOR: I'll tell you what. I mean, even though I'm not working that day.
HARRIS: Right. I know you're going to be there, right?
PHILLIPS: I am going to be there. I do not want to miss this moment in history. That's what it is. I mean, when's the last time we remember this kind of buzz over a president?
I'm sure that Kyra Phillips, with her starry-eyed prediction of Obama "bringing everybody together," is more than happy to keep amplifying the buzz.
Editor at Large
Comments Policy
"...and all the world
January 16, 2009 - 14:32 ET by mattm"...and all the world wondered after the beast." Rev. 13:3
That's some damn good snark.
January 16, 2009 - 14:32 ET by supercon"Thinking out of the box, that's Obama alright. Mr. Originality's
stacked his administration with loads of Clinton administration
retreads. In terms of magazine covers, it's doubtful that he decides
which periodicals feature him. Did he pose as Superman for Ms.? Not
likely. That would have been a step down for his messiahship."
Ouch....
Because with a name like Obama... you know it has to be good.
Snark?
January 16, 2009 - 14:35 ET by Mike BatesI had toned it down in an attempt to be charitable.
You're a fine human being.
January 16, 2009 - 14:42 ET by superconAn example to us all.
Because with a name like Obama... you know it has to be good.
Fine, supercon
January 16, 2009 - 14:48 ET by Mike BatesThe good news is your check's in the mail. The bad news is Bernie Maddow signed it.
Kumbaya
January 16, 2009 - 14:33 ET by 10ksnookerAnd praise communism. It's for the greater good.
I think not.
Regarding "bringing
January 16, 2009 - 14:34 ET by motherbeltRegarding "bringing everyone together" regardless of race:
Today I read in our paper here an article about MLK day, and there was a reference to Obama and Lincoln.
One of our local "black leaders" said (paraphrasing) We've come a long way from Lincoln to Obama, but it's not over yet.
So much for that post-racial thing, eh?
So when WILL it be over?????????????
In short, it will NEVER be over.
Over, mb?
January 16, 2009 - 14:36 ET by Mike BatesAs the Carpenters' sang: "We've Only Just Begun."
Yikes.
Unfortunately a whole lot
January 16, 2009 - 14:38 ET by bigtimerUnfortunately a whole lot of repubs are joining in with this big happy family scenario...
I don't know how much more of this love-fest I can take.
"You've gone beyond the law"... Sen. Kerry~ Head of Foreign Relations Committee to Hillary at Sec.of State confirmation hearings~1-13-09
Repubs, bt
January 16, 2009 - 14:40 ET by Mike BatesI've noticed that. Those characters never learn. They try playing nice and repeatedly get their teeth kicked in for their troubles.
Republicans are like an
January 16, 2009 - 14:48 ET by motherbeltRepublicans are like an abused wife who thinks:
If I just make better meals, have supper ready on time, keep the house cleaner, the kids quieter, and don't argue with him, maybe he won't hit me.
I am fed up with every one of them from the Great Maverick down through Hagel, Graham and every last one of them!
Nice comparison.
January 16, 2009 - 17:26 ET by SchnikeysThe "abused wife" analogy really fits here, I think. :)
------------------------------------------------------------
"My morality is your morality."
Not as many as there are
January 16, 2009 - 16:34 ET by kgNot as many as there are Democrats turning away. Over half the population feels like throwing up already with all the glitz and media propaganda.
"Forget change, I want improvement!"
The Emperor Has No Clothes
January 16, 2009 - 14:43 ET by KC MulvilleThe phrase "bringing us all together" is an empty enotional canard that collapses the moment anyone thinks about it. It's like the emperor having no clothes ... as soon as you reject the hype, all the fools appear naked.
This is like the bank collapse. Unless there's substance beneath the hope, the whole scheme will collapse under its own weight. Beliefs that are artificially propped up by the willing suspension of disbelief will inevitably crash. The "bringing us together" nonsense is a denial that we have significant differences on substantial issues. America isn't divided by mere rhetoric or simplistic imagery. We have profound disagreements in this country, and unless they are addressed, they won't go away.
When liberals claim that we must all come together without any discussion or consensus about fundamental arguments, all they're really doing is whining at conservatives to get in line. Stop opposing liberals, please. They simply complain at us to drop our convictions and adopt theirs.
No.
We only disagree
January 16, 2009 - 14:50 ET by Mike BatesWe have profound disagreements in this country, and unless they are addressed, they won't go away.
Even if they're "addressed," I don't see them going away.
The Political Process
January 16, 2009 - 16:15 ET by KC MulvilleAgreed, Michael, but I don't think the disagreements are supposed to go away.
I caught a segment on Rush Limbaugh earlier. Some news outlet wanted him to write a blurb about what his hopes were for Obama. Rush said that he wanted Obama to fail. Rush then anticipated the horrified reaction from liberals and moderates - how could he want to Obama to fail? Rush had his own response, but I would have answered the question the same way, with a different argument. Here's my argument (you'll have to go to Rush to hear his):
If by "division," liberals simply have an emotional neurosis about differences of opinion, we can't enable that neurosis by giving into it. We won't lose our freedom of speech for fear of upsetting neurotic liberals. But if they fear that "division" is deeper, their fears are empty. In fact, it's silly to think that conservatives are going to destroy America just because we lost this last election. There's no need to call for unity, because conservatives aren't threatenting to go anywhere.
We have differences in this country, and they're not going away ... and I'm fine with that. And because of that, I don't have to wish Obama success. That's just adolescent, muddy-headed emotionalism.
WOW
January 16, 2009 - 15:29 ET by RD KingHe really is everybody's everything. He's white, no he's black, he's muslim, no he's Christian(snicker snicker), he's inexperienced, no he's the smartesty man alive, he's masculine, no he's a sissy.
Funny though I'm still not convinced I still think he is Clueless O an AA kind of peotus select and to me he will always be OtJEC.
Unity, togetherness,
January 16, 2009 - 16:44 ET by Karinall that crap. This is stuff of grade school! Why is unity such a desirable state of being for these idiots? Wasn't Nazi Germany unified? Jim Jones' compound?
Matt Lauer to Ann Coulter: "Well, he brought us all together..."
AC: "No he didn't"
And she's right. Why would he even think that way? O failed to garner 48% of the voting population, nothing to sneeze at.
I hope the Messiah didn't approve that cover...
January 16, 2009 - 17:43 ET by MightyMouthBecause if he did, we're in worse trouble than I thought!
"There are two types of people in this country; those who provide freedom and those who enjoy it." MM says...
Motherbelt
January 16, 2009 - 18:44 ET by SlicksterBravo, Execllent post, except you left out the part about being constantly on their knees or bent over.
CNN Anchorette
January 16, 2009 - 19:00 ET by blazermaniacKyra needs to get something into her head, because it's pretty empty. We all hope that this works out. But, with Reed & Pelosi in power, it won't!
PHILLIPS: Well, if
January 16, 2009 - 19:12 ET by fitzfongPHILLIPS: Well, if anything, I think this just exemplifies how Barack Obama is going to be out of the box on everything, whether it's who he decides to have speak at the inauguration or what covers he decides to go on the front of or who he puts into his administration. It is all going to be about going out of the box and making people talk and bringing everybody together, whether it's gender, race, whatever it is.
In other words, Kyra, he's a control far-eek.
"Government's view of the economy could be summed up in a few short phrases: If it moves, tax it. If it keeps moving, regulate it. And if it stops moving, subsidize it." -Ronald Reagan
fitzfong.blogspot.com
unity is agreeing with Marxists
January 16, 2009 - 19:25 ET by j17ghsI believe it was Soviet icon Vladimir Lenin who defined peace as the end of opposition to socialism. He may as well as added, and the beginning of enslavement to the state.
no mention of Josephine Biden?
January 16, 2009 - 19:27 ET by j17ghsVP Biden is the real girl in the House of Color (formerly the White House).
it's expected that
January 17, 2009 - 00:25 ET by TN Momit's expected that magically all Americans will suddenly, joyously unify as one big happy family under Obama.
The Family of Pelosi, Reid, Blago, Howard Dean, Spitzer, Kilkpatrick, Rev. Wright, Rezko, Bill Ayers?
That is one mean, self-serving, corrupt family.
I hope we're not going to
January 17, 2009 - 01:04 ET by RR GOPI hope we're not going to have to re-live that '70s 'androgynous male' thing with role models such as Alan Alda...*gag*.
Actually, Sarah Palin and Ann Coulter are the true feminists. They can be feminine while being successful, they aren't afraid of tastefully acknowledging their female bodies in public, they don't hate men, nor the idea of child-bearing, nor families...
But, since neither is a Communist man-basher, they don't count. At least there was some NOW leaders who supported Palin because they recognize the same thing. I can respect them for their bravery and sticking to what I'm pretty sure the movement is really about as far as most American women are concerned:
Opportunities for women, women in traditionally male professions, women standing on their own two feet, suffrage, economic independence, educational opportunities, women becoming wealthy without having to be gold diggers... Though, of course, I don't get the abortion aspect of it.
One of the 24% who thinks George W. Bush was a great President. One of the 89% who wants to bring back the stock and pillory.
when does he plan to start?
January 17, 2009 - 01:07 ET by i was just thinkingAlmost half of the country didn't vote for Obama. He had almost 2 years to bring us together during the campaign. We were told how he had the ability to reach out to the conservative side of the aisle, that he would be a uniter.
If that is true, then why did approx. half of the country NOT want him to be their president? Surely he could have waved his magical uniting wand over the half of voters that didn't want him.
Shouldn't we all be united by now?