From The Washington Post, No Less

I came across an article written by Matt Patterson, writer for the San Francisco Examiner, New York Post and, of all newspapers, The Washington Post. Never, I doubt, has the WaPo had such an article published about a sitting president since the days of Nixon.
For the American people who've had enough of this person in the Oval Office I suggest you digest it all. For Obama lovers, please take note.
Thanks to MK@ThePines


    Years from now, historians may regard the 2008 election of Barack
Obama as an inscrutable and disturbing phenomenon, the result of a
baffling breed of mass hysteria akin perhaps to the witch craze of the
Middle Ages. How, they will wonder, did a man so devoid of
professional accomplishment beguile so many into thinking he could
manage the world's largest economy, direct the world's most powerful
military, execute the world's most consequential job? Imagine a future
historian examining Obama's pre-presidential life: ushered into and
through the Ivy League despite unremarkable grades and test scores
along the way; a cushy non-job as a "community organizer"; a brief
career as a state legislator devoid of legislative achievement (and in
fact nearly devoid of his attention, so often did he vote "present");
and finally an unaccomplished single term in the United States Senate,
the entirety of which was devoted to his presidential ambitions.

He left no academic legacy in academia, authored no signature
legislation as a legislator. And then there is the matter of his
troubling associations: the white-hating, America-loathing preacher
who for decades served as Obama's "spiritual mentor"; a real-life,
actual terrorist who served as Obama's colleague and political
sponsor. It is easy to imagine a future historian looking at it all
and asking: how on Earth was such a man elected president?

Not content to wait for history, the incomparable Norman Podhoretz
addressed the question recently in the Wall Street Journal: To be
sure, no white candidate who had close associations with an outspoken
hater of America like Jeremiah Wright and an unrepentant terrorist
like Bill Ayers, would have lasted a single day. But because Mr.
Obama was black, and therefore entitled in the eyes of liberaldom to
have hung out with protesters against various American injustices,
even if they were a bit extreme, he was given a pass. Let that sink
in: Obama was given a pass - held to a lower standard - because of the
color of his skin.

Podhoretz continues: And in any case, what did such ancient
history matter when he was also so articulate and elegant and (as he
himself had said) "non-threatening," all of which gave him a fighting
chance to become the first black president and thereby to lay the
curse of racism to rest? Podhoretz puts his finger, I think, on the
animating pulse of the Obama phenomenon - affirmative action. Not in
the legal sense, of course. But certainly in the motivating sentiment
behind all affirmative action laws and regulations, which are designed
primarily to make white people, and especially white liberals, feel
good about themselves.

Unfortunately, minorities often suffer so that whites can pat
themselves on the back. Liberals routinely admit minorities to
schools for which they are not qualified, yet take no responsibility
for the inevitable poor performance and high drop-out rates which
follow. Liberals don't care if these minority students fail; liberals
aren't around to witness the emotional devastation and deflated
self-esteem resulting from the racist policy that is affirmative
action. Yes, racist. Holding someone to a separate standard merely
because of the color of his skin - that's affirmative action in a
nutshell, and if that isn't racism, then nothing is.

And that is what America did to Obama. True, Obama himself was
never troubled by his lack of achievements, but why would he be? As
many have noted, Obama was told he was good enough for Columbia
despite undistinguished grades at Occidental; he was told he was good
enough for the US Senate despite a mediocre record in Illinois; he was
told he was good enough to be president despite no record at all in
the Senate.. All his life, every step of the way, Obama was told he
was good enough for the next step, in spite of ample evidence to the
contrary.

What could this breed if not the sort of empty narcissism on
display every time Obama speaks? In 2008, many who agreed that he
lacked executive qualifications nonetheless raved about Obama's
oratory skills, intellect, and cool character. Those people -
conservatives included - ought now to be deeply embarrassed.

The man thinks and speaks in the hoariest of cliches, and that's
when he has his Teleprompters in front of him; when the prompter is
absent he can barely think or speak at all.

Not one original idea has ever issued from his mouth – it's all
warmed-over Marxism of the kind that has failed over and over again
for 100 years.

And what about his character? Obama is constantly blaming anything
and everything else for his troubles. Bush did it; it was bad luck; I
inherited this mess. It is embarrassing to see a president so willing
to advertise his own powerlessness, so comfortable with his own
incompetence.

But really, what were we to expect? The man has never been
responsible for anything, so how do we expect him to act responsibly?

In short: our president is a small and small-minded man, with
neither the temperament nor the intellect to handle his job.

When you understand that, and only when you understand that, will
the current erosion of liberty and prosperity make sense. It could not
have gone otherwise with such a man in the Oval Office.