Its nice, I guess, to have fans.   But the Europeans don't vote.   He's playing to the wrong crowd, when he should have spent time in Ohio and Florida, who again hold the electoral votes with keys to the election.

And it provides backdrop to the story of how Obama is loved in Berlin, hated Charleston.

Scarborough brings up the rock-star adultation.  Obama had his celebriety splash in February and March here in the US, got enough delegates for the nomination, and now its over.   The shine has come off the new penny, and he can't get above 50% in any poll.  If Obama is elected, the European adultation would be over for him sooner rather than later.

And RoyE asks what is, I think, the most important question.  Why is it the Dem's again stick themselves with an "image" candidate?   You know they are not entirely devoid of candidates with accomplishments and substance.  Its like they can't buy a decent car, but go ga-ga over the car commercial.   They make it tough on themself.
 

The first thing any European should do when an American says he is a citizen of the world is to ask which sports he follows. If (as is true of Obama) it's basketball rather than soccer, that should indicate that he is much more American than he thinks he is.

The reason is that while basketball is an international sport, it's focal point is America, so basketball fans in America have little reason to look outside of America to see what's happening.

By contrast, we soccer fans in America know that the real action is elsewhere. If we want news, we need to look for sources outside of our own media, because no matter how liberal the media is, liberals in America still haven't embraced soccer, so the coverage is non-existent.

Yes, there's a clip available on the Internet of Obama watching his daughter play soccer, but watching your own daughter play is much different from actually trying to follow what's happening in international soccer.

The center of the Dem party is now internationalist; this is less anti-US and more a belief that global problems like terrorism, poverty and their favorite, global warming, require global solutions which, in turn, require strong global governance, headed by them, of course. THe US is at fault in this view because we are too pigheaded to make the proper sacrifice in sovereignity to achieve this sort of global governance. You can see why global warming is the ideal problem to spread this notion, as it is truly trans-national.

Of course, what this would actually look like in practice is a complete mystery, but to say it would resemble the US military under international control (or at least under the control of the democratic West) would not be too far of a stretch; because, global solutions will always require a global military, and since the only credible military left in the West is that of the US, the only logical outcome seems to be that the US would continue to have to supply a large military, but under different mgmt. (It's clear, for example, that Western Europeans have no interest in increasing their military spending to make a difference).

Obamamania is more about Europeans pushing this idea of global governance without having to sacrifice anything.

Or put another way, how many of those watching Germans are suddenly willing to send their troops to Afghanistan without combat restrictions? Probably none.

The subject was, primarily 'Obamania' and, secondarily, what it says about the European public and a big part of the American public. 'Mast' does not seem to have noticed, and uses the occasion to parrot a bunch of prejudices and to list a series of pretty meaningless slogans.  With 'characters' such as these, European superpowerdom does not stand a chance.

It gets worse. 'Mast' seems to think that we live in a "post-anarchistic world", and this on a weekend when 'not-so-random' bombs are exploding in India, in Turkey, in Iraq etc...It is another example of the naive-left tendency to substitute wishful thinking for empirical observation (around the world).  And, his last little sentence displays an alarming proclivity for meaningless chatter.       

Of course Soeren Kern wants Europe to remain fractured and weak; he is an American who seem to believe in total American supremacy. An unipolar world view, where America's allies must kneel and slobber at its extended phalanges. This is *not* in the best interest of Europe! There is NO interest in being balled and chained to a country which has for the past eight years adhered to the absolute strictest sense of amoral realism. What America could've used, in its own self-interest (economically, prestige, strategically) would have been an ever stronger Europe that could have prevented actions such as the Iraqi war.

"The biggest barrier to European superpowerdom, however, is its lack of a credible military capability. As a result, Europeans are working assiduously to balance the geopolitical scale with the United States by establishing a system of international law that de-legitimizes the use of military “hard power.”"

Mr. Kern needs to succumb to the realization that we live in an increasingly post-anarchistic world. It is not Europe that is the product's creator, it is man-kind.

"You are clever, aren't you".

Perhaps, but have you ever considered the other possibility?

@ kappert

"I totally agree (with you, Mr Scarborough),to the "general stupidity and style over substance mentality of the American electorate".

If your observation is correct, perhaps you inadvertently provide the reason why this might be the case here:

"liberal elite, commie college professors, false idealism driven white university students, white guilt soccer moms, and Oprah Winfrey - that's well over 50% of U.S. Americans".

Any further thoughts on the matter?

Just some remarks on Scarborough's post: As a Brit, you should be cautious with remarks like “an obscure, inexperienced junior“, I'm sure you remember William Pitt the Younger. Nevertheless, I totally agree to the “general stupidity and style over substance mentality of the American electorate“, presidential elections showed that this is exactly the case. But that “media is controlled by the liberal left“ will not please Mr Murdoch at all! And the WashPost commentators do their best to show “republican presidential hopeful John McCain“ from his bright side. Mentioning “socio-ethnic-special interest lobbies“ - what are you referring to(?) - “liberal elite, commie college professors, false idealism driven white university students, white guilt soccer moms, and Oprah Winfrey” - that's well over 50% of U.S. Americans. “It's a sickening spectacle to behold.“ Right you are again.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/columnists/gerard_baker/article4392846.ece

Amen to that.

Europeans are no different than Americans when it comes to exhibiting the same breathtakingly mindless enthusiasm which has propelled an obscure, inexperienced junior senator to democrat party presidential candidate presumptive seemingly over night. What can explain this perplexing phenomenon other than the general stupidity and style over substance mentality of the American electorate? Never underestimate the substantial rôle of factor X: The media.

The media is controlled by the liberal left, and to a lesser degree, the multinational corporations (who provide its chief source of revenue) and of course certain -particularly socio-ethnic- special interest lobbies. The media has voluntarily climbed into Obama's pocket and will do whatever it can to promote the Obama effort whilst simultaneously burying any mention of his rival - republican presidential hopeful John McCain - on page 26 in fine print as it were. The free televised press received by Obama in comparison with McCain can probably be gauged at about 1 minute of air time where Obama is being pushed down our throats for each second in which McCain is even begrudgingly mentioned, often in a dismissive or out and out derogatory manner.

The media bias is palpable and undeniable. When surfing from one cable news channel to another-(and I have satelite so I get everything from Fox, CNN, and MSNBC to BBC to Al-Jazeera.) -it's Obama, Obama, Obama. They work his name into every political conversation no matter what the topic or who's the guest, and that annoying crawl at the bottom of the screen? Once again: Obama, Obama, Obama. Obama stopped at McDonalds for a cheeseburger in Catfish flats Arkansas. Obama bought his daughters a new Goldfish at' pets are us'. Obama sneezed at 6.32 AM eastern Standard time whilst exiting the shower; he uses Irish spring and Aussie shampoo by the way.

Obama already has the most well funded campaign war chest in US political history, including over $225 millions raised since the beginning of the presidential primaries, with 52 millions in June alone. It is projected he will take in another 600+ millions by election day if new donors contribute similar amounts to those who have already given so far.
As of March 31, 2008, Senator Obama had raised an unprecedented $101 million in small individual contributions of $200 or less, the greatest source of campaign fund donations coming from his Internet appeal.

The liberal elite, commie college professors, false idealism driven white university students, white guilt soccer moms, and Oprah Winfrey have showered Obama with gold and ill-deserved support. Most of them couldn't tell you a thing about his policies, what he actually stands for, or his record in the US Senate. His particularly white support is based on little more than a pathological need to demonstrate how un-racist they are, and to receive what they imagine is the approval of minorities. With no consideration of the fact Obama has proven his contempt for white middle America and their values over and over again.

It's a sickening spectacle to behold.

Brendan Scarborough
BritNat

I'm, reluctant to say it,  but it is true.  Obama is the stereotypical  'Affirmative Action', anti-meritocracy   candidate.   I'm finding it extremely difficult  to  find evidence of any other  abilities, competence, or accomplishments.    In fact, investigation shows quite the opposite is true. Theres nothing there. What does it say about a political party that can put forth a candidate of so little substance? What does it say about the people who buy into such superficiality? It's a bit surreal - not to mention frightening. Where have all the grown-ups gone?

But Obama does seem to  have mastered vacuity and banality. He delivers it magnificently.   One must give credit where it is due.

Achtung!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Curiosity_killed_the_cat

Obama+ curiosity-cats = ?

Perhaps they stayed behind after the concert to listen to Obama for the same reason I continue to read your posts.

http://icanhascheezburger.com/

Enjoy!

http://www.comedycentral.com/videos/index.jhtml?videoId=177675

Quote:

JFK and Ronald Reagan actually had something to say when they went to Berlin, because the wall that sliced through the city so clearly illustrated the brutal 'we know better than you' arrogance of idealistic Leftism. Now the wall is gone, and the most Left-wing person ever to run for President of the USA tries to steal his forerunners' standing by drivelling to a crowd in a park, most of whom can't understand a word he says. Lucky for them, say I. When will Mr Obama's absurd bubble of adulation burst?

Peter Hitchens (Mail on Sunday  July 27 2008)

200,000 people did not goto hear obama.  They went to a rock concert and had to sit through him to get to it.  He did the same thing in Oregon a couple of months back.

By appealing for european money and promises he is effectively commiting treason.  McCain is going to destroy this affirmative action puppet in November.  If the US were a healthy democracy it would normally be time to change parties but the Democrats have shown they are incapable of governing.  Last poll I heard had the Democratic Congress down to an 8% approval rating, one of the lowest since polls were taken.