I just watched a movie on HBO starring Nicole Kidman called The Invasion (trailer), in which the people of the earth are exposed to an extra-terrestial virus/spore that causes them, once they’ve been exposed and then fallen asleep, to wake up as pod people. The movie bears an uncanny resemblance to the past election cycle and the country’s current zeitgeist.
Though there are some glimmers that some are starting to recover, for the most part, the MSM Obama-mania continues unabated. Check out the cover of Ms. magazine’s “Special Inaugural Edition.”

No, really! It’s not The Onion.
Pardon me while I go throw up.
egalia at Tennessee Guerilla Women is boggled, as am I:
. . .the easy to please feminists over at Ms. Magazine put Barack Obama on the cover and gush like teeny-boppers that Obama is some Feminist Super Man who will, presumably, save us little wimin.
I must have been asleep when the self-identified feminist and Wonder Woman presidential candidate Hillary Rodham Clinton and her claws made the cover of Ms.
. . . there are many many many problems (Jon Favreau, Larry Summers, Rick Warren, etc.) with a liberal feminist magazine proclaiming Barack Obama to be a feminist, starting with the fact that he is Not even a liberal, and he has never publicly identified himself as a feminist. (Michelle has rejected the term.) And then there is the undeniable fact that a feminist president would have far more than a pitiful 5 women in his/her cabinet.
TGW includes a great round-up of reaction around the blogosphere.
Anna Belle always has an unique perspective. She focuses on the Superman imagery:
But let’s explore the image further, shall we? What does this image suggest to the women viewing it? Doesn’t it suggest that we should relax, because he may be a closet feminist, but he’s also a Superfeminist? As soon as women are in crisis, you can trust that Obama will emerge your hero? I submit that it also suggests that feminism–and women by extension–need saving, and Obama’s just the man to do it. This is the same line of rhetoric that the Obama camp has been feeding various constituencies for well on 2 years now: Trust me, this is all just talk, just business; I’m actually one of YOU. Finally, the image imparts a kind of perfection in its hagiographic representation of Obama as a man who only wants to do good, and who could not possibly have ulterior motives.
[...]
The idea of Barack Obama as Superfeminist is absurd and offensive, but it is also a trick. We’ve seen this kind of rehabilitation before. We saw it with Summers and Favreau, when articles that showed them a favorable light, especially articles by women began to emerge from various media outlets. This is also the same technique we’ve seen the Bush Administration use for eight long years now. Whenever a problem comes up, run it through your personal propaganda mill, the press, and change the narrative. Don’t let them do that.
No further comment.










Posted by fsteele on January 11, 2009 at 11:10 pm
http://thenewagenda.net/2009/01/11/vote-in-nows-media-hall-of-shame/
I just voted for Ms. Magazine. Very easy vote form.
Posted by bluelyon on January 12, 2009 at 5:44 am
Done. Here is what I wrote:
Posted by localsoandso on January 12, 2009 at 6:42 am
On a side note: How many times is Hollywood going to make the same movie? (1956, 1978 Invasion of the Body Snatchers)
Posted by bluelyon on January 12, 2009 at 1:18 pm
What was really sick with this version is that they used news footage of the Columbia disaster (they called it “Patriot”) and then added that some sort of “spore” that could withstand the sub-freezing temperatures of space and the intense heat of re-entry had attached itself to the shuttle and this tainted debris was spread over a 200 mile area. My first thought was, “Didn’t this “spore” attach itself to any other shuttle? Why just now?”
I’ll willingly suspend my disbelief, but not if they are going to insist on using IRL footage we all KNOW.
Posted by TLE on January 12, 2009 at 5:31 pm
I remember, about a year ago, before our Michigan primary-that-didn’t-count, going to both the Clinton and Obama websites to see for myself what the had to say about issues. The very first thing I noticed on the Obama site was the “Faith” issues section, the first line of which said something about having God in our lives every day. Clinton’s site did not have a section on religion. Her site did, however, have a section about women’s issues, which had a great deal of content. Obama’s site had no mention whatsoever of women’s issues. I decided that day who I was going to support, and never looked back.
Feminist, my eye. Ms. Magazine: Seventeen for the thirty-somethings. Sad.
Posted by bluelyon on January 12, 2009 at 7:59 pm
TLE, I discovered the same thing. I also noticed that no where on Barack Obama’s web site did you see any mention that he was actually a Democrat.
I’m pretty sure I wrote about that sometime ago, but it might take a little while for me to find the post.
Posted by ea on January 15, 2009 at 4:14 pm
I wonder if they even know how much they should be embarassed. I stopped reading Ms. a long time ago, but can’t remember the reason. Apparently, it is now kitty box liner.
Posted by The difference « Blue Lyon on January 15, 2009 at 9:06 pm
[...] Posted on January 15, 2009 by bluelyon In my previous post, Is Ms. Serious? , TLE comments: I remember, about a year ago, before our Michigan primary-that-didn’t-count, [...]
Posted by bluelyon on January 15, 2009 at 9:26 pm
Yeah, I did too. I can’t remember why either. Obviously, they stopped speaking to my life a long time ago.