Above is Isaiah's The World Today Just Nuts "Campaigning" and that really does capture the fumes of what passes for a re-election effort.
Patrick Martin (WSWS) sums up with words:
With just over one week before the national election, three leading US newspapers, representing various shades of opinion within the ruling elite, have published editorials endorsing the reelection of Barack Obama: the Washington Post did so Friday and the New York Times and Chicago Tribune published theirs on Sunday.
All three newspapers hailed the killing of Osama bin Laden as the greatest foreign policy success of the Obama administration, demonstrating the debased character of official political discourse in America, where a willingness to commit murder, by death squad or remote-control missile, is deemed an indispensable qualification for the highest political office.
The three newspapers have their differences. The Tribune is more conservative on economic questions, declaring itself sympathetic to Romney’s demands for even more drastic cuts in federal spending than those proposed by Obama, but critical of the more aggressive foreign policy of the Republicans. The Post is somewhat less draconian on economic policy, but critical of Obama’s foreign policy as insufficiently militaristic, particularly in relation to Syria and Iran.
The Times is enthusiastically pro-Obama on every issue, and its editorial is particularly cynical, demonstrating both in what it says and what it doesn’t say the decay of American liberalism. It hails Obama’s health care program (aimed at cutting costs for business and government), the auto “rescue” (which slashed wages for new-hires by 50 percent), and the stimulus program (which rejected government-funded jobs for the unemployed). It devotes several paragraphs to Obama’s policies on gay rights, but makes no mention of poverty, unemployment, social inequality, domestic spying, Guantanamo, torture, drones or the escalation of the war in Afghanistan.
The Times endorsement aptly defines the social interests represented by contemporary Democratic Party liberalism, with its obsessive focus on identity politics, indifference to democratic rights and the social conditions of the vast majority of the population, and unabashed support for American imperialism.
And that pretty much sums up the support Barack has currently, doesn't it?
I really can't believe this is a Democratic Party nominee, let alone president. I had my problems/issues with Bill Clinton but never doubted he was a Democrat. Carter was embarrassing (and a ripe and apparently willing target for Robert Scheer) but you could see his Democratic nature. With Barack, it's all about corporations, it's all about greed, there's not even the pretense of doing something for the working poor.
He acts as if he says the word "poverty," someone will wash his mouth out with soap.
I've never seen behavior this bad before. The party's either going to rebirth or bury itself at present.
This is C.I.'s "Iraq snapshot" for Monday: