It isn’t hard to belive that one messianic President Democrat would indeed act on that notion. However, are those ‘great responsibilities’ due to the people of the United States and the Constitution which is the foundation of its government? Or are they due to a larger body of the human race?

What if President Democrat has loftier notions, and wishes to place US resources at the service of the international progressives of the world, to the best of his abilities? He’s orated endlessly how he’d ‘bring everyone together’, and how he’d rush across the seas and personally chitchat with every ruling antidemocratic thug on the planet, and thereby bring about peace and understanding. Acting on such notions might well satisfy his sense of responsibility.

As for ‘bringing everyone together’, lefties have always known how to do that. Just lower the boom on those naive citizens who treacherously oppose the leader’s fulfillment of his sense of responsibility, and get them headed in the ‘right direction’.

Be prepared for far worse to come.

I do think it can be asked, though, whether NYT is in fact honoring their fiduciary responsibilities by acting as “a business first,” or whether their political desires are biasing the company’s strategy–in terms of news coverage, not just editorial–to the point at which it interferes with that responsibility.

The NYT has to get what’s coming to them; it is long overdue.

And I.S., the NYT may not be the only apple in the MSM barrel but it’s rotten and spoiling the entire bunch. They all take their headlines and marching orders from the NYT. Come on.

It could be argued that some of that power has been granted them by the choice people make when the buy the paper. We can debate the quality of that choice, but not at the expense of not having it.

The paper is a business first and as such it is their fiduciary duty to grasp as much of the market share as possible.

As reported by the Huffington Post, the New York Times Bill Keller compares Obama to Nelson Mandela:

The executive editor of The New York Times, Bill Keller, sees “unmistakable” similarities between the campaigns of Barack Obama and Nelson Mandela, he said in a podcast interview on the paper’s website.

The interview, done for the New York Times Book Review, is on the subject of Keller’s young adult biography of Nelson Mandela, whom he covered. Asked about Obama, Keller calls him “fascinating.”

From the audio transcript of the interview with Ben Keller, kindly via Ben Smith @ Politico:
You want to be careful about drawing historical parallels between societies that are so different, but there are a couple of similarities that, if you watch what happened South Africa, that are unmistakable in the Obama campaign.

One is the inspirational quality of it. Mandela, like Obama, although he wasnÔøΩt always the most riveting public speaker, was the kind of speaker who didnÔøΩt dwell on the details of his ten-point program, but went for emotional lift. He was appealing to the higher sense of purpose and history in his public appearances, as Obama does.

And the other thing is that both of them, in a way, transcended race ÔøΩ at least, to a degree transcended race. Colin Powell used to use this line when people used to try to draw him into conversations abot race and what it was like to be the first black secretary of state, the first black this, the first black that, and he would say, “I ainÔøΩt that black.”

And what I think what he meant by that was not just that he was light-skinned, but that he didnÔøΩt grow up as preoccupied by race as a lot of other African-Amercans who rose to prominence. And something of the same thing can be said about either Mandela or Obama ÔøΩ that they somehow rose above race while still clearly being black.

http://obamamessiah.blogspot.com/

It ain’t theory, it’s fact. I went to high school with NYT publisher Pinch Sulzberger. He was a nitwit and a nonentity. It’s a damned shame when relatives marry, or inherit control of one of the nation’s leading newspapers. Well, it used to be.