America = Bad
Dark-Skinned Foreigners = Good
Men = Bad
Women = Good (unless they’re Dark-Skinned Foreign Women, in which case they should get back in the harem and shut up)
Heterosexual = Bad
Gay/Lesbian/Etc. = Good
Christian = Bad
Rich = Bad (unless they’re big DNC donors)
Poor = Good (unless they’re Republicans, in which case they’re toothless trailer trash rednecks)

One can go on. The point is that like most modern Liberals, Obama doesn’t think at all. He responds by reflex.

This explains his lukewarm support of the Iranian reformers: they’re middle-class and educated, whereas the Islamist thugs attacking them with machetes are poor. He sees Poor = Good and doesn’t have to think.

The sad thing is that apparently 50% of American voters also do not think, and the schools are training them not to think.

It’s easy to prophecy truths when the premises are known.

I don’t dispute your analysis. Since most of the media is left-leaning certainly there is a left-plurality in the aggregate; that certainly weakens the meaning of a 7 point spread between Fox and any single MSM source.

However, Fox appears to draw a larger %-age of viewers from non-conservatives (22% Repub; 33% Ind; 22% Dem) than any of the liberal networks which draw overwhelmingly from their own constituency (e.g., CNN 16% Repub; 31% Ind; 50% Dem). In fact, by these statistics, Fox’s viewership is more evenly spread across all spectra than any of the left-leaning media newtorks.

Link:
http://www.people-press.org/2012/09/27/section-4-demographics-and-political-views-of-news-audiences/

Fox is garnering this “opposition” audience even though is has been consistently reviled by Leftist-media types as not a “real” news network, and has even been villified by the current administration in the White House.

I submit that those circumstances count for something but I’m not sure exactly what. As I said, a baby step?

I have long thought those statistics showing the popularity of Fox are somewhat misleading. The reason is that Fox is pretty much the only TV source of news for conservatives. So all those on the conservative end of things would be watching it, whereas if you are on the liberal end you have many many choices. Therefore liberals are split among the networks, CNN, MSNBC, and public stations. If you add up all the liberal viewers vs. all the viewers of Fox and compare, what do you get?

Is the following perhaps a first baby-step in this direction?

Gallup: Fox Is America’s Main Source For News

http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sheppard/2013/07/08/gallup-fox-americas-number-one-news-source#ixzz2YTy78v4t

Obama is not a fiendishly clever manipulator; his negative attitude towards American power plus incompetence, or even just not caring, are more than enough to explain the disasters of his foreign policy.

While I agree, IMO his incompetence produces much the same results as those he would have planned. Such a difference between accidental and purposeful results is an academic difference. Having said that, the functional difference between accidental and purposeful will be seen in the longevity of his results.

One element that the commentary here overlooks is the dynamic which is the American Experiment. There’s no doubt in my mind that Obama wishes to create a static European-style society. As much as he despises the fundamental American experience (and I do believe that he does despise it), this ain’t Europe and it is my firm belief that he fails to take that into account (he’s just not that smart).

When cities economically downgrade, residents who refuse to fight back are the first to flee to the placid suburbs. Those who remain are those who can’t leave or those who won’t leave; aka the fighters who are willing to shoulder the risk to remain.

The United States is the diametric opposite of that trend; those who were not in a position to change Europe took the risk to come to a country whose language they oftentimes did not speak. They were the risk-takers leaving the placid passivists behind. They were our ancestors and I truly believe that such is in our DNA.

So two components: 1) the fundamental wisdom of the founding fathers in designing a dynamic system which allows anyone regardless of station, to prosper; 2) the risk-takers and descendants of risk-takers who work to do just that. That is the stuff from which long-term trends and empires are built. Obama, by contrast, is an epigone enthralled with an obsolescent European statist system that is proving itself unsustainable even as he moves to adopt it (yes, IMO he really is that unobservant and unaware).

For those who fear that Obama can permanently disable this American system and cleanse our gene-pool of it’s risk-takers, I offer an alternate view by Victor Davis Hanson:

http://pjmedia.com/victordavishanson/nemesis-after-all/

Although I may not see it in my own lifetime, I firmly believe that history will not be kind to Barack Obama and the media that enabled him.

It could not be more clear how he views America and Americans.

The truly horrible thing we ignore at our peril is that the people who voted for Obama are no more real “Americans” than he is. They hate America every bit as much as he does. The only difference is that while he is Lebron James; they are playing pickup ball at the playground. It’s still the same game.

Here’s an American Thinker post that provides links to many articles articles about this collusion: http://tinyurl.com/73sqetn
Here’s a detailed report detailing how Obama has stifled moderate Muslims and elevated radicals: http://tinyurl.com/lc5bzbz

You’re right, Neo, that you cannot objectively review Obama’s foreign policy without seeing that he is not incompetent; Obama has consistently worked to undermine America’s power and support her enemies. Whether or not he himself has the energy or intelligence to pull this off is irrelevant, since he has surrounded himself with like-minded folks who are carrying this out at his direction. What’s frightening is that we already know how little he cares about killing his own people (or any Americans) in service to his goal.