Barry, Barry, The Dancing Machine

Or "What would have happened if President Nixon had chosen Chuck Barris instead of David Frost":

The administration’s last-minute push to turn out the vote is spurring some unconventional media outreach efforts. But none of them have been quite as unlikely as that announced on Monday — President Obama will be doing an interview with Ryan Seacrest.

The American Idol co-host will be talking to Obama on Election Day for a segment on his radio show, On Air with Ryan Seacrest.…

What, exactly, the point is of doing an interview that will air predominantly in a state that seems to be the one Democratic holdout — and that caters to an audience of not particularly politically-active listeners — is unclear. But the gist seems to be that, in the eleventh hour, no stone should be left unturned. Seacrest's interview, a source notes, will be broadcast on other stations in addition across the country.

Behold a god who only crucifies his self-respect.

Maybe I should have opened up a third Blog Talk Radio podcast under a Far Left sockpuppet, called the White House, and inquired as to The One's availability.  After all, Porky Murray IS in trouble, and he's tried everything else to drag her fat ass across the finish line.  I wouldn't have sandbagged him.

Honest.  Maybe I'd have gotten him to kinda-sorta backpedal on his "punish our enemies" slur from a week ago, like Michael Baisden (who?) did:

There were arguments being made that because Democrats hadn’t gotten this done, that Latinos should vote against Democrats or just sit out the election.

And I said, well, you can’t punish your friends when — the folks who’ve been supporting it. Now, I did also say if you’re going to punish somebody, punish your enemies, and I probably should have used the word, “opponents” instead of enemies. Now the Republicans are saying that I’m calling them enemies. What I’m saying is you’re an opponent of this particular provision, comprehensive immigration.

Eeyore makes a nice catch on this weasel-wordsmithing:

Is that all he meant, that Republicans who support border enforcement are merely opponents on a particular issue? Because I’m finding that somehow hard to square with something else he said during that same original interview, namely, “Those aren’t the kinds of folks who represent our core American values.” Is it any surprise that, in the course of rank racial pandering and insinuations that people who support Arizona’s law are un-American, he’d lapse rhetorically from “opponents” into “enemies”?

None at all.  Because that is what he really, truly believes, and it always comes out when he's haranguing an ideologically simpatico audience.

And the ascending leader of "the enemy" isn't letting him forget it.