Redstate

By Charles Bird Posted in 2008 — Comments (4) / Email this page » / Leave a comment »

[Ed. This article is not yet available on-line, so it is re-printed here with permission.]

by Jerry Augustus, Science Bi-Quarterly staff writer

CAMDEN - Scientists have been studying the nature and spread of Obama Bedazzlement Syndrome, or OBS, and so far have achieved little to no progress in understanding its cause or treatment. "We're stuck," said a frustrated Dr. Geraldine S. Gomez, lead researcher at the Personality Cult Institute. "We had hoped for a breakthrough by now, but scientific results have proved elusive. We're in a quagmire, so to speak."

SBQ has had the good fortune of landing an exclusive interview with Dr. Gomez to explain the OBS phenomenon and her experiences to date. Also on hand is PCI scientist Dr. Shelby Feldstein, who has been studying Hillary Clinton.

More below the fold...

SBQ: First off, what is OBS?

Gomez: Well, Jerry, OBS is not too dissimilar from Bush Derangement Syndrome, which was originally diagnosed by Dr. Charles Krauthammer, who found that BDS can afflict otherwise reasonable liberals. At the sound of President Bush's voice or upon seeing him on video, emotions overwhelm the left side of the brain, causing fits of anger, paranoia and conspiracy theorizing. Like with BDS, OBS suspends rational thought, but the difference is in the emotional response, which is mostly a feeling of warm gushiness.

SBQ: Is OBS dangerous?

Gomez: So far, less so than BDS, mainly because scientific studies have shown that prolonged anger and bitterness have resulted in health problems downstream. We have seen no evidence that feelings of warm gushiness affects human health one way or the other, but our primary concern with OBS sufferers is that its victims have proven exceedingly difficult to reason with, which in turn adversely affects many forms of political discourse.

SBQ: What are the symptons, and are people able to identify OBS when they see it?

Gomez: There are a range of symptoms, Jerry, and if you see two or more "flags" in a person, then he or she may have very well been infected. If a friend is a little more glassy-eyed than usual and increasingly uses terms like "hope" and "change", while at the same time offers no additional specifics, you may be witnessing the early onset of the syndrome. There are also physical manifestations. If you or a friend swoons more frequently, or feels a thrill going up the leg like Chris Matthews, that would be a more pronounced case. Fainting in the presence of Obama is a telltale sign of advanced OBS.

SBQ: Does OBS cross party lines?

Gomez: In some cases, unfortunately yes. We're not sure yet how it happened, but former Romney supporter Douglas Kmiec came down with an acute case. We could tell right away that Dr. Kmiec has OBS because of his near-complete incoherence.

SBQ: Why study this syndrome?

Gomez: Well, for one thing, this type of study is right in our wheelhouse at PCI. Fourteen months ago, Rolling Stone writer Ben Wallace-Wells put it best. Quote:

Obama is trying to pull a less-conventional trick: to turn his own person into a movement. "I'm not surprised you're having trouble categorizing him," one of his aides says. "I don't think he's wedded to any ideological frame." With Obama, there is only the man himself — his youth, his ease, his race, his claim on the new century. His candidacy is essentially a plea for voters to put their trust in his innate capacity for clarity and judgment. There is no Obama-ism, only Obama.

For another thing, on a scientific level we are fascinated that a liberal freshman Senator with scant experience and an even scantier record has garnered so much success to date. It looks like he'll be the Democratic nominee, assuming Senator Clinton doesn't find a way to lawyer herself to victory.

SBQ: What scientific procedures have you undertaken?

Gomez: We've been trying to measure brainwave activity, using auditory and optical inputs. When Obama's soundwaves and video images hit aural and optic receptors, we gauge the responses by measuring alpha and beta waves in the brain. Our best hypothesis is this: Because of issue underload, there are significant intellectual gaps in the receptors that must be filled in some way. The average politician who issues standard liberal boilerplate and utters vague generalities about "coming together" and "yes we can" will cause boredom in voters, and the average person will be distracted with other, more useful thoughts. But what we've found with Obama is that he fills these gaps with, well, we don't have a good scientific name for it, so we just call it mojo. To use a sci-fi analogy, like with Anakin Skywalker and his midichlorian counts, Obama has off-the-charts mojo.

SBQ: Now because of these effects, has your team of researchers had to take any precautions?

Gomez: Yes, we have. In the early weeks of our analysis, after prolonged Obama exposure we've had a lab assistant or two wander off and start talking about "hope" and "change". One even said, "if supporting Obama is wrong, I don't wanna be right!" But after a couple of hours of detox, they were fine, but since then we've asked our researchers to wear protective anti-propaganda suits.

SBQ: Detox?

Gomez: Yes. We put our infected personnel in a hermetically sealed room, one at a time. Just a chair, table and small notebook of Obama's record and white papers on his issues. After a couple of hours of intense study, the OBS is gone, followed by feelings of mild embarrassment and comments such as "what was I thinking?" Now, remember, our staff are trained professionals. We tried this technique with our test subjects but they fell asleep before the OBS effects could be fully countered. Hence our frustration.

SBQ: How long does OBS last?

Gomez: A good question. We initially thought several months, similar in length to the infatuation stage of a romantic relationship. But it looks like OBS could last for a full election cycle. But we're not giving up. Last December, we added a half dozen PhD's to more intensely study the syndrome.

SBQ: Sounds expensive.

Gomez: It is, but we've received some generous grant money which will last us through November.

SBQ: Who are the benefactors?

Gomez: We have two main ones. One of them is Ickes Wolfson Lehane, LLC, whoever they are. The other is the National Association of Infomercial Producers. One of their representatives said they'd like to "put that Obama lightning in a bottle and sell it on a 30-minute program".

[We later spoke with talked to Kip Vanderzan, spokesman for the NAIP. "Instead of loud sweaters and cleavage to get our viewers' attention," said Mr. Vanderzan, "If our presenters had some of Obama's mojo I'm sure we could sell exercise equipment and anti-aging creams like hotcakes!"]

SBQ: So what's been your biggest roadblock?

Gomez: I think Dr. Feldstein could better answer that question.

SBQ: What would like to say, Dr. Feldstein?

Feldstein: Nothing really.

SBQ: C'mon man. I've got Yankees tickets.

Feldstein: Well, OK. We've been applying similar scientific techniques as Dr. Gomez, but our test subjects are listening to and watching Hillary's speeches and comments. The effects are rather the opposite of Obama's, especially when they hear The Cackle or when she tries to talk like a black person. When you add the untruths and dirty tactics, most of our subjects feel emotions of repulsion. We call it the Hillary Impolitical Vector, or HIV.

SBQ: Why is this infringing on the Obama research?

Gomez: Because way too many of our subjects are testing HIV-positive. We don't know how much OBS is influenced by HIV or not, which is really muddying up our ability to advance our study.

SBQ: Thank you for time, and good luck.

Gomez and Feldstein: You're welcome.