A casual trip through the sinestrosphere and *gasp*, the New York Times, reveals a surprising fact--no one, absolutely no one, believes a single thing Barack Obama says anymore.

As part of his "reconnect with the middle class" strategy, Obama allegedly has 'frozen' government spending, except for about 7/8ths of it, as one lefty blog calculated. Glenn Beck informed his minions that this amounted to a 3% discount on 9 trillion dollars in deficit spending over the next ten years.

Bob Herbert, a yellow dog Democrat by any estimation, wrote this today.

Mr. Obama may be personally very appealing, but he has positioned himself all over the political map: the anti-Iraq war candidate who escalated the war in Afghanistan; the opponent of health insurance mandates who made a mandate to buy insurance the centerpiece of his plan; the president who stocked his administration with Wall Street insiders and went to the mat for the banks and big corporations, but who is now trying to present himself as a born-again populist.

Mr. Obama is in danger of being perceived as someone whose rhetoric, however skillful, cannot always be trusted. He is creating a credibility gap for himself, and if it widens much more he won’t be able to close it.

He's pulling his punches, but even this much is astonishing considering the Times deference to Obama. The final words are almost too much to bear though.

Mr. Obama will deliver his State of the Union address Wednesday night. The word is that he will offer some small bore assistance to the middle class. But more important than the content of this speech will be whether the president really means what he says. Americans want to know what he stands for, where his line in the sand is, what he’ll really fight for, and where he wants to lead this nation.

They want to know who their president really is.

Whose fault is that Bob? The New York Times couldn't spare a reporter from the Sarah Palin colonoscopy to look into Obama's background? The gross negligence of the state media should be a prosecutable offense, with long prison sentences attached.

The New York City CBS affliliate ran an article describing Obama's loss of credibility among three states (New York, Connecticut and New Jersey) who voted overwhelming for Obama during the Presidential election.

President Barack Obama plans to use his state of the union address to "reconnect" with the middle class.

Some say it's an open admission to many here in the tri-state area that he has failed to feel our pain and our needs.

From his war on the banks -- the lifeblood of the metropolitan area economy -- to his health care reform which could cost taxpayers here over $1 billion, President Obama's policies have sent a strong message to the tri-state area that Washington doesn't care about the middle class.

Suddenly, he claims he wants to change that.

Ironically, even the reset is transparent business as usual. The left used to mock Bush for his "you are either with us or against us" position on the war on terror, which was terribly ironic. Within the context of the war on terror, the policy made perfect sense, and those who are "with us" have cooperated to create a transnational security regime that works well for the most part.

Yet for the left, the 'with us or against us' paradigm is woven into the very fabric of their existence. Screw the rich, ostrasize Fox News, demonize the tea party people--every action is reflexively an us against them proposition, and Obama exemplifies that view in everything he does.

United we stand, divided we fall, or perhaps in this case, the dividers will fall, because Americans will be sick of the crap.