The New York Times is hinting that Obama is suffering from clinical depression and being treated for it with mind altering drugs.
So the question is, will Obama decide to end it all and take us with him in a narcissistic implosion?
We live in scary times.
how nobody hear trusts the main stream media until they don't believe something, then everyone wants "proof" from the main stream media in the form a of a link.
Ok, here you go.
Gawker :We hear the New York Times is looking into whether it's all starting to get to him—like, clinically.
We hear the New York Times is looking into whether it's all starting to get to him—like, clinically.
We're told by a source inside the Times that the paper is preparing a story arguing that Obama no longer finds joy in the political back-and-forth, has seemed increasingly listless to associates, and is generally exhibiting the litany of signs that late-night cable commercials will tell you add up to depression. Or maybe Low T.
Either way, the investigation was described to us as taking seriously the notion that Obama may be suffering from a depressive episode. Of course, absent a telltale Wellbutrin prescription or testimony from the man himself, it's really impossible to achieve a reliable diagnosis. And a story like "Obama Appears to Suffer From Depression" can be easily downgraded to "Political Travails Begin to Take Personal Toll on Obama." So the story in question, if it ever comes out, may not end up supporting the depression thesis. But rest assured: There are people at the Times who, based on the paper's reporting, believe Obama is depressed—the kind of depression where, if he weren't the president of the United States, he wouldn't be getting out of bed in the morning.
As per usual, a Times spokeswoman declined to comment: "In keeping with our policy that we don't comment on stories that we may or may not be working on, we will not comment in this case."
I might be a bit down myself. Things really aren't going too well. But I think I'd prefer to support my local dealer than big pharma. (Though Obama might get his free for life after his big sell-out during the sham health-care debate.)
Also, you do understand that saying "nobody [here]" incorrectly implies that all or even most visitors to the site have the same view of the mainstream media, don't you? Because that would, of course, be a pretty ridiculous assertion.
And the New York Times is not hinting at anything. They won't even comment. That much was clear from the gawker article, which is really not a representative example of the mainstream media.
