Althouse has a thread on the creepy video/song supporting Obama 

 
I wrote this in the comments:

I see a much larger point here that I haven't seen commented on. For a large number of Democrats, their entire rationale for voting is simply this: REPUBLICANS ARE EVIL!! therefore I must vote Democrat.

They shut off venues of Republican speech, because they don't want anyone on their side doubting the simple fact: REPUBLICANS ARE EVIL!!

For many of them--and, yes, that doesn't mean all, or even most--there is no questioning, no studying of issues or economic policies, no struggling with weighty issues. All they really needed to know to decide how to vote was that REPUBLICANS ARE EVIL!!! 'nough said.

How many on the right have had discussions with Democratic voters that went like this: on every point of policy discussion, they completely agree with the Republicans; but, when it comes to actually voting, they would never dream of voting for the GOP. After all, REPUBLICANS ARE EVIL!!!

Many of these are low-information voters, many are Democrats because their friends and family are, some are because the coolest celebrities are. These are the people caught on video this week decrying the awful things Romney has promised to do, only to find out that they were tricked, and that the evil things had already been done by Obama--most spun on a dime and made excuses for their idol. These are people where a single Lakoffian code word is enough to fully persuade them: environment! war! abortion! Obama! 99%! etc.

For a community that parodies Republicans with phrases like "epistemic closure" they are remarkably not self-aware.

That is what is truly on display in this video and song; not the misuse of children, but the mindset that the only thing that needs to be said to convince voters is: REPUBLICANS ARE EVIL!!!

Update (10/29/12): Here's an example of what I mean, not from some  low-info ditz in Times Square, but in the lead paragraph in a story in Salon magazine. Note the line after "malevolent Republican Party":

A few days ago, I participated in a debate with the legendary antiwar dissident Daniel Ellsberg on Huffington Post live on the merits of the Obama administration, and what progressives should do on Election Day. Ellsberg had written a blog post arguing that, though Obama deserves tremendous criticism, voters in swing states ought to vote for him, lest they operate as dupes for a far more malevolent Republican Party. This attitude is relatively pervasive among Democrats, and it deserves a genuine response. As the election is fast approaching, this piece is an attempt at laying out the progressive case for why one should not vote for Barack Obama for reelection, even if you are in a swing state.

 p.s. Also note how, when the author lists his Democratic and progressive bone findes, he includes working for MSNBC.

An oil company makes a profit and funnels some of that profit into R&D, or building new drilling rigs, or exploring for new productive wells--if successful, their business will grow, more jobs will be provided, and more tax revenue collected. Because it is choosing to invest the money in the business, instead of taking it in profit, that money is tax exempt. Obama calls this private investment "corporate welfare".

The government funnels taxpayer money, in the form of grants and loans, into "green" businesses--which can't convince private lenders to invest their own money, and thus must rely on taxpayers and bureaucrats instead. Many of these businesses, coincidentally, I'm sure, are headed by major Democratic party donors, who take large salaries and kick back more donations. Many of these companies promptly go broke (proving the reluctant private investors correct in their assessments.)

Obama calls this corporate welfare "investment".

Note: Just to be clear...the word "is" appeared several times in the above paragraphs. "Is," a form of the verb "to be". In the first instance above, it is used with the past participle of the transitive verb "to choose" as a passive-voice auxiliary. In the second appearance, it should be taken to mean that the subject of the clause has the qualification or characterization specified in the antecedent.

Wynn On Obama: "I'll Be Damned If I Want To Have Him Lecture Me" | RealClearPolitics

EPA Celebrates ‘Children Health Month,’ Encourages Recruiting Students for ‘Energy Patrols’ at School | CNSNews.com

Since earth is nice and brown, I'd suggest having patrol t-shirts made up in that color.

Or perhaps they need cassocks and collars?

Obama: "We don’t need to build more highways out in the suburbs."

But a bullet train in the middle of rural California is a nifty idea!!