When the Jon Meachams and Mika Brzezinskis work up the courage to condemn the people who have done and are continuing to do this for the "blood they have on their hands," then their purported outrage and beliefs can be viewed as sincere. But they don't do that and won't do that. Righteous anger at those who spill blood is reserved only for hated foreigners (Osama bin Laden) and for the marginalized and powerless who haven't actually spilled any blood (the Koran-burning Pastor and WikiLeaks). That's why this Pastor circus has received so much media attention: it's a cheap, petty and easy way for people with enormous amounts of blood on their own hands to show what Good, Caring People they are by pretending that they hate those who cause it to be spilled. (Glenn Greenwald, “The Pastor and Cheap, Selective Concern for Blood-letting,” Salon, 10 Sept. 3010)
What do the weak exist for, except to be trod upon?
It's a matter of aesthetics. Both sides want slaughter; one side is just better at using the other to make their own execution seem clean, matter-of-course. Obama was elected, so that slaughter could continue, but in a way that would enable many liberals to join in and comfortably settle into.
I personally think we're near past the point where pointing out a prejudice against the weak and ready deference to the strong, could be shame-inducing: too strong to mind would come the sense of forthcoming reward. That beating up the weak is just good right now might explain why we might soon experience a period where the weak are beat upon, just 'cause. A stretch of untethered free-fall we use to consolidate our understanding of the essential motivator behind our attacks, before we clothe it again in more overtly righteous -- but not especially essential -- cover. The weak exist to be savaged; the strong, to be served: how can such essential simplicity / coherency be anything other than right?