Gwyneth Paltrow to Obama: You're very handsome and you should have all the power you need for your agenda

Nothing new about celebrity obsequiousness to The One, especially at a fundraiser, but Paltrow’s special blend of pretention and over-the-top slobber deserves attention. For once I’m glad we don’t have video. I can’t imagine watching these lines actually being delivered.

As regards the part about O being so handsome that he rendered her dumbstruck, remind yourself that this is a woman who was once engaged to a young Brad Pitt.

“You’re so handsome that I can’t speak properly,” the actress, singer and food writer gushed after introducing Obama to several hundred supporters seated on white fold-out chairs in the lush backyard of her home in the movie star haven of Brentwood, a neighborhood in Los Angeles…

“I am one of your biggest fans, if not the biggest, and have been since the inception of your campaign,” she said, adding that she thinks both of his campaigns and his presidency will be one of the most important and most scrutinized of all time.

Paltrow noted the approaching Nov. 4 midterm elections in which Democratic control of the Senate is at risk. She called it a “critical time” for Democrats and seemed to urge everyone to vote. “It would be wonderful if we were able to give this man all of the power that he needs to pass the things that he needs to pass,” she said.

She also praised Obama for pushing equal pay for women, an issue she said is important to her “as a working mother.” (And not just any working mother but one who sometimes has to work 12-hour days.) Are we sure it was Paltrow who said the last bit about granting Obama the power he needs for his agenda, though? After his various executive “fixes” for ObamaCare, undeclared wars, and looming amnesty, that sounds like a line that might have come from The One himself. Case in point:

The White House is drafting options that would allow President Barack Obama to close the detention facility in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, by overriding a congressional ban on bringing detainees to the U.S., senior administration officials said…

Unilateral action “would ignite a political firestorm, even if it’s the best resolution for the Guantanamo problem,” said American University law professor Stephen Vladeck. Republicans are sure to oppose it, while Democrats could be split, he said…

[One] option would be for Mr. Obama to sign the [annual defense spending] bill while declaring restrictions on the transfer of Guantanamo prisoners an infringement of his powers as commander in chief, as he has done previously. Presidents of both parties have used such signing statements to clarify their understanding of legislative measures or put Congress on notice that they wouldn’t comply with provisions they consider infringements of executive power.

Right, but Obama swore off signing statements as an unconstitutional artifact of the Bush administration when he was running for president in 2008. Besides, ignoring congressional bans related to foreign affairs got Ronald Reagan into trouble some years ago, as I recall. Surely Obama wouldn’t want to emulate what the left considers the worst excesses of not one but two Republican presidents. Would he?

Exit question: Did the attendees at yesterday’s fundraiser re-take “the pledge”? Sounds like the atmosphere would have had them primed.

Update: Even TMZ is retching at this spectacle.