The difference seems clear: Many journalists are not merely observers but participants in the Obama phenomenon
Politico has this piece up and I would encourage you to read it:
In fact, the balance of political questions (15) to policy questions (13) was more substantive than other debates this year that prompted no deluge of protests. The difference is that this time there were more hard questions for Obama than for Clinton.
Moreover, those questions about Jeremiah Wright, about Obama’s association with 1960s radical William Ayers, about apparent contradictions between his past and present views on proven wedge issues like gun control, were entirely in-bounds. If anything they were overdue for a front-runner and likely nominee.
If Obama was covered like Clinton is, one feels certain the media focus would not have been on the questions, but on a candidate performance that at times seemed tinny, impatient, and uncertain.
The difference seems clear: Many journalists are not merely observers but participants in the Obama phenomenon.
(Harris only here: As one who has assigned journalists to cover Obama at both Politico and the Washington Post, I have witnessed the phenomenon several times. Some reporters come back and need to go through de-tox, to cure their swooning over Obama’s political skill. Even VandeHei seemed to have been bitten by the bug after the Iowa caucus.)
(VandeHei only here: There is no doubt reporters are smitten with Obama’s speeches and promises to change politics. I find his speeches, when he’s on, pretty electric myself. It certainly helps his cause that reporters also seem very tired of the Clintons and their paint-by-polls approach to governing.)
The fact that the majority of the media attacked ABC rather than look to the substance of the questions, seems to reinforce the arguement that I and many others make. The MSM is biased to the left and even more troubling is the fact that they are giving passes on policy to candidates. Watch how the very authors that attacked ABC, turn around and use the same line of questioning on McCain.
If elected, Obama will be choosing a cabinet. Can we expect a Terrorist Ayers, or a God Damn Reverend Wright on the team?
Now let’s go to the meat and potatos of this: Terrorist Ayers. see-dubya has written up a must read for you and makes a great point: Here’s a better analogy for Bill Ayers than Tom Coburn: Eric Rudolph.:
In this recent revival of interest in Ayres, no one I saw brought up the occasion in 2005 when Ayers, his terrorist wife Bernadette Dohrn, and Obama all spoke at the farewell dinner for Rashid Khalidi. Were we supposed to be saving that for an October surprise? Will video surface? I didn’t get that memo yet:
As see-dubya says, this will be talked about until November. Ayers isn’t going away.
So let me clear things up for the Obamessiah: there are actual evil terrorists on the radical Right. Terry Nichols comes to mind; he, like Ayers, attacked a government building with explosives, although his scale was much broader than the Weather Underground’s bombings. Perhaps a more suitable analogy for Ayers would be Eric Robert Rudolph. Like Ayers, Rudolph is a cold, unrepentant SOB, who set off bombs at the 1996 Olympics, at an abortion clinic, and at a lesbian nightclub. Like Ayers, Rudolph lived as a fugitive for a long time before his capture.
Now, it starts to break down a little bit when you consider that Rudolph is rotting in Supermax, while Ayers and his co-terrorist wife are tenured faculty living comfortable and respected lives in Hyde Park, but ignore that little quirk of the system for a second. And let’s ignore the fact that, instead of holding him up as a radical-chic hero, no one on the Right likes Eric Rudolph and many of us would like to see him get a dose of that capital punishment we bloodthirsty reactionaries are always slavering for. Overlook that, too.
Rudolph and Ayers are unrepentant domestic terrorists. They are evil. Decent people detest them. And if someone were to take money from Eric Rudolph, or get a start in politics from an endorsement in Eric Rudolph’s home, if someone were chummy with Eric Rudolph and kept moving in the same circles with him, that person would rightly be detested as well.
From the Left’s Big Book O’ Logic: If standards are good then double standards must be twice as good!
April 20, 2008 - 07:18 AM on April 20th, 2008
This is the best I’ve ever read and should be put in every newspaper, etc. across the whole United States of America. Ayers and Rudolph are ‘two peas in a pod’ and are the devil personified. So how is all this taking place in America and the good, evil is spoken of and the evil, good is spoken of? This Obama must have a way about him to be able to hold on to all this evil and come out smelling like a rose. Phenomenon is right! I think a great deal of extreme political correctness plays a big part in the overall scheme, coupled with fear of telling the truth. After seeing the movie EXPELLED last night, if you want to do what you know is right, you will be considered an outcast. So it’s best, as this Politico report says to “ignore that little quirk in the system” and live by double standards. Treat all this as normal and OK. If you know what’s good for you, never question any of Obama’s circle of friends, of whom he takes money from to fund his candidacy. Just as long as he makes pretty speeches,’He’s The Man.’ Well my spell check still doesn’t recognize him and that is what I go by, along with the fact I DETEST HIM. Obama is a good counterfeit and this all makes perfect sense.
Great Post: Very revealing: Thanks Pam! You, along with Politico are brave souls and I admire that.