Michelle Malkinexposes that Thursday night’s debate moderator, Gwen Ifill of PBS, has a pro-Obama book coming out in January. And she just penned a puff piece on the Obamas in Essence Magazine. And her reporting on Sarah Palin at the Republican National Convention was clearly derisive, drawing many complaints.
In other words, how in the heck did she get picked as a non-partial moderator?
In an imaginary world where liberal journalists are held to the same standards as everyone else, Ifill would be required to make a full disclosure at the start of the debate. She would be required to turn to the cameras and tell the national audience that she has a book coming out on January 20, 2009 – a date that just happens to coincide with the inauguration of the next president of the United States. The title of Ifill’s book? “Breakthrough: Politics and Race in the Age of Obama.†Nonpartisan my foot.
Malkin makes a convincing case. Read it all. And watch the embedded video.
My ex-boss, former U.S. Senator Peter Fitzgerald, always seems to be one step ahead of everyone. His new bank in suburban Washington D.C. is booming in the midst of a financial meltdown.
Stunning—and sad—quote from a MSM (D-Obama) newsroom. The tank for Obama is so full reporters are just jumping into Lake Michigan.
Off the record, every suspicion you have about MSM being in the tank for O is true. We have a team of 4 people going thru dumpsters in Alaska and 4 in arizona. Not a single one looking into Acorn, Ayers or Freddiemae. Editor refuses to publish anything that would jeopardize election for O, and betting you dollars to donuts same is true at NYT, others. People cheer when CNN or NBC run another Palin-mocking but raising any reasonable inquiry into obama is derided or flat out ignored. The fix is in, and its working.
The lazy homers at the Chicago Tribune are content mocking Sarah Palin rather than investigating the politician right under its nose.
We live in a political system that has not yet been adequately described, but one might call it a “mediated democracy.” Mediated by a self-appointed, generally ignorant but highly opinionated “elite” that is not elite by any conventional measure–income, intelligence, education, social position–but that successfully dictates the terms of political discourse even though it no longer controls (exclusively, anyway) the means of production of the news. Someday, social scientists may be able to explain this. For now, we appear to be stuck with it.
Here is the “vetting” the MSM (D-Obama) is giving a presidential candidate five weeks from the election. This “exclusive” interview of Barack Obama was conducted by CBS’ Bob Schieffer on Sunday morning’s Face the Nation. Here are the questions only:
SCHIEFFER: …Senator, it’s still very complicated. We should stress this, it still hasn’t even been put down on
paper, all of it. But I know you were talking with the negotiators through the night last night. What can you tell us about it, and can you support it?
SCHIEFFER: So as it stands now…
SCHIEFFER: …from what you understand about it, you will support this?
SCHIEFFER: OK.
SCHIEFFER: Mm-hmm.
SCHIEFFER: OK. Well…
SCHIEFFER: Well, let’s just–let’s just talk about this. When the president came on television and said we need this bailout package, he painted it in the most dire terms.
SCHIEFFER: How–do you agree with him? How crucial is it that this pass? How bad is this situation right now?
SCHIEFFER: So it is as serious–you agree with the president’s assessment. It’s as serious as he said it was?
SCHIEFFER: OK.
SCHIEFFER: Let me ask you this. You and Senator McCain took very different approaches to this. He suspended his campaign, he called for a big summit meeting in Washington.
SCHIEFFER: You stood back a little bit at that point. Now that this–it looks like they’ve gotten to some agreement, should Senator McCain be getting the credit here for forcing these people
back to the negotiating table?
SCHIEFFER: Mm-hmm.
SCHIEFFER: What…
SCHIEFFER: This was obviously the first topic, as it should have been, in the debate Friday
night. This is your first time to talk about the debate since then. How do you think it went?
SCHIEFFER: Mm-hmm.
SCHIEFFER: All right. We’re going to take a break here and come back and talk about some of
that in more detail in just a minute.
SCHIEFFER: And we’re back now with Senator Obama.
Senator, it seems to me that the whole debate came down to a couple of questions. You questioned Senator McCain’s judgment repeatedly, he repeatedly said you just didn’t understand; that you didn’t have the knowledge or the understanding to deal with these issues, both the
financial issues and foreign policy issues.
SCHIEFFER: Some Democrats said that they thought he was being condescending to you. Did
you take it in that way?
SCHIEFFER: One of the most heated points in the debate came when we were talking, or you all were talking about whether or not you would sit down with America’s enemies…
SCHIEFFER: …and under what conditions. Would you, and under what conditions would you talk to, say, somebody like President Ahmadinejad of Iran?
SCHIEFFER: Sure…
SCHIEFFER: While we’re still on foreign policy, Senator McCain’s running mate, Sarah Palin,
claimed in an interview that Alaska’s proximity to Russia somehow enhances her foreign policy
experience and credentials. Do you agree with that?
SCHIEFFER: Well, do you believe she’s qualified?
SCHIEFFER: But…
SCHIEFFER: But don’t you think what she says is important?
SCHIEFFER: I mean, she could be a heartbeat away from the presidency.
SCHIEFFER: Neither you nor Senator McCain would kind of be pinned down on the changes
that are obviously going to have to me made because of this financial situation.
SCHIEFFER: There are some things that simply we’re not going to be able to afford. Senator
McCain said one thing he would do would freeze spending.
SCHIEFFER: Freeze all government programs with the exception of entitlements, national defense and veterans’ care. Do you think that’s feasible?
SCHIEFFER: But…
SCHIEFFER: We really have to go.
SCHIEFFER: All right, Senator, thank you so much. We’re just out of time.
SCHIEFFER: Thank you for being with us. Thank you.
Whew…..Barack must have been a bundle of nerves after that “grilling.”
I thought John McCain decisively defeated Barack Obama last night on substance. He schooled Obama on foreign policy and managed to steer the economy argument to earmarks and spending—his turf. If the MSM (D-Obama) was balanced, it would be pummeling Obama today for his Kissinger gaffe. My guess is it will barely touch it.
On style, of course, Obama is hard to match. In reality, when you dice his words and substance, he’s the best disguised empty suit we’ve ever seen in national politics. He slides and dissembles gracefully and almost invisibly. Two times, however, I thought he slipped up.
When Obama tried to match a story McCain told about a fallen soldier and the bracelet he wears, he had to look down to see the name of the soldier and verbally stumbled, briefly. If you are going to wear a soldier’s bracelet, you better have the story down stone cold or it looks like your symbol is a hollow pander.
Another way Obama panders (and many other politicians) is constant use of the word “folks.” I always thought Obama’s use was particularly incongruous because in the liberal elite circles he hangs, I’m not convinced the “folks” are a big concern. But Obama reflexively uses the term of endearment, even when referring to terrorists.
And the point that I originally made is that we took our eye off Afghanistan, we took our eye off the folks who perpetrated 9/11, they are still sending out videotapes and Senator McCain, nobody is talking about defeat in Iraq, but I have to say we are having enormous problems in Afghanistan because of that decision.
Obama doesn’t have to pander to terrorists—I’m sure they already are hoping he wins.
The Illinois Attorney General is now investigating a $100,000 state earmark from Barack Obama to the wife of a former campaign worker that apparently produced nothing of value to taxpayers unless you call an isolated, unfinished gazebo in a weed-filled lot a structure of value.
Obama and Kenny Smith announced the “Englewood Botanic Garden Project” at a January 2000 news conference at Englewood High School. Obama was in the midst of a failed bid to oust South Side Democratic Rep. Bobby Rush for a seat in Congress. The garden — planned near and under L tracks between 59th Place and 62nd Place — fell outside of Obama’s Illinois Senate district but within the congressional district’s borders.
Obama vowed to “work tirelessly” to raise $1.1 million to help Smith’s organization turn the City of Chicago-owned lot into an oasis of trees and paths. But Obama lost the congressional race, no more money was raised, and today the garden site is a mess of weeds, chunks of concrete and garbage. The only noticeable improvement is a gazebo.
Sounds a lot like the low-income housing developments in Obama’s state senate district. Developers got rich, Obama got campaign funds and residents and taxpayers got screwed.
As Illinois journalists, politicians and other institutions act offended at campaign commercials that portray Chicago and Illinois as corrupt, what is the big picture? The home town players are all trying to draw fine lines absolving themselves of taint.
What’s needed in Illinois is not just another campaign ethics law—we had one of those in 1998 and it preceded the most corrupt period in state history.
What’s more important are politicians who stand up against their own political interests and say enough is enough. Who has done that in Illinois? Very few and certainly not Barack Obama. For example, Obama helped elect Rod Blagojevich and then endorsed him for re-election when it was known he was under multiple federal investigations.
What’s needed is someone like Sarah Palin. With a large family to feed and no personal wealth, she quit a $122,000 job at the most powerful political commission in Alaska after she blew the whistle on corrupt members of her own party. She then took on her own party in a primary and defeated a corrupt governor.
Reverse Spin allows a former newspaper reporter, editor, government spokesman and long ago JFK Democrat turned Republican strategist to explain the weird and twisted things that are written and said every day...in Illinois...and across the country. Dan Curry can be reached at danieldcurry at gmail dot com. The opinions expressed here are correct and not always those of clients of my public affairs consulting company, Curry Public Strategies, Inc.
