There was a time when the MSM made sure that Obama avoided any unpleasant glare due to the facts. But that was then…and this is now.
Apparently, the MSM is smarting for their non-coverage of the now famously guilty John Edwards and mistress–and have now decided to actually shed some light on Obama.
The NY Times does just that in their article, Obama’s 2003 Stand on Abortion Draws New Criticism in 2008. Here’s a brief excerpt…
Mr. Obama’s critics to accuse him of playing fast and loose with the truth when he says he “would have been completely in, fully in support of the federal bill that everybody supported” if it had been offered at the state level.
“I don’t know whether he is lying or whether he forgot, but with his words, he is condemning himself, “ said Jill Stanek, a nurse in the Chicago area who was a main proponent of the federal measure and writes an anti-abortion blog. “He voted one way and then covered it up, and he has to explain that, not just to me, but to the American people.”
We had a post last week, Obama–Abortion Radical?, that presented a video embed and some powerful information from Jill Stanek’s website that clarifies this entire issue beyond that point from which Obama’s obfuscation and nuance can rescue him.
Per the NY Times…
But books like “Unfit for Command,” which remained for some 12 weeks on the Times best-seller list, and, now, “The Obama Nation,” have become an effective and favored delivery system for political attacks. There have been anti-Clinton (both Bill and Hillary) and anti-Bush books too numerous to name. The sensational findings in these books, true or dubious, can quickly come to dominate the larger political discussion in the news media, especially on cable television and the less readily detectible confines of talk radio and partisan Web sites.
Here’s the link to the NY Times Best Seller List.
BTW, The Obama Nation is currently holding the #9 position at Amazon (update: #1 as of 8/15/2008). Click the pic to read reviews at Amazon …
Discussion of Obama’s work as a law prof at Chicago is making the rounds lately and the conclusion is much the same as it was at the Harvard Law Review…he assiduously avoids taking a stand in print and/or leaving a paper trail.
Here’s excerpt and link…
Teaching Law, Testing Ideas, Obama Stood Apart
By JODI KANTOR
Published: July 30, 2008
The young law professor stood apart in too many ways to count. At a school where economic analysis was all the rage, he taught rights, race and gender. Other faculty members dreamed of tenured positions; he turned them down. While most colleagues published by the pound, he never completed a single work of legal scholarship.
Daniel Halper of Commentary Magazine provides an insightful analysis of Ms Kantor’s article here…“Anecdotes from Professor Obama”
Get ready for funnygate!
The op-eds are cluttered with articles about comedians’ loss of words when it comes to Obama. But Obama’s not a humorous guy…and that means you can’t be either. At least not at his expense.
Mo Do in the NY Times wonders…
At first blush, it would seem to be a positive for Obama that he is hard to mock. But on second thought, is it another sign that he’s trying so hard to be perfect that it’s stultifying? Or that eight years of W. and Cheney have robbed Democratic voters of their sense of humor?
Certainly, as the potential first black president, and as a contender with tender experience, Obama must feel under strain to be serious.
But he does not want the “take” on him to become that he’s so tightly wrapped, overcalculated and circumspect that he can’t even allow anyone to make jokes about him, and that his supporters are so evangelical and eager for a champion to rescue America that their response to any razzing is a sanctimonious: Don’t mess with our messiah!
And Kathleen Parker in Real Clear Politics has the audacity to address those who are furious at the mockers (will we soon see some passionate Obama-worshiper elevate the Obama criticism level from “racism” to “blasphemy”?).
For his part, Obama may be missing a Sister Souljah opportunity to demonstrate both his smarts and his common sense. His campaign has called The New Yorker cover “tasteless and offensive.” John McCain chimed in with “totally inappropriate.”
Harrumph, harrumph, harrumph.
Far more important than anyone’s feelings — and Obama surely knows this — is freedom of expression. Yet those who are objecting to the cover apparently think that only certain ideas should be expressed. And that some portion of conservative America is too stupid to get it.
Well, I’m shocked! Aren’t you?;-)
Obama Won’t Commit to Event at Military Base
By KATE ZERNIKE
Published: July 12, 2008
A coalition of military groups is planning a nationally televised town-hall-style meeting with the presidential candidates near Fort Hood, Tex., the largest active-duty military installation in the country. But so far, only Senator John McCain of Arizona, the presumptive Republican nominee, has agreed to attend.
CBS has agreed to broadcast the meeting live from 9 to 11 p.m. Eastern time on Monday, Aug. 11. The candidates would face questions directly from an audience of 6,000 people, made up of veterans, service members and military families from the base.
“I’m having extreme difficulty getting the Obama campaign to commit to this event, and we do not understand why,” said Ms. Picard, whose husband is deployed in Iraq. “We made it very clear to them that if they would commit to the event, we would work with them on dates.”