Tuesday, January 23, 2007

Lib'ral Media Covers Up for Obama

Nice try, Chicago Sun-Times:

Barack Obama's week-old presidential campaign has been hit with a smear. Hillary Clinton's White House bid, launched Saturday, has been attacked with an unfounded accusation.

Contrary to what was reported in Insight magazine and then repeated on Fox News and in other news outlets, including a column that ran in the Sun-Times by free-lancer Mark Steyn, Obama was not educated in a radical Islamic school when he was an elementary student in Jakarta.

And there is no evidence whatsoever that Clinton's campaign had anything to do with spreading the damaging rumor that Obama hid a Muslim background.

The source for both slurs started in a report posted on the Web site of Insight, a conservative magazine published by the Washington Times. The article with no named sourcing alleged that researchers connected to Clinton dug up information about Obama as part of a "background check."

You mean Obama didn't attend a radical Islamist madrassa when he was six? Are they trying to tell us he didn't plot the destruction of America between nap-time and Play Doh lessons? Next the Lib'ral Media's going to try telling us he never actually burned the flag while cross-dressing when he ran that abortion clinic in San Francisco. They must think they're dealing with idiots.


The pete said...

To paraphrase Keith Olberman: How do these clowns get away with calling themselves "news" organizations?

Doug said...

I just love how they minimize Hillary's involvement in this case of character assassination.

Remember this when it comes time to choose between her and a candidate with the morals not to play the terrorist scare.

Darrin Bell said...

They minimize it because there's "no evidence" of any such involvement by the Clinton campaign.

If there were, that would be a good reason not to vote for her. I believe people govern the same way they campaign. Carter campaigned honestly and with positivity for the most part, and that's how he tried to govern, as far as we know. Bush's campaign was deceptive. The push-polls implying McCain had an illegitimate (gasp) "Black baby" in 2000, the flyers in Georgia in 2004 suggesting Kerry would "ban the Bible," etc... and not surprisingly, we end up with possibly the most mendacious administration in our history.

If Hillary is getting off on that same foot (which we have no evidence of, Insight Magazine's unsourced stories notwithstanding), that would be a good sign she won't be the antidote to the current administration.

But again, there's apparently no evidence at this point.

Anonymous said...

I'm not looking forward to this election. Don't get me wrong, I have no faith or respect left for the current administration, but if its going to be another giant dirt flinging contest I'm going to be depressed.

Anonymous said...

What do we REALLY need for the next election? Not someone ELECTABLE. We need someone who can DO THE JOB.

I have said in the past that we should really give America a choice: Falwell/Robertson vs Hefner/Fonda. Now, THAT would really determine something, I think.

Chuck said...

I have to agree that there is no current evidence that Hillary's campaign is involved in the Obama smear. It makes little sense for her to beat up whom her running mate is likely to be.

The whole thing sounds like a page out of a bad novel. (Not my novel, of course. You can read that sometime, I hope. I'm working on a publisher!)

I'll wait and see how this plays out. The whole thing is proving hilarious (no Hillaryous pun was intended, folks.)