The media chase a Cain “scandal” that isn’t there but never asked Obama about Larry Sinclair

coachisright.com ^ | Nov. 13, 2011 | Suzanne Eovaldi, staff writer

[jmaroneps37]

The failure of the US media to properly vet the candidacy of Barack Obama in the 2008 presidential campaign can be cited as one of our country’s most harmful periods.

Yet, we see the same pernicious cycle being perpetrated against Herman Cain just four years later. They refuse to follow up on substantial allegations against Obama like those made against him by Larry Sinclair. but run with vapid lies from gold digging phonies.

To understand the media’s use of its enormous power against Republican, and especially conservative, candidates, we need to remind ourselves of how Clarence Thomas was cruelly treated during his Supreme Court hearings in the early ’90s.

Running under the current of a Black man who steps away from his deemed allegiance to the Democrat Party, liberals sought to punish Thomas by using the sub-rosa theme of a black man’s sexuality to bring him down.

Ted Kennedy’s savage attacks on Robert Bork could not be repeated on Thomas, so using the old canard of he- said-she-said, the mainstream media reached way out to Oral Roberts University’s teaching staff and brought Anita Hill into the spot light.

One blogger says, “The mind reels imagining the acrimony and snide remarks that would be made had a victim of Bill Clinton been employed at Oral Roberts University.”….

Thomas himself ended his hearings with a stirring rebuke when he said, “This is a circus. This is a national disgrace. It is a high tech lynching.”……

Do you recall the media demanding Obama’s explanation of why Larry Sinclair might have been lying when he alleged that he an Obama got drunk together and had homosexual sex? Of course not! Yet Sinclair was very up front and willing to answer any questions…

[dhs12345]

Yup.

[this is my country]

Thank you. That validates what you said and adds a whole different slant on the cover up at Penn State.

[Lancey Howard]

...and adds a whole different slant on the cover up at Penn State.

Yep. Maybe it made it a little easier for Sandusky's enablers to look the other way - - the victims were "just" black kids. I'm sure the Democrat newsrooms are gnashing their teeth as they try to avoid using the word "homosexual" when they write their stories. I suppose the victims being mostly black kids confuses them even more. It's tough enough for the Democrat newsrooms to paint Sandusky as a monster - - after all, in their eyes Sandusky is just a homosexual who likes his sex partners a little younger. Newsrooms like the New York Times simply can't understand the outrage.