The Strangest Incidents In Campaign History

The Bulletin ^ | August 12, 2008 | Herb Denenberg

[jazusamo]

Here are two of the strangest developments in the history of presidential political campaigns:

1. A 7-year-old girl at an Obama town forum asks the candidate a question that devastates the candidate by demonstrating he doesn't have a good grasp of why he's running for president. Yes, Sen. Barack Obama doesn't have a clue, as to why he is running for the highest office in the land. You'll recall in 1974 that a CBS reporter and anchor, Roger Mudd, asked Ted Kennedy why he was running for president, and Kennedy so flubbed his answer that it is credited with killing his candidacy. If the seven-year old's question and Obama's answer were fully and correctly reported, it would kill his candidacy, too. But you know with the biased, dishonest, and fraudulent mainstream media that's not going to happen. If John McCain had flubbed a simple question like that coming from a seven-year old it would be on more front pages than you could count.

2. The confession of John Edwards demonstrates that when it comes to political reporting the tabloid National Enquirer is a lot more reliable and sound journalistically than such mainstream giants as the New York Times and Los Angeles Times. The National Enquirer uncovered the Edwards adultery story and reported it. The New York Times and most of the mainstream media simply tried to cover it up, as they usually do when there's news that might hurt the party for which they have become a house organ - the Democratic Party. The responses of Mr. Edwards to the revelation are stories in themselves in the way they portray one of the leading minds and a leader of the Democratic Party. Sen. Edwards, I gather in his defense, said he did not "love" the woman that he was having an affair with. That's the equivalent of Bill Clinton's "I did not inhale." And Mr. Edwards also said he had the affair during the time when his wife's cancer was in remission. That apparently means you can cheat on your wife, provided she is not then suffering from terminal or incurable cancer.

I should caution that those two are among the strangest developments of this campaign season, but they are only distant seconds to the strangest development. That is the mainstream media's biased, dishonest and fraudulent effort to sell Mr. Obama to the public. It is still an open question whether this most dangerous malfeasance in journalistic political history will succeed in selling an untested, untried, unvetted political toddler, who comes with a razor thin resume, loony judgment and proposals, and with a band of associates that are anti-American, terrorists, bigots, racists, crooks, and more. But lets get back to the two cases at hand involving a question from a seven-year old and an investigative report from a supermarket tabloid.

The Nuclear Question From A Seven-Year-Old The seven-year old girl asked Mr. Obama a simple question, "Why did you start running for president?" Here's Mr. Obama's answer, as I transcribed it from a television video. But I caution you it is hard to translate all the stumbling, fumbling, grasping, and groping that comes through in the actual recording: "I started running for president because of of-uh of-uh because I've got two daughters just like you. America is (pause) is no longer uh what it (pause) could be, what it once was. And I say to myself I don't want that future for my children."

That answer is fatal on two counts:

* First, it shows that at this late date, like Ted Kennedy during his presidential run against Mr. Carter, Mr. Obama doesn't have a clear idea of why he's even running for president. If you've been running for president since the moment you were elected to the Senate (some say since you were in kindergarten), and still don't know why you're running, and can't give a good clear coherent answer, you don't deserve to be president.

* Second, Mr. Obama's reason he's running involves running down America. He doesn't want America, as we know it, for his children. America is not what it once was. Anyone who thinks that way is not qualified to be president, and is also sick in the head. With all its faults, America is still the greatest country in the history of the world, with more opportunity, freedom, justice, and humanity and wealth than most can even imagine. I don't know about you, but every day I think to myself, what a great country I'm living in that gives me and everyone else here what any human would want. America is a great country and always has been and always will be, notwithstanding the anti-American tradition of Rev. Wright, Bill Ayres, and Mr. Obama. Mike Huckabee, a former governor and presidential candidate, summarized it perfectly, "He was groping and grasping for words. He couldn't find what he wanted to say. But the worst thing he said was that America's best days were back there somewhere, and I'm thinking what days were those ... People are going to get the perception that he really thinks that America's not that great a country right now." Mr. Huckabee suggested Mr. Obama better clarify that statement and do so right away. As of this writing, Mr. Obama has not retracted or clarified that statement, and I'd say it is already a little late to do so with any effect. I'd also suggest that this negative view of America was not a slip of the tongue or miscommunication that comes from someone who apparently can't communicate clearly without a script or a teleprompter. I'd suggest that there is a deep hate-America strain in Mr. Obama and his associates.

Recall some of his statements, actions and associates:

* For 20 years he sat in the pews and was a member of the church headed by Rev. Jeremiah "God Damn America" Wright, and stayed in the church and defended Rev. Wright, until the reverend turned on him and said he was just another politician.

* Mr. Obama is the guy who refused to wear an American flag on his coat lapel and said such a flag pin was a symbol of false patriotism. He stated, "You know the truth is that right after 9/11 I had a [flag] pin [on my lapel]. Shortly after 9/11, particularly because as we're talking about the Iraq War, that became a substitute for I think true patriotism, which is speaking out on issues that are of importance to our national security. I decided I won't wear that pin on my chest" (ABC News, October 4, 2007). I'd say Mr. Obama is a symbol of false patriotism. Anyone who doesn't revere the flag and know what it symbolizes is not fit to be president and isn't even fit to be an American. Anyone who doesn't know what patriotism is - and it's not just "speaking on issues of importance to our national security" - is too dense to be president.

* Among his associates and campaign contributors are the husband and wife team of terrorists, William Ayres and Bernadine Dohrn, and that association has continued even when everyone now knows that the two are unrepentant terrorists involved in bombing the U.S. Capitol and the Pentagon and still cursing the United States. Mr. Ayres recently said his only regret was that he didn't do more bombing, and his past and recent statement show he is among the hate-America associates of Mr. Obama.

* Mr. Obama was alone among those on the speakers' platform that did not place his hand over his heart when the Star Spangled Banner was played at a campaign event. This incident appeared on an ABC news video. According to the United States Code, Title 36, Chapter 10, section 171. "During rendition of the national anthem when the flag is displayed, all present except those in uniform should stand at attention facing the flag with the right hand over the heart." Everyone on the platform, including Sen. Tom Harkin, Sen. Christopher Dodd, and Mr. Edwards seemed to know what to do. Only Mr. Obama did not, and later said, "I was taught by my grandfather that you put your hand over your heart during the pledge, but during the Star Spangled Banner you sing." Maybe he thinks the hand on the heart is another symbol of false patriotism. This matter is covered in detail in the book by Jerome Corsi, The Obama Nation: Leftist Politics and the Cult of Personality.

* You get some sense of the Obama view of America from his wife's attitude. She said America is a "mean country" and she was never proud of her country until her husband was running for president.

This all led Mr. Corsi to observe, "When the United States has its armed forces in the field of battle, a politician running for president raises many unnecessary questions by refusing to make simple expressions of devotion to the country he aspires to lead. To not do so risks alienating important voter segments, ones that Mr. Obama can ill afford to lose, perhaps when his opponent is John McCain, a former Vietnam War prisoner. Even Obama will have to honor his rival as a legitimate war hero."

It should be noted that even though Mr. Obama may reject the symbols of patriotism, he quickly embraced them when he found that to be politically expedient. He now wears a flag pin, that symbol - he says - of false patriotism, has flags in the background when he speaks, and often ends a speech with a "God bless America." Yes, we can ... do whatever it takes to get elected. He goes with the political winds, does whatever he thinks is necessary to win, and has little room for principles and core beliefs.

'National Enquirer' Versus 'New York Times'

As we know now, the National Inquirer, the supermarket tabloid, reported that Mr. Edwards was having an affair, and even had pictures to prove part of its report when they caught the Mr. Edwards coming out of a hotel room of his mistress in the middle of the night. Mr. Edwards denied everything and did so on multiple occasions. This story was ignored by the New York Times and almost all of the mainstream media.

Then last Friday, Mr. Edwards confessed to the affair, and the mainstream media was forced to start covering the story.

This failure to cover a story about a major figure in the Democratic Party strikes me as strange, as it demonstrates that the mainstream media is so in the tank for the Democratic Party and Mr. Obama, that it now, whenever possible, covers up scandals and other reports that might be harmful to its political agenda. This kind of material is reported only when the mainstream media is embarrassed into finally reporting on it after the alternative media gathers momentum with the story. So we've reached the point where this supermarket tabloid is more honest and trustworthy in covering political news than the New York Times, once thought to be one of the great papers of the world, until it started turning both its news and editorial pages into a propaganda instrument for liberal and Democratic Party causes.

(For more details see Bob Kohn's classic book, Journalistic Fraud: How the New York Times Distorts the News and Why It Can No Longer Be Trusted and many of my columns on the subject of the treasonous Times and the rest of the mainstream media on The Bulletin's Web site at www.thebulletin.us.)

Even the public editor (ombudsman) of the New York Times admitted the "Times did not try to verify it [the National Enquirer story] beyond a few perfunctory efforts, which I think was wrong." The public editor writes the Times did not want to "regurgitate the Enquirer's reporting without verifying it, which is responsible." It would not have hesitated to regurgitate the report coming from the Washington Post or another of its compatriots in the dishonest, fraudulent, and biased mainstream media.

The mainstream media looks down its nose at the National Enquirer. The mainstream media is so arrogant and so removed from the real world that it doesn't even know that for the decades the Enquirer has meticulously researched, fact-checked and reported on celebrities. The fact that the New York Times is unaware of that reality suggests they may be slightly incompetent as well as grossly biased. That tabloid has come up with some major investigative scoops in recent years such as those involving Jesse Jackson and Jennifer Flowers. I have personally found the National Enquirer, in covering stories that I was involved in, to be more careful than the publications of the mainstream media such as Newsweek and the New York Times. For example, when the Enquirer used a quote of mine, it called me up and confirmed it; the mainstream media rarely do so. But that aside, we've come to a pretty pass when a supermarket tabloid sets higher standards and does better investigative reporting than a supposed icon of quality journalism. Unfortunately, that tells us more about the New York Times and the mainstream media than about the National Enquirer.

The Edwards scandal shows what happens when the mainstream media gives someone a free pass. Mr. Edwards was a vice presidential nominee on the Democratic Party, and if Sen. John Kerry had been elected he might well have become president. We may be heading toward another explosion when the full truth on Mr. Obama finally comes out in the mainstream media. But giving candidates for the presidency free passes has nothing but disaster written all over those free passes. Beware of candidates that the mainstream media tries to sell us. Beware of Mr. Obama.

Herb Denenberg is a former Pennsylvania Insurance Commissioner, Pennsylvania Public Utility Commissioner, and professor at the Wharton School. He is a longtime Philadelphia journalist and consumer advocate. He is also a member of the Institute of Medicine of the National Academy of the Sciences. His column appears daily in The Bulletin. You can reach him at advocate@thebulletin.us.

[Titan Magroyne]

bfl

[happygrl]

Actually, Roger Mudd was a leading newscaster at that time, and his interviw of Kennedy was considered superlative.

He was in the running to succeed Walter Kronkite, but Handsome Dan Rather, as he was known at that time, was annointed, to the dismay of Kronkite.

Roger Mudd was an outstanding journalist, and CBS's choosing Rather over him set the stage for the decline of the MSM.