When it comes to Sarah Palin, the media has been like a pack of rabid dogs going after every possible aspect of her life. Even some aspects of her life that are not at all possible.
They say, as journalists, they have an obligation to dig into her background and help the public get a better understanding of who she is. Fair enough, if they had the same enthusiasm for vetting Barack Obama. After all, it is he who is running for president. The fact is, the MSM largely treats Obama as if he is Teddy Kennedy, a guy who has been around forever and of whom there is nothing left to learn. The MSM has more vigorously vetted Palin in six weeks than they have Barack Obama in 18 months.
That is not to say that there haven’t been negative articles written about Obama. Liberals cite these of proof of the balanced media. That is simply absurd. What it proves is that there are stories out there that raise serious questions about the character and judgment of Barack Obama. What is missing is the feeding frenzy that brings these issues to the forefront of public consciousness.
Like what you say? For starters, how about the first race Barack ever ran, against a popular incumbent in his own party. When Sarah Palin did this, she took them on directly and beat them at the ballot box. What did Barack Obama do? He and his lawyer friends challenged her ballot signatures and had her name removed from the ballot. A new kind of politics? More like Chicago politics. Same goes for every progressive reformer who tried to rise up within Chicago and IL politics. Certainly, Barack Obama would be on their side, working to bring about “change”. Wrong again. Every time, Barack Obama sided with the entrenched, corrupt political machine, standing as a roadblock to the reform he claims to be all about. Then there is his work as a community organizer, specifically his interest in “affordable housing” for low income people. Turns out Barack Obama was working at the behest of real estate developers and against the interests of low income people with housing needs. Our own Boston Globe published a devastating portrait of young Barack the housing advocate? Or the story about Michelle Obama’s 300% raise after Barack became a US senator and then earmarked a million dollar thank you to her employer. How about the story out of Chicago this week that another Obama earmark is being investigated by the IL attorney general?
Have you ever heard of any of these events? Many of you are probably scratching your heads.
The fact is, there is much about Barack Obama we don’t know. Much of what we do know about his background doesn’t make any sense. For example, how in the world Rev. Wright could be a “spiritual mentor” for 20 years and then Obama suddenly claims he didn’t realize all that “God damn America” talk was going on inside his church?
Obama’s connection to Bill Ayers, the unrepentant terrorist from the Weather Underground, is the latest topic the MSM is avoiding like the plague. This is THE ISSUE that you simply cannot know about.
National Review’s David Freddoso has done some great work in his book The Case Against Barack Obama. When I interviewed him, he made the point that so much has been written that raises serious questions about Barack Obama, the problem is, it has been confined to the Chicago papers.
National Review’s Stanley Kurtz has been digging and reporting, filing freedom of information acts to get at the true nature of the relationship between the unrepentant terrorist Bill Ayers and the would-be president. What he has found so far makes Barack Obama look like a liar, someone who is afraid of the truth getting out. He can’t let you know the true nature of his relationship with the unrepentant terrorist, and who can blame him. Would you want the average American voter to know you worked closely with a guy who is proud of bombing the Pentagon?
No wonder Obama says Ayers is just some guy from his neighborhood.
Peter Kirsanow at The Corner,
Stanley Kurtz’s piece today describing what appears to be an attempt to cover-up the extent of Sen. Obama’s ties to William Ayers should have journalists salivating. This is a big story that, so far, the press seems determined to avoid.
A rookie reporter could look at what Stanley’s adduced and clearly see that Sen. Obama has engaged in serious misdirection regarding his relationship with Ayers. The ties between the two are far more lengthy and extensive than Obama admits.
It appears that Ayers took a keen interest in Obama at a time when Obama was nothing more than, as Stanley puts it, “a young and inexperienced lawyer.” Why? There are tens of thousands of young and inexperienced lawyers in Chicago. What did Ayers see in (or hear from) Obama that caused the former to take such an interest in him?
What else don’t you know about Barack Obama?
Bill Ayers
