What’s Supposedly ‘New’ Is Old Around Here, and How Old Media May Have Fatally Injured Its Fave
Given who the presidential candidate I refer to as BOOHOO (Barack O-bomba Overseas Hussein “Obambi” Obama) is up against this fall, the emphasis is on “may.”
Though the presidential campaign has already been on for a mind-numbing 13 months, it is only during the past two weeks that a few “hot” stories about Obama have surfaced.
Did I say “hot”? Well, not around here. They’re either “been-there, done-thats” or “been-there, who’s-going-to-look-at-thats” at BizzyBlog.
The Rezko property? On December 17, 2006, yours truly picked up on a Washington Post story that seemed to have its priorities out of line:
This has the appearance of a clever misdirect. What’s bigger news, possibly overpaying $64K for part of a lot, or definitely underpaying $300K for his principal residence (because an appraisal almost certainly exists, and WaPo didn’t qualify its “under market” statement in any way)?
The WaPo report in question mentioned the smaller transaction in the first paragraph, and waited until the third to mention the one involving the $300K underpayment. Now the Obama-Rezko relationship appears to be deeper and has more tentacles, including a British-Iraqi billionaire, as revealed by the Times of London (interesting how you have to go overseas to get good investigative reporting about Democrats).
Another old-news item relates to Obama’s autobiograpy. Kenneth Lamb, in a post that primarily questions the accuracy of Obama’s claimed racial heritage, criticizes Obama for using composite characters in that autobiography. Yep, that’s what Obama did. Yours truly noted it in a January 15, 2007 post, which commented on a New York Daily News report that Old Media ended up not pursuing further:
We can thank (Obama) for introducing literary devices even James “Million Little Pieces” Frey might be too embarrassed to use into the realm of political biography.
It should not go unnoticed that the same Oprah Winfrey who ripped James Frey for deceiving her about the use of composites in his book hasn’t had a word to say about someone aspiring to the highest political office in the land doing exactly the same thing.
(Feb. 29 Note: A commenter takes me to task for not noting that Obama discloses the existence of composite characters. This is a weak argument, because as I understand it, Obama doesn’t specifically identify all of the composites [if true, we get to guess which ones are and aren’t]. And even if all composite characters have been identified, their presence in an “autobiography” is questionable at best, and, even if disclosed deceptive at worst [basically telling the reader, “this isn’t the truth, but believe it anyway”]. Further, any possible “mitigation” relating to the disclosure of composites is wiped out by the fact that the Chicago Tribune found flat-out untruths in the autobiography. Their presence goes beyond the composites gambit. I appreciate the commenter reminding me of the extent of Obama’s fundamental credibility problems, and the disappointing degree of Oprah’s concomitant lack of expressed concern.)
Aside: The flow of traffic from Lamb’s site has been steady, and not insignificant, in the 11 days since I commented there, indicating that Lamb’s post has been getting consistently heavy traffic during that time. I get the sense that Obama’s basic credibility is doing a slow but sure drawdown.
The third old-news item turns out to be a real hoot. Obama, it seems, is building a perception, celebrated in some circles, that, if elected, he will in some ways be our first “feminized,” if not feminine, president. Dr. Helen noted this in the course of reading “The New Feminized Majority” by Katherine Adam and Charles Derber.
At the New York Times, Maureen Dowd raised alarm bells about this in December 2006, invoking “Obambi,” the nickname given to Obama by the Chicago press corps, in the process:
So there is a second question, perhaps one that will trump race and gender. It’s about whether he’s tough and she’s genuine.
Adam and Derber are saying/hoping that he isn’t tough.
It appears that the two needn’t worry. BOOHOO showed (covered in this December 2006 post) that he richly deserves the Obambi part of his nickname when, seven weeks after she wrote about them (”His ears stick out, he smokes, and he’s written about wrestling with pot, booze and “maybe a little blow” as a young man.”), he complained to Dowd that he was sennnnnsitive about his ears, and “put her on notice” that she should quit writing about them. The Obama excuse machine says he was kidding. I’ve listened to audio of the exchange; I’m not buying it, especially given Dowd’s response (”We’re trying to toughen you up.”).
She may not like the reality, but Dowd knows that a “feminized” male presidential candidate is more than likely a “losing” presidential candidate.
The larger point is this: There have been plentiful warning signs about BOOHOO that have been out there for a long time. Rather than investigate them, Old Media decided that things like Fred Thompson’s cancer, Fred Thompson’s supposed abortion lobbying, Mitt Romney’s wealth, Mitt Romney’s religion, Rudy Giuliani’s expense reports, Rudy Giuliani’s post-mayoral work history, and other matters were more important than basic digging into one of the guys on their team. Now that he’s the presumptive nominee, Old Media is in the unfortunate position of having to trying to suppress inconvenient truths about Obama for the next eight months in the New Media Age. Good luck.
If more of the truth about Obama comes out after the nomination, and if it affects his electability, it will only show that Old Media does the party it is partial to no favors when it chooses not to do its job by giving those candidates a free pass.
______________________________________________
ALSO: In a non-Obama-related matter, Weasel Zippers (HT to Hot Air’s headlines) noted a few days ago that Canadian Soldiers are being told to avoid posting personal information on social sites like Facebook because “They are worried that terrorists will look at a soldier’s friends and family, find them and use them as soft targets.”
A BizzyBlog post on October 23, 2005 about why soldiers’ exploits in Iraq are not being highlighted by the military refers to this very same problem — one that Old Media has not to my knowledge mentioned even once in the intervening two-plus years:
This may be the first war we have fought since The Revolutionary War where our soldiers have had to worry about harm to their families and relatives from enemy sleepers inside our own country. Maybe even more than media bias against the war, perhaps this unfortunately legitimate fear explains why we are not hearing as much about war heroics in Iraq and Afghanistan as we have heard in previous wars. It’s a real shame not to hear the stories, but it’s hard to argue against suppressing the news if discretion is necessary to keep loved ones safe.
That is a good point about the book stuff as it relates to Oprah. I never thought of that.
Comment by Ben Keeler — February 28, 2008 @ 11:14 am
#1, not enough other people have either, though it just happened in Jan 2006.
Comment by TBlumer — February 28, 2008 @ 12:02 pm
This is exactly what the MSM did with the Clinton’s in the 1992 campaign. They discounted all the baggage. The Clintons are mad because Obama is getting the same treatment they did 16 years ago. Go figure. The best of both worlds at this point is for Obama to win the Ohio primary and Clinton to win the Texas primary, that way they keep exposing each other’s dirt right up to the convention. Clinton get’s the nomination with the Super delegates and the Dem Party is split.
Comment by dscott — February 28, 2008 @ 2:51 pm
#3, Obama can’t expect 2008=1992 because of New Media, unless New Media gets cowed, which I would not expect. Drudge didn’t even exist in 1992.
Comment by TBlumer — February 28, 2008 @ 3:02 pm
Two suggested titles to read. ‘How the Irish Saved Civilization” by Cahill.
And
“The Queen’s Slaves Traders” by Hazlewood
History has not been a huge subject in American schools since current events took priority, except one cannot understand current events, unless one understands history.
“Reitwiesner’s research identifies two other presidential candidates, Republican Sen. John McCain of Arizona and former Democratic Sen. John Edwards of North Carolina, as descendants of slave owners. Three of McCain’s great-great-grandfathers in Mississippi owned slaves, including one who owned 52 in 1860. Two ancestors of Edwards owned one slave each in Georgia in 1860.”
During the American Revolution, Britain felt the southern colonies would support them because of the slavery issue, this turned out not to be the case. Even though stories of battles during of the Revolution are mostly remembered being fought in the northern colonies, some of the toughest battles were fought in the southern colonies by southern colonist against British troops.
Comment by kind and sweet — February 28, 2008 @ 3:04 pm
#5, and your point?
If you want to claim that ancestry is destiny, a closer look into BOOHOO’s father would be in order:
UK Daily Mail
BizzyBlog
I would suggest that it’s a tad more relevant than what descendants were or weren’t doing 148 years ago.
Comment by TBlumer — February 28, 2008 @ 3:31 pm
The comment is based on a link given in the posting which slave trade was mentioned.
Comment by sweet and kind — February 28, 2008 @ 4:44 pm
Lol, you have to remember Obama is also related to Dick Chaney also.
“Obama’s upbringing in a white household contributed to some questioning early in his campaign about whether he is “black enough” to win over black voters”
http://www.newser.com/article/1A1-D8UFO6BO0.html
One thing about America- it is not a homogeneous country, like some of the Asian countries are. I think many Americans now are made up of a blend of many different nationalities. I understand political attacks; I don’t think it will be effective in discrediting Obama. He does not attend a Muslim church, but a black Christian church. If Obama is the democratic choice and McCain the Republicans choice, conservatives may be further ahead to debate issue differences than Obama’s father, who he did not see after he was two.
My first post was in response to a link given on the post which ‘slave traders’ were brought up.
Comment by kin and sweet — February 28, 2008 @ 5:14 pm
What are we to make with Obama’s “friendly” (according to his own staffers) relationship with unrepentant, home-grown terrorist William Ayers. I don’t mean to suggest Barack is guilty of the crimes of the Weathermen; rather, I am left to wonder just how ‘down with the radicals’ Obama is.
Comment by eLarson — February 28, 2008 @ 5:40 pm
#7, Lamb’s point is relatively tangential. His primary argument is that Obama’s claim to be African-American is very suspect.
You want to pretend that it’s central to what Lamb had to say, which is I suppose why you made it central to your comment. Nice try, no sale.
#8, I still think Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton are less than pleased about Obama’s rise and don’t believe he’s “black enough.”
Comment by TBlumer — February 28, 2008 @ 9:47 pm
Tom,
Jesse Jackson has endorsed Obama, but if you tell me you think Al Sharpton doesn’t consider Obama to be “black enough” to be President, I’ll yield to your superior cultural/political intuition.
Still, I fear you’ve linked us to someone less astute than yourself with this Kenneth Lamb post. Are we honestly expected to fault Barack Obama for referring to himself as African-American, given that his father is African and his mother is American?
Comment by Tony B. — February 29, 2008 @ 12:24 am
Tom,
I feel terrible that you’ve led one of your readers to believe Oprah was remiss in not dressing down Obama, as she did Frey.
You failed to tell your reader(s) that unlike Frey, Obama explained in his book’s introduction that he had changed names and created composites. Disclosure is a wonderful thing.
Comment by Tony B. — February 29, 2008 @ 12:37 am
This is a good read to link to.
http://atlasshrugs2000.typepad.com/atlas_shrugs/2008/02/obama-islam-the.html
Comment by Scrapiron — February 29, 2008 @ 12:46 am
Kristoff from the New York Times a year ago:
Mr. Obama recalled the opening lines of the Arabic call to prayer, reciting them with a first-rate accent. In a remark that seemed delightfully uncalculated (it’ll give Alabama voters heart attacks), Mr. Obama described the call to prayer as “one of the prettiest sounds on Earth at sunset.”
The Lame Stream Media knows but covers up. http://atlasshrugs2000.typepad.com/atlas_shrugs/2008/02/obama-islam-the.html
Comment by Scrapiron — February 29, 2008 @ 12:49 am
#12, she was remiss in not dressing down Obama for using composites, disclosed or not. WTF is an “autobiography” doing with composites in it? IOW, “This is a made-up POS, but buy it anyway.”
I did err, in not being harsh enough, given what the Chicago Trib found:
HERE.
I appreciate your jogging my memory on this. I have updated the relevant text above to reflect how much worse things are than originally portrayed, and have alerted to gentleman involved to that reality.
#11, I guaran-bleeping-tee you that Jackson is gritting his teeth but bowing to reality:
HERE
You can’t get much stronger than accusing someone of “acting white.”
Sharpton’s intense dislike is also noted there.
Obama has done nothing since to change either J’s or S’s mind — except become the front-runner.
Comment by TBlumer — February 29, 2008 @ 1:15 am
http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2008/02/obama_nafta_flap_about_ready_t.html interesting reading. I still want Obie to win one and lose the other, it will keep Hillary in long enough to mortally wound Obie after all she is getting better at it, Practice makes perfect.
Comment by dscott — February 29, 2008 @ 3:03 pm