Wednesday, July 23, 2008

President-presumptive Barack Obama and his NY Times

In the last few days members of Sen. Barack Obama’s staff have referred to him as “the President” and demanded off the record and backgrounder considerations the press has previously accorded only a President and the White House. And who’s forgetting the Brandenburg Gate?

But really – Obama Come to Save Us – isn’t quite President yet.

So I’ll stick with President-presumptive and hope his supporters understand.

With that cleared up, let’s look at an IBS editorial posted yesterday afternoon. My comments follow below the star line.

IBS begins - - -

If you doubt the media are in the tank for Obama, doubt no more. The refusal of the New York Times to print McCain's op-ed on Obama after an Obama piece was published has nothing to do with editorial judgment and everything to do with protecting the media's heartthrob.

Times op-ed editor David Shipley, who served in the Clinton administration from 1995 to 1997, insists it was just a request for a rewrite, as is frequently done with other writers.

But McCain isn't a freelance writer or NYT staffer. He's a candidate for president of the United States and ought to be able to express his views — unedited and unfiltered.(emphasis added)

Shipley wanted McCain to define what he meant by victory and submit a timetable for achieving both victory and total withdrawal. He wanted McCain to write his editorial on Obama's terms.

We suspect the Times was trying to protect Obama, at least during his trip, from reminders that he opposed the surge and the war and was wrong on both counts.

Obama, whose foreign policy consists of talking to our enemies while bombing our allies, told the assembled veterans at the VFW Convention in Kansas City last year, "All our top military commanders recognize that there is no military solution in Iraq."

But there was a military solution in Iraq in Gen. David Petraeus' brilliant anti-terrorism strategy that paved the way for Iraqi political and religious reconciliation.

The rest of the editorial's here.



Since he won the Iowa caucuses, I’ve never doubted most of the media’s in the tank for Sen. Obama.

I know Obama himself sometimes doubts that, but the Times’ latest Anything for Obama treatment of Sen. McCain should reassure him.

On the other hand, it should wake up those Americans who still think the Times and many other news organizations are in business "To give the news impartially, without fear or favor, regardless of any party, sect or interest involved."

I’ll say more about IBS’s editorial later today.

What did you think?


Anonymous said...

Everybody thought this story about John Edwards was made up to hurt his political career.
Looks like it's true.
Edwards out of wedlock child

Anonymous said...

The Times lost all credibility of being fair and impartial many years ago. The same can be true for the major news networks though that can be traced all the way back to the Viet Nam War coverage. In the late sixties when there was a lot of comment about how the heartland felt about the war as opposed to the two coasts, CBS decided to have their veritable anchor, Walter Conkrite, return to his roots in order to demonstrate how he represented "middle America". His roots happened to be the town in which I lived at the time, St. Jospeh, Missouri. His father was a retired dentist who lived (or I think by then just his mother as I believe his father might have been deceased) four blocks from my home and his sister-in-law was an English teacher at my high school. (She was not only my English teacher that year but also my homeroom teacher). He spoke both at a school assembly if I recall correctly (local boy made good) but also at a public gathering that evening. Never was it more obvious that someone was out of touch than Conkrite as he proceeded to lecture those assembled about how mistaken they were about the war, etc. The comment of many, if not most in the audience was his audacity. Interestingly enough, his visit was played by the media (both local and national) as an affirmation that what he thought was the way middle America thought as well. Ever since that episode, I have had little if any faith in anything that I read or hear from the msm. They have an agenda and will ramrod it through no matter what. Thus in the Grey Lady world Obama is the next president - the voters don't even need to bother to show up at the polls.

Anonymous said...


Much like some candidates, they would rather lose a war than an election.

It isnt their blood...they just reap the benefits.

Colonel M.

Anonymous said...

John -

I learned from David Gergen that St. Barack violated the law when he went to Iraq and negotiated with Maliki. The last time I looked, the President was Bush and will be until noon Jan. 20th 2009, and the Logan Amendment makes it illegal for private individuals to negotiate on behalf of the US.

Where is our ever-silent Attorney General?

Jack in Silver Spring