Why Didn't We Know Then?

So now we're finding out.
Finally, we're discovering all the "dirt" about Campaign 2008.
And finally, we're beginning to get the full story about the hypocritical poseur known as John Edwards.
We're finding out about Bill Clinton's dismissive disdain for Barack Obama. We're discovering that Obama and Biden never really got along and that Obama (once he got to know Biden) really wanted no parts of Biden. We're learning about Harry Reid's 1950s attitude toward "Negros." And now we know more perhaps more than we ever wanted to know about John Edwards' affair with his mistress and his sexual appetite and recklessness.
But why did we have to wait this long to discover all this?
Why wasn't the Obama/Biden split reported during the campaign?
Why didn't we get all the details about Bill Clinton's real view of Obama?
Why didn't we know that Reid was still judging Negros by the lightness or darkness of their skin?
And why was Edward's shameless philandering hidden from us?
In fact, why hasn't anyone ever questioned Kerry's judgment in picking Edwards as his running mate in 2004 and launching him onto the national stage in the first place?
Surely there were people in the media who knew about these things.
That seems quite clear now.
After all, this wasn't 1950 or 1960 or even 1970. This was 2008!
The answer seems clear: People in the media covered for Clinton and Obama and Biden and Reid and Edwards and many others. The predominantly liberal, mainstream media didn't want us to know about these things. They didn't think we needed to know. It's that simple.
They covered then and they're covering now.
Yes, I know that two big blockbuster books are revealing these "secrets." And I know it's all part of the book hype.
But where was the responsible journalism here?
So-called journalists have become too cozy with the famous and powerful. They've been seduced by power and access to power.
This is why people are turning away from WaPo, NYT, ABC. CBS, NBC, Time, Newsweek and the like. This is what makes these outlets dinosaurs. They bob and weave and loaf and cover. They don;t dig anymore. And when they do, they save what they've found until it's too late.
So, don't ask why people are turning away from mainstream sources and turning to alternative media.
The answer is there for everyone to see.
And if we have to go to Drudge or even the National Enquirer to gain insight into what is really happening, we will.
But the truth will out.

'Sort Of God'

Cartoon by Eric Allie - TownHall.com

Newsweek: Obama As God

From Kyle Drennen at NewsBusters:

Newsweek editor Evan Thomas brought adulation over President Obama’s Cairo speech to a whole new level on Friday, declaring on MSNBC: "I mean in a way Obama’s standing above the country, above – above the world, he’s sort of God."

Thomas, appearing on Hardball with Chris Matthews, was reacting to a preceding monologue in which Matthews praised Obama’s speech: "I think the President's speech yesterday was the reason we Americans elected him. It was grand. It was positive. Hopeful...But what I liked about the President's speech in Cairo was that it showed a complete humility...The question now is whether the President we elected and spoke for us so grandly yesterday can carry out the great vision he gave us and to the world."

Matthews discussed Obama’s upcoming speech marking the 65^th anniversary of D-Day and compared it to that of Ronald Reagan. He then turned to Thomas and asked: "Reagan and World War II and the sense of us as the good guys in the world, how are we doing?" Thomas replied: "Well, we were the good guys in 1984, it felt that way. It hasn't felt that way in recent years. So Obama’s had, really, a different task We're seen too often as the bad guys. And he – he has a very different job from – Reagan was all about America, and you talked about it. Obama is ‘we are above that now.’ We're not just parochial, we're not just chauvinistic, we're not just provincial."

Thomas elaborated on Obama as God, patronizingly explaining: "He's going to bring all different sides together...Obama is trying to sort of tamper everything down. He doesn't even use the word terror. He uses extremism. He's all about let us reason together...He's the teacher. He is going to say, ‘now, children, stop fighting and quarreling with each other.’ And he has a kind of a moral authority that he – he can – he can do that." In response, Matthews wondered: "If there's a world election between him and Osama Bin Laden, he's running a good campaign." Thomas agreed: "Yes, he is."

Obama As Spock? No!

From Warner Todd Huston at NewsBusters:
Remember how the left always asserted that George W. Bush was stupid? Remember how they were so thrilled to have the Obammessiah that spoke so well, a president that was perpetually the smartest man in the room? Well, after the many stammering TelePrompter free stump debacles during the campaign, many began to doubt this claim of his superior intelligence. Here is another small dent in that perception. That no one in the media is crowing about this as they always did with Bush is telling. Newsweek conducted a Q and A with the president at the end of which appears a few questions concerning his recent choices of entertainment. During the Q and A The One admitted he watched the reboot of Star Trek in the White House movie theater claiming that everyone was saying he was Spock. But two other things he said clanged badly: one arrogant and the other somewhat ignorant.

First the arrogant:

And the last movie you saw?

Now, movies I've been doing OK [with] because it turns out we got this nice theater on the ground floor of my house … So Star Trek, we saw this weekend, which I thought was good. Everybody was saying I was Spock, so I figured I should check it out and--[the president makes the Vulcan salute with his hand].

So The One likes to be called Mr. Spock, eh? That is bad enough, but the fact that he so automatically called the White House "my house" is simply as arrogant as it comes. It isn't "your" house Mr. President. It's the people's! The man's sense of entitlement is disgusting.

Next the ignorant:

Did you watch that when you were growing up?

I used to love Star Trek. You know, Star Trek was ahead of its time. There was a whole--the special effects weren't real good, but the storylines were always evocative, you know, there was a little commentary and a little pop philosophy for a 10-year-old to absorb.

I find it amusing that the "Spock" of the White House, the smartest president evah doesn't know the difference between "evocative" and "provocative." By the later half of his sentence Obama clearly meant provocative, not evocative. The word evocative simply means to provoke emotional response or memories. But by focusing on "philosophy" and "commentary" Obama obviously meant that Star Trek provoked thinking so it was intellectually provocative not emotionally evocative. Additionally, how much evoking can a 10-year-old indulge? So, why doesn't the smartest man in the world know the difference between provocative and evocative? Maybe he isn't as smart as the left would have it? So, will we see Jon Stewart making fun of this? How about a broadside by Bill Maher? A slap by Olbermann or Maddow? Don't hold your breath!

Edwards: Phony From Start

From Marie Cocco at Newsweek:
I never understood John Edwards' appeal. I therefore do not expect that Elizabeth Edwards' new book, or the tiresome media blitz accompanying its publication, will bring a sudden change in my thinking.
I first saw Edwards at one of his early presidential campaign events in New Hampshire during the summer of 2003, and was mystified. He'd pulled up to a small brick plaza in his campaign bus, adorable children in tow, and, as I recall, with John Mellencamp's "Small Town" playing as theme music. The song was meant to resonate with rural voters and it was odd to hear an ode to country life at lunchtime in downtown Manchester, which is not particularly small, nor rural nor Southern. But son-of-a-poor-millworker was Edwards' shtick for the 2004 campaign, and he was sticking to it.

Not much distinguished Edwards from the rest of the Democratic pack, except that he had less experience in office than did his chief rivals, John Kerry and Howard Dean. He wasn't associated with a cause, as was Dean with opposition to the Iraq War, or Kerry, who started his political career as a military man who opposed the Vietnam conflict. Edwards hadn't authored an important piece of legislation, and he didn't push a campaign proposal that was anything but generically Democratic.
Edwards hadn't finished his single term as North Carolina's senator when he ran for president, so he had a slim public record. Much of what was known about him came from his own account of his passionate representation of wronged families he'd represented as a trial lawyer, a calling that made him rich.
No one could predict that Edwards' political life would end in such a spectacular flameout, with the disclosure that he'd had an affair -- and possibly a child -- with a campaign videographer. He and his outwardly noble spouse Elizabeth hid this from voters, campaign staffers and contributors even as he was campaigning in 2008 as a family values man who valued, in particular, his relationship with his cancer-stricken wife. Now we learn that Edwards is under investigation for possibly funneling campaign funds to the mistress, and he has released a perfectly parsed statement that says "no funds from my campaign" were used improperly. That pointedly leaves out money that could flow from the labyrinth of his other political organizations. I am sure federal prosecutors can sort all this out.
Still we should not be so concerned with Edwards as another self-absorbed politician who engages in self-destructive behavior. I worry more that Edwards became a two-time presidential contender and the 2004 vice presidential nominee based on little but his own preening.
This was enough to set the media-political complex agog, not once but twice. . . .
That Edwards was considered in the "top tier" of 2008 candidates was always a bad joke.
All campaigns are about imagery and manipulation. But stripping away this gloss is supposed to be one of the media's jobs, or at least it used to be. That we helped create Edwards as a national figure and now cover his wife's book promotion as a worthy story is a measure of not just what's gone wrong for them, but what's wrong with us.

Who's In The Bubble?

From James Taranto in the Wall Street Journal:

Newsweek's Evan Thomas reports that Richard Haass's new book reveals that as president, "George W. Bush lived in a bubble, partly of his own making, that walled off creative dissent or even, in some cases, common sense."
Wow, there's a shocking new insight!

But of course Thomas brings this up to show how great the new president is by comparison:

Mindful of his predecessor, Barack Obama seems to be trying harder to make sure he hears all sides. On the night of April 27, for instance, the president invited to the White House some of his administration's sharpest critics on the economy, including New York Times columnist Paul Krugman and Columbia University economist Joseph Stiglitz. Over a roast-beef dinner, Obama listened and questioned while Krugman and Stiglitz, both Nobel Prize winners, pushed for more aggressive government intervention in the banking system.

Obama is getting credit for open-mindedness because he met with Paul Krugman? Would Thomas have similarly touted Bush if he'd met with a columnist and an economist who'd been criticizing him from the right?

And it turns out that Bush did meet with Krugman, as the Puffington Host reported last November:

Krugman, who recently received the Nobel Prize in Economics, visited the White House Monday with the other winners to meet with President Bush. [Splenetic MSNBC host Keith] Olbermann asked Krugman, a persistent critic of the President, whether there was "any chance he revealed his plans for the economy in his last weeks in office and if not, was it difficult to shake that hand?" Krugman's response: "This is not a moment to try and change policy. . . . I just want to know my nickname."

How about "Ronnie," short for "former Enron adviser"?

Buyers' Remorse Grows

Cramer. Buffet. Gergen. Buckley. Welch. Dowd.
They all seem to be having buyers' remorse when it comes to Obama.
And the list seems to grow longer every day.
Now Newsweek's liberal columnist Howard Fineman has come up with his own list of grievances that he says are merely the latest "talking points" of well-meaning New York and Washington insiders (aka Liberal Intelligencia) who really, really, really wanna see Obama succeed but who are nonetheless fearful that he is "in over his head."
Hey, I can't make these things up, folks.
What follows is the actual list from Fineman's column:
--The $787 billion stimulus, gargantuan as it was, was in fact too small and not aimed clearly enough at only immediate job-creation.
--The $275 billion home-mortgage-refinancing plan, assembled by Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner, is too complex and indirect.
--The president gave up the moral high ground on spending not so much with the "stim" but with the $400 billion supplemental spending bill, larded as it was with 9,000 earmarks.
--The administration is throwing good money after bad in at least two cases—the sinkhole that is Citigroup (there are many healthy banks) and General Motors (they deserve what they get).
--The failure to call for genuine sacrifice on the part of all Americans, despite the rhetorical claim that everyone would have to "give up" something.
--A willingness to give too much leeway to Congress to handle crucial details, from the stim to the vague promise to "reform" medical care without stating what costs could be cut.
--A 2010 budget that tries to do far too much, with way too rosy predictions on future revenues and growth of the economy. This led those who fear we are about to go over Niagara Falls to deride Obama as a paddler who'd rather redesign the canoe.
--A treasury secretary who has been ridiculed on "Saturday Night Live" and compared to Doogie Howser, Barney Fife and Macaulay Culkin in "Home Alone"—and those are the nice ones. --A seeming paralysis in the face of the banking crisis: unwilling to nationalize banks, yet unable to figure out how to handle toxic assets in another way—by, say, setting up a "bad bank" catch basin.
--A seeming reluctance to seek punishing prosecutions of the malefactors of the last 15 years—and even considering a plea bargain for Bernie Madoff, the poster thief who stole from charities and Nobel laureates and all the grandparents of Boca. Yes, prosecutors are in charge, but the president is entitled—some would say required—to demand harsh justice.
--The president, known for his eloquence and attention to detail, seemingly unwilling or unable to patiently, carefully explain how the world works—or more important, how it failed. Using FDR's fireside chats as a model, Obama needs to explain the banking system in laymen's terms. An ongoing seminar would be great.
--Obama is no socialist, but critics argue that now is not the time for costly, upfront spending on social engineering in health care, energy or education.
Well, I counted 11 grievances there.
That's almost as many grievances as Obama has priorities - almost.

Noted Economist: OHman Fails!

From Robert Samuelson in Newsweek:
Judged by his own standards, President Obama's $787 billion economic stimulus program is deeply disappointing. For weeks, Obama has described the economy in grim terms. "This is not your ordinary run-of-the-mill recession," he said at his Feb. 9 news conference. It's "the worst economic crisis since the Great Depression." Given these dire warnings, you'd expect the stimulus package to focus almost exclusively on reviving the economy. It doesn't, and for that, Obama bears much of the blame. . . .
If the economic outlook is as bleak as Obama says, there's no reason to dilute the upfront power of the stimulus. But that's what he's done.
His politics compromise the program's economics. Look at the numbers. The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) estimates that about $200 billion will be spent in 2011 or later -- after it would do the most good. For starters, there's $8 billion for high-speed rail. "Everyone is saying this is (for) high-speed rail between Los Angeles and Las Vegas -- I don't know," says Ray Scheppach, executive director of the National Governors Association. Whatever's done, the design and construction will occupy many years. It's not a quick stimulus. . . .
Big projects take time. They're included in the stimulus because Obama and Democratic congressional leaders are using the legislation to advance many political priorities instead of just spurring the economy. . . .
Obama's political strategy stunts the impact from what it might have been. By using the stimulus for unrelated policy goals, spending will be delayed and diluted. There's another downside: "Temporary" spending increases for specific programs, as opposed to block grants, will be harder to undo, worsening the long-term budget outlook.
Politics cannot be removed from the political process. But here, partisan politics ran roughshod over pragmatic economic policy. Token concessions (including the AMT provision) to some Republicans weakened the package. Obama is gambling that his flawed stimulus will seem to work well enough that he'll receive credit for restarting the economy -- and not blamed for engineering a colossal waste.