Barack Obama Attacked - FROM THE LEFT

[dejr_8]

It is very interesting to see the liberal media - who long ago annointed Hillary as the next president - attacking Barack Obama. Today the Washington Post had a story discussing his past drug use.

I think the left is afraid of Barack Obama because he doesn't fit the mold.

 

[Chloe'sMom]

Am I the only one who groans when I see the words "liberal media?" I mean seriously folks every media outlet has an agenda these days. Wake up, not every one of them is liberal.

~Amanda

 

[Duckfan-in-Chicago]

And then yesterday CNN had to apologize for referring to Osama as 'Obama'. It's a conspiracy.

 

[Daggett]

It's just the 99% of them that give the rest a bad name!

 

[cardaway]

Am I the only one who groans when I see the words "liberal media?" I mean seriously folks every media outlet has an agenda these days. Wake up, not every one of them is liberal.

~Amanda

No. Even they so called more liberal ones are still ran by big corporations that could hardly be called liberal.

 

[salmoneous]

It is very interesting to see the liberal media - who long ago annointed Hillary as the next president - attacking Barack Obama. Today the Washington Post had a story discussing his past drug use.

I think the left is afraid of Barack Obama because he doesn't fit the mold.

Just to correct a few misnomers you seem to have

1) The "liberal media" is a myth. How absurd is it for you to give that label to the Washington Post - cheerleader for the War in Iraq from day one.

2) There is no media - liberal or otherwise - that has appointed Hillary as the next president.

3) Discussing past drug use of a candidate isn't attacking them

4) "The left" isn't a homogeneous block that can be said to do anything

5) Other than supporters of other candidates, people on the left aren't generally "afraid" of Obama. Rush and Sean may be however.

6) Exactly what is the mold you think he doesn't fit?

 

[Galahad]

the Washington Post - cheerleader for the War in Iraq from day one.

Really?

 

[dejr_8]

1) The "liberal media" is a myth. How absurd is it for you to give that label to the Washington Post - cheerleader for the War in Iraq from day one.

You may think the liberal media is a myth. I believe otherwise. Yes the WP was on the correct side of the Iraq War discussion. Even a broken clock is correct twice a day. If you believe the Iraq War is wrong then we disagree on alot of issues

2) There is no media - liberal or otherwise - that has appointed Hillary as the next president.

I said ANNOINTED not APPOINTED.

3) Discussing past drug use of a candidate isn't attacking them

It is creating doubt and issues about a candidate.

4) "The left" isn't a homogeneous block that can be said to do anything

But I bet you say the "Right" is a homogeneous block.

5) Other than supporters of other candidates, people on the left aren't generally "afraid" of Obama. Rush and Sean may be however.

I thought you said in #4 that the "Left" wasn't a homogeneous group of people yet you are making a generalization about them.

6) Exactly what is the mold you think he doesn't fit?

In his speech at the 2004 Dem convention he said something to the effect that we need black families to stress books as much as they stress sports. (Again the exact quote escapes me). That is not the type of statement usually heard from a democrat.

 

[Lisa loves Pooh]

Seriously--when you are in the public eye, your past comes under scrutiny. If you broke the law...well it is even under more scrutiny.

Regardless of who a politician is, what party they are affiliated with and what "side" the media appears to be taking....

it is a disservice for the media to just sit on the sidelines and do nothing.

It is not an "attack" when they find something about you that you did that was wrong.

Obama created his own issues with his past as anyone else does. It is called personal responsibility. The media isn't creating anything.

His past needn't be a fall from grace--he has control over that still.

 

[pansmermaidzlagoon]

puh-lease! I read that article earlier and it is hardly an attack - more along the lines of "how is this going to come into play?".

It isn't a new revelation - HE put it in the book....


much?!?!?!

 

[dejr_8]

Go into any inner city neighborhood, and folks will tell you that government alone can’t teach our kids to learn — they know that parents have to teach, that children can’t achieve unless we raise their expectations and turn off the television sets and eradicate the slander that says a black youth with a book is acting white. They know those things.

To me this is a powerful statement. It almost flies in the face of Hillary's It takes a Village. No - it takes strong parents to raise kids.

 

[Lisa loves Pooh]

Go into any inner city neighborhood, and folks will tell you that government alone can’t teach our kids to learn — they know that parents have to teach, that children can’t achieve unless we raise their expectations and turn off the television sets and eradicate the slander that says a black youth with a book is acting white. They know those things.

To me this is a powerful statement. It almost flies in the face of Hillary's It takes a Village. No - it takes strong parents to raise kids.

So instead of addressing that, they tell a fact about him?

 

[Galahad]

FWIW, the only things that concern me about Obama is whether his policies would be what I would disagree with and, frankly, what appears to be lack of experience. I'm not convinced he wouldn't someday be a good President all things considered.

 

[Galahad]

puh-lease! I read that article earlier and it is hardly an attack - more along the lines of "how is this going to come into play?".

Yeah, it kind of contradicts the notion that they want to simply shepherd a particular candidate to victory. They just want the story to stay interesting for as long as possible so they can sell more Absolut ads.

 

[Laugh O. Grams]

FWIW, the only things that concern me about Obama is whether his policies would be what I would disagree with and, frankly, what appears to be lack of experience. I'm not convinced he wouldn't someday be a good President all things considered.

Haven't Rumsfeld and Cheney given the words "political experience" a bad name?

 

[dejr_8]

I agree the article isn't that bad. I just question the timing. Almost as if it timed to slow down Obama's momentum. Is the WP going to do a similar article on all the issues that Hillary has in her past? If so, I would expect then to see that article on Hillary next week. Somehow I don't think we will see any negative press on Hillary anytime soon.

 

[salmoneous]

1) I said ANNOINTED not APPOINTED.

OK. But there is still no media - liberal or otherwise - that has ANNOINTED Hillary as the next president.

But I bet you say the "Right" is a homogeneous block.

You lose that bet.

I thought you said in #4 that the "Left" wasn't a homogeneous group of people yet you are making a generalization about them.

Basic grammar lesson - when I speak of exceptions as well as include the word "generally" it's clear I'm not speaking of a homogenous block.

In his speech at the 2004 Dem convention he said something to the effect that we need black families to stress books as much as they stress sports. (Again the exact quote escapes me). That is not the type of statement usually heard from a democrat.

Actually, it's the kind of thing you hear from Democrats all the time. What makes you think it isn't? Do you actually listen to Democrats and their speeches - or do you mainly hear them when Rush, Sean or the "libaral media" is talking about them.

 

[salmoneous]

Is the WP going to do a similar article on all the issues that Hillary has in her past?

Do you honestly think the WP hasn't written hundreds of articles about Hil mentioning her faults?

 

[eclectics]

In his speech at the 2004 Dem convention he said something to the effect that we need black families to stress books as much as they stress sports. (Again the exact quote escapes me). That is not the type of statement usually heard from a democrat.

Huh? And anyone who labels Hillary a "liberal" has an odd definition of the term. Or does just being a Democrat make one an automatic liberal?

 

[dejr_8]

So salmoneous

Are you going to continue to try and hijack this thread?