It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Why is the press covering for Obama?

page: 1

log in


posted on May, 30 2008 @ 08:40 AM

The Obama Gaffe Machine

For months, Barack Obama has had the image of an incandescent, golden-tongued Wundercandidate. That image may be fraying now.

Take the Auschwitz flub, where Mr. Obama erroneously claimed last weekend in New Mexico that his uncle helped liberate the Nazi concentration camp. Reporters noted Mr. Obama's revised claim, that it was his great uncle who helped liberate Buchenwald. They largely downplayed the error. Yet in another, earlier gaffe back in 2002, Mr. Obama claimed his grandfather knew U.S. troops who liberated Auschwitz and Treblinka – even though only Russian troops entered those concentration camps.

That hardly disqualifies Mr. Obama from being president. But you can bet that if Hillary Clinton had done the same thing it would have been the focus of much more attention, especially after her Bosnia sniper-fire fib. That's because gaffes are often blown up or downplayed based on whether or not they further a story line the media has attached to a politician.

Mr. Obama, a former editor of the Harvard Law Review, has largely been given a pass for his gaffes. Many are trivial, such as his suggestion this month that America has 57 states, and his bizarre statement in a Memorial Day speech in New Mexico that America's "fallen heroes" were present and listening to him in the audience.

Some gaffes involve mangling his family history. Last year in Selma, Ala., for example, he said that his birth was inspired by events there which took place four years after he was born. While this gaffe can be chalked up to fatigue or cloudy memory, others are more substantive – such as his denial last April that it was his handwriting on a questionnaire in which, as a state senate candidate, he favored a ban on handguns. His campaign now contends that, even if it was his handwriting, this doesn't prove he read the full questionnaire.

Mr. Obama told a Portland, Ore., crowd this month that Iran doesn't "pose a serious threat to us," saying that "tiny countries" with small defense budgets aren't much to worry about. But Iran has almost one-fourth the population of the U.S. and is well on its way to developing nuclear weapons. The next day Mr. Obama had to reverse himself and declare he had "made it clear for years that the threat from Iran is grave."

Last week in Orlando, Fla., he said he would meet with Venezuelan dictator Hugo Chávez to discuss, among other issues, Chávez's support of the Marxist FARC guerrillas in Colombia. The next day, in Miami, he insisted any country supporting the FARC should suffer "regional isolation." Obama advisers were left explaining how this circle could be squared.

Is this "White Guilt?"

Is this a simple attempt to put a Socialist in office?

Is this "Bush Derangement Syndrome?"

It seems obvious that the press will support this man if there was a picture of Obama with a WMD in one hand and a 12 year old in the other.

The man is simply not capable/ready/able to be in the most powerful office on Earth.

posted on May, 30 2008 @ 05:53 PM
You know I really did'nt take your post seriously when I started reading it but it was at least a decent argument but then I kept reading it and then came your use of tired, ridicolous, "socialist: remark and "white guilt" First of all how is the media covering for Obama. Have you watched Fox news or listened to AM radio both huge parts of the media. Look at the near obessosion of Sean Hannity and others of the Weather underground story, The ad nauseam of Rev Wright ( his former pastor) You will clearly see Obama is getting his fair share of criticism. Look at coverage HIllary, she is mathematically unable to win yet the media still acts like she can. Also Oh my God Obama mixed up the concentration camp his uncle liberated. and may have messed up a story told by his grandfather. Second of all Iran post Zero threat!!! We spend maybe 400 times on our miltary than they do. They don't even have one nuke we have about 3000 nukes. You ever heard of the term mutual assured destruction. If Iran even gave nukes to terroists we would find out and blow them off the map. I should'nt even be posting this because you don't even know the what a socialist is. Is Obama calling for the government to control all industries, keep up the support of Ron Paul buddy

posted on May, 30 2008 @ 06:07 PM

Originally posted by obamafan14Is Obama calling for the government to control all industries

No, that would be Obama supporter Maxine Waters.

The reason the media was/is in the tank for Obama is because he was chosen by the powers that be, Soros, et al., to be the One this year, just like Carter was chosen in 1976 by Rockefeller and the Trilateral gang. It's just like when Clinton was chosen in 1992.

The template is the same in all cases:

Pick a relatively unknown dude that has no national track record to dissect, prop him up with hand-picked advisers (Zbigniew Brzezinski for example), and roll into Washington and take over the White House.

posted on May, 30 2008 @ 06:16 PM
Here's your answer to this question:

Of those who say they voted for major party candidates, the proportion of leading journalists who supported the Democratic candidate never drops below 80 percent. In 1972, when more than 60 percent of all voters chose Nixon, over 80 percent among the media elite voted for McGovern. This does not appear to reflect any unique aversion to Nixon. Despite the well-publicized tensions between the press and his administration, leading journalists in 1976 preferred Carter over Ford by the same margin. In fact, in the Democratic landslide of 1964, journalists picked Johnson over Goldwater by a sixteen-to-one margin, or 94 to 6 percent.

That happened, in part, because the startling collective answer reinforced a longstanding conservative accusation that the Washington press corps was "liberal." Of the 130 respondents, 89 percent said they had voted for Bill Clinton. Only seven percent had supported George Bush.

Four Times More Journalists Identify as Liberal Than Conservative

A survey conducted late last year and released Monday, by the Pew Research Center for the People and the Press, confirmed the obvious -- that compared to the views of the public, conservatives are under-represented in national journalism while liberals are over-represented.

If you need more I can go on and on

posted on May, 30 2008 @ 06:40 PM
Interesting, but redundant post.

Obama lies.

Hillary lies.

McCain seems honest, but his views are all over the place.

Paul is very knowledgeable on one subject, but a President needs a broader foundation than he seems to have.

We have nobody to vote for this go around. Supporters of any of the candidates have been forced to blind themselves to some available information and it is becoming more apparent as time goes on.

This is all fairly normal as far as Presidential elections in recent history go.

Who do we vote for when there is nobody too vote for?

posted on Jun, 2 2008 @ 08:39 PM
Im sorry but it seems that the press has been covering McCains ass more than Obamas and by the looks of the anti-Obama surge in this forum, it appears Bushes ass is been covered as well.

[edit on 2-6-2008 by southern_Guardian]

top topics

log in