Normally, I roll my eyes at stories about ABC’s screech-fest The View, but there’s a great little nugget in this one that displays exactly what we should expect in this general election.
An AP story about Michelle Obama’s guest-hosting (whoop-dee-freakin’-do) The View starts off innocently enough (for the AP standards, anyway). Lots of garbage about how guest hosting “offers the chance for someone to show a more complete personality than just sitting for an interview and talking about themselves.” Then, they subtly drop this:
Michelle Obama was injected into the campaign when the Tennessee Republican Party posted an online video questioning her patriotism. That prompted her husband, Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama, to say political opponents should lay off his wife.
Excuse me? Michelle Obama was “injected into the campaign” as a result of the Tennessee GOP online ad? I believe we need a reminder of that very ad, after the jump.
Now I will admit, the video is kind of shoddily done, especially since the video was uploaded on May, and she said this back in February (check out my response in the Vanderbilt Hustler here). It doesn’t take away from the fact that the video uses footage of Michelle saying this on the campaign trail, on C-SPAN.
But what do we learn from this new AP story? That Michelle was “injected into the campaign” by evil, nasty Republicans who dared to “question her patriotism.” Not so fast, AP. She injected herself into this campaign a year ago when she started speaking on behalf of her husband, and I believe her comments used in the clip speak for themselves on the patriotism thing.
It may seem like I am dredging up old fodder, but its an important point about the liberal media bias. Even in a story as innocuous as this one, there’s an attempt to rewrite recent history. Remember this when, in two months time, we see AP stories about how Barack Obama’s racist pastor Jeremiah Wright was injected into the campaign by the GOP and not by ABC reporter Brian Ross.
These are deliberate attempts to fool Americans, and for some reason, I find it absolutely outrageous.
{ 1 trackback }
{ 7 comments… read them below or add one }
“[I]njected into the campaign” huh?
So when you see the attack ads from the left about Cindy McCain, who travels and speaks for her husband’s campaign as does any spouse, and her drug theivery and addiction . . . can I use the same line?
Oh . . . nevermind . . . “the left” will probably just focus on McCain’s terribly unpopular policy positions. Myabe I’m just an old-fashioned southern boy, but attacking a man’s wife just strikes me as something that honorable men don’t do.
What exactly have we heard Cindy McCain say on this campaign trail? Nothing comes to mind, probably because the Republicans understand that you don’t allow the candidate’s spouse to say anything remotely inflammatory.
Attacking Cindy about the drugs? Not exactly the same as attacking Michelle on saying something that perhaps suggests sentiments or a mindset that many American would object to.
If Barry doesn’t want Michelle to be attacked, he should make sure she doesn’t say provocative things.
Barack Obama isn’t the only thing dangerous for America, John McCain is as well.
“If Barry doesn’t want Michelle to be attacked, he should make sure she doesn’t say provocative things.”
Wow, Mikey, that sorta sentiment will surely get ya some a**. He oughta just keep dat beeotch quiet, huh, Mikey?
Well . . . such insight. What can I say?
Now what about McCain’s first wife? The one who was there when he returned? The one who had been horribly disfigured in car wreck (but was once quite the looker)? The one he was still married to while he was courting the sugar momma (the heiress who won’t disclose her taxes) who would fund his run at politics . . .
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-1024927/The-wife-John-McCain-callously-left-behind.html
Yeah . . . character, huh?
fyi:
I understood what MIchelle Obama meant quite well . . . and did/do not find it in the least “provocative” and actually neither do most people.
I do find refusing to disclose one’s taxes to be fair game (see Kerry, Theresa Heinz).
Morris, you’ve got a bone to pick with McCain, and that’s fine. The post is about the media’s treatment of legitimate attacks on Michelle Obama, who has made herself a major part of this campaign. Cindy McCain is a whole separate issue, and I never said she shouldn’t disclose her taxes (I don’t really care either way, to be honest).
I happen to think that the wife of a presidential candidate saying that she has only been proud of her country as an adult since her husband began doing well in the primaries provides insight into the way she and her husband view America. It’s legitimate to criticize her for that because she said it at a campaign event, stumping for Barack.
I am not sure what you mean about “that sorta sentiment.” Barack said on the Today show that people should not attack his wife, and my point is that if he doesn’t want others criticizing her for the things she says in the name of him and his campaign, then he should insist that she not say anything that may get criticized. It’s a national campaign, they need to get tougher skin.
Also, I don’t think I like being called Mikey, it makes me sound like I should be eating Life cereal or something.
“It’s legitimate to criticize her for that because she said it at a campaign event, stumping for Barack.”
Whatever “legitimate” may mean in this context and whatever “insight” you feel you may infer from such words (and wtf does “how they view America” even mean?) and however this “insight” may actually inform anything of any real relevance . . .
Doncha think actions matter more?
Maybe that is where we differ.
I read insight into someone who can not control themselves not to steal drugs from a non-profit (especially when wealthy enough to buy them like respectable socialite junkies). I read insight into woman who also sacrificed for her country while her husband suffered with honor, and more importantly I read insight into his opportunitic disregard for this woman in his scramble for power.
You read insight about some vague concept from some words I don’t find remarkable in the least . . . and this then speaks to the wife/couple and their views on . . . whatever . . . I guess we are both the same, Mikey (used with the same intended snarkiness as your use of Barry . . . no more no less – not personal).
For the record: I don’t dislike McCain personally (that type of “personal” rather than “substantive” focus is more of your milieu – not mine). I just have an extreme distaste for your tortured claim of “legitimacy” but do sincerely hope you apply the same transparently lacking standard to all such tangential matters.