Big Media will fight for its tool – Barack Obama. To that end Big Media will attack, slime, and smear Obama opponents and protect Obama friends.
A certain reporter took time out from trolling the internets for sex in order to go “rooting around in other people’s personal lives”. As the gossip gawkers noted How on earth does he have time to trawl gay hookup sites? And why would he leave so many clues as to his real identity when he’s so much in the public eye?
The target for the pro-Obama smear merchants at the New York Times and MSNBC was none other than Bill Clinton.
A particulary filthy article by Patrick Healy in the New York Times smeared Bill Clinton repeatedly. Rubbing his thighs, Chris Matthews pleasured himself by utilizing the article to attack Hillary Clinton. According to Matthews the New York Times had provided permission to smear Bill Clinton (and Hillary) by placing the Bill Clinton sex story on the “front page, top of the fold”.
The New York Times’ articles on Bill Clinton’s sex life were repeatedly employed to justify gossip about Bill Clinton and attacks on Hillary Clinton. The subtext to most of the ‘can Hillary control Bill’ stories had their roots in the slime buckets at the New York Times and MSNBC.
The New York Times printed what the maligned tabloids would describe as “trash” to smear Bill Clinton and hurt Hillary Clinton.
The New York Times smeared Bill Clinton. The New York Times then proceeded to smear John McCain.
The McCain sex smear was so slimy that even the Times’ ombudsman denounced the story.
On June 15, 2007, in a widely read article, we noted the history of Obama’s Dirty Mud Politics. In our story Obama’s Dirty Mud Politics we briefly traced the dirty history of Obama employing sex stories planted in the press to destroy his opponents.
Reporters busy trolling for sex or sucking up to sources would welcome Obama campaign help to write their slimy smears. And Obama tried to plant anti-Clinton sex smears in the press.
His campaign staffers, too, have become frustrated by the focus of the media’s attention, specifically that the press has not covered Clinton in the way they expected it would. During an interview this summer, Obama’s friend Valerie Jarrett said to me, unbidden, “He is a man who is devoted to his wife. There aren’t going to be any skeletons in his closet in terms of his personal life at all. Period.” And at a campaign event in Iowa, one of Obama’s aides plopped down next to me and spoke even more bluntly. He wanted to know when reporters would begin to look into Bill Clinton’s post-presidential sex life.
As we wrote at the time, Valerie Jarrett is an optimist if she thinks there is an empty closet – she should read the emails we get. We wrote about good ol’ Obama friend Valerie when the Obama campaign bought her in to bring order into disorder.
Michelle Obama also tried to stir the sex pot:
Big Media and the Obama campaign smeared Obama’s opponents on the front pages of the biggest Big Media outlets. What about the sex lives of those that benefited the Obama campaign? Not much was written or said about the podium humping Jeremiah Wright – Obama turned that discussion into a profitable distraction speech about race. What about Johnny Edwards?
Sen. Hillary Clinton would be the Democratic presidential nominee if John Edwards had been caught in his lie about an extramarital affair and forced out of the race last year, insists a top Clinton campaign aide, making a charge that could exacerbate previously existing tensions between the camps of Clinton and Sen. Barack Obama.
“I believe we would have won Iowa, and Clinton today would therefore have been the nominee,” former Clinton Communications Director Howard Wolfson told ABCNews.com.
Clinton finished third in the Iowa caucuses barely behind Edwards in second place and Obama in first. The momentum of the insurgent Obama campaign beating two better-known candidates — not to mention an African-American winning in such an overwhelmingly white state — changed the dynamics of the race forever. [snip]
“Our voters and Edwards’ voters were the same people,” Wolfson said the Clinton polls showed. “They were older, pro-union. Not all, but maybe two-thirds of them would have been for us and we would have barely beaten Obama.”
Two months earlier, Edwards had vociferously, but falsely, denied a story in the National Enquirer about the alleged affair last October, and few in the mainstream media even reported the denial.
Few in Big Media even bothered to report the denial of a sex affair that would have hurt their tool – Barack Obama.
Newsweek confesses it actually knew who Rielle Hunter was (Newsweek did not write the sex stuff because they were sucking up to their sources Rielle Hunter and did not want to “burn” a good source). Michael Calderone at Politico has a list of excuses for not discussing L’affaire Edwards.
CNN told the New York Times that the network had been working on a story last year, but after Edwards and Rielle Hunter denied it, “you have to have some sort of evidence before you put something on the air.” Perhaps CNN was being cheeky in telling the New York Times that evidence was required, in light of the New York Times’ evidence free reportage.
The Washington Post simply admitted (as with most of their political reporting) “at no time did we have any facts to report”.
At Arriana Huff n’ Puff’s smear the Clintons, pro-Obama website, they knew all along. Of course, Huff n’ Puff initially sneered at the story, then like good Stalinists, they erased thier earlier “reportage”.
Most Big Media outlets followed the L.A. Times and protected Edwards.
There has been a little buzz surrounding John Edwards and his alleged affair. Because the only source has been the National Enquirer we have decided not to cover the rumors or salacious speculations. So I am asking you all not to blog about this topic until further notified.
Big Media will protect their tool – Barack Obama.
[In Part II, the Clinton Campaign’s Internal Memoranda and Big Media’s continued protection of Obama.]