Supposedly alone and “racist”, Bill Clinton, as the envoy to Haiti will soon be in the forefront of rescue for the predominately black people devastated by the massive earthquake in Haiti.
Supposedly alone, in her crazed bitterness, spouting obscenities, discombobulated, womanish ways, Hillary Clinton answered another 3 a.m. emergency call. Of course Hillary was qualified and experienced enough to answer that cry for help from Haiti because she, as in just about everything, knows the region and the issues well. Almost immediately Hillary spoke about the deadly earthquake:
“The United States is offering our full assistance to Haiti and to others in the region. We will be providing both civilian and military disaster relief and humanitarian assistance and our prayers are with the people who have suffered, their families and their loved ones,” Clinton said at the start of a speech on Asian relations in Honolulu, Hawaii.”
* * * * *
Before this week’s gossip book “Game Change” Mark Halperin along with John Harris (who now runs Politico and has been hawking the latest gossip tome on TV and on the website) Halperin wrote another book. This is what Halperin wrote then:
A candidate who runs principally on his or her biography is acutely vulnerable to the accusation that this biography is embellished. Such a candidate, in other words, is a fat target for the Freak Show. One signature of Freak Show politics is a fixation on personality and alleged hypocrisy. Another is the ease with which shrewd political operatives can manipulate the Freak Show’s attention to hijack the public image of an opponent.
Barack Obama ran only on his biography, or rather his autobiography, which was more fiction than fact. Big Media and Mark Halperin in his latest book never questioned that fake autobiography. Big Media protected Obama and never asked those questions of “acutely vulnerable” Barack Obama. In Hillary Clinton Tested And Ready we quoted an article by Lynn Sweet which received zero follow-up by Big Media and soon thereafter Sweet and others realized that questioning Obama would not get them attention so they stopped writing critically about the fake candidate. Here is what Lynn Sweet wrote about Barack Obama’s fake autobiography so greedily gobbled up by Big Media as truth:
Obama changed names of real people, created composite characters and re-created conversations in his best-selling memoir. [snip]
Times staff writer Peter Wallsten raised the question in his story of whether Obama took too much credit in helping residents of Altgeld Gardens fight the Chicago Housing Authority over asbestos removal in the South Side complex in the 1980s. The paper headlined the piece ”Fellow activists say Obama’s memoir has too many I’s.”
Obama, 45, is hoping to dilute questions about his experience by arguing that the totality of his career — from community organizer to state senator to the U.S. Senate — should count, and not just his last two years in Washington. [snip]
Obama disclosed in his introduction that he used literary devices to buttress his recollections. He also kept a journal. In August 2004 I wrote a column about Obama’s use of literary license in Dreams and concluded: ”Except for public figures and his family, it is impossible to know who is real and who is not. . . .
“Colorful characters populate the Chicago chapters: Smitty the barber, LaTisha, the part-time manicurist, Angela, Ruby, Mrs. Turner and one Rafiq al Shabazz. Who they really are, or if they are composites, you would not know from reading the book.” [snip]
The Times article quotes Altgeld resident and community activist Hazel Johnson. My colleague, Sun-Times political writer Scott Fornek, interviewed her in 2004 and again on Monday.
Fornek reports that Johnson, 72, objects to Obama taking credit for helping force the CHA to remove asbestos at Altgeld Gardens. Johnson has not read Obama’s book. She said he played no role in the asbestos-removal fight. She said he did help get “angel hair,” another type of dangerous insulation, removed from attics in the complex’s row houses — and worked on public transportation issues and helped get a library built. ”He was not with us on the asbestos,” she said.
In any boxing ring or political fight there are three people in the ring – the two fighters and the referee. In 2008 Hillary Clinton was in the ring fighting not only Obama but the referee as well. If Obama cheated and Hillary raised a question – the referee accused her of being negative. If Hillary said anything to buttress her claims of experience and qualifications – the referee accused her of boasting and immediately demanded an investigation. If Hillary said nothing – the referee accused her of being a weak woman. If Hillary said anything – the referee accused her of being shrill. If Hillary dressed with a blouse – the referee accused her of exposing her breasts to prove she was a woman. If Hillary had a dog or cat – the referee accused her of abuse. If Obama made one of his many mistakes – he was protected. If Obama did not, on rare occasions, bumble and stumble – he was praised as magnificent.
In our article, written in December 2007, we discussed some of the many fake incidents and many questions that needed to be asked about Obama. We asked, in December 2007, many questions and observations and quotes from articles:
Hillary has an innovative website called “AttackTimeline” which documents that it was Obama and Edwards which initiated the negative attack tactics in the Democratic Presidential campaign… The Hillary I Know website has testimonials from “those who know her best”. Over 40 people testify on video about Hillary. Betsy Ebeling has known Hillary since the sixth grade… There is however no “The Barack/Barry I Know” equivalent website for Obama… Where are the Obama testimonials?... “Less than two months after ascending to the United States Senate, Barack Obama bought more than $50,000 worth of stock in two speculative companies whose major investors included some of his biggest political donors”… “Mr. Obama, who declined to be interviewed about the stock deals, has already had to contend with a controversy that arose out of his reliance on a major campaign contributor in Chicago to help him in a personal financial transaction”… “His wife, Michelle, a hospital vice president in Chicago, received a promotion that March, nearly tripling her salary to $317,000, and they bought a $1.6 million house in June”… “But he put $50,000 to $100,000 into an account at UBS, which his aides say was recommended to him by a wealthy friend, George W. Haywood, who was also a major investor in both Skyterra and AVI BioPharma, public securities filings show”… “Within two weeks of his purchase of the biotech stock that Feb. 22, Mr. Obama initiated what he has called “one of my top priorities since arriving in the Senate,” a push to increase federal financing to fight avian flu”… “Iowa Independent asked the Obama campaign for a more detailed accounting of Obama’s travels in Europe, both in an official capacity and as a private citizen. Nearly 48 hours later, we have not received any such information”… Doubts about Barack Obama’s presidential credentials have crystallized during the past two weeks over his stewardship of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee’s Subcommittee on European Affairs, which has convened no policy hearings since he took over as its chairman last January… “I was on the single-A team, and at the end of practice I was just raining down threes”… “High school basketball veterans for truth! A reader points out that Obama’s basketball days seem to predate the three-point line, which was introduced in the NBA in 1979 and college ball in 1980″… Obama lied at Selma about the energy bill and about his own conception, he lies about his community organizer days. He lies about his health plan and “preconditions” and attacking Pakistan. He lies about basketball. Basketball.
We still don’t have answers to those questions. Mark Halperin never asked.
When Halperin wrote his last book in 2006 with Politico‘s John Harris Media Matters for America had these comments about Halperin’s work which also gloomily apply to “Game Change“:
Here’s how dishonest Beltway journalism has become.
Books about politics and the press don’t come much more dishonest, or depressing, than the new tome hitting stores this week, The Way to Win (Random House). Written by corporate media bigwigs Mark Halperin, political director of ABC News and founder of its political newsletter The Note, and John F. Harris, national political editor of The Washington Post, the new digest — it’s their take on how to win the White House — is already being toasted by celebrity journalists inside the Beltway, which in today’s environment means the book politely re-enforces preferred conventional wisdom and graciously avoids asking tough questions about Republicans [Our Note: replace Obama for Republicans and this all applies to “Game Change“]. The press corps also skates by in the eyes of Halperin and Harris, who continuously rewrite recent history in order to ensure that journalists shoulder little or no blame for D.C. pressroom disgraces such as Whitewater, the blatantly dishonest coverage heaped upon Al Gore’s presidential campaign, and for the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth hoax that ensnared Sen. John Kerry’s 2004 presidential run.
I say The Way to Win is dishonest because Halperin and Harris are obviously smart professionals who understand how politics and the press now (unfortunately) work in this country. Indeed, the two are celebrated as among Beltway journalism’s best and brightest and are paid handsomely for reaching the pinnacle of their profession. Unfortunately, political journalism isn’t what it used to be, and unfortunately, the duo opts to conform to the artificial guidelines that dictate public debate inside the Beltway today.
That’s precisely why CBS’ Bob Schieffer has already flacked the book on Face the Nation, why Charlie Rose has invited the two for an intimate chat, and why the Way To Win D.C. book party was awash with boldface guests, as elites from the press and politics flocked to toast the
latest re-writing of the conventional wisdom. It’s because Halperin and Harris tell a reassuring story that Beltway players, particularly in the press, love to hear. And for anybody who still thinks there’s an ounce of friction between the true media elites and the Beltway’s mostly Republican ruling class, read The Way to Win and think again. The Beltway really has become a tension-free world where journalists and
politicos bond effortlessly.
Replace “Republicans” with “Obama” and this old review is applicable to the latest gossip garbage.
What Halperin and Harris absolutely refuse to acknowledge is the willing role the press played in those key Democratic setbacks and the media’s shrieking double standard that’s been on display for the last decade.
George W. Bush and Barack Obama and Big Media – nothing has changed. Hate of Bill and Hillary Clinton by Big Media – nothing has changed. Replace George W. Bush with Barack Obama (The Third Bush Term) and nothing has changed.
Halperin and Harris refuse to consider the option that it’s been a conscious choice the press has made to dog Democrats while going easy on Bush, repeatedly holding him to an absurdly low standard of professional and personal conduct.
Halperin and his co-author of “Game Change” laud Obama in the new book and trash Bill and Hillary – just like the old days in the Bush era.
Replace the Big Media attitude toward George W. Bush and Karl Rove with Obama and Axelrod and the old is relevant again:
That way its authors — both longtime Rove and Bush admirers — can argue with straight faces it was the combined genius of the two men that secured victories over hapless and overmatched Democrats, not the United States Supreme Court or a manufactured wartime culture.
Big Media protected Barack Obama and trashed Hillary, no matter what she did and now Big Media wants Americans to believe that “it was the combined genius” of Obama and Axelrod “that secured victories” over Hillary and McCain/Palin. Nonsense. Big Media protected Barack Obama. The referee was on the take and many of those “referees” now work for Barack Obama as they flee the “news” industry they have helped destroy with their biased “reporting”.
Hillary Clinton, according to Ben Smith at Politico (which we responded to yesterday) is savaged for “vicious tactics” by supposedly (and this has been denied by her campaign workers like Peter Daou) wanting to discuss Obama’s drug use. Big Media protected Barack Obama and does not want Obama’s drug use discussed or examined. Same with George W. Bush:
Indeed, Halperin and Harris elevate the act of playing dumb to Olympian heights. Note how they fawn over Bush and Rove in 2000 for deftly handling curiosity about the candidate’s previous drug use by simply announcing they would not answer reporters’ questions on that touchy subject. Good Lord, why didn’t Clinton’s War Room think of that in ’92 when its candidate was nearly driven out the race over the issue of youthful drug use? According to Halperin and Harris, apparently all Clinton had to do during the destructive press orgy was do what Bush later did, which was show “fortitude,” “discipline,” and “steadfast commitment” and pull off the “daring” strategy” to not answer any questions and the press would have respected the Democrats’ privacy and backed off.
All those questions about Barack Obama’s and Michelle Obama’s dirty finances? No questions for Obama. No questions now about how Obama destroyed proposed health care reforms in Illinois either. No questions for Obama, but plenty of attack questions against Bill Clinton and Hillary Clinton.
And remember Whitewater? Well, Halperin and Harris don’t. The duo devotes an entire chapter detailing Clinton’s often troubled first term in office, yet the phrase “Whitewater” never appears in print there. Keep in mind that reproducing The Washington Post’s library of breathless Whitewater stories printed during Clinton’s first term would likely fill three volumes the size of The Way to Win, while ABC’s Whitewater archives could fill a weekend of around-the-clock coverage. But for Halperin and Harris, the story, and the media’s absolutely central role in keeping alive a Republican-generated hoax about a long-ago real estate deal, goes down the memory hole. How’s that for a “Trade Secret”?
Big Media has polluted our politics for a long time now. Big Media continues to pollute our politics. Sarah Palin watch out more than you have been because Big Media is out to get you too. After all you are a woman (dangerous enough) and you have a folksy way of talking (like Bill Clinton) and Big Media barons don’t like “folksy”.
Big Media’s lack of curiosity about Bush’s probable drug use or his Texas Air National Guard service pales to insignificance compared to the lack of curiosity about Barack Obama. Democrats then wanted to know all about Bush, but now, Democrats do not want to know anything about drug use or school records (dare we say “birth certificate?), travel records, friends, addresses, or financial deals. Where are the inquiring minds in the Left today? Bush was blasted for what Obama is protected. Bill Clinton and Hillary Clinton have it even worse that George W. Bush.
George W. Bush and Rove were protected, but not nearly as much as Barack Obama:
While The Way to Win disses Dems, it is positively glowing toward Republicans. For instance, we’re assured Rove’s work is “scholarly and meticulous” and that Rove got into politics because “he was interested in ideas” and wanted to “advance the policies.” Yet what about the fact that
during the 2000 campaign Rove completely camouflaged Bush’s true governing intentions — hiding the ideas and policies Bush
would later implement — by running the candidate as a moderate? Halperin and Harris, constantly bumping into their own contradictions, think the maneuver was a stroke of genius. So much for the power of ideas.
Replace “Bush” and “Rove” with “Obama” and “Axelrod” and we begin to see how “uniter not divider” Obama was just a ploy. Nothing’s changed.
Obama and Axelrod ran a stumbling, bumbling campaign but it is now called “brilliant” in “Game Change” and in Big Media outlets. According to the accounts from Obama campaign operatives like Plouffe the Obama campaign was completely unprepared for the Jeremiah Wright explosion, could not respond to the “bitter and clingy” Obama boobery, and lost primary election after primary election to an outspent Hillary. But Big Media protected Barack Obama. Big Media calls Obama’s campaign “brilliant” but it was a boobery campaign. What saved Obama was that Big Media protected Obama’s stumbling and bumbling and trashed Hillary at every turn. There was no game change, just cheap change. The same Big Media protection at a lesser level helped Bush/Rove:
I’m talking about the blatant strategic errors Rove has made, like during the 2000 campaign when he wasted Bush’s time and money during the closing days by sending him to places like New Jersey and California where he lost to Gore by double digits. Like how Rove, bragging about how Bush was going to “win in a walk,” allowed a badly outspent Gore to win most of the key toss-up states, including come-from-behind victories in Minnesota, Iowa, New Mexico, Delaware, Pennsylvania, Washington, Michigan, Wisconsin, and Maine. For Halperin and Harris, too busy polishing Rove’s resume, those
blunders don’t exist.
Bush actually got some vetting and some examination of his finances and history. Barack Obama was completely protected.
The two habitually misrepresent recent elections in order to slavishly adhere to their talking points that Bush and Co. have cracked the campaign code. Read this:
“This means that no one (NO ONE!) is immune to this Trade Secret: The fight for every presidential nominee and every general election campaign dredges up past votes, quotes, actions, and inactions from everyone who runs for president, no matter what rough-and-tumble political scrutiny they previously have endured.”
Really? A quick history lesson: Looking to raise money to pay off his investment in the Texas Rangers baseball team, Bush sold two-thirds of his Harken Energy stock on June 22, 1990, for $4 a share and pocketed $848,560. In short order, Harken quickly announced that for the quarter ending June 30, 1990, it had lost $23 million, dwarfing the company’s previous largest loss. Right after Bush sold his shares, Harken stock was trading for just $1. Critics wondered whether Bush, a member of Harken’s three-person audit committee, sold his stock knowing the company was about to announce huge losses. Adding to his troubles, Bush then waited 34 weeks before filing forms with the SEC notifying it of his insider stock sales.
Think back again to Halperin and Harris’s “Trade Secret” about how every detail from a candidates’ past gets dredged up, because here’s how many times during the 2000 general election race The New York Times raised questions about Bush’s 1990 sweetheart deal with Harken Energy: 0. The Washington Post? 0. The Chicago Tribune? 0. ABC News? 0. NBC News? 0. CBS News? 0. CNN? 0.
You get the idea.
And here’s how utterly bored the press was with the topic of Bush, with fleshing out his policies or filling in a portrait of the man: More than one year after the Texas governor announced his run for president and one week before Election Day, David Broder at The Washington Post casually mentioned to readers “there was little public knowledge of Bush’s record and little understanding of his major proposals.” [Emphasis added.] Broder did not suggest there was anything odd about that.
Broder and company certainly had no interest in the story of Bush’s mysterious service in the Texas Air National Guard. Halperin and Harris insist that “for a variety of reasons” the press looked away from that story in 2000. But why? Halperin and Harris are mostly mum. Despite the fact the two worked for major
news organizations during the 2000 campaign and could presumably offer up some insight as to what the “variety of reasons” were that the press gave
Bush an unprecedented pass regarding the gaping holes in his personal biography, Halperin and Harris refuse to do so, since that would mean raising uncomfortable questions about their employers, ABC News and The Washington Post, which, you guessed it, ignored the story in 2000
and made major blunders while trying to cover it, belatedly, in 2004.
At least people knew that Bush had financial entanglements. Has any Dimocrat asked about Rezko or Obama’s pharmaceutical company stock? Only after the election did we ever find out that Obama took a trip to Pakistan with a friend, but we still don’t know how he paid for it. We don’t even know how he paid for his expensive schools either (except for his expensive prep school in Hawaii). To paraphrase the old Batgirl theme song: “Where does he come from, where does he go? We still don’t know.
George W. Bush’s military career was examined as was Bill Clinton’s military exemption (“He’s a draft dodger!” shouted Big Media). Questions about George W. Bush were asked:
The Bush National Guard story was born and bred in Old Media; on the front page of The Boston Globe, May 23, 2000, to be exact. After combing through
160 pages of military documents and interviewing Bush’s former commanders (every quote in the story was on-the-record), reporter Walter Robinson detailed how Bush’s flying career came to an abrupt and unexplained end in the spring of 1972 when Bush asked to be transferred from his Texas unit to an Alabama unit so he could work on a Senate campaign there. But Bush did not show up for drills in Alabama and by most indications never returned to serve with his Texas unit either. He simply walked away from his military obligation with nearly two years still remaining. The press corps remained nonplussed. During the 2000 campaign The New York Times published just two references to the Globe investigation into Bush’s often no-show Guard service. And the paper was not alone. Just seven days after the Globe story ran, MSNBC’s Chris Matthews sat down with candidate Bush for an entire hour and refused to raise the troubling National Guard questions documented in the Globe article. That’s how committed the press was to ignoring the story.
Chris Matthews was also not curious about Barack Obama and only seeks to make him “a success”. The George W. Bush history at least was a matter of curiosity. Barack Obama was a matter of protection. And now we know that the Democratic Party “leadership” was also out to protect Barack Obama and make sure that Hillary Clinton never became president.
Bush’s 1999 autobiography, A Charge to Keep, was plowed for questions – Obama’s fake autobiography was peppered with praise. Hillary Clinton’s astonishing and fact filled autobiography was slimed with scorn.
Bush’s days in Boston were explored for details. Barack Obama’s days in Boston were fodder for adulation.
Mark Halperin’s latest compendium of garbage, at least where Hillary Clinton is concerned, violates his own standards. Here is what Mark Halperin himself wrote in Time magazine in November 2009:
Media bias was more intense in the 2008 election than in any other national campaign in recent history, Time magazine’s Mark Halperin said Friday at the Politico/USC conference on the 2008 election.
“It’s the most disgusting failure of people in our business since the Iraq war,” Halperin said at a panel of media analysts. “It was extreme bias, extreme pro-Obama coverage.”
The “extreme bias” continues.