Saturday, April 12, 2008
|
|
For the Obama Defense: CNN
|
|
Posted by:
Carol Platt Liebau at
12:15 PM
|
This morning about 8:15 (pacific time), Barack's gaffe was "covered" on CNN -- inexplicably enough -- as a controversy surrounding nothing more than the use of the word "bitter." Remarkably, although the brouhaha surrounding the comments was reported on, the Obama fans at what was once the Clinton News Network denied their viewers the opportunity to learn exactly what the offensive remarks were -- much less hear the audio of them, all easily accessible right here.
Instead, the "coverage" went down like this (note the repeated use of the word "it" referring to something that's never presented to the viewer):
Clip of Hillary Clinton criticizing the unreported-on remarks.
CNN Anchor TJ Holmes: We hear [Clinton] there. Of course, we expected some of his political opponents to jump on it -- his critics to jump on it as well. But he didn't exactly back away from it. I mean, he said, "Yeah, I said it and that's what I meant." He said he didn't say it the best way possible, but he didn't back away from the comments.
CNN Reporter Paul Steinhauser: He says he's being taken out of context. Listen, these people are bitter. There have been economic tough times for two decades now and the government isn't listening to them so they vote on other issues because they don't believe the government will even help them.
It was not clear from his tone whether Steinhauser was intending to paraphrase Barack's own defense or offering one of his own. And note that all of this took place without playing or even quoting the remarks that were precipitating all this discussion.
At this point, the coverage shifted to a clip of Barack defending himself against the still-unrevealed remarks, starting with his statement that people in small towns are bitter because they've been left behind. It continued with this quote:
When you're bitter, you turn to what you can count on. Some people . . . vote about guns or they take comfort from their faith and their family and their community. They get mad about illegal immigrants, or they get frustrated about how things are changing. That's a natural response.
So is that what he was really saying? Unlike CNN, I'm going to post Barack's first comments and let you be the judges, dear readers.
Here are the initial comments:
"You go into these small towns in Pennsylvania and, like a lot of small towns in the Midwest, the jobs have been gone now for 25 years and nothing's replaced them. . . . It's not surprising then they get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren't like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations."
Similar content, perhaps, but what a different tone! Shifting from the condescending "it's not surprising" to the "natural response" and from accusing these people of bigotry and "cling[ing] . . . to religion" to "tak[ing] comfort from their faith" -- among other differences.
Words do matter, don't they? So, apparently, does the location in which they're offered. San Francisco words are considerably more offensive, it seems, than, say, Pennsylvania ones.
|
|
Sarah,
Our pal Virginia Patriot should probably just simply admit that he is so angry at McCain over immigration, that he can't bring himself to punch a ballot for him in November even though in his heart he realizes that a President Obama would be ten times WORSE for the nation (and the Middle East) than a President McCain on a variety of important issues.
But VA Pat doesn't take that straight-forward approach.
Instead, Virginia Patriot painfully contortions himself into asserting that the differences between McCain & Obama are either non-existent, or that the consequences of their differences will not be all that impactful.
For instance, last week he expressed that the two oldest members of the Supreme Court are liberals, and that Obama would merely replace them with liberals and the court would remain as it has been and, thus, it was not a big deal if Obama gets to make judicial nominations !
But of course that WOULD be a big deal because it means that two new much younger liberal judges would be inflicting damage on the country for the next 20, 25...or even 30 years.
Also, it means that Obama gets to nominate radicals to the federal appellate courts, as well.
Most conservatives see the fact that there are two aging liberals on the Supreme Court as an o-p-p-o-r-t-u-n-i-t-y for a President McCain to immediately change the Supreme Court to a majority constructionist court.
The truth is that McCain has voted "YES" for all the constructionist judicial nominations which conservatives have championed.
And Ted Olson is advising McCain on judicial nominations, and Olson would not waste his time and reputation advising McCain if he didn't believe McCain is serious about it.
VA Pat is not animated about the courts, the fight against Islamic Jihad, or on taxes & spending.
He's a single issue voter.
|
|
|
inauguration. Unfortunately, I understand your fury. I was one of the thousands who organized and called for a shut down of the congress lines as americans called to protest the amnesty bill. The amnesty bill was protested against by 80% of americans, that is why I am confident, McCain or anyother politician who decides to revive it will be defeated as americans rise up again to protest it. Right now we have even bigger fish to fry as we anticipate that Obama will be the nominee. I am still hoping dems. have the backbone to give Hillary the nomination. However, if Obama gets it, ALL americans must make sure he never becomes president. McCain has issues but Barak has even bigger issues - and those are the issue we know. Can you imagine what we don't know about him? You don't have to vote for McCain but forgiveness might go a long way to giving you a happier life - it's bad for your health to keep grudges. Let the amnesty thing go - the bill was defeated by americans and it is not coming back. And if it does, we will defeat it again. |
|
I couldn't care less if he picks Mitt Romney or anyone else for VP. I am not voting for anyone unwilling to enforce the laws. No enforcement = no vote, simple as that.
If he decides to dump Juan Hernandez and his "Mexico First" agenda and any amnesty plans, I'm listening. |
|
|
soldier who fought for your right to insult him. Was a POW and has served as Senator for 28 years. But don't let these small facts make him better than the inexperienced hard core leftist named Obama - after all McCain is unacceptable unless he picks Mittens for VP. Too bad, with people like you on the right and Obama on the left - Americans need a moderate president who actually puts country above party and personal politics above love of country i.e. when McCain asked for a change of course in Iraq and asked Bush to fire Ramsfeld???. He decided he'd rather lose and election than lose a war. Now this in your mind is equivalent to Obama. That is why you McCain haters have lost credibility within the republican party. You do not know the difference between a moderate and hard core liberal - that is just stupid or too much anger driving you. And please do not call yourselves conservatives because you are haters first and everything else second. |
|
|
Notice the reporter said times have been tough for two decades rather than one. He expands the target area from the eeevil Bush admin to the once-beloved Clinton era. |
|
|
Even FOX is guilty of it. I was watching this morning as reporter Laura Ingle went around to voters in Allenstown, PA, asking them if the people there really were bitter and whether that offended them. A self-described McCain supporter said it didn’t offend him at all because people there ARE bitter. Of course, that's not even the ISSUE. |
|
|
We have John McCain running as the other amnesty candidate. |
|
|
Unfortunately words do matter and that is why the far left bias of the main stream media is so destructive. There are a surprising number of American citizens who get almost all their news via newspapers and even more so from the alphabet networks. Their entire view of the world is what is spoon fed them by the biased far left. One can hardly blame the anchors and so called journalists on these networks becase they only "read" the news from their teleprompters. We they seem confused during a broadcast it is usually because their teleprompters have gone haywire. Even calling them journalists is a misnomer, they are story tellers. It's the old if a tree falls in the forest and there is no one there to hear it, does it make any noise trick. It has gotten so that the news media in the USA is more censored that anywhere else in the world. If a favored candidate, like Obama, makes a serious fax paux, if it is not reported, it is like it was never spoken. Where else could someone be a serious candidate for the presidency without saying anything meaningful? |
|
|
|