A Media Army for Obama . . . as There Once Was for Clinton

Posted: Apr 23, 2008 12:20 PM
Dorothy Rabinowitz divides the press in two: Those who are willing to ask hard questions of all candidates equally, and those who are in the tank for Barack Obama.

As I argued in my Townhall column, it's amazing that Stephanopoulos and Gibson are taking such abuse, given that they were simply doing their job -- asking the questions many Americans care about most.

It will be interesting to see how many in the press are actually able to move past their own pro-Obama bias to provide "fair and balanced" reporting this election season. 

Their failure to do so may end up to embarrass them (or it should) . . . much like coverage of Bill Clinton in a You Tube age should be embarrassing the press.  As with Clinton's out-of-control temper, the press had to have known for years that the former President was an unembarrassed and continual prevaricator.  This most recent "race card" episode, where the President was totally contradicted by undeniable facts, had to have been only one of countless instances the press could have caught him in brazen falsehoods.

Although the scope of his dishonesty couldn't help but leak through the coverage of Bill Clinton, it wasn't until his wife became a political threat to the ascendancy of  liberalism's "golden child" (and YouTube provided dramatic footage) that Bill Clinton's dishonesty was dished up unapologetically, in all its shoddy glory, for the American people's information.

Will the press duck and cover for Obama now the way they did for Bill Clinton then?