“It is not a question of who is right or wrong but what is right or wrong that counts.”
The above quote is a line I have been using for decades. It is especially applicable to the whining over press coverage by the 2008 presidential race.
It is passing strange that the more salient, pithy, political observations in this epic battle of dysfunctional elitists are found on "Saturday Night Live" rather than The New York Times, Washington Post, and established mainstream media.
Viewers never knew that Walter Cronkite was a bleeding heart liberal during his long run as "the most trusted man in America." Why? Because he was a professional journalist who was capable of masking his personal feelings to focus on the who, what, where, when, why of reportage.
I still cringe at the mere memory of Katie Couric’s fawning school girl interview with former first lady Hillary Clinton in which she called the first lady of the United States “Hillary” with all the syrupy enthusiasm of a cheerleader "interviewing" the star quarterback for the yearbook. It was, and remains, a performance sufficient to gag a maggot.
Consider how Tim Russett, Charlie Gibson, and even Georgie Stephanopolous have been excoriated for asking real questions of presidential wannabes.
When Hillary is asked a substantive question instead of her being challenged for her hypocrisy, parsing, or inconsistencies, the media is vilified for "gotcha" questions. When Obama is asked legitimate questions about his hypocrisy, parsing or inconsistencies, the media is again vilified for gotcha form over substance obfuscation.
Politico.com has a good analysis (http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0408/9718.html) of the media malfeasance, which has become tainted with advocacy journalism: ”The shower of indignation on Charlie Gibson and George Stephanopoulos over the last few days is the clearest evidence yet that the Clintonites are fundamentally correct in their complaint that she has been flying throughout this campaign into a headwind of media favoritism for Obama.”
Conversely, before her tide turned, back in the day when she was the assumed heir apparent to inevitable legacy, the same mainstream nasties who ignore her in favor of the latest style, showered her with bouquets and puffball questions.
This presidential race is the big time. If you can’t stand the heat, don’t sit on the stove.
Despite all the pouting and whining from the two Democratic presidential hopefuls, the overlooked reality is that an analysis of positions on all the key policy issues, there isn’t a tittle’s bit of difference between the two. Notwithstanding protestations to the contrary, both candidates are very liberal and stridently socialistic. Clinton and Obama personify the stereotypical tax and spend liberal democrat.
Both candidates have displayed unbridled contempt for the First Amendment guarantees while hypocritically clinging to those same First Amendment guarantees. I guess it depends whose ox is gored.
Bottom line, both Clinton and Obama are elitists. Both are pandering to an electorate blinded by cult worship. Both are struggling to manipulate the process (with varying degrees of success), and both are ego maniacal cult heroes trying to manipulate history and facts in evidence to manufacture a plausible fiction they can eventually sell to voters in November.
In the wake of an unpopular president, a growingly unpopular war, exacerbated by skyrocketing gasoline prices, and a shaky economy either approaching or wallowing in recession, this was the democrat’s election to lose. Who would have thunk it?
Seven months away from the election and the Democrats seem intent on doing everything possible to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory. They seem intent on embracing the old Palestinian bromide about ‘never missing an opportunity to miss an opportunity . . .’
Eventually, when a candidate is chosen, the prospect of everyone hugging and singing Kumbaya in Denver is about as likely as Bernard Goldberg being anointed to replace Katie Couric at CBS. Gallup reports 28 percent of Hillary’s supporters will bolt the party and vote for McCain if her quest is denied. About 20 percent of Obama’s supporters likewise have indicated they intend to bolt the party and support McCain if their guy isn’t the nominee.
Meanwhile, polling data indicates McCain could beat either one of them head to head . . . gift him with another 20 percent on top of what he has and he could end up with Reagan-like numbers in November (if not Reagan principles, courage, and integrity).
In an age when fewer and fewer viewers are depending on the mainstream for news, a reasonable person (the kind apparently prohibited from network news management) would use their significant resources and gravitas to do a better job that those cantankerous newbies on the Internet. On those rare occasions when their soldiers actually shoot straight, instead of hanging their heads and shuffling their feet, they would respond with more substance, more hard questions, more accountability, and more, well, more.
© 2013 Newsmax. All rights reserved.