The enterprising team at All The News That Fits The Narrative work hard to report on Obama's political history without actually disturbing his supporters.
Their coverage of his relationship with Bill Ayers is too incurious to be an accident:
Mr. Obama also fit in at Hyde Park’s fringes, among university
faculty members like Bill Ayers and Bernadine Dohrn, unrepentant
members of the radical Weather Underground that bombed the United
States Capitol and the Pentagon to protest the Vietnam War. Mr. Obama
was introduced to the couple in 1995 at a meet-and-greet they held for
him at their home, aides said.
Now, along with Mr. Obama’s former pastor, the Rev. Jeremiah A. Wright Jr.,
Mr. Ayers has become a prime exhibit in the effort by Mr. Obama’s
presidential rivals to highlight what could be politically radioactive
associations. In 2001, Mr. Ayers said he did not regret the Weatherman
bombings. Even so, in Hyde Park, he and his wife were viewed favorably
for their work in addressing city problems. Mr. Ayers was just “a guy
who lives in my neighborhood,” Mr. Obama said recently.
The two
men were involved in efforts to reform the city’s education system.
They appeared together on academic panels, including one organized by
Michelle Obama to discuss the juvenile justice system, an area of
mutual concern. Mr. Ayers’s book on the subject won a rave review in
The Chicago Tribune by Mr. Obama, who called it “a searing and timely
account.”
"The two
men were involved in efforts to reform the city’s education system"? Bill Ayers was instrumental in writing the grant proposal that led to the formation of the Chicago Annenberg Challenge, and worked closely with the group for several years after its inception; the first chairman of the Chicago Annenberg Challenge was Barack Obama. That seems to merit a lot more exposition than the Times delivers. The Times might have started by asking the Obama team whether they would care to expand on their "Fact Check" on the Ayers-Obama relationship, which somehow overlooked their mutual interest in education.
Now, is it possible the Times was utterly unaware of the Chicago Annenberg Challenge connection, yet was broadly aware of their mutual interest in education reform? Who can tell? However, right now a Google on "Obama Ayers Chicago school reform" offers links to four different posts on the first page (1, 2, 3, 4)that mention the relationship, including a Hot Air post helpfully titled "Did Obama Work For Bill Ayers?". Yet somehow the Times either missed this or buried it.
Much later the Times covers the current scuffle between McCain and Obama over Hamas - this is pure cover-up:
But for all of Mr. Obama’s attentiveness to Jewish concerns about Israel, Republican Party officials have made it clear that they think this is an area of vulnerability. Though Mr. Obama has condemned Hamas, a militant Palestinian group, as a terrorist organization, just last week Senator John McCain,
the presumptive Republican nominee for president, suggested that the
group wanted to see Mr. Obama in the White House. Mr. Obama denounced
that suggestion as a “smear.”
Missing from the Times reporting is that McCain was not merely offering his opinion as to Hamas' likely view, but was simply passing along the assessment of Obama offered by a Hamas spokesperson on WABC radio. And since Mr. Axelrod of the Obama campaign had reacted to the Hamas "endorsement", it is fair to assert that the Obama campaign is well aware that McCain is not simply offering his opinion - is McCain's statement a smear if it the truth? [I now see that I missed this Saturday whitewash from the Times, eviscerated by Dean Barnett. See "DOES NOT ADVOCATE", below]
FERTILE GROUND: In a recent article with extended excerpts from Michelle Obama's stump speech she explained how Obama heroically turned down the millions of dollars available to him on a conventional corporate law career path in order to join a small law firm focusing on civil rights (1, 2). The Times describes that as a carefully calculated political decision intended to jump start his career, which is flourishing, what with the best-sellers and the Presidential prospects. Whatever.
Here we go:
This is a man who walked away from a career on Wall Street more than
two decades ago to become a community organizer on the South Side of
Chicago, setting up after-school programs, and bringing jobs to the
jobless. Who turned down a lucrative career as a corporate lawyer to
organize 150,000 new voters, mostly black, in one of Chicago’s biggest
voter registration drives – and who, by the way, has been fighting for
our voting rights ever since.
THOSE DARN STAFFERS: On two different occasions reported by the Times Obama explains a seeming flip-flip by blaming staffers for misrepresenting his views. Ooops! A critic might note it is the boss's job to hire and organize the staff, but again, whatever. [Jake Tapper extends and amplifies this point.]
DOES NOT ADVOCATE: The Saturday Times "examined" the McCain-Obama-Hamas scuffle and included this howler (emphasis added):
But important nuances appear to have been lost in the partisan salvos,
particularly on Mr. McCain’s side. An examination of Mr. Obama’s
numerous public statements on the subjects indicates that he has
consistently condemned Hamas as a “terrorist organization,” has not
sought the group’s support and does not advocate immediate, direct or
unconditional negotiations with Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, the Iranian president.
Hmm, so why does that unscrupulous John McCain think he does? Maybe it was this story from last summer in the Times describing the You-Tube debate:
Perhaps the sharpest point of difference came when the candidates
were asked if, during their first year as president, they would be
willing to meet without preconditions with the presidents and dictators
of Iran, Syria, Venezuela, Cuba and North Korea.
''I would,''
said Senator Barack Obama of Illinois. ''And the reason is this: that
the notion that somehow not talking to countries is punishment to them,
which has been the guiding diplomatic principle of this administration,
is ridiculous.''
Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton of New York,
who has also criticized the Bush administration for ''not talking to
our enemies,'' took a different tack, pledging robust diplomacy but
refusing to make that promise of leader-to-leader talks.
Or maybe McCain was relying on this follow-up coverage:
For days, Mr. Obama and Mrs. Clinton have been exchanging retorts
over the wisdom of sitting down for diplomatic meetings with hostile
dictators. In case voters had not been following along, Mr. Obama
sought to inform them, weaving his side of the dispute into the
overarching message of his campaign.
“Some of you noticed that this week I got in a debate with one of my
colleagues who is also running for the presidency,” Mr. Obama said
Friday night, opening a two-day trip to Iowa. “The debate was about
whether we talk to world leaders even if you don’t like them. My theory
is that you do.”
The quarrel emerged from this week’s debate in South Carolina, when
Mrs. Clinton said she would not meet with foreign leaders, including
those of Iran and North Korea, without preconditions. She later
criticized Mr. Obama’s response as “irresponsible and, frankly, naïve.”
Those four words touched off the most direct confrontation yet in the fight for the Democratic nomination.
And Mr. Obama worked to keep the distinction alive during a weekend
trip to Iowa, turning the disagreement into an example of how he would
lead the country differently.
“Our standing in the world has diminished so much because people
think that the United States wants to dictate across the world instead
of cooperate across the world,” Mr. Obama said Saturday. “When we start
sending a signal that we are ready to engage in serious diplomacy, then
we’ve got the opportunity to stand before the world and say: We’re
back. America is back.”
Or maybe McCain was relying on Obama's web site:
Renewing American Diplomacy
- ...
- Talk to our Foes and Friends: Obama is willing to meet with the leaders of all nations, friend and foe. He will do the careful preparation
necessary, but will signal that America is ready to come to the table, and that he is willing to lead. And if
America is willing to come to the table, the world will be more willing to rally behind American leadership to
deal with challenges like terrorism, and Iran and North Korea's nuclear programs.
Recent Comments