Sarah Palin: The MSM’s Unquechable Curiosity Reserved for O’Donnell, Not Obama
Observation of the Day
Sarah Palin wonders: Gee, where was the same curiosity the MSM is displaying about Christine O’Donnell during 2008? Barack Obama has still not released records all other presidents have made public and the MSM has shown a decided indifference in asking any questions. Which would be curious–except that in 2010, everyone knows that’s how the MSM rolls.
“Funny . . . That we are learning more about Christine O’Donnell and her college years, her teenage years, her financial dealings than anybody ever even bothered to ask about Barack Hussein Obama as a candidate and now as our president.”
–Sarah Palin
The same Mainstream Media that exhibited a decided indifference about Barack Obama’s medical, university, college and other records has been busy digging into Christine O’Donnell’s years-old views on masturbation.
Palin: Why No Probe of Barack ‘Hussein’ Obama?
Former vice presidential candidate Sarah Palin alleges that the media has a blatant double standard, shining intense scrutiny on GOP Senate nominee Christine O’Donnell while turning a blind eye to then-candidate Barack Obama’s personal history in the 2008 campaign.
During an interview with Fox News host Greta Van Susteren Wednesday night, Palin said: “Funny . . . That we are learning more about Christine O’Donnell and her college years, her teenage years, her financial dealings than anybody ever even bothered to ask about Barack Hussein Obama as a candidate and now as our president.”
There were no questions asked during the disgraceful Mainstream Media coverage of the 2008 election because the Media was too busy digging through dumpsters in Wasilla, Alaska, for dirt on the Republican VP nominee.
Oh, and attacking any sources which did ask inconvenient questions about the MSM’s Messiah.
Palin alludes to a “double standard.” It’s not. It’s blatant content management and it no longer is very effective because it’s been so transparent for so long, Americans give the same respect to the New York Times‘ political opinions as they did the Weekly World News.
Thank heavens the Mainstream Media is dying.
May it be slow, protracted and painful.
Just like the damage they’ve inflicted on objective journalism during the last 50 years.
by Mondo Frazier
images: dbkp; dbkp file
I respectfully disagree. O’Donnell has been on TV for twenty years, and videos of her saying wacko things are readily available. Obama was vetted during the Democratic nomination process, had anyone on the right been interested, which they were not. For Palin to bring up the pastor (as she did during the campaign, when everyone else was through with the story, shows that she had no clue what was going on because it did not affect her as Governor of Alaska. Once she was a candidate, she tried to deflect any efforts to find out about HER by raising fears about Obama. People were looking at HER background because we had no idea who this hateful woman was or what she stood for. Come on, she wanted to be VP to an old Senator. She could have had access to the nuclear codes, and made it clear she would not hesitate to use them. And she can hardly pull he female card here, either, after the vetting that Hillary got from the media in 2008. I am tired of Palin’s whining, Palin’s hiding behind Facebook, and Palin in general. When her acolytes lose in November, can she go away and raise those children she uses as props?
Reply
I’m not sure what planet you were visiting during the 2008 elections; but, had you been here you would have seen that free speech of anything Obama was off the table by main stream media — with union thugs, Black Panthers and Acorn running defense and diversion tactics. but, I assume you have returned to planet earth now. Now you can plainly see the results of such liberal take-over as our nation runs headlong into socialism and quickly becoming a third world nation. Not that people with your brainpower should breed; but, I assume you realize that what you are bowing to today will be what your children have to live with.
Reply
Sarah Palin is “turning a blind eye” to reality as usual. I take it she’s conveniently forgotten all the mountain-out-of-a-molehilling on Ayers & Wright that Obama endured during the 2008 campaign? If the opposition-researchers weren’t able to come up with anything worse than that tarring-by-association, then I think that we can be reasonably confident that Obama, unlike O’Donnell, hasn’t made any fruit-loop ‘mice with functioning human brain’-style claims.
Expecting the MSM *not* to use the material on O’Donnell, when it’s so accessible (most of it was said on TV for goodness sake), and so deliciously wacky, is just plain unreasonable. They are after all in the business of selling bums-on-seats to advertisers, so can hardly be expected to pass up this easily-packaged train-wreck.
Reply
LBG1 Reply:
September 25th, 2010 at 12:27
Hrafhn:
“Mountain-out-of-molehilling”?
Are you referring to William “Bill Ayers, former Weatherman who would have gone to prison for several “domestic” bomb attacks including one at a New York City police station which killed a policeman if a judge hadn’t ruled the FBI’s wiretapping evidence was inadmissable? The same Ayers who bragged about his bomb exploits who held Barack Obama’s first fundraiser for Illinois Senate when Obama was a member of a Socialist party?
And ‘dabbling in witchcraft” when you’re a teen, that’s way more serious than sitting for 20 years in a pew of a church where the Reverend preaches “God damn America”.
Is this the reality you’re referring to?
Reply
President Obama WAS one of the most vetted persons in our history, WTF???????
$arah REALLY will just say ANYTHING to see if it sticks…unfortunately alot of the horsepucky DOES stick. A shame.
IF anyone was NOT vetted it would be $arah PAYlin herself.
Reply
admin Reply:
September 25th, 2010 at 14:43
DEO,
President Obama WAS one of the most vetted persons in our history, WTF???????
No medical records released, no university or college transcripts, no HS records, no records of any kind, pre-1996: yeah, he’s a walking, talking open book.
Obama’s records are more secret than the Vatican archives.
So this I guess substituting a dollar signs for an “S” is what passes for hip, edgy commentary on the Left these days?
Excellent!
Thanks for the comment.
Reply
I’m not bowing to anything but my Creator. Obama has made some mistakes, and has taken heat from the left, unlike the traitor Bush, who received nary a bad word from the right for his illegal activities. What has Obama done that is so awful? Golly, we are trying to make the insurance companies actually insure people in need, instead of only taking cash from the healthy and redistributing it to the CEOS. He is trying to stop the wars that have drained our economy dry for 10 years. He is trying to encourage children to get an education, work hard and stay in school. None of that is socialism. What Palin did in Alaska IS. She raised taxes on big oil and gas to increase the payments to all Alaskans to $2000…a move that generated her high approval ratings at the time…you know, she ‘spread the wealth.’
And I’m not sure what Fox planet you inhabit, but there was plenty of discussion about Rev. Wright, ACORN is out of business thanks to the despicable tactics of the right, and the Panthers were never an issue.
As far as my offspring, although that is none of your business, both got great scholarships to great schools, graduated with honors, and are working. One is a chemical engineer, and the other a lawyer, who also received merit scholarships to law school. They pay taxes, appreciate the services they provide, and are happy with Obama as well. If this is not about his being a person of color, why is the right so hateful toward him? He does not have an evil agenda…he saved this country from bankruptcy.
Yes, we have high unemployment, but look around…it is getting better. Housing starts are up, prices are going up again, and the stock market is fine. I hope your brainpower allows you to admit you’re wrong, but my bet is, like Palin, you never are.
Reply
Seems the Obots are out in force. Please tell me where, in what site on the web, or in what book, or in what periodical, I can find out the following:
Selective Service Registration (the real one, not the counterfeit)
Occidental College records — Not released
Passport records during his vist to Pakistan — Not released
Columbia College records — Not released
Columbia thesis — Not released
Harvard College records — Not released
Harvard Law Review articles — None (maybe 1, unsigned?)
Baptism certificate — None
Medical records — Not released
Illinois State Senate records — None
Illinois State Senate schedule — Lost
Law practice client list — Not released
University of Chicago scholarly articles — None
Please let me know, if any of the above records are available. I and most of AMERICA would like to know.
Reply
admin Reply:
September 25th, 2010 at 20:34
Armando,
Thanks for the list. I was going to include it, something else came up and I published without it.
Thanks again,
Reply
Armando Diaz Reply:
September 25th, 2010 at 22:31
You’re welcomed.
Guess the Obots went looking for the information on the list.
Reply
Hrafn Reply:
September 26th, 2010 at 01:20
Armando:
What do we know about O’Donnell’s college career, other than that she waited decades before getting around to paying for it, and therefore actually graduating?
“Baptism certificate — None”? WTF? What politician releases this? What person, other than a fruit-loop-birther, demands such?
For the rest of it, where its public record, make a FOIA request (or look it up in an appropriate academic index). Where it isn’t public record, politicians are under no obligation to release the information (and many don’t). I certainly have never heard of any politician releasing their passport record (and believe that nobody, other than a conspiracy theorist, would ask for such).
Reply
1) YES, “Mountain-out-of-molehilling”.
2) I am “referring to” Bill Ayers, whose last documented terrorist action appears to have been in 1973, when Obama was about 12 years old. I am “referring to” somebody whose decades-before actions had ABSOLUTELY NOTHING WHATSOEVER TO DO WITH OBAMA!
3) I know real socialists. Neither Barack Obama, nor the US Democratic Party (nor ANY mainstream US politician) are socialist. They would both be perfectly at home in any mainstream conservative political party in any western country outside the US (inside, the choice is between confused-about-its-identity-conservative & carpet-chewing-because-they-can’t-get-enough-red-meat-conservative).
4) Reread my post. I said nothing about “‘dabbling in witchcraft” when you’re a teen”, I talked about “fruit-loop ‘mice with functioning human brain’-style claims” — which I believe she made in 2007, NOT AS A TEEN.
4a) Incidentally, AFAIK, real Wiccans (‘Witches’) don’t do Satanic altars, real Satanists don’t do Witchcraft, Witchcraft+Satanic-altar=conservative Christian stereotype, most probably meaning that her circle were just stupid kids of conservative Christians rebelling cluelessly against their parents. I’d take her more seriously if she’d been a real Wiccan or a real Satantist, rather than simply a(n apparent) ‘rebel without a clue’.
5) Although I disagree with Wright’s comments, they are no worse than the bigotry that countless, often prominent, Religious Right figures spew on a daily basis. I see no attempt to similarly tar the politicians who sit in THEIR pews, or share platforms with them, for THEIR bigotry.
5) The “reality” that I am referring to is that your own obsessive regurgitation of the 2008 election “tarring-by-association” of Obama DIRECTLY CONTRADICTS Palin’s vacuous claim that the MSM ignored Obama’s past.
Reply
admin Reply:
September 26th, 2010 at 01:38
Hrafn,
I know real socialists. Neither Barack Obama, nor the US Democratic Party (nor ANY mainstream US politician) are socialist.
Really? You better notify the Democratic Socialists of America–pronto!
70 avowed socialists in U.S. Congress: In October 2009, the Democratic Socialists of America released in its newsletter a list of 70 members of the U.S. Congress who are members of the organization: (PDF of list at DSA website.)
Thanks for your thoughts.
Reply
Hrafn Reply:
September 26th, 2010 at 10:59
Socialism: “A theory or policy of social organization which aims at or advocates the ownership and control of the means of production, capital, land, property, etc., by the community as a whole, and their administration or distribution in the interests of all.” (OED) I don’t see any evidence that Obama, or the US Democratic supports such an agenda.
Well if WND (‘all the news that’s to wacky to survive even cursory fact-checking, or even a top-of-the-head reality-check’) says it then it MUST be true, and the unfortunate fact that the DSA newsletter in question ( http://www.dsausa.org/dl/Fall_2009.pdf ) says nothing of the sort, is a mere accident, as is the fact that the DSA are on record as saying that Obama is not a socialist.
Given that the National Enquirer (which has *even more* credibility than WND) tells me that Elvis is alive, I should probably start saving money for tickets to his next tour.
Reply
Hrafn Reply:
September 26th, 2010 at 11:11
The list is in fact a hoax. Somebody took the list of Congressional Progressive Causus members ( http://cpc.grijalva.house.gov/index.cfm?ContentID=166&%3BParentID=0&SectionID=4&SectionTree=4&lnk=b&ItemID=164 ), attached false DSA/American Socialist Voter headers/footers & published it on Scribd ( http://www.scribd.com/doc/35733956/DSA-Members-American-Socialist-Voter-Democratic-Socialists-of-America-10-1-09 ), and started peddling it on right-wing blogs.
WND swallowed the whole thing hook line and sinker. Which doesn’t surprise me. If somebody wearing a gown with a psychiatric hospital logo claimed that Obama was an alien from the planet Zog, they’d probably publish it without checking.
Reply
admin Reply:
September 26th, 2010 at 14:22
Hrafn,
You were making a few good points until you veered into mendacity.
I downloaded the original pdf list from the DSA website itself months ago. I kept it on my desktop to do a piece on it and never got around to it. When looking for the list, I forgot that I had the pdf I’d downloaded on my desktop and cited WND instead.
Your elaborate story about the cutting and pasting is complete bullshit–unless your fairy tale hoaxers hacked DSA with their cut-and-paste job.
Discussion over.
Reply
Obama is a slimeball politician. the history of his races show he isnt man enough to get his hands dirty, just has others do it 4 him then condems the smears. every time. at least Palin has the courage of her convictions and doesnt reak of hypocrisy like Obama, mr. equal rights 4 gays but against gay marriage. he begged 4 the attacks on his administration every time he demonized Bush. it has been fun watchng Clinton screw him though.
Reply
Obama is not a socialist??????
The party’s Spring 1996 newspaper boasted: “New Party members won three other primaries this Spring in Chicago: Barack Obama (State Senate), Michael Chandler (Democratic Party Committee) and Patricia Martin (Cook County Judiciary). The paper quoted Obama saying “these victories prove that small ‘d’ democracy can work.”
The newspaper lists other politicians it endorsed who were not members but specifies Obama as a New Party member.
Barack Obama pictured in New Party publication (Courtesy New Zeal blog)
New Ground, the newsletter of Chicago’s Democratic Socialists for America, reported in its July/August 1996 edition that Obama attended a New Party membership meeting April 11, 1996, in which he expressed his gratitude for the group’s support and “encouraged NPers (New Party members) to join in his task forces on Voter Education and Voter Registration.”
Becoming a New Party member requires some effort on behalf of the politician. Candidates must be approved by the party’s political committee and, once approved, must sign a contract mandating they will have a “visible and active relationship” with the party.
Reply
Hrafn Reply:
September 26th, 2010 at 12:13
1) No he is not (see above definition of “socialism” above).
2) The New Party were social democrats, NOT socialists.
3) This only proves that Obama was, arguably, a social democrat FOURTEEN YEARS AGO (and assuming that you can actually substantiate your newsletter claims — and as I have demonstrated with the 70 socialists hoax above, blogs don’t count as substantiation).
4) I have seen no indication that membership in the New Party required “some effort on behalf of the politician.” As it had its origins in ‘electoral fusion’ (which frequently results in the nomination of mere ‘fellow travellers’, rather than hardcore die-hards), it would seem likely that the opposite were true.
Reply
Hrafn Reply:
September 26th, 2010 at 12:21
And even for a blog, ‘New Zeal’ is hardly a credible source.
1) It is NZ-based, so has only limited ability to fact-check claims about the US.
2) It’s author, Trevor Loudon, has a long reputation of making hyperbolic, poorly-substantiated and conspiracy-theorist claims about anybody and everybody on the ‘left’.
Reply
Armando Diaz Reply:
September 26th, 2010 at 12:44
Go to their own website.
http://www.socialdemocratsusa.org/
They are socialists working within the democratic party. They are no longer hidding, they are very open about it. The head of acorn was in NY this month at the young americans socialist convention. She was one of the featured speakers. What do you need, Obama to tattoo SOCIALIST across his forehead. Guy if you are a socialist, say so. It’s okay, I’m a conservative republican.
Reply
admin Reply:
September 26th, 2010 at 13:15
Armando Diaz,
Very good reply–and it has the added benefit of being entertaining!
Thanks for the “What do you need, Obama to tattoo SOCIALIST across his forehead.”
Reply
Hrafn Reply:
September 26th, 2010 at 13:24
Go get a clue.
1) Just because ONE SEMI-DEFUNCT political party conflates the two terms does not mean that they are identical. The mainstream conservative party in Australia is the Liberal Party. Does that mean that Liberals are Conservatives? Sometimes political parties, for various idiosyncratic reasons, have names that don’t accurately represent their politics. (It should be noted that social democrats started out as moderate/gradualist socialistsin the early 1950s, but drifted to the centre thereafter. Given that the SDUSA were formed in 1972 it is likely that there was less of a difference between socialists and social democrats than there was in the day of the New Party, or today.)
2) The Social Democrats USA appear to have had no particular affiliation with the New Party.
3) The SDUSA is largely moribund, and so is not “working within” anything.
4) They are “no longer hidding[sic]” because the SDUSA doesn’t really exist any more — so there’s really nothing much to hide.
5) ACORN doesn’t exist any more — not because the organisation did anything illegal (as numerous investigations eventually proved), but because right-wing lies and propaganda damaged their reputation beyond repair. So why does it matter what the former head of a defunct organisation speaks to (even if you substantiated your claim, which you haven’t)?
6) What do I need? Evidence that Obama proposes or endorses an agenda that IS GENUINELY SOCIALIST (please see above definition for what constitutes “socialism”. Please read said definition. Please make some, however pitifully inadequate, attempt to comprehend definition). BS a-fruitloop-blogger-told-me-that-Obama-was-once-a-member-of-a-party-the-nomenclature-for-whose-politics-was-once-misappropriated-by-socialists doesn’t make any difference at all.
7) No I’m not a socialist (please see above definition for what constitutes “socialism”. Please read said definition. Please make some, however pitifully inadequate, attempt to comprehend definition). However, like the vast majority of the population of the western world, I am to the left of the US Republican Party on most (but not all) issues (in any other western country the Democrats would be the moderate conservative party, and the Republicans the far-right fringe party), so probably to your ill-informed eyes I am a ‘Socialist’.
Reply
admin Reply:
September 26th, 2010 at 13:12
Hrafn,
Whatever.
Go to Democratic Socialists of America, you can view what was in their newsletter in a PDF file.
But that’s no good, because you’ll say that DSA doesn’t prove anything and isn’t a credible source (which is something about which we might agree.)
You’re all about attacking the sources of others, providing no evidence of your own whatsoever; you even provide your own definition of ‘socialism’ to help frame the debate.
Are you an Ivy League professor by any chance?
Those tactics aren’t very effective for your side, but please keep posting; it’s always helpful to expose the Left’s MO.
Thanks for the comment.
Reply
Hrafn Reply:
September 26th, 2010 at 13:56
“Whatever.”
As my teenage nephew would say. A really trenchant comeback.
“Go to Democratic Socialists of America, you can view what was in their newsletter in a PDF file.”
Which newsletter and what is it meant to show?
“But that’s no good, because you’ll say that DSA doesn’t prove anything and isn’t a credible source (which is something about which we might agree.)”
DSA proves what DSA believes. But given that (i) DSA are democratic socialists, which are to the right of socialists, but to the left of social democrats & (ii) we have no evidence (not even non-credible evidence) that Obama has been a member of a social democrat party in 14 years, IT PROVES NOTHING WHATSOEVER ABOUT OBAMA’S CURRENT POLITICS.
“You’re all about attacking the sources of others…”
Because you keep citing sources that have no more credibility than a baboon’s flatulence.
“…providing no evidence of your own whatsoever…”
Please see EVIDENCE above that the ’70- socialists’ claim was a hoax.
“…you even provide your own definition of ‘socialism’ to help frame the debate.”
NO! I “even provide[d]” the Oxford English Dictionary (the most reliable source in the world on the English language) definition.
“Are you an Ivy League professor by any chance?”
No, I’m just a guy who thinks that words actually have meanings, and shouldn’t be used as indiscriminate missiles in a monkey poo-flinging contest.
“Those tactics aren’t very effective for your side…”
I am well aware that good “conservative republican[s]” don’t consider anything as mundane as actual facts (as opposed to blog-spread truthiness), or the actual meanings of words, effectual in any argument.
The only things you believe to be true is what your own echo-chamber tells you (no matter how contradictory, unsubstantiated and unlikely it happens to be). And words only have meaning as pejoratives to hurl at the demonized ‘other’.
(“Very good reply–and it has the added benefit of being entertaining!” — yes, the right-wing wit, or half of it (to paraphrase John Cleese.)
Reply
Hrafn Reply:
September 26th, 2010 at 14:03
Here’s a suggestion:
1) Go to Wikipedia and look up ‘socialism’, ‘democratic socialism’ & ‘social democracy’, and follow the links to people/parties that are genuine examples of these views.
2) If you want more (or don’t trust Wikipedia) go to your local library, local bookstore and/or local university/college library and find some Political Science/Political Studies textbooks and read up on the subject in greater (and more authoritative) detail.
Reply
LBG1 Reply:
September 26th, 2010 at 14:24
Hrahn:
Here’s a link for your perusal. Given that it’s not Wiki or the local library then chances are you will judge it as ‘ not relevant’ and, most likely, call the information ‘fake’. Meanwhile you’re arguing the difference between democratic socialists and socialists. Kind of like arguing the difference between a moderate and liberal democrat. In the end, both are Democrats.
http://politicallydrunk.blogspot.com/2008/10/web-archives-confirm-barack-obama-was.html
How about, having been born in Cuba and watching it unfold personaly. Socialism is very elusive, it can come labeled in many forms (example – progressive). It only requires ignorance, it preys on the good nature of people. It begins with pointing out the unfairness of those who have to those who don’t. It develops by increasing the direct involvement of government in social issues. It grows by convincing people they have an inherent right to a better life. But the reality is, it creates a growing society of takers and providers, ruled by elites.
The US Constitution does not guarantee anything other than life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.
Entitlements, redistribution of wealth, social responsibilities are not and should not be part of our government.
It is my fondest wish, that everyone in the world enjoy a happy and healthy life, but government and government involvement is not the answer. Governments are burocratic and inefficient at best. Development of public awareness of social problems and injustices should be done and resolved by private groups.
So, to get back to the issue, yes, I believe Obama is one of the elites and he believes and understands that his power comes from developing socialist ideals.
I’m tired of being taxed to death, only to watch the money being spent by people that only care abot keeping and increasing their own power. Don’t want a king, or lords, don’t want to work and pay to become a serf in somebody’s kingdom.
Reply
Wow. This debate represents America in a nutshell. No pun intended.
On the one hand, we have science, facts and logic. A point of view supported by a cohesive argument, based on commonly accepted facts and respect for the professional community whose goal is to expand humanity’s knowledge in an objective manner.
On the other hand, we have opinion, slurs and “common sense.” A point of view defined by the unproven opinions of media-made experts, the repetition of out-of-context quotes and vocal condemnation of those who advocate the pursuit of knowledge, preferring instead subjective invective and blind obedience to a doctrine spoon-fed to their brethren by the rich media elite at Fox News.
No, I’m not an Ivy League professor. Though I wish I were.
No, I’m not part of the elite. Though I do prefer real, fact-finding journalism to opinion-based blogs.
No, I’m not a liberal. I’m a real, live independent, having voted Republican exactly as often as Democrat. (Though if the Republicans run Sarah Palin in ’12, the Dems will take the lead.)
Yes, I often think that reader comments reveal a disturbing amount of ignorance, which makes me fear for our country.
Thanks for the interesting debate!
Reply
Armando Diaz Reply:
September 26th, 2010 at 17:41
Try to keep your eyes looking forward, you just might get somewhere. Looking down your nose at people, keeps you in the same place.
Reply
LBG1 Reply:
September 26th, 2010 at 19:21
DetAdMan,
Since you prefer ‘fact-finding media’ and don’t watch the ‘rich media elite at FOX News, what media ‘sources’ do you prefer?
Reply
Bloody ‘ell! This is flippin’ ridiculous.
Obama has been elected President and has been in power for almost 2 years now. Why are so many of my fellow conservatives so heavily focused on Obama’s past? We can’t change what he did and focusing on it isn’t going to un-do any of the damange he’s already done since being elected.
Instead of wasting our breath, our efforts, and our time on Obama’s past shouldn’t we be perpetually vetting what he’s doing now. After all the past can’t be changed but if we focus on the present we might still be able to save the future.
Besides all this conspiracy theory BS only makes look like kooks… you know like our counterparts on the far left who still claim that George W. Bush was somehow directly responsible for 9/11. It’s all a bunch of hyperbolic swill and serves no one. Besides I’m sick of being considered, a little off just by association with some of my far far far right fellow conservatives. You’re doing the rest of us no favors.
Reply
admin Reply:
September 27th, 2010 at 14:09
Perplexio,
Buy a clue, you hapless poser.
The title of this piece is: Sarah Palin: The MSM’s Unquechable Curiosity Reserved for O’Donnell, Not Obama.
You’re doing the rest of “my far, far far right fellow conservatives” (yeah, right) no favors by being so disingenuous.
The discussion is the striking difference between the media’s curiosity: it’s lack of when the subject was Obama; the over-abundance of it when it’s a conservative.
It’s not a waste of breath to point out the content management of the MSM. 2012 is not that far away and the same Progressive lackeys in the press will be hoping to operate as they did in 2008–and years before.
Now scurry back to Think Progress.
Reply