Anger in Arkansas
“Just as the old Clintonites in Arkansas are starting to warm to Sen. Barack Obama, the weekend flare-up over what Clinton ally Wes Clark said about Sen. John McCain’s military service is causing a lot of bitterness among state Democrats,” Paul Bedard writes in the Washington Whispers column at www.usnews.com.
“Many tell our Suzi Parker that they are angered with Obama’s criticism of Clark, the Arky and former NATO boss who rapped McCain by saying on CBS’s ’Face the Nation,’ ’I don’t think riding in a fighter plane and getting shot down is a qualification to be president.’
“Here’s what Suzi Parker E-mailed us [Tuesday]: ’Obama can kiss Arkansas goodbye. A lot of Dems are mad that Obama threw Clark under the bus and denounced his comments about McCain. If anything, they think the Obama camp should have just let the comments lie. A lot of the Dems I am talking to are Clintonites but also supported Clark in 2004 [when he ran for president]. Also hearing from Clark supporters who were in the draft movement that the Obama folks must have forgotten Clark has a massive database of supporters that has only gotten bigger since 2004 because Clark has been out campaigning for Dems since then.’”
Bush’s 3rd term
“We’re beginning to understand why Barack Obama keeps protesting so vigorously against the prospect of ’George Bush’s third term.’ Maybe he’s worried that someone will notice that he’s the candidate who’s running for it,” the Wall Street Journal said Wednesday in an editorial.
“Most presidential candidates adapt their message after they win their party nomination, but Mr. Obama isn’t merely ’running to the center.’ He’s fleeing from many of his primary positions so markedly and so rapidly that he’s embracing a sizable chunk of President Bush’s policy. Who would have thought that a Democrat would rehabilitate the much-maligned Bush agenda?” the newspaper asked, citing among other things Mr. Obama’s endorsement of government funding for faith-based charities and his retreat on opting out of free-trade agreements.
The journal noted that Mr. Obama has reversed himself on retroactive immunity for telecommunications companies that assisted in eavesdropping on foreign terrorists.
“Perhaps it is dawning on Mr. Obama that, if he does become president, he’ll be responsible for preventing any new terrorist attack. So now he’s happy to throw the New York Times under the bus.”
The newspaper added: “Look for Mr. Obama to use his forthcoming visit to Iraq as an excuse to drop those withdrawal plans faster than he can say Jeremiah Wright ’was not the person that I met 20 years ago.’”
News blackout
The Media Research Center’s Brent Baker, writing at www.mrc.org, said Fox News Channel’s Brit Hume made a successful prediction regarding his media brethren earlier this week.
“After leading Tuesday’s ’Special Report’ with how ’last year the administration reported satisfactory progress on only about eight of 18 benchmarks’ while this year, in a report disclosed Tuesday, the administration determined ’there has been satisfactory progress on 15 of the 18,’ FNC’s Brit Hume doubted ’word of this progress is going to get through’ to the public as he predicted: ’I suspect that this broadcast tonight — and maybe some others on this channel — are the only ones who are going to make a headline out of this. This is not going to be a big story elsewhere.’
“Indeed, neither the ’CBS Evening News’ nor ’NBC Nightly News’ mentioned Iraq while on ABC’s ’World News’ anchor Charles Gibson read a short update about ’increasing dangers for U.S. troops in Afghanistan’ since ’in the month of June there were 28 American fatalities in Afghanistan, just one less than died in Iraq last month.’ CNN’s ’Anderson Cooper 360’ was also silent Tuesday night about the benchmarks,” Mr. Baker said.
“Hume observed that ’when it first hit the wires, the wire story lead about it was all about how much trouble the next president is going to have with the slow pace of the Iraqi government. Only down in the story did one find out that this new report on the benchmarks has come out reporting a dramatic change from a year ago.’”
Bad-news hype
John Stossel, writing at www.realclearpolitics.com, scoffs at media coverage of the economy.
“Yes, growth has slowed, and many people are suffering because of falling home prices and higher food and energy prices. These are real problems, but watching TV, you’d think we were in a recession so severe it must be compared to the Great Depression,” Mr. Stossel said.
“Maybe I was just watching at the wrong times and just catching some outliers? No. A study by the Business and Media Institute (BMI) found that ABC, CBS and NBC regularly ’hyped similarities to the Great Depression.’
“BMI took a novel approach. It compared the economic-news coverage by the New York Times, Wall Street Journal and Washington Post from Oct. 28 to Nov. 3, 1929, around the time of the stock market crash, with the coverage by ABC, CBS and NBC from March 13 to 19 of this year.
“’The difference between how the 1929 and 2008 media handled a crisis was profound — with modern journalists hyping every event.’ Today’s coverage is much more alarmist. In 2008, few reporters pointed out ’the differences between today’s economy and the nation’s darkest economic years, or bothered to note that America is not in a depression.’”
McCain Watch
MoveOn.org, in an e-mail sent out Wednesday, said it will attempt to counter the media bias for Sen. John McCain by starting “McCain Watch” — an e-mail service that, presumably, won’t have a lot of good things to say about the Republican presidential candidate.
“It’s become pretty clear that pundits love John McCain. ’We’re his base,’ MSNBC host Chris Matthews famously said. So if you’re looking for some, er, straight talk on Senator McCain — where’s a person to go?” wrote Nita Chaudhary of MoveOn.org Political Action.
“That’s why we’re launching McCain Watch — a zippy e-mail with the presidential news you most need to know (but won’t hear elsewhere) about Senator McCain. The good folks at the Huffington Post will publish it and we’ll deliver it to your inbox. It’ll be fair, clear, and tough — the way news is supposed to be.”
Greg Pierce can be reached at 202/636-3285 or gpierce@washingtontimes.com.
Please read our comment policy before commenting.