Posted by H. L. Trisky
First by holding back on a story of O’s early fundraising machine and then non-reporting of Obama’s refusal to allow a re-vote in Michigan, and NOW hiding his current flip/flop hypocrisy on counting all the votes…now, only now when Clinton has been safely disposed of.
When reading the article “Big Donors, Too, Have Seats at Obama Fund-raising Table”, I was struck by how much of the article was old news. That is how easily this could have “aired” as it were, early on in the primary season, or at least after Christmas of last year.
Indeed a lede in graf states: “While his campaign has cited its volume of small donations as a rationale for his decision to opt out of public financing for the general election, Mr. Obama has worked to build a network of big-dollar supporters from the time he began contemplating a run for the United States Senate. He tapped into well-connected people in Chicago prior to the 2004 Senate race, and once elected, set out across the country starting to cultivate some of his party’s most influential money collectors.”
Reading on, lots of the reporting focuses on Obama’s fundraising from Big donors dating back to his early Chicago days, and during the period just after winning his Senate seat in 2004.
This may seem a small item, but consider the reporting of the Times over the primary season that painted Obama as a man apart from any political machine. A man apart from banal ambition, a man lifted up simply by whimsy of the people! Why is it we get more truthiness so late in the season—that is after HRC was disposed of? Why did the Times fail to report this story in a more timely fashion?. Isn’t that what news organizations do??
Now—another tasty tidbit. You remember all the hoopla about Florida and Michigan and the Times going along with the idea of not counting the delegates from those states, even when everyone knew they’d be counted somehow, and in a way that benefited Obama? Well, now Obama has requested (after so many protestations on his behalf not to count those voters during the primary season) that all those votes be counted (and their delegates) be seated. Obama who refused to give a go-ahead to a re-vote in Michigan so that a true and Fair tally could be taken?
Obama took his name off the ballot when he thought he couldn’t win, refused to have a re-vote when he thought he wouldn’t win, took all the delegates GIVEN to him, not by voters but by the DNC and Carl Levin. Now, now!, this opportunistic man wants everyone seated? What about all the Party talk of punishing the voters for moving things ahead—silly talk b/c the voters had nothing to do with moving their primary forward, they just went to the polls and voted, and some of them then had to watch as their votes cast for Clinton were arbitrarily handed to King Obama.
So this is NEWS, and in a big way. But CNN didn’t post it on their “top stories” web page, and the Times, sadly, SO SO sadly, rather than reporting on the drive behind Obama’s refusal to work out a re-vote, the Times put this story into a five graf item, ran it on A12, at the bottom of the page in a tini tiny box.
The Times bashed Clinton for wanting Fl. and Mich. votes counted and made good fun of her for this in a very front-forward fashion. For Obama’s hypocrisy they play, hide and seek—that is they will hide the news and hope u don’t seek it!
In those few grafs, The Times worried the bead of what to do if states jump ship again. For that, why not write a solution piece?? FemiSex did!.
But…Oh yeah, that will have to wait until after the Donkey convention or…far more likely, much later…say after November…when it is safe for Obama for us to consider what Really happened behind the scenes in Florida and Michigan.