The further to the left or the right you move, the more your lens on life distorts.

Wednesday, October 22, 2008

Joe Being Joe

I’ve been patiently waiting for the first in-depth media interview that probes, really probes, what Joe Biden meant when he suggested in a talk with donors (he assumed there was no media present) that a young and inexperienced (my characterization, not Biden’s) President Obama would be tested by an international crisis in his first six months. There's no real surprise there. That eventuality is highly likely. It's what he said next that is startling.
"We're gonna need you [the democratic donors] to use your influence, your influence within the community, to stand with him. Because it's not gonna be apparent initially, it's not gonna be apparent that we're right."

What specifically did Biden mean when he said "it's not gonna be apparent that we're right"? Did he mean that Obama would respond with force and that the anti-War Left would be upset? Did he mean (turning 180 degrees) that Obama would try to appease an aggressor and the Center of the American electorate would be upset? For example, did he mean that Obama might turn the other cheek if Israel were attacked by Iran (Obama never answered a direct question on the subject of an Iranian attack on Israel during the second Presidential debate. McCain was unequivocal in his answer).

My goodness. Are we to be left guessing what Biden meant? Apparently, in their blatant bias in favor of the Obama-Biden ticket, the MSM seems afraid to ask the questions that need to be asked—afraid that no matter what the answers are, it won’t bode well for their Chosen One. So they dither and turn away, while the voting public is left to guess, or more likely, to remain ignorant about the entire episode.

Kirsten Powers (a Democrat) comments:
Barack Obama's choice of Joe Biden as his running mate prompted a small wave of warnings about Biden's propensity for gaffes. But no one imagined even in a worse-case scenario such a spectacular bomb as telling donors Sunday to "gird your loins" because a young president Obama will be tested by an international crisis just like young President John Kennedy was.

Scary? You betcha! But somehow, not front-page news.

Again the media showed their incredible bias by giving scattered coverage of Biden's statements.

Like so many things throughout this seemingly endless campaign, the voting public is left with no answers when the actions, associations and even words of Barack Obama or now, Joe Biden precipitate serious questions.

The problem, I guess, is that pro-Obama editors and reporters sense at an unconscious level that some, if not all of the answers will reflect poorly on their guy. So they abuse the public trust, forget their professional ethics, and act like the three monkeys—hearing, seeing and speaking no evil.

For those readers who think I’m overstating this point, imagine for a moment that Sarah Palin had said what Biden said. The media would be relentless, calling her irresponsible or worse and demanding that she explain what she meant. Her comments would be in heavy rotation on the major broadcast and cable networks and above the fold in major newspapers. She would be hounded until answers were offered. And you know what, if she had made such provocative comments, that would be the appropriate media response. But Biden … he gets a pass. Why?

It's not very hard to figure out. Sad.