LA Times cover's (up) another story!

[redsox39]

http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=ZDFkMGE2MmM1M2Q5MmY0ZmExMzUxMWRhZGJmMTAyOGY=#mo re (http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=ZDFkMGE2MmM1M2Q5MmY0ZmExMzUxMWRhZGJmMTAyOGY=#mo re)

The L.A. Times Suppresses Obama’s Khalidi Bash Tape
Obama, Ayers, and PLO supporters toast Edward Said’s successor, but the press doesn’t think it’s quite as newsworthy as Sarah Palin’s wardrobe.

By Andrew C. McCarthy

Let’s try a thought experiment. Say John McCain attended a party at which known racists and terror mongers were in attendance. Say testimonials were given, including a glowing one by McCain for the benefit of the guest of honor ... who happened to be a top apologist for terrorists. Say McCain not only gave a speech but stood by, in tacit approval and solidarity, while other racists and terror mongers gave speeches that reeked of hatred for an American ally and rationalizations of terror attacks.

Now let’s say the Los Angeles Times obtained a videotape of the party.

Question: Is there any chance — any chance — the Times would not release the tape and publish front-page story after story about the gory details, with the usual accompanying chorus of sanctimony from the oped commentariat? Is there any chance, if the Times was the least bit reluctant about publishing (remember, we’re pretending here), that the rest of the mainstream media (y’know, the guys who drove Trent Lott out of his leadership position over a birthday-party toast) would not be screaming for the release of the tape?

Do we really have to ask?

So now, let’s leave thought experiments and return to reality: Why is the Los Angeles Times sitting on a videotape of the 2003 farewell bash in Chicago at which Barack Obama lavished praise on the guest of honor, Rashid Khalidi — former mouthpiece for master terrorist Yasser Arafat?

At the time Khalidi, a PLO adviser turned University of Chicago professor, was headed east to Columbia. There he would take over the University’s Middle East-studies program (which he has since maintained as a bubbling cauldron of anti-Semitism) and assume the professorship endowed in honor of Edward Sayyid, another notorious terror apologist.

The party featured encomiums by many of Khalidi’s allies, colleagues, and friends, including Barack Obama, then an Illinois state senator, and Bill Ayers, the terrorist turned education professor. It was sponsored (http://www.nysun.com/article/8725) by the Arab American Action Network (AAAN), which had been founded by Khalidi and his wife, Mona, formerly a top English translator for Arafat’s press agency.

Is there just a teeny-weenie chance that this was an evening of Israel-bashing Obama would find very difficult to explain? Could it be that the Times, a pillar of the Obamedia, is covering for its guy?

Gateway Pundit reports (http://gatewaypundit.blogspot.com/2008/10/confirmed-msm-holds-video-of-barack.html) that the Times has the videotape but is suppressing it.

Back in April, the Times published a gentle story (http://www.latimes.com/news/politics/la-na-obamamideast10apr10,0,1780231,full.story) about the fete. Reporter Peter Wallsten avoided, for example, any mention of the inconvenient fact that the revelers included Ayers and Bernadine Dohrn, Ayers’s wife and fellow Weatherman terrorist. These self-professed revolutionary Leftists are friendly with both Obama and Khalidi — indeed, researcher Stanley Kurtz has noted (http://hughhewitt.townhall.com/blog/g/43474e3d-252a-4011-9044-2befe2e65e40) that Ayers and Khalidi were “best friends.” (And — small world! — it turns out that the Obamas are extremely close to the Khalidis, who have reportedly (http://www.campus-watch.org/article/id/5917) babysat the Obama children.)





Discuss.

[Archangel]

Why discuss? All you want to hear is that the Dem candidate is a terrorist, and that the GOP candidate is anointed...

[redsox39]

Defensive much?

Actually, I was looking more for the "Press is slanted" angle...Would the LA Times sit on that story if it was McCain?

[redsox39]

...or Bush?

[Archangel]

I dunno, but it might help the GOP's cause if Mrs Palin stopped referring to people who write stuff for a living and don't shit in holes as "un-American".

[Yelram]

Why discuss? All you want to hear is that the Dem candidate is a terrorist, and that the GOP candidate is anointed...

Listen with your fucking Obama ears here bro. I DONT LIKE MCCAIN, I ORIGINALLY VOTED IN THE PRIMARIES FOR OBAMA. THERE IS SOMETHING VERY VERY VERY WRONG ABOUT OBAMA. I know you dont want to hear it, but he is aligned with, and endorsed by, some VERY INTERESTING CHARACTERS. HE WONT RELEASE HIS EDUCATION RECORDS. Every story that comes out trying to vet out some of his past gets canned.

[Yelram]

Defensive much?

Actually, I was looking more for the "Press is slanted" angle...Would the LA Times sit on that story if it was McCain?

His fucking brilliant mind is going to waste regurgitating the media propaganda. WE ARE TALKING A WORLD PROPAGANDA MILL HERE.

[Archangel]

Listen with your fucking Obama ears here bro. I DONT LIKE MCCAIN, I ORIGINALLY VOTED IN THE PRIMARIES FOR OBAMA. THERE IS SOMETHING VERY VERY VERY WRONG ABOUT OBAMA. I know you dont want to hear it, but he is aligned with, and endorsed by, some VERY INTERESTING CHARACTERS. HE WONT RELEASE HIS EDUCATION RECORDS. Every story that comes out trying to vet out some of his past gets canned.

Was I talking to you?


Sit your arse down.

[Archangel]

His fucking brilliant mind is going to waste regurgitating the media propaganda. WE ARE TALKING A WORLD PROPAGANDA MILL HERE.

Or maybe, eight years of the world hating your guts has left you paranoid...



You know, the social democrats' next candidate for mayor of Bonn was a classmate of mine. I wonder whether the press is gonna crucify him for his "ties" to "problematic internet propaganda propagator".

[Yelram]

Was I talking to you?


Sit your arse down.

Well I know If Obama was running for head of your country, i'm sure you'd start to worry about major news agencies conveniently disregarding stories. Or blackballing certain reporters and news agencies because they get asked difficult questions. You just dont know whats going on here.

[Archangel]

Mate, we had Adolf Hitler run things for 12 years here. 4 years of Mr Obama isn't quite enough to scare us out of our wits.

[Yelram]

Mate, we had Adolf Hitler run things for 12 years here. 4 years of Mr Obama isn't quite enough to scare us out of our wits.

Yeah, we'll see.

[Morfin]

I am one of the people who do not believe that legitimate media outlets "sit" on stories regarding public figures as significant as a national party candidate for president.

Disclosure: All I know about this story is the article RedSox has posted.

I tend to doubt this is something significant that a legitimate paper like the LA Times would suppress because: The MSM had no hesitation in fully publishing Wright videos; and the MSM did not hesitate to publish Obama's comments in California about Pennsylvanians and their fears.

Have conservative or Republican-leaning media published this? Washington Times? Fox News? Surely, they wouldn't hesitate to show such a video or present this story?

[Claydon]

at this rate obama could have a picture of marx in his office and people would be fapping to obama as the great saviour of the US.

[Archangel]

at this rate obama could have a picture of marx in his office and people would be fapping to obama as the great saviour of the US.

To paraphrase Chris Rock, Dubya fucked it up so bad that the world would fap to anybody unlike him. A three-legged albino communist midget stroke victim would be hailed as a saviour at this point.


Well, Muji's been fapping to the little guy for a while, but...

[Mustard]

at this rate obama could have a picture of marx in his office and people would be fapping to obama as the great saviour of the US.
Harpo? Yeah, I think I would have a hard time not fapping...

[mongo]

i have learned to despise all of redsoxfag's threads.

[Claydon]

Harpo? Yeah, I think I would have a hard time not fapping...

fucking lulz!

[Claydon]

To paraphrase Chris Rock, Dubya fucked it up so bad that the world would fap to anybody unlike him. A three-legged albino communist midget stroke victim would be hailed as a saviour at this point.


Well, Muji's been fapping to the little guy for a while, but...

I tend to agree with you.

[Insomniac]

http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalradar/2008/05/obama-on-the-de.html


“You mentioned Rashid Khalidi, who’s a professor at Columbia," Obama said. "I do know him because I taught at the University of Chicago. And he is Palestinian. And I do know him and I have had conversations. He is not one of my advisors; he’s not one of my foreign policy people. His kids went to the Lab school where my kids go as well. He is a respected scholar, although he vehemently disagrees with a lot of Israel’s policy.”

But then Obama pushed back, launching a broader defense of his associations, while acknowledging that some past relationships have caused people in the Jewish community concerns.

“To pluck out one person who I know and who I’ve had a conversation with who has very different views than 900 of my friends and then to suggest that somehow that shows that maybe I’m not sufficiently pro-Israel, I think, is a very problematic stand to take," he said. "So we gotta be careful about guilt by association.”

[Genius]

To suggest that Edward Said was a terrorist apologist is a fucking joke. Unless anyone who disagrees with American foreign policy is a terrorist apologist. I suppose that makes the majority of Americans, and human beings in general, terrorist apologists.

[Archangel]

The sad thing is that that's probably what Mrs Palin actually thinks.

[vasili denisov]

Let’s try a thought experiment. Say John McCain attended a party at which known racists and terror mongers were in attendance.

Now let’s say the Los Angeles Times obtained a videotape of the party.

Question: Is there any chance — any chance — the Times would not release the tape and publish front-page story after story about the gory details, with the usual accompanying chorus of sanctimony from the oped commentariat?

He's so right. If McCain attended such a thing, the media wouldn't suppress it. They'd broadcast it on all the networks*.

0RRsjS9xzaM


The L.A. Times Suppresses Obama’s Khalidi Bash Tape.

By Andrew C. McCarthy !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


http://i37.tinypic.com/24mrszm.jpg

* I keed, I keed. I might take this seriously if McCarthy's past accusations weren't about Obama actually being an american citizen and Bill Ayers ghostwriting Obama's autobiography.

[kid_vidrio]

Defensive much?

Actually, I was looking more for the "Press is slanted" angle...Would the LA Times sit on that story if it was McCain?
I don't think they've really touched the Palin/AIP story much, so yes, they are already sitting on a similar non-story.

What about the parties the guy has been to with Warren Buffet, et al? I don't see them being scandalously discovered. This is such a tired tack, I can't fucking wait for the election to end, regardless of the outcome.

Knowing that over half of the country is dumb as fuck is one thing. Being forced to hear/see it on a daily basis is another.

[heelsguy]

Why discuss? All you want to hear is that the Dem candidate is a terrorist, and that the GOP candidate is anointed...

it is not about whether or not obama is a terrorist. it is about his refusal to address past poor choices. and other than being a really smart man, all we have to go by on this guy IS his choices.

come on Arch, if you can honestly say the mainstream press has treated Obama as it has McCain you are crazy or not as 24/7 up USA's ass as you pretend to be. those of us who live here see it as it is. Take the NYTimes stories on Cindy McCain last week versus Michell Obama this week. Both stories look like they were written by the Obama campaign

[kid_vidrio]

Well, either the guy is pretty much innocent, or DHS isn't doing its job.
Have you bothered to learn about Rashid Khalidi at all or are you just basing your opinion on Redsox Nat'l Review article?
And if you have bothered, what is it that so bothers you about Khalidi other than his name and the fact that he probably has a different opinion than you?

[heelsguy]

Well, either the guy is pretty much innocent, or DHS isn't doing its job.
Have you bothered to learn about Rashid Khalidi at all or are you just basing your opinion on Redsox Nat'l Review article?
And if you have bothered, what is it that so bothers you about Khalidi other than his name and the fact that he probably has a different opinion than you?

it is not this one story, but it is like the straw that broke the camel's back. I genuinely like obama, and when I vote tuesday, I MAY even vote for him. but something tells me he is not all that he pretends to be.

one little thing: this big smoker Obama is more concerned about not being caught with a cig in his hand that it strikes a "phony" cord with me. why has he not been grilled by the media like even al gore was in 2000?

[CarsyCarsten]

where is that video?

[kid_vidrio]

it is not this one story, but it is like the straw that broke the camel's back. I genuinely like obama, and when I vote tuesday, I MAY even vote for him. but something tells me he is not all that he pretends to be.

one little thing: this big smoker Obama is more concerned about not being caught with a cig in his hand that it strikes a "phony" cord with me. why has he not been grilled by the media like even al gore was in 2000?
Nancy Reagan was a chain smoker.
I think it shows that you are aware of public image and little else. I smoke from time to time but my kid will never see it. Ever.

[vasili denisov]

I'll actually come up with a semi-serious response to this. The question is whether greater media exposure of this story represents bias; I don't think so. The person pushing this piece has already put forward very flimsy claims (Obama being a non-citizen of the US, Ayers wrote his Obama's autobiography), as well as some very deceptive language in the piece. An example is the statement that Rashid Khalidi is a former "mouthpiece" of Arafat; Khalidi was at one of the peace conferences.

He's being presented here as some kind of terrorist fanatic; I come across this transcript (http://www.israelemb.org/ambassador/speeches/Shoval/921221.htm) where he's a crossfire guest, and though I may disagree with some of his points, the depiction of him in the McCarthy allegations as this pro-terror lunatic are ridiculous.

I'll give a counter-example; here's a story (http://www.thenation.com/doc/20081006/schanberg) by Sidney Schanberg, a Pulitzer prize winning journalist which makes the case that John McCain turned his back on MIAs in Viet Nam. The media has not given greater space to the allegations; based on the motives assumed about Obama stories non-covered by the media, it's because they're deeply sympathetic to McCain. Based on the assumption that journalists' behaviour is ultimately rational, it's more likely the same reasons for why this story got spurned; the claims are very, very tenuous and ultimately don't coalesce into much.

[Stax]

...or Bush?

The New York Times, an even more liberal-commie-pinko-elitist paper in the right's eyes, sat on the warrantless wiretapping story before the 2004 election, so yes.

And the continual stories about "Obama was in a room with a bad guy, what does this say about him?" are just silly. McCain has been in plenty of rooms with plenty of guys and given plenty of rousing speeches.

[redsox39]

Mate, we had Adolf Hitler run things for 12 years here. 4 years of Mr Obama isn't quite enough to scare us out of our wits.

Yeah good job on that, looks like you guys CAN be swept up like lemmings to the first person who yells "CHANGE" the loudest! Please give us some more German Political insight, the world is "dying" to see what you got.

I am one of the people who do not believe that legitimate media outlets "sit" on stories regarding public figures as significant as a national party candidate for president.

Disclosure: All I know about this story is the article RedSox has posted.

I tend to doubt this is something significant that a legitimate paper like the LA Times would suppress because: The MSM had no hesitation in fully publishing Wright videos; and the MSM did not hesitate to publish Obama's comments in California about Pennsylvanians and their fears.

Have conservative or Republican-leaning media published this? Washington Times? Fox News? Surely, they wouldn't hesitate to show such a video or present this story?

The way I read the story is that the LA Times, and only the LA Times, has the tape. I could be wrong, first time for everything...

i have learned to despise all of redsoxfag's threads.

And I have learned the last time Mongo contributed something meaningful to ANY thread was...damn, I can't think of one. Pretty much a troll 98% of the time. Nice post though. Thanks Mongo!

I don't think they've really touched the Palin/AIP story much, so yes, they are already sitting on a similar non-story.

What about the parties the guy has been to with Warren Buffet, et al? I don't see them being scandalously discovered. This is such a tired tack, I can't fucking wait for the election to end, regardless of the outcome.

Knowing that over half of the country is dumb as fuck is one thing. Being forced to hear/see it on a daily basis is another.

And which side do you fall on...

The New York Times, an even more liberal-commie-pinko-elitist paper in the right's eyes, sat on the warrantless wiretapping story before the 2004 election, so yes.

And the continual stories about "Obama was in a room with a bad guy, what does this say about him?" are just silly. McCain has been in plenty of rooms with plenty of guys and given plenty of rousing speeches.

LOL! How many times in how many rooms does that excuse carry over for?

He never heard the pastor.
He was just nieghbors with the guy.
They weren't Friends.
It was just a party.
It was just a speech.
He was just in the room.
He can't control who endorses him.
He doesn't know the guy.
The guy isn't even that bad...

I think I got them all.

I can't wait til the video (ok, totally making this up) of him giving Osama Bin Laden a blow job comes out and we are labeled as Gay bashers for bringing it up. It's just oral sex, Jeez! He barely knows the guy! lol

[Morfin]

Have conservative or Republican-leaning media published this? Washington Times? Fox News? Surely, they wouldn't hesitate to show such a video or present this story?

The way I read the story is that the LA Times, and only the LA Times, has the tape. I could be wrong, first time for everything...


Okay, assume they are the only one with the video. Two questions: First, why would the LA Times forego major revenue from increased circulation by holding the video if it contained anything of significance? Second, putting the video aside, have Fox News, Washington Times, anyone else picked up the story? Similar to the birth certificate issue, I believe that if there was something there, these media would not ignore it.

News media are deluged with stories that some people believe are "explosive" or of major interest to the public, and most of these stories are not published due to the editors' opinions that they are not of significance or not of interest to anyone other than a few. I wonder if this story is one of this nature. Given the fact that there have been a lot of stories lately about Ayers, I find it hard to believe that any legitimate media outlet would ignore (or bury) a valid story that supports the Ayers line of reasoning.

[redsox39]

Okay, assume they are the only one with the video. Two questions: First, why would the LA Times forego major revenue from increased circulation by holding the video if it contained anything of significance? Second, putting the video aside, have Fox News, Washington Times, anyone else picked up the story? Similar to the birth certificate issue, I believe that if there was something there, these media would not ignore it.

News media are deluged with stories that some people believe are "explosive" or of major interest to the public, and most of these stories are not published due to the editors' opinions that they are not of significance or not of interest to anyone other than a few. I wonder if this story is one of this nature. Given the fact that there have been a lot of stories lately about Ayers, I find it hard to believe that any legitimate media outlet would ignore (or bury) a valid story that supports the Ayers line of reasoning.

Just saying...maybe they sit on it for 2 more weeks, then show it. That way, they still get the exclusive...and Obama is already the president. And say what you will, once they are Elected, they are fair game to both sides. Look at Clinton, the press touched themselves when the Lewinsky story broke.

[VoxAngelikus]

it is not about whether or not obama is a terrorist. it is about his refusal to address past poor choices. and other than being a really smart man, all we have to go by on this guy IS his choices.


How about Sarah Palin's choices? That's pretty much all we have to go on with her, too, and from what I have read about her she doesn't exactly have the perfect, Christian "hockey mom" family lovin' track record that she'd like us all to think she has.

[redsox39]

How about Sarah Palin's choices? That's pretty much all we have to go on with her, too, and from what I have read about her she doesn't exactly have the perfect, Christian "hockey mom" family lovin' track record that she'd like us all to think she has.


Agreed. But why do you keep comparing the Main guy with other teams back up?

Great, Sarah Palin is a joke. At least she is not the starter like Obama, the joke.

Last Time I checked, The Giants starter, Eli Manning, is better than Carolina's back up, Chris Weinkie. So if you keep comparing the two, I would assume you mean they are pretty close in comparison?

(Sorry, I got no soccer references for you, I thought about looking it up...but nah)

[VoxAngelikus]

I compare them because while she may be the backup right now, she could end up as the President if anything happens to McCain

OR

she could just be angling for a run in 2012.


Either case makes her past decisions just as important as Obama's.

[redsox39]

I compare them because while she may be the backup right now, she could end up as the President if anything happens to McCain

OR

she could just be angling for a run in 2012.


Either case makes her past decisions just as important as Obama's.

So Basically, I should ignore Obama's past, even though he is running for the top dog, but I should pay attention to Palin's past because there is an off chance she could be president.

One of them is a lot more pressing at the time.

So what you are saying is...
Let's elected a guy with a questionable past so we can avoid the chance that a woman with a questionable past might run for president one day? (or become president due to a death in Office?)

Make absolutely no sense...

[Archangel]

So when they continued asking him, he lifted up himself, and said unto them, He that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone at her.


Seriously, name one politician who manages to rise to the top of the heap without meeting some less than savoury characters. Scrutiny is fine; but to attack someone's character just because he's had some contact to some shady people during his career is retarded.

[Archangel]

Fucking hell, Kennedy's ties to the Chicago Outfit were probably more substantial than any of Obama's ties to these jackasses (with the possible exception of the Rev Jackass Wright)...

[VoxAngelikus]

So Basically, I should ignore Obama's past, even though he is running for the top dog, but I should pay attention to Palin's past because there is an off chance she could be president.

One of them is a lot more pressing at the time.


First of all, I didn't say a thing about Obama other than to say that if you're going to talk about his past choices, you have to talk about Palin's past choices.

YOU LOOK AT BOTH OF THEM EQUALLY AND MAKE YOUR OWN DECISION BASED ON HOW YOU FEEL.

If you're simply voting because you think Red is better than Blue no matter the facts, you're not voting responsibly.

Second of all:
So what you are saying is...
Let's elected a guy with a questionable past so we can avoid the chance that a woman with a questionable past might run for president one day? (or become president due to a death in Office?)

Make absolutely no sense..That's not what I said. Don't put words into my mouth. I never said which button you should click on Nov. 4. Voting is your choice, regardless of whether I agree with your selection or the process by which you've reached your decision.

Other than that, having a President with a questionable past? I don't think that this would be the first time we elected one of those.

[redsox39]

Seriously, name one politician who manages to rise to the top of the heap without meeting some less than savoury characters. Scrutiny is fine; but to attack someone's character just because he's had some contact to some shady people during his career is retarded.

That is the point. One time, fine. 2 times, ok. 3 times, you are pushing it...

But he has so many! And these are the ones we know about!

And maybe this is more of a helpful thing. How can he be labled a "uniter" when even the dumbest guy on the right is never going to vote for, or support a guy with that background. I just see more divisivness...(spelling, blow me)

[Willam]

If you're simply voting because you think Red is better than Blue no matter the facts, you're not voting responsibly.




HAHAHAHAHA...people voting responsibly...HAHAHAHAHAHAHA


The biggest problem with America is NO PERSON wants to be responsible for their own actions, much less vote responsibly.

[Archangel]

(To redsox) That's because a large part of the right today only votes for Jayzus-lovin' gun nuts.

[redsox39]

First of all, I didn't say a thing about Obama other than to say that if you're going to talk about his past choices, you have to talk about Palin's past choices.

YOU LOOK AT BOTH OF THEM EQUALLY AND MAKE YOUR OWN DECISION BASED ON HOW YOU FEEL.

If you're simply voting because you think Red is better than Blue no matter the facts, you're not voting responsibly.

Second of all:
That's not what I said. Don't put words into my mouth. I never said which button you should click on Nov. 4. Voting is your choice, regardless of whether I agree with your selection or the process by which you've reached your decision.

Other than that, having a President with a questionable past? I don't think that this would be the first time we elected one of those.

True, true, I apologize. And I agree with you on your second points as well.

And while I feel No shame in saying that most of the time, Red is better than blue IMO, I have voted for many Democrats, including Ben Nelson, and a lot of local government where I feel they are a better fit.

I am just trying to make the point, that while Palin's past is important, I would like to focus on the actual people running for office before I start anything else.

[redsox39]

(To redsox) That's because a large part of the right today only votes for Jayzus-lovin' gun nuts.



That's because a large part of the left today is lazy, Welfare loving, drug users.

Let's not start this stupid shit.

[VoxAngelikus]

True, true, I apologize. And I agree with you on your second points as well.

And while I feel No shame in saying that most of the time, Red is better than blue IMO, I have voted for many Democrats, including Ben Nelson, and a lot of local government where I feel they are a better fit.

I am just trying to make the point, that while Palin's past is important, I would like to focus on the actual people running for office before I start anything else.

The true shame is that so many people don't consider who they are electing. They see in Red or Blue and that's that and hey, maybe the guy you're voting for fucked a kid, but he's a DEM or a REP so, you know, I'd never vote across party lines! See my signature and you'll see who I agree with when it comes to party lines and DEM v. REP in our country. It's a division and a sad one at that.

The true sadness, however, is that even people like me, who do consider who they are going to be electing, usually have a choice between the lesser of two evils. Palin and Obama may have shady pasts (and to some extent McCain and Biden, as well), but what does it say when I have to pick the least worst candidates?

Anybody undecided on Nov. 4 should vote for someone - Write in Vox Angelikus. If I get a couple of votes, maybe the FBI will show up at my door.

[Archangel]

That's because a large part of the left today is lazy, Welfare loving, drug users.

Perhaps; but whom do they vote for?

[redsox39]

Perhaps; but whom do they vote for?

People that Pander to Lazy, welfare loving folks.

[Morfin]

Apropos to very little, I'm getting fed up with people on the left characterizing Republicans as idiot rednecks, and people on the right characterizing Democrats as lazy, welfare-loving idiots.

Look, there are many, many idiots on both sides who will always vote for one party or the other. But those idiots on one side (I believe, with no data to support my belief) will always cancel out the idiots on the other. That leaves the educated, informed, and actual moderates/independents to choose who will represent the citizens.

Thank you. I have stated my opinion. Now, I will a enjoy a can of the Nectar of The Gods: Diet Coke.

[redsox39]

That's because a large part of the left today is lazy, Welfare loving, drug users.

Let's not start this stupid shit.

Thank you Morfin, that was my point exactly here. And I DO love me some Diet coke. **Sips**

[freegood]

Bush is in bed with the bin Ladens

SHOCKINGER

[fuldstændigamok]

This Whole thread:

FAIL

[redsox39]

and I am in Bed with Palin's middle daughter

[mongo]

i'm w/ fuld on this one.

This Whole thread:

FAIL

[Archangel]

Apropos to very little, I'm getting fed up with people on the left characterizing Republicans as idiot rednecks, and people on the right characterizing Democrats as lazy, welfare-loving idiots.

The thing is, the rest of the world doesn't give a shit about whether you let your ghettoes starve or give them handouts en masse, but we do start listening when people who cannot tell Basel and Baghdad apart yell about bombin' them there Mooslim comm'nists.

[redsox39]

Back on Topic...Newt Gingrich offered $50k for the tape the LA Times is holding.

And this quote from PAt Dollard: So it is particularly heartbreaking for me to see the death of objective journalism. And believe me - it is stone cold dead. Sacrificed on the altar of service to Barack Obama.

And this:
Former New York Times [NYT] columnist and veteran newspaperman Michael Malone knows it.
“I’ve begun - for the first time in my adult life - to be embarrassed to admit what I do for a living,” he said.

The Boston Globe has an Entire Column about it:
Did you see that amazing video obtained by the Los Angeles Times of Sen. Barack Obama toasting a prominent former PLO member at an Arab American Action Network meeting in 2003? The video in which Obama gives Yasser Arafat’s frontman a warm embrace, as Bill Ayers look on?
You haven’t seen it? Me, neither. The Los Angeles Times refuses to release it.
And so an incriminating video of Obama literally “palling around” with PLO supporters becomes one more nail in the coffin of “objective journalism.”
Alas, the obit for objective reporting has been buried - along with the stories about Obama’s 2001 support for court-imposed “redistribution of wealth” and Joe Biden’s latest gaffe.
For the record (that’s J-school talk for “I actually know what I’m talking about for a change”), I am not a journalist. I’m an opinion writer and talk show host. But I admire reporters tremendously. I married one. My oldest son is named for the great H. L. Mencken.
So it is particularly heartbreaking for me to see the death of objective journalism. And believe me - it is stone cold dead. Sacrificed on the altar of service to Barack Obama.
Former New York Times [NYT] columnist and veteran newspaperman Michael Malone knows it.
“I’ve begun - for the first time in my adult life - to be embarrassed to admit what I do for a living,” he said.
Malone is disturbed by the “shameless support” journalists have been giving the Obama campaign. Where’s the hardball coverage for Obama they give McCain? Instead, journalists are “actively serving as attack dogs for the [Obama/Biden] ticket.”
“That isn’t Sen. Obama’s fault,” Malone points out. He blames the media, whose job it is to give Obama a thorough vetting “and has systematically refused to do so.”
This is hardly news to regular readers of the Boston Globe-Democrat, or viewers of MS-We-Hate-Bush. But when the Associated Press starts adding Kool-Aid at the water cooler, we readers are in real trouble.
Jay Newton-Small, a longtime AP reporter, points out in a column in the Washington Post that her old employer has begun practicing “accountability journalism,” which is a media euphemism for “picking the good guys and the bad guys.”
“Some of the most eyebrow-raising stories this presidential-election cycle have come from a surprising source: the stodgy old AP,” Newton-Small wrote.
The AP, once the gold standard of unbiased “hard news,” is now just another voice in the Spin Room.

Newton-Small asks:
“When the news organization entrusted with calling elections sets off down the slippery slope of news analysis, it’s hard not to wonder: Is the journalism world losing its North Star, the one source that could be relied upon to provide ‘Just the facts, ma’am’ ?”
Facts? Who needs ’em, when we’ve got Obama’s magic tax plan to promote and an uppity Alaska governor to trash?
At the risk of violating union rules, allow me to do a bit of reporting: A new study by the Pew Research Center found that, while 71 percent of Obama’s recent media coverage has been “positive” or “neutral,” almost 60 percent of McCain’s coverage over the same period has been “decidedly negative.”
And how much positive coverage did the media give McCain? Fourteen percent.
The American people have figured this out.
“By a margin of 70 percent to 9 percent,” another Pew study reported, “Americans say most journalists want to see Obama, not John McCain, win on Nov. 4.”
The percentage of Americans who rate reporters as objective and not favoring either candidate? Eight percent.
My friends in the Partisan Press, your reputation has now fallen lower than both President Bush (25 percent) and the Democratic Congress (18 percent). Journalistic integrity now ranks along side communicable diseases and nuclear mishaps.
Obama will likely be the next president. He will use that power to do things both good and bad. But when Americans look for tough, honest journalists to challenge him, where will we find them?


Let the Bashing on Redsox begin, and Good morning.

[redsox39]

Also, to get away from anything serious, I don't care who you are, this is funny. It has been fixed, but the LA Times DID release this very newsworthy story instead of the tape, lol.

http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/washington/2008/10/obama-terrorist.html

For Pictures from the Website:
http://patdollard.com/index.php?s=obama+mask

And for all the defensive blow hards...yes it IS funny because it is ironic. If it was Labled "Gay Raver mask with Glow sticks" it would not be as funny because their is not irony. Seriously, Laugh.

Thank being Said...I am sure this classifies as an EPIC FAIL!

[Archangel]

As I said, reporters from the big city newspapers are mostly literate people.

So if the GOP campaign tells them that they, as coastal liberal élitist bastards, are not "pro-America" and to blame for everything that's wrong, what the fuck do they expect in return? Love? Adoration?

[redsox39]

As I said, reporters from the big city newspapers are mostly literate people.

So if the GOP campaign tells them that they, as coastal liberal élitist bastards, are not "pro-America" and to blame for everything that's wrong, what the fuck do they expect in return? Love? Adoration?


The blame didn't come before the actions.

Are we supposed to NOT point out what they are doing, and just let it slide?

Man 1:"did you see that guy mug that lady over there?"

Man 2: "shhh! Don't call him a mugger, he'll just mug more!"

[Archangel]

Oh please, the Bush campaign used the fact that Kerry used the word "nuance" to show the square state simpletons that he wasn't "one of them".

How the fuck is someone who writes for a living gonna support that?

[redsox39]

Oh please, the Bush campaign used the fact that Kerry used the word "nuance" to show the square state simpletons that he wasn't "one of them".

How the fuck is someone who writes for a living gonna support that?


Good Call. The Left never does anything wrong, and that is why they cannot report on anything bad about them. Is that your stance?

[Archangel]

No, but the left don't go out of their way to insult coastal intellectuals, a category that many journalists fall into, or at least think they do, especially on the networks and the big papers and weeklies.

If I were trying to be mayor of my town, and kept piling shit upon shit upon, say, the fire brigade during my campaign, I shouldn't be surprised when nobody comes when my house is burning.

[redsox39]

No, but the left don't go out of their way to insult coastal intellectuals, a category that many journalists fall into, or at least think they do, especially on the networks and the big papers and weeklies.

If I were trying to be mayor of my town, and kept piling shit upon shit upon, say, the fire brigade during my campaign, I shouldn't be surprised when nobody comes when my house is burning.

Of course they won't come to put out the fire! They started it!

In any case, I have no problem with calling them out.

Coastal Intellectuals...I'll have to write that down, lol.

[vasili denisov]

Okay, let's kill this now.

What's been quoted now is a bunch of "outrage" about the quality of journalism because this tape hasn't been released. It's a tape that shows Obama at Rashid Khalidi's house during a party. Why is this tape important? Because it's evidence of Obama's damaging associations, since Khalidi and his wife worked for the PLO.

Why hasn't the tape been released? Because the LA Times gave word to their source that they got the tape from they wouldn't release it.

"The Los Angeles Times did not publish the videotape because it was provided to us by a confidential source who did so on the condition that we not release it," said the newspaper's editor, Russ Stanton. "The Times keeps its promises to sources."
http://www.latimes.com/news/politics/la-na-video29-2008oct29,0,7568849.story

Okay, but Khalidi worked for the PLO. Except he didn't.

Klein penned two stories in late February wildly distorting Obama's links, from his days in Chicago, to pro-Palestinian activists like Rashid Khalidi, a respected professor of Middle East studies at Columbia University who previously taught at the University of Chicago (hardly a bastion of left-wing activism). Klein's story goes something like this: Obama sat on the board of a foundation in Chicago that gave a grant to the Arab American Action Network (AAAN), run by Khalidi's wife, which supposedly rejects Israel's existence; and Khalidi directed the PLO's Beirut press office and is a supporter "for Palestinian terror."

(In fact, the AAAN focuses solely on social service work in Chicago and takes no position on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Khalidi says he was never employed by the PLO; he has been a harsh critic of Palestinian suicide bombings and a longtime supporter of a two-state solution, and he has never been an adviser to Obama. As for Obama's past statements, at least in Chicago, being pro-Israel and pro-Palestinian is not a contradiction in terms.)
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/03/14/opinion/main3938453.shtml

Yeah, but this Khalidi fellow still seems suspicious. How suspicious? Well, he received funding from John McCain.

During the 1990s, while he served as chairman (http://www.iri.org/newsarchive/2007/2007-10-22-News-AP-McCain.asp) of the International Republican Institute (IRI), McCain distributed several grants to the Palestinian research center co-founded by Khalidi, including one worth half a million dollars.


A 1998 tax filing for the McCain-led group shows a $448,873 grant to Khalidi's Center for Palestine Research and Studies for work in the West Bank. (See grant number 5180, "West Bank: CPRS" on page 14 of this PDF (http://big.assets.huffingtonpost.com/IRIForm9901998.pdf).)


The relationship extends back as far as 1993, when John McCain joined IRI as chairman in January. Foreign Affairs noted in September of that year that IRI had helped fund several extensive studies in Palestine run by Khalidi's group, including over 30 public opinion polls and a study of "sociopolitical attitudes."
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/10/28/mccain-funded-work-of-pal_n_138606.html

Okay. So right now, the objectivity of the media is at stake over a videotape that's not being released due to a confidentiality promise with a source, a tape whose most damaging material is that it features a man, a figure who's been falsely accused of being a member of the PLO and an individual of such ill repute that John McCain gave him a half-a-million dollar grant in the 90s.

Awesome work, gentlemen. Awesome fucking work. Your fail has the sound of a Boeing crash and the smell of a victorian sewer.

[Stax]

Jesus fucking christ you don't shut up redsox.


LOL! How many times in how many rooms does that excuse carry over for?

He never heard the pastor.
He was just nieghbors with the guy.
They weren't Friends.
It was just a party.
It was just a speech.
He was just in the room.
He can't control who endorses him.
He doesn't know the guy.
The guy isn't even that bad...

I think I got them all.

I can't wait til the video (ok, totally making this up) of him giving Osama Bin Laden a blow job comes out and we are labeled as Gay bashers for bringing it up. It's just oral sex, Jeez! He barely knows the guy! lol

Yes, you hear it constantly because you bring up the same stupid ideas. Here are your 'big' allegations against Obama.

- He was a member of a church with a racist preacher. Who he fully renounced so much that even McCain isn't even bringing him up.
- He sat on an education board with Bill Ayers 40 years after his terrorist acts. When Ayers had become a respected education scholar in the community the board served.

At the risk of violating union rules, allow me to do a bit of reporting: A new study by the Pew Research Center found that, while 71 percent of Obama’s recent media coverage has been “positive” or “neutral,” almost 60 percent of McCain’s coverage over the same period has been “decidedly negative.”
And how much positive coverage did the media give McCain? Fourteen percent.
The American people have figured this out.
“By a margin of 70 percent to 9 percent,” another Pew study reported, “Americans say most journalists want to see Obama, not John McCain, win on Nov. 4.”
The percentage of Americans who rate reporters as objective and not favoring either candidate? Eight percent.
My friends in the Partisan Press, your reputation has now fallen lower than both President Bush (25 percent) and the Democratic Congress (18 percent). Journalistic integrity now ranks along side communicable diseases and nuclear mishaps.

No way, positive coverage for Obama and negative coverage for McCain? Did you actually look into those surveys and realize that NO FUCKING SHIT the guy who's constantly doing well will get so-called 'positive' coverage and the guy losing 'negative' coverage? If you are losing people will look to learn why, which will be negative coverage.

Let me repeat this, who the press LIKES doesn't matter one fucking bit because people are not psychics. I bet Jim Lehrer has a political view, but it doesn't matter because he is a GOOD NEWS PERSON and doesn't feel the need to insert that view into his reporting. BAD and BIASED news people are not people with political views but are those like O'Reilly, Hannity, Hume, Olbermann, or Dobbs who openly and unabashedly insert those views into coverage.

And let me repeat this, simply showing %age of positive and negative coverage does not show bias either. If you are doing badly your coverage is going to be more negative, this is not rocket science.

[redsox39]

Okay, let's kill this now.

What's been quoted now is a bunch of "outrage" about the quality of journalism because this tape hasn't been released. It's a tape that shows Obama at Rashid Khalidi's house during a party. Why is this tape important? Because it's evidence of Obama's damaging associations, since Khalidi and his wife worked for the PLO.

Why hasn't the tape been released? Because the LA Times gave word to their source that they got the tape from they wouldn't release it.
http://www.latimes.com/news/politics/la-na-video29-2008oct29,0,7568849.story

Okay, but Khalidi worked for the PLO. Except he didn't.
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/03/14/opinion/main3938453.shtml

Yeah, but this fellow still seems suspicious. How suspicious? Well, he received funding from John McCain.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/10/28/mccain-funded-work-of-pal_n_138606.html

Okay. So right now, the objectivity of the media is at stake over a videotape that's not being released due to a confidentiality promise with a source, a tape whose most damaging material is that it features a man, a figure who's been falsely accused of being a member of the PLO and an individual of such ill repute that John McCain gave him a half-a-million dollar grant in the 90s.

Awesome work, gentlemen. Awesome fucking work. Your fail has the sound of a Boeing crash and the smell of a victorian sewer.

Wow, so Khalidi isn't all he is cracked up to be. Must have been a 2 person party. Obama has a good track record of never hanging out with shady charactors.

And you are so full of shit, your spin isn't going to change that fact that this man could shoot a bus full of school children and drink their blood and you would defend him to the death. Which is admirable, but shows your true colors as well.

If there was a Tape, showing McCain at party with anyone related to any sort of Terrorist activity, he would DOA. The Press has an obligation to protect SOURSES, not sit on Stories. Why to get sucked up into that one. I thought you guys were supposed to be so damn smart? Seems to me you are lead like sheep...

[redsox39]

Jesus fucking christ you don't shut up redsox.



Yes, you hear it constantly because you bring up the same stupid ideas. Here are your 'big' allegations against Obama.

- He was a member of a church with a racist preacher. Who he fully renounced so much that even McCain isn't even bringing him up.
- He sat on an education board with Bill Ayers 40 years after his terrorist acts. When Ayers had become a respected education scholar in the community the board served.



No way, positive coverage for Obama and negative coverage for McCain? Did you actually look into those surveys and realize that NO FUCKING SHIT the guy who's constantly doing well will get so-called 'positive' coverage and the guy losing 'negative' coverage? If you are losing people will look to learn why, which will be negative coverage.

Let me repeat this, who the press LIKES doesn't matter one fucking bit because people are not psychics. I bet Jim Lehrer has a political view, but it doesn't matter because he is a GOOD NEWS PERSON and doesn't feel the need to insert that view into his reporting. BAD and BIASED news people are not people with political views but are those like O'Reilly, Hannity, Hume, Olbermann, or Dobbs who openly and unabashedly insert those views into coverage.

And let me repeat this, simply showing %age of positive and negative coverage does not show bias either. If you are doing badly your coverage is going to be more negative, this is not rocket science.

The fact is, it keeps coming up! That is my point. He could renounce them all one by one as they come up. Great. Why are they continuing to pop up? Quit trying to label me a "Yelram", and read what I wrote, not just what you can see through with you Left wing rage, blood shot eyes.

[Stax]

Wow, so Khalidi isn't all he is cracked up to be. Must have been a 2 person party. Obama has a good track record of never hanging out with shady charactors.

And you are so full of shit, your spin isn't going to change that fact that this man could shoot a bus full of school children and drink their blood and you would defend him to the death. Which is admirable, but shows your true colors as well.

If there was a Tape, showing McCain at party with anyone related to any sort of Terrorist activity, he would DOA. The Press has an obligation to protect SOURSES, not sit on Stories. Why to get sucked up into that one. I thought you guys were supposed to be so damn smart? Seems to me you are lead like sheep...

Spin? He just GAVE YOU A NEWS POST that showed:
A. You are wrong and
B. McCain WAS in fact associated with this guy just as much

And you brushed over it like it didn't matter. I don't hate conservatives, I'll talk with Claydon all day because he listens and responds and puts out an argument. I hate retards like you.

[Stax]

The fact is, it keeps coming up! That is my point. He could renounce them all one by one as they come up. Great. Why are they continuing to pop up? Quit trying to label me a "Yelram", and read what I wrote, not just what you can see through with you Left wing rage, blood shot eyes.

No, it doesn't keep coming up. Ayers and Wright have both been well known for a long time. So are Hagee and Gramm for McCain, and guess what the press aren't talking about them either.

[Limp]

You guys argue like you will change the other persons mind...

[Stax]

You guys argue like you will change the other persons mind...

No, again I don't mind arguing with someone like Claydon. I know I won't change his mind, but he presents a point of view. Redsox rants, then when someone breaks down and disputes every piece of his rant he says one sentence like "That's all spin" and then just rants again.

[redsox39]

No way, positive coverage for Obama and negative coverage for McCain? Did you actually look into those surveys and realize that NO FUCKING SHIT the guy who's constantly doing well will get so-called 'positive' coverage and the guy losing 'negative' coverage? If you are losing people will look to learn why, which will be negative coverage.

Let me repeat this, who the press LIKES doesn't matter one fucking bit because people are not psychics. I bet Jim Lehrer has a political view, but it doesn't matter because he is a GOOD NEWS PERSON and doesn't feel the need to insert that view into his reporting. BAD and BIASED news people are not people with political views but are those like O'Reilly, Hannity, Hume, Olbermann, or Dobbs who openly and unabashedly insert those views into coverage.

And let me repeat this, simply showing %age of positive and negative coverage does not show bias either. If you are doing badly your coverage is going to be more negative, this is not rocket science.

Well, then explain why the same studies were done when Bush won the election? Same thing done, same results, NEG for Bush, POS for Kerry.

Correct me if I am wrong...Didn't Bush get re-elected? Or (please please please) am I just dreaming? Same for Reagan, didn't he win too?

So you'll have to spin another left wing answer out for me real quick since yours holds about as much water as a collander.


http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2004/nov/01/20041101-122452-4025r/ (http://www.meatspin.com/)

[redsox39]

No, again I don't mind arguing with someone like Claydon. I know I won't change his mind, but he presents a point of view. Redsox rants, then when someone breaks down and disputes every piece of his rant he says one sentence like "That's all spin" and then just rants again.


Don't worry Stax...I put in a nice link for you on that last one...

[Stax]

Well, then explain why the same studies were done when Bush won the election? Same thing done, same results, NEG for Bush, POS for Kerry.

Correct me if I am wrong...Didn't Bush get re-elected? Or (please please please) am I just dreaming? Same for Regan, didn't he win too?

So you'll have to spin another left wing answer out for me real quick since yours holds about as much water as a collander.


http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2004/nov/01/20041101-122452-4025r/

That's a bit more compelling. I will say it's also not entirely surprising that a challenger gets more positive coverage as there is less negative to review (as opposed to Mr. Bush who has now become one of the most unpopular presidents in history). That article also notes:

Journalists seem particularly transfixed by the Democratic challenger this year: In the 2000 election, Mr. Bush and challenger Al Gore got equally lousy press, with each receiving evaluations that were about 2-to-1 negative.

EDIT - Jesus fucking christ, BTW, do you go one single post without whining about people being left wing?

[Morfin]

I'm missing the whole point here, it seems.

Okay, let's assume that the LA Times covered this story up. For whatever reason. Christ, assume it's because they want Obama to win.

The story is out. Even if the LA Times ignored it, the story is out. Even if the LA Times has the only tape and won't release it, the story is out.

That is the point. And that is the beauty of the Internet and the multitude of news sources: one media outlet cannot control a story -- it will get out. And it did.

[redsox39]

No, again I don't mind arguing with someone like Claydon. I know I won't change his mind, but he presents a point of view. Redsox rants, then when someone breaks down and disputes every piece of his rant he says one sentence like "That's all spin" and then just rants again.

That's a bit more compelling. I will say it's also not entirely surprising that a challenger gets more positive coverage as there is less negative to review (as opposed to Mr. Bush who has now become one of the most unpopular presidents in history). That article also notes:



EDIT - Jesus fucking christ, BTW, do you go one single post without whining about people being left wing?

Of course, check some of my other posts. I only point it out when it is so one sided, like your argument.
I did read the article, and thanks for pointing out the one exception in the last 28 years that makes the rule. Both Bush and the uninspiring Gore got bad pub in 2000. What is the reason for Regan?

Just saying, I am not going into this opinion blind. they have done studies which seem to support my stance and not some off hand rational that I spew out on the message board.

[redsox39]

I'm missing the whole point here, it seems.

Okay, let's assume that the LA Times covered this story up. For whatever reason. Christ, assume it's because they want Obama to win.

The story is out. Even if the LA Times ignored it, the story is out. Even if the LA Times has the only tape and won't release it, the story is out.

That is the point. And that is the beauty of the Internet and the multitude of news sources: one media outlet cannot control a story -- it will get out. And it did.

As much as it pains me, Morfin brings up a good point. So why sit on it anymore? We could see the tape and then the conjecture, the spin, the lies about what is on it are over. right now, there is so much speculation and so much unknown...

I'll repeat, you protect sources, not information.

[VoxAngelikus]

Ethics

Divulging the identity of a confidential source is frowned upon by groups representing journalists in many democracies. In some jurisdictions journalists can be compelled by law to identify their sources and journalists can and have been jailed for upholding this principle.


There are several reasons to protect confidential sources:


In some cases serious harm might befall the source if their identity is uncovered.
The willingness of other potential sources to share information with reporters may be eroded if confidential sources are identified.
The public perception of journalistic integrity is damaged when assurances about confidentiality are breached.
The so-called "chilling effect," which serves to dissuade sources in the future from stepping forward with unknown information for fear of reprimand or retaliation.



You protect sources, not information.... but what if that information is directly attributable to a source? Suppose only a handful of people could have supplied this tape to the L.A. Times. Then, the source is open to the possibility of a damaged reputation, the Times could end up compromising their journalistic integrity, and anybody else with who wants to come out with confidential information will think thrice about doing so to the Times.
After all, what's the point if they're just going to disregard and disrespect you as a source?

That's how journalism works. Just because they have this tape doesn't mean they are bound to disclose it to the public. They are bound through journalism ethics and standards to protect their sources. Since none of us has seen this tape, none of us knows if that source would be revealed upon disclosure of the tape.

[redsox39]

You protect sources, not information.... but what if that information is directly attributable to a source? Suppose only a handful of people could have supplied this tape to the L.A. Times. Then, the source is open to the possibility of a damaged reputation, the Times could end up compromising their journalistic integrity, and anybody else with who wants to come out with confidential information will think thrice about doing so to the Times.
After all, what's the point if they're just going to disregard and disrespect you as a source?

That's how journalism works. Just because they have this tape doesn't mean they are bound to disclose it to the public. They are bound through journalism ethics and standards to protect their sources. Since none of us has seen this tape, none of us knows if that source would be revealed upon disclosure of the tape.

If only a handful of people could have had the tape, and now the LA Times has it, and the world knows it, that argument is out the window.

So, lol, what is the point of giving it to a Media Outlet...to keep in under wraps? Most people would use a Saftey deposit box...or maybe destroy it if they were scared of it leaking.

Honestly, no snarky comments here, how long AFTER the election does the tape come out?

[Morfin]

My point is not that now the story is out the Times should disclose the videotape, it is: Now that the story is out, whether the Times suppressed the story is irrelevant.

Further, regardless of whether the videotape is ever released, this is from today's LA Times, pointing out that they disclosed (not suppressed) the story of the dinner and Obama's involvement with it SIX MONTHS AGO:

The Times first reported on the videotape in an April 2008 story about Obama's ties with Palestinians and Jews as he navigated the politics of Chicago. The report included a detailed description of the tape, but the newspaper did not make the video public.

"A major news organization is intentionally suppressing information that could provide a clearer link between Barack Obama and Rashid Khalidi," said McCain campaign spokesman Michael Goldfarb. " . . . The election is one week away, and it's unfortunate that the press so obviously favors Barack Obama that this campaign must publicly request that the Los Angeles Times do its job -- make information public."

The Times on Tuesday issued a statement about its decision not to post the tape.

"The Los Angeles Times did not publish the videotape because it was provided to us by a confidential source who did so on the condition that we not release it," said the newspaper's editor, Russ Stanton. "The Times keeps its promises to sources."

Jamie Gold, the newspaper's readers' representative, said in a statement: "More than six months ago the Los Angeles Times published a detailed account of the events shown on the videotape. The Times is not suppressing anything. Just the opposite -- the L.A. Times brought the matter to light."

The original article said that Obama's friendships with Palestinian Americans in Chicago and his presence at Palestinian community events had led some to think he was sympathetic to the Palestinian viewpoint on Middle East politics. Obama publicly expresses a pro-Israel viewpoint that pleases many Jewish leaders.

In reporting on Obama's presence at the dinner for Khalidi, the article noted that some speakers expressed anger at Israel and at U.S. foreign policy, but that Obama in his comments called for finding common ground.Link (http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-video29-2008oct29,0,5458024.story)

No, the vidotape has not been produced, but the story has, recently by numerous media outlets and SIX MONTHS AGO by the LA Times, which McCain is now accusing of suppressing information.

And as to "protecting sources, not information," suppose for just one minute that the LA Times, six months ago, got this source to disclose the information regarding the party. The Times needed to verify the source's information. The source tells them, I will provide you with a tape verifying the information, but you have to agree to not release the tape. Should the Times have said, "No tape release, no story," or should the Times have thought to itself, "The public should know about this, but we cannot publish anything without verification. The only way to verify is to see the tape and not release it." They make the decision to do what needs to be done in order to get the story out, deciding that the video is less-important than getting the story out.

Isn't a decision to get a story out more important than to be unable to run the story because you want the video too? And what if the Times did say no story without the video and this story had never come to light? The McCain people would be laughing incredulously how the Times had obviously suppressed a verifiable story putting Obama in a negative light.

I see nothing wrong with what the Times did in this case.

[redsox39]

My point is not that now the story is out the Times should disclose the videotape, it is: Now that the story is out, whether the Times suppressed the story is irrelevant.

Further, regardless of whether the videotape is ever released, this is from today's LA Times, pointing out that they disclosed (not suppressed) the story of the dinner and Obama's involvement with it SIX MONTHS AGO:

Link (http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-video29-2008oct29,0,5458024.story)

No, the vidotape has not been produced, but the story has, recently by numerous media outlets and SIX MONTHS AGO by the LA Times, which McCain is now accusing of suppressing information.

And as to "protecting sources, not information," suppose for just one minute that the LA Times, six months ago, got this source to disclose the information regarding the party. The Times needed to verify the source's information. The source tells them, I will provide you with a tape verifying the information, but you have to agree to not release the tape. Should the Times have said, "No tape release, no story," or should the Times have thought to itself, "The public should know about this, but we cannot publish anything without verification. The only way to verify is to see the tape and not release it." They make the decision to do what needs to be done in order to get the story out, deciding that the video is less-important than getting the story out.

Isn't a decision to get a story out more important than to be unable to run the story because you want the video too? And what if the Times did say no story without the video and this story had never come to light? The McCain people would be laughing incredulously how the Times had obviously suppressed a verifiable story putting Obama in a negative light.

I see nothing wrong with what the Times did in this case.


Shhh...I have a secret...I don't want anyone to know! I think I will tell a reporter...

[DjAg]

I never thought my respect for redsox could of possibly gone this low. I mean shit, I know I'm not the brightest or the most informed, but that's why I don't rant and rave about every little irrational, paranoid thought that comes to mind. At LEAST I have THAT little bit of control.

Grow up.

And yes, that's coming from someone considerably younger than you.

[Rover]

No, but the left don't go out of their way to insult coastal intellectuals, a category that many journalists fall into, or at least think they do, especially on the networks and the big papers and weeklies.No the left doesn't go out of their way to insult coastal intellectuals. They go out of their way to insult ordinary people, normal people, who don't live on the coasts.

That is the point. And that is the beauty of the Internet and the multitude of news sources: one media outlet cannot control a story -- it will get out. And it did.No. The full story is not out. Pictures speak a thousand words. What if the people making speeches were saying stuff like: "Death to Israel." and "Jews run the world and love money." and Obama is just laughing along? The story is the video tape, not that Obama is comfortable sitting at the same table as a potential terrorist. God knows, that's already been proven true.

Sure the LA Times says they've published a "detailed account" of the tape, but how do we know. If that's the case they should just show the tape. We'll see whether or not it was actually detailed.

That's how journalism works. Just because they have this tape doesn't mean they are bound to disclose it to the public. They are bound through journalism ethics and standards to protect their sources. Since none of us has seen this tape, none of us knows if that source would be revealed upon disclosure of the tape.If I have a tape showing the 2nd gunman on the grassy knoll, do I get a pass from the LA Times? Can I give them a tape to hold on to?

[feith]

This is what i'll say, i'm voting for Obama and that is in fact, my right.

Every Politician has some super secret scandal blah blah blah..

get over it.

[atoms]

This is what i'll say, i'm voting for Obama and that is in fact, my right.

Every Politician has some super secret scandal blah blah blah..

get over it.


You know if someone doesn't have a scandal, let's create one. Mr. Obama may have thought he was going to the send-off of a local member of the academic community. Of course he should have known that since the man was a Palestinian, and from a part of the world where most people are of Arab heritage, he must be a terrorist.

And since Bill Ayers was in that terrorist community known as the University of Illinois at Chicago, he obviously is the most horrific terrorist known to man (except he was never convicted of anything....though he probably should have been, and most of his comments about wishing he had bombed more actually state he wished he had done more to stop the Vietnam war (without specifying means) and while published right after 9-11 were from an interview conducted on 9-10).

And of course he should never have anything to do with Rev. Wright, even though it was Mr. Wright who brought him to embrace Christianity. Of course none of us have crazy, maybe racist relatives or friends, who still have many positive attributes and who we still associate with, and somehow do not become crazy ourselves.

If there is not a story there.....create it. Demonize a man and then demonize a candidate by association....I think the Republicans are pretty good at this, but it's not all there territory. I suspect connecting Ms. Palin to Alaskan separatists bears up about equally well.

[Archangel]

No the left doesn't go out of their way to insult coastal intellectuals. They go out of their way to insult ordinary people, normal people, who don't live on the coasts.
So people who know that Pétain had a middle name are somehow not "normal"?

"Come to the freak show, look at the scary academic monster"?

What the fuck, man.


And call me an evil élitist snob, but I see 10x more merit in a college graduate insulting a borderline illiterate than the other way around.

[VoxAngelikus]

If I have a tape showing the 2nd gunman on the grassy knoll, do I get a pass from the LA Times? Can I give them a tape to hold on to?

As a source, if you request the tape not be shown (but allow for its description, as the Times did with the Obama tape in question), then as a journalist you protect both your source and the wishes of your source. It's how journalism works.

If I work for a newspaper and you give me something confidentially, with an explicit request of how the material is to be used, and I break that trust, then how will my newspaper ever expect to get confidential material again? Who will take my newspaper seriously when they are reading it? And what if the tape in question can be tied to the source, who asked not to be named?

It sucks dick, but you protect your source. Otherwise you won't find many more people willing to give you info so you can get a scoop.

[Pox]

They shouldn't have released it, because its a complete non story.


also:


During the 1990s, while he served as chairman of the International Republican Institute (IRI), McCain distributed several grants to the Palestinian research center co-founded by Khalidi, including one worth half a million dollars.
A 1998 tax filing for the McCain-led group shows a $448,873 grant to Khalidi's Center for Palestine Research and Studies for work in the West Bank. (See grant number 5180, "West Bank: CPRS" on page 14 of this PDF.)
The relationship extends back as far as 1993, when John McCain joined IRI as chairman in January. Foreign Affairs noted in September of that year that IRI had helped fund several extensive studies in Palestine run by Khalidi's group, including over 30 public opinion polls and a study of "sociopolitical attitudes."


PALLING AROUND WITH PROFESSORS!!!

[atoms]

They shouldn't have released it, because its a complete non story.


also:



PALLING AROUND WITH PROFESSORS!!!

If you dig you shall find....and it is about as incriminatory of McCain as it is of Obama (not at all). Democrats just aren't as able as the Republicans at digging and spinning. They get sidetracked by issues. I have to commend Joe the Plumber. He got the Republicans talking about real issues again, instead of made up B.S.

[kareyn01]

http://harpers.org/archive/2008/10/hbc-90003779


Of course, Khalidi has been involved in Palestinian causes. McCarthy ought to ask John McCain about that, because McCain and Khalidi appear to have some joint interests, and that fact speaks very well of both of them. Indeed, the McCain–Khalidi connections are more substantial than the phony Obama–Khalidi connections McCarthy gussies up for his article. The Republican party’s congressionally funded international-networking organization, the International Republican Institute–long and ably chaired by John McCain and headed by McCain’s close friend, the capable Lorne Craner–has taken an interest in West Bank matters. IRI funded an ambitious project, called the Palestine Center, that Khalidi helped to support. Khalidi served on the Center’s board of directors. The goal of that project, shared by Khalidi and McCain, was the promotion of civic consciousness and engagement and the development of democratic values in the West Bank. Of course, McCarthy is not interested in looking too closely into the facts, because they would not serve his shrill partisan objectives.

So John McCain was the chair of the International Republican Institute and Khalidi was on the board of directors for the Palestine Center, which was funded by the IRI. And I have no problem with that at all, because Khalidi's only true crime here is BEING FROM PALESTINE. Every bit of substantiated information we have on the man shows him promoting "civic consciousness" and the "development of democratic values" in the West Bank. God, how horrible.

[Soup Nazi]

Since when has being Palestinian NOT been a crime?! Kareyn, you leftist scum please stop with the spin.

[Morfin]

Since when has being Palestinian NOT been a crime?! Kareyn, you leftist scum please stop with the spin.

Yeah, they should just go home to their own country and leave us all alone. Oh, wait.

[redsox39]

So I guess the question is, how long after the election does the tape come out? I, being a small college, midwestern, illiterate, don't understand why you would even bring it up if the tape isn't viewable or authorized.

I also have a tape from an unnamed source which has Obama giving McCain a blowjob in a Minneasota Airport. But you can't see it, I promised.

[kareyn01]

So I guess the question is, how long after the election does the tape come out? I, being a small college, midwestern, illiterate, don't understand why you would even bring it up if the tape isn't viewable or authorized.

I also have a tape from an unnamed source which has Obama giving McCain a blowjob in a Minneasota Airport. But you can't see it, I promised.

If what the LA Times says is true, and they haven't released the tape because their source gave them the information on the condition that the tape not be shown, it won't come out at all.

What I want to know is, if this is all some kind of pro-Obama protectionist conspiracy, and any comparable act by McCain would be lambasted in the MSM, why haven't those channels been running tapes of McCain appearing on G. Gordon Liddy's radio show, and saying that he is "proud to know him"?

The fact of the matter is, there is no evidence to suggest that Khalidi is, or ever has been, a PLO spokesperson, and he is, in fact, connected to both candidates. That effectively makes this another non-story that conspiracy-theorists have latched onto in the last week of the campaign to explain why they're about to get their asses kicked in the electoral college. Because God knows it couldn't be their candidate's ineptitude.

[Desperado]

Haha well this looks like it could really help the campaign!


McCain pushes Obama connection to Khalidi (http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2008/10/29/mccain-pushes-obama-connection-to-khalidi/)
Posted: 01:14 PM ET

From CNN Political Producer Tasha Diakides (http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/tag/cnn-political-producer-tasha-diakides/)
http://i2.cdn.turner.com/cnn/2008/images/10/29/mccain6.jpg McCain is calling for the release of a tape from an event attended by Barack Obama.

http://i.l.cnn.net/cnn/.element/img/2.0/mosaic/base_skins/baseplate/corner_wire_BL.gif

MIAMI, Florida (CNN)- In a radio interview with Radio Mambi in Miami Wednesday, Senator John McCain said that the Los Angeles Times should release a tape of an event that his opponent attended with Bill Ayers and Rashid Khalidi , a former University of Chicago professor now teaching at Columbia University who is alleged to have ties with the PLO.
“We should know about their relationship including, apparently, information that is held by the Los Angeles Times concerning an event that Mr. Ayers attended with a PLO spokesman. The Los Angeles Times refuses to make that videotape public. I’m not in the business about talking about media bias but what if there was a tape with John McCain with a neo-Nazi outfit being held by some media outlet. I think the treatment of the issue would be slightly different.”
Khalidi has denied being a part of the PLO, saying that between 1976 and 1983 — the period critics have alleged he worked for the organization — he was a full time assistant professor at the American University of Beirut, a fellow at the Institue of Palestine Studies and author of two books and had no time for anything else.
McCain’s radio interview comes a day after the McCain campaign accused the Los Angeles Times of supressing a videotape of a 2003 banquet that then state Senator Barack Obama along with Ayers and Khalidi, and where Obama talked about his friendship with the Palestinian scholar.
"A major news organization is intentionally suppressing information that could provide a clearer link between Barack Obama and Rashid Khalidi," said McCain campaign spokesman Michael Goldfarb. "The election is one week away, and it's unfortunate that the press so obviously favors Barack Obama that this campaign must publicly request that the Los Angeles Times do its job — make information public."
The paper was the first to report on the relationship between Obama and Khalidi in an April 2008 story — titled “Allies of Palestinians see a friend in Barack Obama” — about the Illinois senator’s ties with the Palestinian and Jewish communities in Chicago and detailed the 2003 event, which was a farewell dinner for Khalidi, who was leaving Chicago to take a job in New York.
"The Los Angeles Times did not publish the videotape because it was provided to us by a confidential source who did so on the condition that we not release it," said the newspaper's editor, Russ Stanton.
Khalidi himself said in an e-mailed statement that he was “not speaking to the media at this time, and certainly not until this idiot wind passes.” He also directed reporters to a post on the Harper’s magazine Web site that he said “has some details re a few of the stupider, and more ignorant things said about me.”
Obama was asked about his relationship with Khalidi in May at a town hall with Jewish voters.
“I do know him because I taught at the University of Chicago,” Obama said. “And he is a Palestinian. And I do know him and I have had conversations. He is not one of my advisors; he’s not one of my foreign policy people. His kids went to the Lab school where my kids go as well. He is a respected scholar, although he vehemently disagrees with a lot of Israel’s policy.”
“To pluck out one person who I know and who I’ve had a conversation with who has very different views than 900 of my friends and then to suggest that somehow that shows that maybe I’m not sufficiently pro-Israel, I think, is a very problematic stand to take,” Obama said. “so we got to be careful about guilt by association.”
And while McCain might not have known Khalidi personally, he has ties to the Palestinian as well. During the 1990s, while McCain served as chairman of the International Republican Institute, the group gave grant money to the Palestinian research center co-founded by Khalidi.
Florida, with its 27 electoral votes, is a crucial battleground for McCain. Jewish voters comprise 5 percent of the electorate in the state.

[kid_vidrio]

Oh, you liberals keep saying that it's meaningless and mocking John's request.
Sure there is a ton of proof that it is meaningless, and perhaps McCain is as guilty (though the LA Times isn't sitting on that story are they, huh? huh? Cuz there is not tape!)
When will all the questions that are going unanswered be too much for you? After Barry is elected and goes public that he is from a sleeper cell? People from the real America are asking the tough questions now - not waiting. Just like we swallowed the bitter pill and went into Iraq. These arent' popular decisions, but we put America first.

[Lone Wolf]

Listen with your fucking Obama ears here bro. I DONT LIKE MCCAIN, I ORIGINALLY VOTED IN THE PRIMARIES FOR OBAMA. THERE IS SOMETHING VERY VERY VERY WRONG ABOUT OBAMA. I know you dont want to hear it, but he is aligned with, and endorsed by, some VERY INTERESTING CHARACTERS. HE WONT RELEASE HIS EDUCATION RECORDS. Every story that comes out trying to vet out some of his past gets canned.

I like how you CAPITALIZED here and there to make yourself look even crazier

[redsox39]

If what the LA Times says is true, and they haven't released the tape because their source gave them the information on the condition that the tape not be shown, it won't come out at all.

What I want to know is, if this is all some kind of pro-Obama protectionist conspiracy, and any comparable act by McCain would be lambasted in the MSM, why haven't those channels been running tapes of McCain appearing on G. Gordon Liddy's radio show, and saying that he is "proud to know him"?

The fact of the matter is, there is no evidence to suggest that Khalidi is, or ever has been, a PLO spokesperson, and he is, in fact, connected to both candidates. That effectively makes this another non-story that conspiracy-theorists have latched onto in the last week of the campaign to explain why they're about to get their asses kicked in the electoral college. Because God knows it couldn't be their candidate's ineptitude.

Two things:

1. Unlike you and me, a lot of people think of G. Gordan Libby at a conservative Hero who did his time. I still think he is a crimnal. I have a feeling the party line republicans would rejoice at that comparison.

2. Khalidi, while we can paint him the devil or paint him the saint, was not the only person at the party. Maybe of interest to the story, to hear what he says. But really, it isn't a party if it is just Barry and Khali hanging out. It would be interesting to hear what is going on there.

If it wasn't damaging, I don't see why it will be released after the election. At the same time, that Obama charactor is pretty Politically Savvy.

CONSPIACRY ALERT***
I wouldn't be surprised if he, or someone close to him, gave the tape to the LA Times, leaked that is was there, so we would want to know...

then once McCain says "I demand you show this tape" it will turn out to be Obama and bunch of guys watching soccer and drinking O'douls talking about the playoffs. And then McCain looks like a dickweed the day before the election just to seal the deal...

lol, not usually the conspiracy type, but that seems to be a down right sweet (but shady) play.

Any thoughts? UFO's maybe? lol

[Gary_Busey]

Khalidi is so evil that McCain gave him over $800,000.

[mongo]

if i were an admin, i would've locked this shit forever ago.

[Gary_Busey]

It's entertaining.

[mongo]

yeah, like retards trying to stab each other w/ steak knives, entertaining.


actually, i think i'd watch that.



and enjoy it.

[kareyn01]

Rashid Khalidi on the Palestine-Israel situation:

http://www.thenation.com/doc/20080526/khalidi

Make up your own mind whether he is an anti-Semite.

For myself, I found this paragraph particularly interesting:

It is ironic and tragic that the resolution, if indeed it was a resolution, of a Jewish question should have created a Palestine question. It is even more ironic that the former should have been resolved not where it arose in its most acute form, in the West, or at the West's expense, but rather in Palestine, and to the detriment of Palestine's people. This was in large part the result of the efforts of a West stricken by a (fully justified) sense of guilt for centuries of suffering inflicted on European Jews, culminating in the Holocaust, a West that compounded its sins by helping to inflict further suffering, this time on Palestinians. It is also tragic that beyond the harm that was done to the Palestinians by the growth of Zionism and the establishment of Israel, these same developments should have led to the uprooting of the world's oldest and most secure Jewish communities, which had found in the Arab lands a tolerance that, albeit imperfect, was nonexistent in the often genocidal, Jew-hating Christian West.

[redsox39]

Rashid Khalidi on the Palestine-Israel situation:

http://www.thenation.com/doc/20080526/khalidi

Make up your own mind whether he is an anti-Semite.

For myself, I found this paragraph particularly interesting:

It is ironic and tragic that the resolution, if indeed it was a resolution, of a Jewish question should have created a Palestine question. It is even more ironic that the former should have been resolved not where it arose in its most acute form, in the West, or at the West's expense, but rather in Palestine, and to the detriment of Palestine's people. This was in large part the result of the efforts of a West stricken by a (fully justified) sense of guilt for centuries of suffering inflicted on European Jews, culminating in the Holocaust, a West that compounded its sins by helping to inflict further suffering, this time on Palestinians. It is also tragic that beyond the harm that was done to the Palestinians by the growth of Zionism and the establishment of Israel, these same developments should have led to the uprooting of the world's oldest and most secure Jewish communities, which had found in the Arab lands a tolerance that, albeit imperfect, was nonexistent in the often genocidal, Jew-hating Christian West.


Actually, that IS interesting...

the ironic part is, they should come back now. Maybe we can just ship them to Israel ever 100 years or so, bbecause it seems the Jew-hate has left the western world and is now in the "tolerant" middle east.

What a fucked up problem Israel is...no matter what happens, it won't ever be settled.

No cease fire, peace treaty, land re-write, will ever fix this. They should just start interbreeding now and get it over with.

[Archangel]

It's stupid to call a Palestinian or an Arab an anti-Semite, since they're both Semitic peoples, as well.

[kid_vidrio]

It's stupid to call a Palestinian or an Arab an anti-Semite, since they're both Semitic peoples, as well.
You don't have to turn over too many posts to find stupidity in these here parts.

[fuldstændigamok]

http://thinkprogress.org/2008/11/05/palin-africa-continent/

It's going to be interesting hearing all the guys who critisized the LA Times journalists for lack of integrity trying to defend the Fox journalists on this case. I expect a boat load of hypocritical bullshit from them on this one, even more so than usual.

[freegood]

It's stupid to call a Palestinian or an Arab an anti-Semite, since they're both Semitic peoples, as well.

Ever heard of a self hating Semite?

[redsox39]

Ever heard of a self hating Semite?


Wasn't Hitler part Jew?