Posted by
Political Prescience on Monday, October 20, 2008 12:07:04 PM
The Washington Post claim
that its endorsement of Barack Obama is mostly about Sarah Palin is boldly
indefensible.
Ruth Marcus of the Washington
Post said on FOX News, “This was not a choice of the lesser of two evils. We
like Senator McCain and Senator Obama.” This statement was the set-up; voters
are supposed to believe that the Post struggled over its decision. The Post
continued the feint with, “There is any number of things to respect about what
he (McCain) did.” This line
pretends to show the sincerity with which the Post admires John McCain.
In order to sell the farce
that it was considering McCain, the Post needed to create a boogeyman, or in
this case, a boogeywoman. That
fall gal was Governor Sarah Palin. To construct the illusion that Palin
was a disqualifier they had to ignore her accomplishments and obvious talents
and concentrate on something else.
Hmm, what could that be? The editorial board of Washington’s leading
paper chose to focus on some interviews by left-leaning “journalists” who
should be on Obama’s payroll.
The Post doesn’t have the
intellectual honesty to admit that many of the questions by Gibson/Couric were silly, a form of petty and small-minded journalism, and
not typical queries asked of Vice Presidential candidates. The Post must have
also ignored the debate, in which Palin did very well, answered questions more
candidly than Biden, and did not make up trips to Home Depot or lunches at a
restaurant that closed in the 80’s.
The Post only looked at evidence they considered damning, or they would
have arrived at a different decision.
Not only did the Post use
convenient and flawed logic to eliminate John McCain from consideration, it
brought that consideration to the number two spot on the ticket and compared
apples to oranges. Marcus
continued, “I think the difference about their inexperience is that Sarah Palin
has not demonstrated what Barack Obama has on the campaign trail, which is a
deep and nuanced and broad (read liberal) understanding of issues.”
So, Obama’s ability to
memorize information and spew it back with flowery speech is equivalent to
wisdom, but Palin’s years of executive accomplishments and efforts to fight the
Alaskan Republican parties’ political machine mean nothing? This is a strange and convoluted double
standard.
The Post article stated, “Yes,
we have reservations and concerns, almost inevitably, given Mr. Obama's
relatively brief experience in national politics. But we also have enormous
hopes.”
Are these reservations
because Mr. Obama’s centrist rhetoric does not match his very liberal
record? Do the reservations come
from the fact that Mr. Obama has a history of associations with extremist,
America-hating radicals whom he has not had the courage to challenge? Is hope enough of a reason to entrust
the future of the country to someone whose background has not been completely
vetted? Does the Post hope that
Biden will not make racist comments to visiting dignitaries?
The most ridiculous claim
made in the Post editorial was that Obama was “a master of substance and
detail.” Not only is he often wrong, but also he deliberately lies on many
occasions. So, Obama’s mistakes and lies don’t count, but Palin’s frustrations
in hostile interviews count twice?
Can anyone cite an instance
where the Post defended Governor Palin from the indignities that have been
aimed at her? No? That’s okay,
though, the Post’s smear, and that’s what it is, is just another nail in the
coffin of old-style, liberal
feminism; Sarah’s the future.
The Washington Post is guilty
of journalistic malpractice.