On the Mainstream Media and Barack Obama

Election Day is tomorrow. Tens of millions of people from coast to coast will take to the voting booths, armed as they pull aside the curtain or settle in between the dividers with only their intellect, instincts, and information about their choices gleaned from one source or another.

On the eve of the election in 2000, as the country unknowingly stood on the precipice of unprecedented uncertainty manifested in chads of every variety, I was preparing for my graduation from Auburn University and was a registered democrat.

That’s right. Eight years ago, I was a registered democrat. I chalk it up to naivete.

My Fosburian leap to the right side of the political spectrum came after the 2000 election and was sparked by a single book by Bernard Goldberg, a CBS correspondent before turning squawk-box nomad. While I was only then beginning to gain interest in politics, I was fascinated by the news media. Bias opened my eyes wider than they’d ever been before. It was only then that I began to question what was being put in front of me like the mainstream press, and I’ve been at it ever since.

Tomorrow, the lines will form with people who have varying degrees of knowledge with regard to the world around them. As strange as it sounds to people like you and me, many will be making up their minds as they stare at the ballot, in whatever form, for the first time. Many more will draw only upon what they’ve seen on their local news, or read in People magazine, or heard from the lady with the horn-rimmed glasses at their office watercooler.

In the eight years or so since I became enlightened, I’ve never seen the media like this. I’ve never seen the media so aware of their power over the masses, so in the tank and blatantly unapologetic in their support for a single candidate. For lack of a better word, it has been disgusting.

I’ve also yet to see a single article or piece of writing which encapsulates the media’s take on this presidential race like the one included below.

Read, enjoy, and get out and vote tomorrow!

– Jeff

The End of Journalism
By Victor Davis Hanson, National Review

There have always been media biases and prejudices. Everyone knew that Walter Cronkite, from his gilded throne at CBS news, helped to alter the course of the Vietnam War, when, in the post-Tet depression, he prematurely declared the war unwinnible. Dan Rather’s career imploded when he knowingly promulgated a forged document that impugned the service record of George W. Bush. We’ve known for a long time — from various polling, and records of political donations of journalists themselves, as well as surveys of public perceptions — that the vast majority of journalists identify themselves as Democratic, and liberal in particular.

Yet we have never quite seen anything like the current media infatuation with Barack Obama, and its collective desire not to raise key issues of concern to the American people. Here were four areas of national interest that were largely ignored.


For years an axiom of the liberal establishment was the need for public campaign financing — and the corrosive role of private money in poisoning the election process. The most prominent Republican who crossed party lines to ensure the passage of national public campaign financing was John McCain — a maverick stance that cost him dearly among conservatives who resented bitterly federal interference in political expression.

In contrast, Barack Obama, remember, promised that he would accept both public funding and the limitations that went along with it, and would “aggressively pursue an agreement with the Republican nominee to preserve a publicly financed general election.” Then in June 2008, Obama abruptly reneged, bowing out entirely from government financing, the first presidential nominee in the general election to do that since the system was created in 1976.

Obama has now raised over $600 million, by far the largest campaign chest in American political history. In many states he enjoys a four-to-one advantage in campaign funding — most telling in his scheduled eleventh-hour, 30-minute specials that will not be answered by the publicly financed and poorer McCain campaign.

The story that the media chose to ignore was not merely the Obama about-face on public financing, or even the enormous amounts of money that he has raised — some of it under dubious circumstances involving foreign donors, prepaid credit cards, and false names. Instead, they were absolutely quiet about a historic end to liberal support for public financing.

For all practical purposes, public financing of the presidential general election is now dead. No Republican will ever agree to it again. No Democrat can ever again dare to defend a system destroyed by Obama. All future worries about the dangers of big money and big politics will fall on deaf ears.

Surely, there will come a time when the Democratic Party, whether for ethical or practical reasons, will sorely regret dismantling the very safeguards that for over three decades it had insisted were critical for the survival of the republic.

Imagine the reaction of the New York Times or the Washington Post had John McCain renounced his promise to participate in public campaign financing, proceeded instead to amass $600 million and outraise the publicly financed Barack Obama four-to-one, and begun airing special 30-minute unanswered infomercials during the last week of the campaign.


We know now almost all the details of Sarah Palin’s pregnancies, whether the trooper who tasered her nephew went to stun or half stun, the cost of her clothes, and her personal expenses — indeed, almost everything except how a mother of so many children gets elected councilwoman, mayor, and governor, routs an entrenched old-boy cadre, while maintaining near record levels of public support.

Yet the American public knows almost nothing of what it should about the extraordinary career of Joe Biden, the 36-year veteran of the Senate. In unprecedented fashion, Biden has simply avoided the press for most of the last two months, confident that the media instead would deconstruct almost every word of “good looking” Sarah Palin’s numerous interviews with mostly hostile interrogators.

By accepted standards of behavior, Biden has sadly proven wanting. He has committed almost every classical sin of character — plagiarism, false biography, racial insensitivity, and serial fabrication. And because of media silence, we don’t know whether he was kidding when he said America would not need to burn coal, or that Hezbollah was out of Lebanon, or that FDR addressed the nation on television as president in 1929 (surely a record for historical fictions in a single thought), or that the public would turn sour on Obama once he was challenged by our enemies abroad. In response, the media reported that the very public Sarah Palin was avoiding the press while the very private Joe Biden shunned interviews and was chained to the teleprompter.

For two months now, the media reaction to Biden’s inanity has been simply “that’s just ol’ Joe, now let’s turn to Palin,” who, in the space of two months, has been reduced from a popular successful governor to a backwoods creationist, who will ban books and champion white secessionist causes. The respective coverage of the two candidates is ironic in a variety of ways, but in one especially — almost every charge against Palin (that she is under wraps, untruthful, and inept) was applicable only to Biden.

So we are about to elect a vice president about whom we know only that he has been around a long time, but little else — and nothing at all why exactly Joe Biden says the most astounding and often lunatic things.

Imagine the reaction of Newsweek or Time had moose-hunting mom Sarah Palin claimed FDR went on television to address the nation as President in 1929, or warned America that our enemies abroad would test John McCain and that his response would result in a radical loss of his popularity at home.


In 2004, few Americans knew Barack Obama. In 2008, they may elect him. Surely his past was of more interest than his present serial denials of it. Whatever the media’s feelings about the current Barack Obama, there should have been some story that the Obama of 2008 is radically different from the Obama who was largely consistent and predictable for the prior 30 years.

Each Obama metamorphosis in itself might be attributed to the normal evolution to the middle, as a candidate shifts from the primary to the general election. But in the case of Obama, we witnessed not a shift, but a complete transformation to an entirely new persona — in almost every imaginable sense of the word. Name an issue — FISA, NAFTA, guns, abortion, capital punishment, coal, nuclear power, drilling, Iran, Jerusalem, the surge — and Obama’s position today is not that of just a year ago.

Until 2005, Obama was in communication with Bill Ayers by e-mail and phone, despite Ayers reprehensible braggadocio in 2001 that he remained an unrepentant terrorist. Rev. Wright was an invaluable spiritual advisor — until spring of 2008. Father Pfleger was praised as an intimate friend in 2004 — and vanished off the radar in 2008. The media might have asked not just why these rather dubious figures were once so close to, and then so distant from, Obama; but why were there so many people like Rashid Khalidi and Tony Rezko in Obama’s past in the first place?

Behind the Olympian calm of Obama, there was always a rather disturbing record of extra-electoral politics completely ignored by the media. If one were disturbed by the present shenanigans of ACORN or the bizarre national call for Americans simply to skip work on election day to help elect Obama (who would pay for that?), one would only have to remember that in 1996 Obama took the extraordinary step of suing to eliminate all his primary rivals by challenging their petition signatures of mostly African-American voters.

In 2004, there was an even more remarkable chain of events in which the sealed divorce records of both his principle primary rival Blair Hull and general election foe, Jack Ryan, were mysteriously leaked, effectively ensuring Obama a Senate seat without serious opposition. These were not artifacts of a typical political career, but extraordinary events in themselves that might well have shed light on present campaign tactics — and yet largely remain unknown to the American people.

Imagine the reaction of CNN or NBC had John McCain’s pastor and spiritual advisor of 20 years been revealed as a white supremacist who damned a multiracial United States, or had he been a close acquaintance until 2005 of an unrepentant terrorist bomber of abortion clinics, or had McCain himself sued to eliminate congressional opponents by challenging the validity of African-American voters who signed petitions, or had both his primary and general election senatorial rivals imploded once their sealed divorce records were mysteriously leaked.


The eleventh-hour McCain allegations of Obama’s advocacy for a share-the-wealth socialism were generally ignored by the media, or if covered, written off as neo-McCarthyism. But there were two legitimate, but again neglected, issues.

The first was the nature of the Obama tax plan. The problem was not merely upping the income tax rates on those who made $250,000 (or was it $200,000, or was it $150,000, or both, or none?), but its aggregate effect in combination with lifting the FICA ceilings on high incomes on top of existing Medicare contributions and often high state income taxes.

In other words, Americans who live in high-tax, expensive states like a New York or California could in theory face collective confiscatory tax rates of 65 percent or so on much of their income. And, depending on the nature of Obama’s proposed tax exemptions, on the other end of the spectrum we might well see almost half the nation’s wage earners pay no federal income tax at all.

Questions arise, but were again not explored: How wise is it to exempt one out of every two income earners from any worry over how the nation gathers its federal income tax revenue? And when credits are added to the plan, are we now essentially not cutting or raising taxes, but simply diverting wealth from those who pay into the system to those who do not?

A practical effect of socialism is often defined as curbing productive incentives by ensuring the poorer need not endanger their exemptions and credits by seeking greater income; and discouraging the wealthy from seeking greater income, given that nearly two-thirds of additional wealth would be lost to taxes. Surely that discussion might have been of interest to the American people.

Second, the real story was not John McCain’s characterization of such plans, but both inadvertent, and serial descriptions of them, past and present, by Barack Obama himself. “Spreading the wealth around” gains currency when collated to past interviews in which Obama talked at length about, and in regret at, judicial impracticalities in accomplishing his own desire to redistribute income. “Tragedy” is frequent in the Obama vocabulary, but largely confined to two contexts: the tragic history of the United States (e.g., deemed analogous to that of Nazi Germany during World War II), and the tragic unwillingness or inability to use judicial means to correct economic inequality in non-democratic fashion.

In this regard, remember Obama’s revealing comment that he was interested only in “fairness” in increasing capital-gains taxes, despite the bothersome fact that past moderate reductions in rates had, in fact, brought in greater revenue to government. Again, fossilized ideology trumps empiricism.

Imagine the reaction of NPR and PBS had John McCain advocated something like abolishing all capital gains taxes, or repealing incomes taxes in favor of a national retail sales tax.

The media has succeeded in shielding Barack Obama from journalistic scrutiny. It thereby irrevocably destroyed its own reputation and forfeited the trust that generations of others had so carefully acquired. And it will never again be trusted to offer candid and nonpartisan coverage of presidential candidates.

Worse still, the suicide of both print and electronic journalism has ensured that, should Barack Obama be elected president, the public will only then learn what they should have known far earlier about their commander-in-chief — but in circumstances and from sources they may well regret.



  1. Joe says:


    Thanks for all the work you do. Keep the faith alive, Good Night and WAR EAGLE.


  2. conrad_carter says:

    This is a well written article, a must read. In most cases, when a person loses credibility they are shunned from discourse. It is nice, and accurate to say the press has failed but where is the alternative? What is the way out? Internet news has recently been made fun of (Berg and others) so what does a person do to keep from being locked up with the crazy Aunt?

  3. Anonymous says:


    WAR EAGLE!!!

  4. Anonymous says:

    Nobody has asked this question:

    How can an unkown junior senator raise over 600mils ?

    just wondering….Did people setup illegal ops to send money to him?

  5. Rob Shore says:

    We are definitely at a crossroads concerning our future and the rest of life on Earth. There is a real battle taking place between good and evil, that doesn’t make it into the headlines or broadcasts of the media, as they accept it as normal life.

    As a devote agnostic I never placed much thought into Divine Intervention or much of anything else about religion, but I have noticed a pattern forming here that is unmistakable.

    A preacher visited Sarah and her husband on the campaign trail and said to her, she is the Esther, you can read the story here:


    Esther was credited with saving the Jews from extermination.

    Was God involved with the two preachers interviewing Senator Obama’s grandmother? Did God choose the time and place for them to meet?

    I wonder if God is sending a coded message to the Supreme Court in this war against evil?

    I guess we will know tomorrow, if the Supreme Court orders Senator Obama’s original birth certificate (vault copy) transferred to the court for immediate review.

  6. Mary says:

    I beg your pardon, but you are wrong in referring to outrages by the main stream media (MSM), as merely a “collective desire not to raise key issues.” It has been, in fact, a conspiracy.

    Competition, not cooperation, is the lifeblood of journalism. Scooping the others has always been the whetstone on which the American press has honed its skills. Instead of striving to inform us, since late winter of 2008, America’s MSM has concomitantly propagandized and covered up for Obama.

    No one with any sense can possibly think that almost every head of America’s print and electronic news outlets met for lunch one day and said, “Hey, let’s rig the election in Obama’s favor.” It is abundantly clear that these people were following orders issued by some of the most powerful individuals and organizations in the world, who wanted a President who would do their bidding.

    The MSM enabled a conspiracy against decency and law, from its crucifixion of Hillary Clinton and trashing of Sarah Palin, to its failure to report on Obama’s illegal activities. Not the MSM, but citizen journalists and bloggers exposed such repeated illegal behavior by Obama as repeated violation of the Logan Act and acceptance of illegal campaign contributions, to endorsing Obama’s outright lies, such as his claims that he didn’t know Rezko was a thief and Wright a racist, anti-American purveyor of the Gospel Hate.

    Whether or not the defunct body Once known as a free press can ever be resurrected is unknown.

  7. Anonymous says:

    Hello Jeff,

    Just wondering if the API tape of Michelle Obama went live on Fox or not? Thanks for your feedback on this.

  8. hokiedokie24 says:

    Jeff, probably your best work yet. Very good job!!!


  9. RatTrader says:

    Thanks Jeff. I have also been a long term Democrat. Having been employed by the mortgage industry, I wanted to learn who was at fault of the housing meltdown and why it was that ACORN had sued one of the companies that I had worked for.

    It is obvious now that the Democrats planted the seeds of one of the biggest housing bubbles. Now Americans are faces voting for a charlatan or a true American with experience for the job.

  10. Anonymous says:

    chicago craigslist > city of chicago > politics
    please flag with care:




    best of craigslist

    Motion To Decertify Obama (Electoral College Electors Filing Monday)

    Reply to: comm-902657162@craigslist.org [?]
    Date: 2008-11-02, 9:39AM CST

    Vice presidential Candidate Wiley S. Drake Sr. to file in court asking to
    de-certify Barack Obama because he has refused to release proof of being a Natural Born Citizen, thereby disqualifying Obama in his bid for the Office of President.

    The recent Lawsuit in Washington State demanding their Secretary of State to vet the citizenship credentials of Barack Obama has spawned a slew of similar suits with new lawsuits filed and/or prepared in WA, FL, NC, CO, CA, OH, FL, CT, GA, TX, MI. Related lawsuits HI, US District.

    As part of this effort, this group of citizens from states across the union made an outreach to the whole presidential slate asking each candidate for president and vice president to offer up a certified copy of their birth certificates and any related candidate declarations to be placed in a library made available to the public via a non-partisan web site.

    At least one VP candidate Wiley S. Drake Sr. went the next step and agreed to file a lawsuit of his own to demand the disqualification of Barack Obama unless he can prove status as a ”Natural Born Citizen” as the constitution and federal statues demand and define.

    In another unrelated action, though also aimed at forcing Obama to release proof or step down, 24 potential Electoral College electors are filing action Monday morning in court also demanding proof. A call is herein being issued to any elector in any state, especially democrat electors who would like to join that effort. Electors interested in adding their name to this lawsuit can contact Mr. Marquis who will put you in contact with the attorney handling that case.

    Contact: Steve Marquis
    Telephone Number: 425-698-7084
    Email Address: peoplesvoice@peoplespassions.org

    Wiley S. Drake, Sr. wileydrake@hotmail.com

    Location: Electoral College Electors Filing Monday
    it's NOT ok to contact this poster with services or other commercial interests
    PostingID: 902657162

  11. Anonymous says:
  12. Anonymous says:

    Thanks! Most powerful piece written the whole season.

  13. John Galt says:

    Interesting piece for the history books assuming Obama ever lets it get printed.

    Obamas support of the MSM is because America now worships the god of Political Correctness and the god of Entitlement.

    The MSM media is filled with many women almost all whose sexual hormones run off the charts when Obama walks into the room.

    Obama is this generation’s J.F. Kennedy whom women and the MSM fell in love with. The difference is that Obama is half black and it is that raw sexual energy that young white women feel when in the presence of a black man that causes the loss of rationality.

    Make no mistake about it. Women control the vote. If a man doesn’t go along with his woman’s thinking he winds up out the door in the middle of the night, not just on the couch but out the door.

    Obama has been financed by Islamists. It was Islamists that paid for his education at Columbia and Harvard, help him buy his mansion and have poured hundreds of millions of illegal overseas funds into Obama’s coffers.

    You could smell Obama’s victory, yes he will win, coming over a year ago. This is no different than the Celtics victory last June which was written in stone by the MSM after the Celtics completed the acquisition of the Big 3. The Celtics were good but they benefited overly so by the officiated. Officiating controlled by the MSM. ESPN in particular or the Boston Celtic network had hyped the Celtics so high that Stern and his cronies had no choice but to make sure that the Celtics won otherwise the TV rating would have dropped and the future reveiews of the league along with it.

  14. Anonymous says:

    And what about the Supreme Court challenge? Apparently, it will not be dealt with before election day!

  15. Greg Goss says:

    Welcome to the world beyond the MSM Jeff. You reminded me of a time long ago. The first presidential candidate I voted for when I was 19 was Jimmy Carter. The other Manchurian candidate….funny how “What goes around comes around”. That was the last time I voted for a Democrat…keep up the great work.

  16. Anonymous says:

    This is going to be be the “I told you so” election. Unfortunately, justifiably stating “I told you so” won’t be very satisfying.

  17. yun14u says:

    What you said, ” Eight years ago, I was a registered democrat. I chalk it up to naivete.”, sounds like a quote from the Hollywood movie, “The Matrix”. Thank you for your revelation.

  18. Anonymous says:

    the challenge doesnt have to be dealt with before election day. If it gets dealt with by december 15th , he wont be president if he does get the votes on tuesday. Isnt there a lawsuit being file by some members of the elctoral college about his birthplace? they would have standing because that is there job, to elect a qualified eligable president. is that a correct assumption jeff?


  19. Ben Tover says:

    If there is any among you who can get close to the McCain campaign, urge them strongly to insist that McCain NOT concede this election until Baracko is vetted for his eligibility. That is of course if McCain does not pull this election out of the dirt. Once and for all this will have to be discussed in the mainstream media before it goes to the electoral college. If BO is removed from the ballot by then, it will be a whole different election.

    Until then, if Barack Hussein Obama wins on Tuesday, I will fly my US flags upside down, the international distress symbol to show my support for this effort. Hope I am not alone. Truly the Nation we love is in distress if this fraud makes it to the White House. This will be an outward and visible sign of all of our outrage.

  20. Anonymous says:

    Despite outspending McCain (what is it now? 8 to 1?), having a near messiah-like candidate, media propaganda machine shielding and defending “the one”, fraudulent push for voter registrations favoring Obama, and a democratic mood of revenge for the 2000 and 2004 defeats; the race is too close to call.

    If Obama should happen to lose this race Americans should expect 2012 to be even worse than what we have just experienced in this Presidential campaign. That is, unless McCain implements some election reform policies to prevent this kind of election again.

  21. Anonymous says:

    This article appears to have been removed from NRO. ???

  22. Anonymous says:

    I hope this comment gets posted. I have had a few on here that I didn’t see get posted.

    My question is this, and I am sure others have thought about it but I have not seen anyone else ask:

    Lets say that BHO gets the most votes tomorrow. What would happen if say a group of electors from one or more states simply refused to vote for Barack Obama, until he releases his records, when the electoral college meets in December.

    In short, what I am saying is that without even the courts involved,what would happen if a group of electors refused to vote for Obama(and for that matter refused to vote at all), thus keeping him short of the 270 electoral votes needed to win, unless he released his BC and other documents. Could the electors force his hand? Say for example, if enough electorates had serious doubts about his eligibility?


  23. Jennifer says:

    Dear Jeff,
    thank you for all of your wonderful articles and insights. This election has left me with a bad feeling about the future of America. Even if McCain were to win, I feel like I will never be able to trust most media sources and political figures. I still do not understand how so many people feel like Obama is qualified for the highest political position in our land and yet he has never done anything for anyone in America..I do not understand how people can ignore radical ties in the community ecspecially Rev. Wright. He can lie all he wants but when I go to mass I know what my priest is saying and I know his beliefs. I will pray for America and I will pray for you and your family, good luck in the future and thank you.

  24. Anonymous says:

    ** thanks for the memories . . . you’re outta the chorus line **

    Yeah, I’ve been watching your Great Depression II, the musical — starring all-American ultra-right thugs who proved once more that government really exists to bail out those who destroy shareholder value of “private” mega-institutions and to provide murderous big-boy toys to brass-plated Napoleons-in-waiting.

    As Hegel said, "philosophy can't lure a dog from beside a warm stove." Only material forces could finally motivate ideologically deluded idiots to save themselves from disaster. And, in the case of Greenspan not even then.

    Hasn't it been fun watching Bush and Paulson abandon their hands-off-our-buddies policies — well, even great god Reagan had to have himself bailed from S&L disaster.

    Leave it to puny emperor George II to increase his life-long-loser streak and take nation and world, minus OPEC, with him. (Always had a death wish did George — deaths by proxy, running into millions in Iraq. Our very first sociopath-in-chief.)

    No more chances, not even a bit part, you’ve served well, you loyal lickspittles — take Old Salty and Sister Sarah with you as you retreat into think tank and Hoover Tower.


  25. bluewater says:

    Obama promises to “bankrupt” the coal industry and make energy costs “skyrocket” – and the mainstream media is silent. If you think anyone in the media cares about you – think again.

  26. Already voted for McCain says:

    The problem is not just MSM not reporting fairly. The main problem is that America is IGNORING everything that might cast a shadow of doubt on their holy anointed one.

    I have already lost several friendships over this election. (So much for Obama uniting this country!) I have been called sick, and told I need to get help. But I refuse to sit back and watch our country loose our most precious document, the Constitution.

    It is scary to see how people honestly do not care one iota anything about this man. They just want their gas money and mortgage paid and their free health insurance. They are willing to throw away those horrible, bad guns and lose many more of their freedoms. The conservative Right is lying against the Poor black Obama.

    If Obama LOOKED like a white man instead of a black man, do you think so many people would be voting for him??? I don’t. I still hold hope that sanity will prevail tomorrow.

    G-d bless the US of A!

  27. Ian Thorpe says:

    Well made points as usual Jeff. So when are you thinking of running? 2020 or 2024?

    Here’s an article by Harold Evans, former editor of The (London) Times on the very same topic. I think your readers will enjoy it.
    Mad For The One by Harold Evans

    The Times is traditionally a conservative peper but still has a reputation for journalistic integrity. Evans make the point that while we in britain expect political partisanship from our press and the American news industry has always had a reputation for balanced political reporting, this time Mainstream Media have made many experienced journalists uncomfortable.

  28. sarah says:

    obama campaign strategies:

    it is very interesting and worth taking the time to read.

    October 31, 2008 at 12:59 am Friday, October 31, 2008 A Hillary Staffer Comes Clean

    After a long and careful consideration of all the implications and possible consequences of my actions today, I have decided to go through with this in the hope that our country can indeed be guided into the right direction. First, a little personal background… I am a female grad student in my 20’s, and a registered Democrat. During the primaries, I was a campaign worker for the Clinton candidacy. I believed in her and still do, staying all the way to the bitter end. And believe me, it was bitter. The snippets you’ve heard from various media outlets only grazed the surface. There was no love between the Clinton and Obama campaigns, and these feelings extended all the way to the top. Hillary was no dope though, and knew that any endorsement of Obama must appear to be a full-fledged one. She did this out of political survival. As a part of his overall effort to extend an olive branch to the Clinton camp and her supporters, Obama took on a few Hillary staff members into his campaign. I was one such worker. Though I was still bitterly loyal to Hillary, I still held out hope that he would choose her as VP. In fact, there was a consensus among us transplants that in the end, he HAD to choose her. It was the only logical choice. I also was committed to the Democratic cause and without much of a second thought, transferred my allegiance to Senator Obama.I’m going to let you in on a few secrets here, and this is not because I enjoy the gossip or the attention directed my way. I’m doing this because I doubt much of you know the true weaknesses of Obama. Another reason for my doing this is that I am lost faith in this campaign, and feel that this choice has been forced on many people in this country. Put simply, you are being manipulated. That was and is our job – to manipulate you (the electorate) and the media (we already had them months ago).

    Our goal is to create chaos with the other side, not hope. I’ve come to the realization (as the campaign already has) that if this comes to the issues, Barack Obama doesn’t have a chance. His only chance is to foster disorganization, chaos, despair, and a sense of inevitability among the Republicans. It has worked up until now. Joe the Plumber has put the focus on the issues again, and this scares us more than anything. Being in a position to know these things, I will rate what the Obama campaign already knows are their weak links from the most important on down.1 – Hillary voters. Internal polling suggests that at best, we are taking 70-75% of these voters. Other estimates are as low as 60% in some areas – particularly Ohio and western PA. My biggest problem with this campaign’s strategy was the decision NOT to offer Hillary the VP slot. She was ready and able to take this on, and would have campaigned enthusiastically for it. This selection would have also brought virtually all of her supporters into the fold, and the Obama campaign knew it. Though I have no way of knowing this for certain, and I do admit that I am relying on internal gossip, Senator Obama actually went against the advice of his top advisors. They wanted him to choose her, but the only significant opposition to this within the campaign came from Barack and Michelle Obama. In short, he let personal feelings take precedence over what was the most logical thing to do. Biden, by the way, has been a disaster inside the campaign. Everyone cringes whenever he gives an interview, and he creates so many headaches as the campaign has to stay on their toes in order to disseminate information and spin whatever it was he was trying to say.

    2 – Sarah Palin. Don’t believe what the media is telling you about how horrible a choice she was. Again, our internal polling suggest that though she has had a minimal impact on pulling disaffected Hillary Democrats to McCain, she has done wonders in mobilizing the base for McCain. Another thing – we were completely taken by surprise with her pick. In my capacity in the research department, I looked into the backgrounds of Leiberman, Romney, Pawlenty and Ridge, and prepared briefs. I don’t mind bragging that we had pretty good stuff on all of them. With Leiberman, the plan was to paint him as an erratic old-timer who didn’t have a clue as to what he was doing (pretty much a clone of McCain). In Romney, we had him pegged as an evil capitalist who cut jobs. Pawlenty was going to get the “Quayle treatment”, or more precisely: a pretty face, with no valid experience. Tom Ridge was going to be used to provide a direct link from McCain to Bush. As you can see, we were quite enamored of all of them. Then the unexpected happened – Sarah Palin. We had no clue as to how to handle her, and bungled it from the start. Though through our misinformation networks, we have successfully taken some of the shine off. But let there be no doubt. She remains a major obstacle. She has singlehanded solidified “soft” Republican support, mobilized the McCain ground game, and has even had some appeal to independents and Hillary voters. This is what our internal polling confirms.

    3 – Obama’s radical connections. Standards operating procedure has been to cry “racism” whenever one of these has been brought up. We even have a detailed strategy ready to go should McCain ever bring Rev. Wright up. Though by themselves they are of minimal worth, taken together, Rev. Wright, Bill Ayers, Father Pfelger, and now, Rashid Khalili, are exactly what the campaign does not need. The more focus on them, the more this election becomes a referendum on Obama. The campaign strategy from the very beginning was to make this election a referendum on Bush. Strategists have been banging their head on how successfully McCain has distanced himself from Bush. This has worked, and right now the tide is in his favor. People are taking a new look at Barack Obama, and our experience when this happens tells us this is not good news at all. When they take a look at him, one or more of these names are bound to be brought up. McCain has wisely not harped on this in recent weeks and let voters decide for themselves. This was a trap we set for him, and he never fully took the bait. Senator Obama openly dared him to bring up Ayers. This was not due to machismo on the part of Obama, but actually due to campaign strategy. Though McCain’s reference to Ayers fell flat in the last debate, people in the Obama campaign were actually disappointed that he didn’t follow through on it more and getting into it. Our focus groups found this out: When McCain brings these connections up, voters are turned off to him. They’d rather take this into consideration themselves, and when this happens, our numbers begin to tank.

    4 – The Bradley Effect. Don’t believe these polls for a second. I just went over our numbers and found that we have next to no chance in the following states: Missouri, Indiana, North Carolina, Florida, New Hampshire and Nevada. Ohio leans heavily to McCain, but is too close to call it for him. Virginia, Pennsylvania, Colorado, New Mexico and Iowa are the true “toss up states”. The only two of these the campaign feels “confident” in are Iowa and New Mexico. The reason for such polling discrepancy is the Bradley Effect, and this is a subject of much discussion in the campaign. In general, we tend to take a -10 point percentage in allowing for this, and are not comfortable until the polls give us a spread well over this mark. This is why we are still campaigning in Virginia and Pennsylvania! This is why Ohio is such a desperate hope for us!

    What truly bothers this campaign is the fact that some pollsters get up to an 80% “refuse to respond” result. You can’t possibly include these into the polls. The truth is, people are afraid to let people know who they are voting for. The vast majority of these respondents are McCain supporters. Obama is the “hip” choice, and we all know it.As part of my research duties, I scour right wing blogs and websites to get somewhat of a “feel” as to what is being talked about on the other side. Much of it is nonsense, but there are some exceptions which give the campaign jitters. A spirited campaign has been made to infiltrate many pro-Hillary sites and discredit them. A more disorganized, but genuine effort has also been made to sow doubts among the unapologetically right wing sites such as redstate.com. Don’t you guys get it? This has been the Obama campaign’s sole strategy from the very beginning! The only way he wins is over a dispirited, disorganized, and demobilized opposition. This is how it has been for all of his campaigns. What surprises me is that everyone has fallen for it.

    You may point to the polls as proof of the inevitability of all of this. If so, you have fallen for the oldest trick in the book. How did we skew these polls, you might ask? It all starts with the media “buzz” which has been generated over the campaign. Many stories are generated on the powerful Obama ground game, and how many new voters were registered. None of this happens by coincidence. It is all part of the poll-skewing process. This makes pollsters change their mixes to reflect these new voters and tilt the mix more towards Democratic voters. What is not mentioned or reported on is not the “under-reported cell phone users or young voters” we hear so much about. What is underreported is you.Go read it. I am telling it folks, it is ours.

  29. Anonymous says:

    Great article. I wish every American could read it.

    In regards to Obama’s birthplace,
    shouldn’t there be a birth announcement in the local newspaper? There should be a few family photos of the proud parents, grandparents, aunties, uncles holding the new bundle of joy to try to establish a timeline. What about his mother’s old passport records?

    There is a long list of issues that need to be revealed in order to piece together Obama’s mysterious life.

    With no help from the main stream media, I still have hope that the truth will be revealed.

  30. Ted Park says:

    This is what really REALLY pisses me off. Over the years I have had many useful and reasonable discussions with people of all parties and persuasions. I only demand one thing: “People are entitled to their own opinions, but not their own facts”. This year the MSM has almost single-handedly forced the situation where Obama supporters and McCains supporters must operate with different facts. Our particular Democratic system will not work if the only source of information is the “campaign promises” and “spin” from the candidate’s organizations. We need to have the leveling influence of a reasonably independent resource that will lay out the playing field for us. It is totally impossible to have a serious debate and a serious decision process when the two camps are playing on two totally fields. No matter how this election turns out, not only is it the end of journalism (as opposed to pure propoganda), but the end of Democracy as we knew it. And I don’t especially blame Obama – he’s just “campaigning”. The blame rests squarely on the shoulders of the MSM.

    May God bless and God help.

  31. Kelly says:

    You seems to be preoccupied with Barack Obama and never have anything to say about John McCain. I get the feeling that a lot of the Repubican followers are not really campaigning/voting FOR McCain; you are just campaigning/voting AGAINST Obama. That’s just sad.

    Obama will be a great President, as long as some frightened Joe doesn’t assassinate him.

  32. Anonymous says:

    The money flows from the donations to politicians into the pockets of the media.

    If the media did not have these monies, they would be as fiscally bankrupt as they are morally bankrupt.

    Quality has not and has never been the goal; the goal has been to extend the time and increase the volume of donations flowing into the pockets of media for services purchased.

    This is not exactly commerce. The airwaves belong to us. The licensees have essentially levied an illegal tax upon our electoral process.

    Then there are the inherent conflicts interest, insider dealings and other commercially common dynamics that look a lot like racketeering.

    For matters of commerce, where is the consumer protection? No other industry can engage in deceptive acts and practices to sell a product or service or to induce the sale of otherwise unnecessary services. This is not a matter of free speech, but a question of criminal conspiracy to commit fraud.

    Why are political parties, unions, non-profits and media companies immune from practices which are illegal in other channels of commerce?

  33. sarah says:

    obama would not have gotten away with covering up so much of his past during this election if tim russert were still alive.

    no candidate could avoid going on meet the press and answering his direct questions.

    rip tim. you are missed.

  34. Ted Park says:

    Kelly -

    You miss the entire point. You say “Obama will be a great President”. Without proper media coverage you have no way of knowing that. It reduces your statement to one of pure “faith”. Faith, belief, and hope are not good selectors for a president. That is why many of us are so dismayed. We see fellow Americans totally abandon all reason and use some sort of voodoo or “tingling in my leg” to substitute for the reason that should be the proper selction criteria.

  35. bluewater says:

    Kelly – I know you aren’t really concerned, you were only taking shots, but here goes – my reasons for voting for John McCain:

    He fights pork in government.
    He chose the most popular governor in the country as his running mate.
    He will choose conservative Supreme Court justices.
    Military experience and judgment.
    The strength of his convictions.
    Efforts at campaign finance reform (ignored by Obama).
    Promise to freeze government spending in most areas.

    Any other questions?

  36. Anonymous says:

    Mr. Hanson’s article reinforces what most of us have believed and what a few brave journalists have actually admitted.

    Fox had a Sunday morning discussion on media bias and the presidential candidates. Even stalwart conservative Brit Hume had to ‘fess up, rather emotionally, that even he had been very moved by the Obama phenomenon and was taken in by it. (No, he didn’t admit a “thrill” going up his leg, ala Hardball’s Matthews.)

    Hume’s Sunday morning news partner, NPR journalist Juan Williams (formerly with the Washington Post) said that network executives would bring their children to Obama rallies, convinced that they were going to be part of history.

    I’ve never understood this juggernaut that is Obama but there is no question that it has overwhelmed journalism and shaped the coverage of this election cycle — and by extension, shaped the attitudes of viewers across the land.

    Knowledge is power. When our knowledge is incomplete, well . . . .

  37. Anonymous says:

    This is a very revealing post. It reminds me of the telling remark that Dan Quayle once made, to the effect that he was moved to go into politics after he saw the movie, The Candidate. The joke is that, like the character played by Robert Redford in the movie, Quayle was a good-looking but empty-headed idiot who had no idea how to govern once elected. At the end of the movie, the main character asks “Marvin … What do we do now?”

    In a similar way, the fact that you turned right after reading Goldberg’s screed is very telling–but about you, not about the media. Goldberg’s book was nothing like a serious study of media bias; it was largely a bunch of anecdotes strung together. Many of his claims simply don’t hold water; see, for example, http://people.ischool.berkeley.edu/~nunberg/bias.html
    or FAIR’s study http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=2447 . Even if individual reporters are biased to the left, their sources are largely biased to the right.

    In any event, being a serious student of the media, why do you give credence to totally crackpot sources such as WorldNutDaily?

  38. MIDDLE CLASS GUY says:

    Why is the far left media referred to as the mainstream media. Even people on the right use the term. They do not represent the mainstream unless the belief now is that radical left is the main stream in America. When are we going to start referring to it correctly as the radical left wing or socialist media and give them proper credit for their activities.

  39. Anonymous says:

    I no longer watch or read any of the Mainstream Media “NEWS” I would get more accurate reporting from the Star or the Enquirer. They should be “the news as we feel like reporting”
    They have no integrity and are no longer real journalists in my book.

  40. CelticSweetie says:


    Both stories were so true. MSM is really to blame for all the one sided stories and comments. This election all media outlets were so concerned with what John McCain or Sarah Palin was doing or had done. It seems like they prided themselves on digging up dirt on the little known Republican VP nominee. They attacked the RNC about the cost of Palin’s wardrobe. They forgot to mention Obama’s past and how he got where he’s at. I’ve tried my hardest to enlighten people about the truth of Barack Obama. I’ve been told that I didn’t know how to do research and that I should look at websites that weren’t conservative or Right. When people who I knew attacked me for what I wrote I went on the defense and attacked them because they only believe what they heard or read in MSM.

  41. Anonymous says:

    Check out this transcript of Tom Brokaw and Charlie Rose on Rush Limbaugh.


  42. T the D says:

    Great article. It so wonderfully summed up all the major points no one seems to want to talk about. There are things that you could possibly let BHO slide by on…but the fact that MSM has done virtually nothing to bring these issue to the people of this country is simply dispicable.

    I keep going back and forth between having hope for the outcome tomorrow and preparing myself for the next four years of an Obama Administration…God help us.

    ~T the D

Speak Your Mind