Gay Patriot Header Image

The significance of the Breitbart video:
the legacy media’s disinterest in exploring the Obama narrative

When last night I saw the video that the late Andrew Breitbart had so hyped, I was a bit disappointed.  There was nothing new there.  We already knew that when he was a student, the president had some radical associations.

What was telling, however, was not the video of Obama himself, but the video of Harvard Law School Professor Charles Ogletree showing the video who admitted that, “We hid this throughout the 2008 campaign. I don’t care if they find it now.

“It’s video,” John Nolte observes (referring to the clip from Obama’s Harvard years), “no one would’ve seen, had Andrew Breitbart not decided it was time—finally!– to vet the sitting President of the United States. (For the record, this is only a portion of what Breitbart found.)”  And that’s the point.  No one would have seen the video if people outside the legacy media went rooting around for stories about Obama’s past.

In 2008, 0ur friends in the legacy media showed considerable curiosity in John McCain’s running mate, then-Alaska Governor Sarah Palin, dispatching countless reporters to the Last Frontier to root out the smallest detail of her personal and professional life.  By contrast, when Barack Obama catapulted onto the political scene, they did not show a similar curiosity, spending little time investigating Obama’s background.  They relied on Obama’s campaign to supply the narrative of the Democrat’s life.

Ed Driscoll quotes Michelle Malking who sums it up:

“I reject this idea that we should just shrug our shoulders and buy the PBS/Buzzfeed line that there’s nothing new here. Stop it! This is news! They didn’t want to talk about it then and they don’t want to talk about it now.” Michelle Malkin punches back twice as hard, as Mr. Obama would say, against Juan Williams. “This is all about Alinskyite control of who tells the story. Well guess what Barack Obama and Jim Messina. It is not all your monopoly anymore and that’s why they are pushing back so hard.”

Via Instapundit.  One asks yet again why our friends in the legacy media chose not to show the same scrutiny to Barack Obama as they have for Republican politicians, even sometimes it seems, as they have shown his critics.

UPDATE:  When Yahoo! and others in the MSM claim this video is a dud, they miss the point of the story (which would, of course, indict them and others) which Jim Geraghty neatly summarizes:

On the other hand, Breitbart’s point of an unvetted president is proven: At no point in 2008 was the American electorate informed that Obama led a protest on behalf of a law professor who believed that the U.S. legal system was incontrovertibly racist from its moment of creation, or that he thought so well of an outspoken public defender of Louis Farrakhan.

Our friends in the legacy media contend this story is about the actual video itself.  It’s not.  It’s about their failure to report stories like this when then-candidate Obama was pursuing the highest office in the land.

Share

58 Comments

  1. I don’t get why there is any mystery here. The press is dominated by democrats. We know this because it has been polled and studied and something like 90% of journalists say they are democrat voters. The “civil rights movement” is something the press likes to think they pulled off and no matter what anti American black org, Obama, was a part of it’s all good.

    And BTW, Michelle Malkin, displayed more testosterone in her reply than any of the republican males have since Bill Buckley told that degenerate, Gore Vidal, he would punch him in the nose for calling Bill a nazi.

    Comment by Richard Bell — March 8, 2012 @ 8:23 am - March 8, 2012

  2. I felt the same way, until I watched the (young) Thomas Sowell interview that’s on Breitbart’s site. Dr. Sowell explains who Derek Bell really was, thus the significance of Obama’s relationship with him is absolutely consistent with his relationships with Jeremiah Wright and Bill Ayers/Bernadine Dohrn.

    Comment by AmandaFitz — March 8, 2012 @ 8:36 am - March 8, 2012

  3. Dan could you check that your post has a working link to the video? Your first link gets a 404 (Not found); I hope that’s a small mistake and not the Breitbart site being hacked or something.

    We already knew that when he was a student, the president had some radical associations.

    But who is “we”? It’s one thing for a few of us to know a thing theoretically; another to have seen it; and still another to have it in common knowledge (where most people know or ought to know, because they saw it or ought to have seen it).

    “We hid this…” … “It’s video no one would have seen…” … yeah, exactly. Leftists have shown a great capacity to deny, perhaps to be ashamed of, the fact that Obama is one of them.

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — March 8, 2012 @ 10:43 am - March 8, 2012

  4. You’re doing a great job creating the false narrative that Obama is a commie-lover post-facto. Keep it up.

    To bad the liberal media was so busy fanning the flames of the birther controversy, because you know it was all their fault for getting the mileage they achieved with that story. (Nothing to do with the tens of millions of Americans who actually believed it.)

    Comment by Cinesnatch — March 8, 2012 @ 12:50 pm - March 8, 2012

  5. … perhaps if Breitbart hadn’t spent so much time pushing “racist” NAACP reactions …

    Comment by Cinesnatch — March 8, 2012 @ 12:53 pm - March 8, 2012

  6. The Significance Of The Breitbart Video Is:

    There isn’t any, at least in the grand scene of things.

    OK.

    So let me get this straight. Obama has not exactly been a fine steward for the country’s economy and fiscal health over the last three years… And this is what we get – A video tape from Obama College years????

    Critical Race Theory… Jeremiah Wright… Saul Alynski blah blah blah. Charles Ogletree says we hid the video (may or may not have been joking – once again EDITED so we don’t see the whole context of the comment). No one outside the Republican Party cares about any of this. The US economy is in hell, and this is what the great minds of the Conservative Collective can bring to the table to try and defeat the President????

    This is red meat for the Conservative carnivores. Someone please tell me – How the HELL is trying to show how the press didn’t vette the sitting President because they were so in love with the concept of having a black man win the Presidency going to help you NOW???? Answer – It’s not. No one outside your little circle cares much about any of this. He’s got three years in office to be judged by, and drudging up this old crap is the best the Conservatives can do???

    Jeez, are you guys deliberately trying to lose this election?????

    Comment by sonicfrog — March 8, 2012 @ 1:09 pm - March 8, 2012

  7. Someone please tell me – How the HELL is trying to show how the press didn’t vette the sitting President because they were so in love with the concept of having a black man win the Presidency going to help you NOW?

    Even now, sf, lots of people still don’t know who Obama really is, and what his policies are really after, and how little the media is to be trusted, because of how hard it tries to obscure the truth.

    So – awareness was, I suspect, Breitbart’s goal. Every bit of awareness helps.

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — March 8, 2012 @ 1:28 pm - March 8, 2012

  8. Dan,

    Do you find this surprising? It somehow seems that you are moderately unaware of the details of Obama’s hidden youth and the credible research that has been done to ferret out the facts.

    Jerome Corsi has been labeled a “conspiracy theorist” and yet his research has provided others with the threads that have led to some pretty amazing facts. Facts, not “facts.”

    If, as you suggest, the media were as interested in following leads that are piling up against Obama as they were in going through Palin’s garbage, we would know a lot more about this president.

    It seems to me that an awful lot of people give “this good man” as pass on the basis that he his to be respected as the President of the United States of America. Frankly, to let the sanctity of the office sanctify the office holder is the height of naiveté.

    When Obama first came forward as a candidate, I noted here that a good study of Alinsky was in order. It still is. It is not too late to begin to understand who this man is and what he is doing to the United States.

    I understand not wanting to invite “birthers” and other types to have free reign on the site. But, I don’t understand why George Soros, Saul Alinsky, Bill Ayres, Cass Sunstein, Mark Lloyd, the Apollo Alliance, John Podesta, John Holdren, Harold Koh, Wade Rathke, Richard Trumke, Robert Creamer, Cloward and Frances Fox Piven, Jodie Evans, and on and on and on seem to be so foreign to the Obama discussion.

    As a law school man, it would seem that you would take interest in Eric Holder’s restructuring of the Justice Department. This man, who has fended off the “fast and furious” spotlight has done a great deal more to undermine the rule of law than is generally reported. It would seem that the rule of law would be fundamental to any patriot, gay or not.

    This is not a rebuke. Truly, it is not. A writer must stick to what interests him and perhaps, GayPatriot is just not interested in the battle for America at the swamp gas level.

    Comment by Heliotrope — March 8, 2012 @ 1:33 pm - March 8, 2012

  9. CNN Dingbat Soledad O’Brien beclowns herself defending Obama video. Methinks the bimbo doth protest too much.

    Comment by V the K — March 8, 2012 @ 1:37 pm - March 8, 2012

  10. Bimbo, slut, whore … *eye roll*

    I would like to see VTK describe any of the Fox News blonds (or resident brunette former Mrs. Gavin Newsome) as bimbos.

    Comment by Cinesnatch — March 8, 2012 @ 1:49 pm - March 8, 2012

  11. This is red meat for the Conservative carnivores. Someone please tell me – How the HELL is trying to show how the press didn’t vette the sitting President because they were so in love with the concept of having a black man win the Presidency going to help you NOW???? Answer – It’s not. No one outside your little circle cares much about any of this. He’s got three years in office to be judged by, and drudging up this old crap is the best the Conservatives can do???

    Comment by sonicfrog — March 8, 2012 @ 1:09 pm – March 8, 2012

    Humorously, Sonic, the reason is buried within your comment.

    Charles Ogletree says we hid the video (may or may not have been joking – once again EDITED so we don’t see the whole context of the comment).

    Breitbart figured out the game that liberals play, which is to insist that editing a video is lying and misrepresenting.

    And he just pointed out that liberals have been editing things left and right when it comes to Obama.

    Thus, who can believe anything that the media presents in regard to Obama — since they’ve just demonstrated that they deliberately lie and misrepresent Obama’s behavior?

    You seem quite unaware of what the media is planning to do for the next eight months, which is to fill a privy’s worth of lies for Obama.

    Breitbart just dropped a cherry bomb into that privy — while they were sitting in it.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — March 8, 2012 @ 1:51 pm - March 8, 2012

  12. 10.Bimbo, slut, whore … *eye roll*

    I would like to see VTK describe any of the Fox News blonds (or resident brunette former Mrs. Gavin Newsome) as bimbos.

    Comment by Cinesnatch — March 8, 2012 @ 1:49 pm – March 8, 2012

    Again, Cinesnatch, your whining is meaningless, because everyone is aware that it has nothing to do with V the K’s language and everything to do with his political affiliation.

    Any weapon in your attempt to silence and shut up dissent. Any statement, no matter how contradictory, to attack those who disagree with the Party and the glorious socialist Obamamessiah who has promised you that he will punish all those homophobes and redistribute their wealth to you.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — March 8, 2012 @ 1:55 pm - March 8, 2012

  13. Sonic,

    We will have a candidate for President who will have the three years to tear apart.

    Obama has been piling up the reasons why George W. Bush sand-bagged the United States worse than anyone could ever imagine. He will pontificate about how he has had to slay the Nemean lion, slay the nine-headed Hydra, capture the Golden Hind, capture the Erymanthian Boar, slay the Stymphalian birds, steal the Mares of Diomedes, capture the Cretan bull, snatch the girdle of Hippolyta, get the cattle of Geryon, take the apples of Hesperides, return Cerberus and finish cleaning out the Augean stables.

    He will ask for the rest of “the day” to get those stables hosed down and our country saved, moved forward and on an arc for utopian bliss and a prosperous everafter.

    That is the campaign ahead.

    We conservatives, meanwhile, will undermine Obama at every turn with his own words, his past, and his history. That will strengthen the resolve of the true Obama believers who love their Messiah. But it will sour those who ran lemming-like to the polls in 2008 to get a full dose of “hope and change.”

    Bush Derangement Syndrome put Obama in office. Obama Derangement Syndrome coupled with the Obama economy, Obama unemployment, Obama inflation, Obama job destruction, Obama deficits, Obama gas prices, Obama fatigue, Obama inattentiveness, Obama styrofoam essence, Obama golf and lavish living, Obama forked-tongue, Obama race card, Obama Jew bashing, and more ……. will be make plenty of “independents” walk away from him by with voting against him or staying home.

    The liberals used Bush to capture the White House. The conservatives will throw Obama out using the same techniques.

    Sonic, are you suggesting that Republicans run a clean and principled campaign? Obama has spread a layer of dried dung dust across the land. What is wrong with blowing it back into his face?

    Is that all we have? Let Romney or whoever rise above the Obama style of campaigning, lying, mis-governing. He can wear a nice white hate and reassure us. But, don’t think for a second that we vultures are not eagerly awaiting our Obama bone picking festival.

    Comment by Heliotrope — March 8, 2012 @ 2:05 pm - March 8, 2012

  14. redistribute their wealth to you.I do fine on my own. Not looking for government handouts.

    And, please provide the links where I call anyone a slut, whore or bimbo or support anyone else’s decision to do so. Thanks, ND30. I’m sure you’ll be able to dig something up that’s relevant to my request from your LOL (Library of Links), which always makes me LMAO.

    Comment by Cinesnatch — March 8, 2012 @ 2:07 pm - March 8, 2012

  15. will be make plenty of “independents” walk away from him by with voting against him or staying home.

    Please ND30, add this to your LOL (Library of Links), so we can revisit this thread next November. Thanks.

    Comment by Cinesnatch — March 8, 2012 @ 2:09 pm - March 8, 2012

  16. Even now, sf, lots of people still don’t know who Obama really is

    No, they don’t CARE! All they care about is whether or no he’s been a good President or not. Again, the only people who are going to be influenced by this are the people who already can’t stand him.

    Jerome Corsi has been labeled a “conspiracy theorist” and yet his research has provided others with the threads that have led to some pretty amazing facts. Facts, not “facts.”

    Like the birth certificate, the long form that was being asked for for all that time, and was produced, is also a FAKE!!!! Apparently. Yeah. This reminds me of a bit from the Superman Animated series, where Poison Ivy and Harley Quin have teamed up and are robbing a department store. Harley tries to break into an ATM using a mallet. She hits the ATM over and over and over again, achieving absolutely nothing, and Ivy sighs and say “she tries so hard”. WND and Corsi are kind of like that.

    Comment by sonicfrog — March 8, 2012 @ 2:10 pm - March 8, 2012

  17. Again, the only people who are going to be influenced by this are the people who already can’t stand him.

    Then those people will be more energized to fight him.

    Really, sf, if you are not interested in these videos… then don’t watch them. If you think they are a waste of time… then why are you wasting yours here? It’s not like Dan has a pipeline into breitbart.com to make them stop. And it’s not like your CAPITALS!!!1! of outrage (LOL) are going to make *him* stop being interested in whatever *he* happens to be interested in.

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — March 8, 2012 @ 2:17 pm - March 8, 2012

  18. Obama has been piling up the reasons why George W. Bush sand-bagged the United States worse than anyone could ever imagine.

    And that won’t work for him either, and I think they know it. Haven’t heard him harping that line as much in the last few months.

    The liberals used Bush to capture the White House. The conservatives will throw Obama out using the same techniques.

    OK. The stuff that worked was highlighting his record WHILE HE WAS IN OFFICE. This 20 years ago has little relevance to the here and now. Did we learn nothing from the stupidity of the George Bush is a diserter” thing? Never mind the eventual consequences of Rathergate. Nobody cared, except for the frothing liberal who wouldn’t have voted for him anyway. Go check out the rating for that broadcast. They were decent, but not that great. Unless it’s something like murder or bank robbery or something like that, people just don’t much care about things that happened 20 years ago. They care about here, and now.

    Sonic, are you suggesting that Republicans run a clean and principled campaign?

    No, I’m asking that they run a smart one. Despite the best efforts of those actually running for office, judging from all the interference from the sidelines, looks like that’s not going to happen

    Comment by sonicfrog — March 8, 2012 @ 2:23 pm - March 8, 2012

  19. ILC… I already watched them. And yes, it was a total waste of time.

    Comment by sonicfrog — March 8, 2012 @ 2:26 pm - March 8, 2012

  20. As a commenter at Althouse said:

    if most people yawned at Obama’s association with domestic terrorists and his racist lunatic of a pastor, why on earth would this make any waves?

    Exactly.

    Comment by sonicfrog — March 8, 2012 @ 2:30 pm - March 8, 2012

  21. I would love to see that Poison Ivy/Harley Quinn ATM scene. I have an art-piece of the two on them on my wall.

    Comment by Cinesnatch — March 8, 2012 @ 2:35 pm - March 8, 2012

  22. Livewire was also in that one… Not our Livewire! The cartoon version!!! :-)

    here’s the episode. it was great!

    http://dcanimated.wikia.com/wiki/Girl's_Night_Out

    Comment by sonicfrog — March 8, 2012 @ 2:53 pm - March 8, 2012

  23. I am really getting under Cinesnatch’s skin, aren’t I? :D

    If you actually watch the clip of Soledad’s desperate badgering and stupid attempt to convey the talking points being fed into her earpiece… you’ll see that ‘dingbat’ is a kind description.

    Comment by V the K — March 8, 2012 @ 3:00 pm - March 8, 2012

  24. Thanks! Too bad it wasn’t our Live Wire. Talk about an instant 1,000 cool points.

    Comment by Cinesnatch — March 8, 2012 @ 3:03 pm - March 8, 2012

  25. VTK is getting SO under my skin! I can feel him worming through my veins. This site is FULL of mind-readers! So jealous.

    SF made a really astute comment yesterday (well, he made more than that, but I digress) …

    Almost all politicians speak with forked tongues.

    VTK’s politically-tinged assessment of Soledad O’Brien’s total worth as a TV news figure made me think of that.

    Comment by Cinesnatch — March 8, 2012 @ 3:09 pm - March 8, 2012

  26. Sonic,

    You missed the point. There already is a palpable Obama fatigue at work. The red meat conservatives can help pile the doubt on Obama.

    George Bust as a deserter or John Kerry as a phony hero is not salient.

    Obama is a communist leaning socialists who has taken bold action to fundamentally transform America into a socialist state and has appointed scads of radicals in doing so.

    His past is very much a part of his present.

    Can you not comprehend the difference between what someone did in his formative years and what effect the formative years continue to effect Obama and that there is plenty of evidence to illuminate it?

    How about arguing the point rather than shifting the topic?

    Comment by Heliotrope — March 8, 2012 @ 3:32 pm - March 8, 2012

  27. @Sonic,

    My nick predates the character actually. I adopted it in the late 80′s from Louie Nichol’s tank in Robotech.

    It fit, since Louie was a character who thought a technological utopia was possible, then realized the hard way it wasn’t. Kind of like me in my teens.

    Comment by The Livewire — March 8, 2012 @ 3:46 pm - March 8, 2012

  28. And, please provide the links where I call anyone a slut, whore or bimbo or support anyone else’s decision to do so.

    Actually, I’d like you to show where in V the K’s quote he called anyone a slut or a whore first.

    Meanwhile, the rule yesterday was that audience size determined whether or not it was acceptable to call someone a slut or a whore, as we saw with your repeated equivocations that Bill Maher could not be held accountable because his listening audience was smaller.

    Now let us watch as that ad hoc rationalization goes flying out the window in favor of the new one, which is that audience size doesn’t matter.

    Thanks, ND30. I’m sure you’ll be able to dig something up that’s relevant to my request from your LOL (Library of Links), which always makes me LMAO.

    Comment by Cinesnatch — March 8, 2012 @ 2:07 pm – March 8, 2012

    And yet another ad hoc rationalization goes out the window, as we see from Cinesnatch’s

    insisting last week that ILC provide links for his statements.

    First links are bad, then links are good, next week they go back to bad again.

    But then we get around to this.

    14.redistribute their wealth to you.I do fine on my own. Not looking for government handouts.

    Of course you are, Cinesnatch.

    You want the government to take from other peoples’ paychecks at a higher rate to fund yours and your parents’ retirements and medical care at a rate far greater than what you ever managed to put in.

    You want the government to take from other peoples’ pockets at a higher rate than what you pay to fund your pet social causes.

    You want the government to protect you at a higher rate when it comes to to social programs, “discrimination” laws, hate speech prosecutions, and the innumerable demands of the gay left.

    The vast and overwhelming majority of your posts are complaints that the government doesn’t do enough for you and a demand that it redistribute wealth from other people to pay for what you want to have happen.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — March 8, 2012 @ 5:16 pm - March 8, 2012

  29. VTK double-downed on limbaugh’s use of the word slut with whore in one of the fluke threads. You also commented on that thread. Maybe you skipped over his comment. It was only within the last couple days.

    And I’m not asking for him to apologize for his o’brien comment. You need to check your eyes.

    So, yeah, you say I’m waiting for the government to send money my way. Just curious as to where I’ve established that expectation.

    Comment by Cinesnatch — March 8, 2012 @ 6:03 pm - March 8, 2012

  30. ANd please indicate where Ive suggested that I’m not open to a higher tax rate imposed on my earnings.

    Comment by Cinesnatch — March 8, 2012 @ 6:05 pm - March 8, 2012

  31. My point was if o’brien is a bimbo, the blondes at fox news (well except megyn Kelly, who i admit i have a soft spot for) must be the respected professionals who dont tow the line and ask the questions others don’t dare ask.

    Comment by Cinesnatch — March 8, 2012 @ 6:21 pm - March 8, 2012

  32. The last three comments were for NOrth dallas Surly.

    Comment by Cinesnatch — March 8, 2012 @ 6:22 pm - March 8, 2012

  33. NOrth dallas Surly

    And, that all-important rule against name-calling that no one but poor, persecuted Cinesnatch will ever honor… flies out the window.

    But then again, Cinesnatch, your quoting that rule at different people never was about civility, or truth, or morality to begin with – was it?

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — March 8, 2012 @ 6:55 pm - March 8, 2012

  34. Dude, you’ve thrown everything including the kitchen sink out the window, ILC. Considering that things are held against me that aren’t even true and you play by your own rules, what’s the harm in a play on a commenter’s handle, which is, sometimes, an apt description? I mean, I’ve enjoyed all of the creative reconfigurations of my online handle here (I try to keep my expectations low, but there HAVE been a few GOOD ones that have made me CHUCKLE, as I’m sure others), I hardly think that someone who has referred to me as pedophile, amongst other libel (and then justifies it from his LOL [Library of Links], which he has yet to do so legitimately), is going to be offended by something that is often true. He can be quite surly online. In person, however, word has it he is something else entirely. But, I wouldn’t know, as I have never met him and he refuses to take me up on my offer to meet.

    LOL, ILC, you were just waiting for me to “crack”! I wasn’t sending that one out for you, but I’m glad you enjoyed the table scraps.

    Comment by Cinesnatch — March 8, 2012 @ 7:04 pm - March 8, 2012

  35. Considering that things are held against me that aren’t even are true and you play by your own rules usually don’t try to quote the blog’s rules to silence people, what’s the harm in a play on a commenter’s handle, which is, sometimes, an apt description?

    When the question is properly fixed… it answers itself.

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — March 8, 2012 @ 7:08 pm - March 8, 2012

  36. LOL, ILC. I’ve brought up the blog rules MONTHS ago and learned that GP does not consistently enforce them. (It seems, only when a commenter brings it to one of the moderator’s attention, as I learned quite recently.) It’s the wild west out here at GP. I’m just learning as I go. If ND30 is so offended by the name, I have no problem with dropping it and apologizing. Unlike some people …

    Comment by Cinesnatch — March 8, 2012 @ 7:13 pm - March 8, 2012

  37. I have no problem with dropping it

    ROTFLMAO :-)

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — March 8, 2012 @ 7:16 pm - March 8, 2012

  38. Sonic,

    You missed the point. There already is a palpable Obama fatigue at work.

    And even more so for the current Republican cast of characters running for office.

    The red meat conservatives can help pile the doubt on Obama.

    Not if it’s as lame as this.

    Comment by sonicfrog — March 8, 2012 @ 7:19 pm - March 8, 2012

  39. Cine, I aded you to my blogroll.

    Comment by sonicfrog — March 8, 2012 @ 7:20 pm - March 8, 2012

  40. Thanks SF, I will return the favor once I add one to mine and figure out my new layout. :)

    Comment by Cinesnatch — March 8, 2012 @ 7:24 pm - March 8, 2012

  41. Sonic,

    Nice shift and dodge. So, I take it that you either agree with or run away the fact that Obama was radicalized in his formative years and has stayed radicalized and that his radical ideas are the meaning of the “fundamental transformation of America” which he assiduously avoided from disclosing during his campaign.

    Apparently, you are so rattled about the possible drumbeat of his full exposure that you feel compelled to shout it down. Imagine that! One little sonic frog croaking advice to the fed-up masses.

    Don’t lie around in any pots of water. You might get stewed before you “discover” the rising temperature.

    You are using troll logic and devices in your mantra.

    Comment by Heliotrope — March 8, 2012 @ 7:50 pm - March 8, 2012

  42. I just don’t see how anyone can watch that Soledad O’Brien clip, watch her desperately try to keep up while a producer reads a definition of Critical Race Theory from Wikipedia into her earpiece, watch her (and that nutless wonder who keeps asking the Breitbart editor “Why are you afraid of black people?”) flail desperately to protect Obama, and not conclude that the woman was most definitely not hired for her brain.

    Comment by V the K — March 8, 2012 @ 8:58 pm - March 8, 2012

  43. Yeah, it was totally unfair of me to call her a brainless bimbo.

    Joel Pollack challenged Soledad O’Brien three times to provide a working definition of “critical race theory.” She kept saying, basically, I don’t want to define it, I just want to see if you can.

    Eventually sheproduced a definition.

    Soledad O’Brien: “Critical Race Theory looks into the intersection of race and politics and the law.”

    Wikipedia entry on Critical Race Theory: “Critical Race Theory (CRT) is an academic discipline focused upon the intersection of race, law and power.”

    Later in the video, O’Brien can be heard deflecting another question from Pollak, saying “You know what, someone was talking in my ear, so I couldn’t hear what you said.”

    Comment by V the K — March 8, 2012 @ 9:05 pm - March 8, 2012

  44. Ed Morrissey says it well:

    The point of Andrew’s final project isn’t so much to make Obama’s early radical ties clear; it’s to point out how the media tried to keep them quiet. This uninformed attack from O’Brien and most of the CNN panel is a great demonstration of the very point that Andrew wanted to make with these videos. All they needed to say…is that plenty of people toy with radicalism in college…[But instead] They fell into the trap set by Andrew and Joel [of attacking the messenger and revealing the media's desire to cover up for Obama], and somewhere Andrew is enjoying a mighty laugh over it.

    He adds:

    By the way, I got a chance to see Joel and Julia [Pollak, now being pilloried as racists despite the fact that Julia is a non-white South African whose mother is connected with Nelson Mandela] this week at the memorial service for Andrew Breitbart, and meet their beautiful new daughter Maya

    Sounds like it may have taken place in the L.A. region. Hmm, I wonder if Cinesnatch picketed it?

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — March 9, 2012 @ 12:11 am - March 9, 2012

  45. Sonic,

    Nice shift and dodge. So, I take it that you either agree with or run away the fact that Obama was radicalized in his formative years and has stayed radicalized and that his radical ideas are the meaning of the “fundamental transformation of America” which he assiduously avoided from disclosing during his campaign.

    You don’t get it. I don’t care, and neither does most anyone else about this fantasy. Yeah…. He was so radicalized that instead of taking a stand on anything, he wussed out on taking a stand on anything and voted present, what, 127 times on potentially controversial measures. He was such a radical that he proposed tons of legislation, with the support of Kucinich and Sanders at his side… Oh, wait he didn’t seem to propose much of anything. He was so radicalized that when he got a change to completely remake the medical system in this country, that instead of shaping the thing to his socialist image, he totally punts on having any hand in the thing and instead leaves it to goobers Pelosi and Reid to craft a dung heap that accomplishes little of the goals to socialize medicine and signs it.

    President Obama may or may not be a secret socialist radical. If he is then it’s lame because he’s not done much to advance his cause.

    But, back to the point…. People really don’t care. The only thing that will matter this fall is whether or not the economy is improving. If it’s not, the Republicans might have a chance if they stop tripping over stupid crap like this. If it’s marginally better, good luck in 2016..

    Comment by sonicfrog — March 9, 2012 @ 1:16 am - March 9, 2012

  46. Vtk I’m sorry you didn’t tap into the spirit of my original comment.

    Comment by Cinesnatch — March 9, 2012 @ 2:51 am - March 9, 2012

  47. Contra sonic frog, Obama has indeed pursued a very radical agenda. Maybe just not at the speed his mentors would have approved of.

    - Extra-constitutional appointments of extreme unionist radicals to positions of power,
    - Nationalizing the student loan industry.
    - De facto nationalization of General Motors.
    - Moratoria on domestic energy development.
    - Environmental extremist policies at the EPA
    - A trillion dollars in cuts to the military.
    - Federal spending at 150% of historical norms
    - Massive regulation of the financial industry
    - Brownshirt tactics against political opponents and critics.
    - Massive expansion of welfare; the ending of Clinton Era welfare reforms
    - Prosecuting states for enforcing laws he refuses to enforce

    Sonic argues that Obama’s signature legislative victory … ObamaCare… stopped short of outright nationalization of health care, and therefore Obama is a moderate. Not so. ObamaCare was set up to make private health care untenable, and thereby usher in Nationalized Health Care.

    Obama has, in fact, done a great deal to “advance his cause.”

    Comment by V the K — March 9, 2012 @ 6:35 am - March 9, 2012

  48. Careful V… to contradict sf effectively like that, is to be a commentor who “has no respect”! (or something ;-) )

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — March 9, 2012 @ 10:53 am - March 9, 2012

  49. Obama’s radicalism is this: He wants to create an America where Americans are ever more dependent on the government, and where socialism is achieved via the insurance mechanism (think Sandra Fluke) and via government regulation in general. And yes, he’s taken us a long way there. That’s a large part of why the economic has barely recovered from the 2008 recession, despite levels of Keynesian “stimulus” beyond anything ever seen in a developed country.

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — March 9, 2012 @ 11:03 am - March 9, 2012

  50. Radical? What do you mean by “Radical”? When i see that word thrown around, I take it as it’s described by Rush, Levin and Hannity, that Obama is a “statist” and “socialist”. Lets see how many of these stand up to that metric

    - Extra-constitutional appointments of extreme unionist radicals to positions of power,

    Of all his appointments, how many exactly fit nicely into that category? 4? 5? And note that Republicans are not doing much to fight those appointments, as the practice may come in handy when they gain control of the White house in future years (see lack of enforcement on Clintons foreign money contributions in 96). Was this radical. Yes, But it waas equally radical for the Republican Congress to adopt the formerly radical “pro-forma” Senate rule invented by Harry Reid.

    - Nationalizing the student loan industry.

    Two words – Sallie Mae. Did you actually go to college. If so, you are probably making payments to Sallie Mae for loans. SM was a government run (socialist) organization until 2004. Since then it is a publicly traded company. Obama hasn’t changed that.His administration has changed some rules, but they are hardly “radical” and don’t don’t equal socialism.

    - De facto nationalization of General Motors.

    That is about as close to socialism and radical as he’s gotten. But note, the Government has very limited control and input into the day to day operations of the company, and it is still publicly traded. And what else has the government “de facto nationalized” i.e. taken direct ownership of since? The answer is some along the lines of 0. They haven’t even tried. They aren’t very good socialists. And any Republican in power would have ended up using the economic levers of the Federal Government to bail out the Big Two.

    - Moratoria on domestic energy development.

    That isn’t socialism or very radical…. just stupid. Note that we didn’t exactly expand under the previous republican President. At least he tried in ANWAR.

    - Environmental extremist policies at the EPA

    See above.

    - A trillion dollars in cuts to the military.

    Really? That’s socialism?

    - Federal spending at 150% of historical norms

    Really? That’s socialism?

    - Massive regulation of the financial industry

    It’s stupid regulation, that won’t much accomplish its goal of preventing another downturn (because private enterprise almost always finds ways around most government rules), but is that socialism?

    - Brownshirt tactics against political opponents and critics.

    Gee, because Republicans don’t do that when they are in power.

    - Massive expansion of welfare; the ending of Clinton Era welfare reforms

    Did i miss the part where the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Act was suspended or revoked? If you have a welfare system in place, and part of that system encompasses providing aid to those who become unemployed (a program supported by both parties btw); when unemployment goes up… Guess what… So does enrollment numbers of those programs. Guess what will happen if the economy continues to improve (despite the poor economic policies of this President) the enrollment rates on these programs will start to shrink, thus taking away another stupid Conservative talking point..

    - Prosecuting states for enforcing laws he refuses to enforce

    This is public policy stupidity, but is it socialism?

    None of what I think or have just written will matter to you, which is OK. We have differing POVs and opinions on things. All I’m saying is that, if the Republican party and Conservatives want to win the election, they had better start focusing on their own policies and selling them instead of issuing derogatory bromides against the President.

    If people didn’t care about Alinsky, Rev Wright, Bill Ayers etc in 2008, after having him in office for three years, with a rare single party majority behind him, people are going to judge him on his performance during that period, not by his introducing a Harvard Law professor 20-something years ago.

    but if you want to focus on that and lose the election, be my guest.

    Comment by sonicfrog — March 9, 2012 @ 12:07 pm - March 9, 2012

  51. Sonic,

    Obama was radicalized by his momma, his grandmother, Frank Marshall Davis, (Whose Your Daddy?), Derrick Bell, Bill Ayres, and many others. He was a willing receptor and sponge. He got mysterious money from somewhere to make his way through Columbia, Harvard and on to Chicago where the money kept appearing to buy a house and work at a the job of Community Organizer which baffled Rudy Guiliani who ran a city that is a hot bed of liberalism and liberal monkey shines. MIchelle got a big money job that was eliminated after she moved on. Doors were opened. Money flowed. Access was provided and for no reason which a normal record would reveal. Obama was anointed and he moved ever upward.

    Obama has zero record. No grades, no friends who knew him, no clear title to who his daddy is, no record of his trip to Pakistan, no records of stands in the Illinois legislature, no patterns, no nothing. Sort of like the perfect mole. Always there, always popping up, no visible means of support, but always where he needs to be to accommodate the next level of action.

    Apparently, you find this to be the mesmerizing case of a phenomenal wunderkind.

    Apparently, you find unraveling Obama’s murky and cloaked past to be a non-starter and Republican campaign choker. Apparently, you are some sort of super strategist who has come here to advise social conservatives in particular how to beat Obama.

    Joe Arpaio is doing something that every sheriff in the country has the power to do and that is to make a criminal investigation of Obama. He continues to investigate a “person of interest.” He has recently picked up some very interesting testimony for the Secret Service. Arpiao has nothing to lose, which makes him the ideal agent for wading into the Obama swamp.

    You have not heard the last of this. There has been a massive, quiet investigation of the mysterious past of B. H. Obama. For a man at 44% approval rating and a press that is blatantly in the tank for him, a wave of having to defend himself by laughing it off is not a great place to be.

    Just watch Soledad O’Brien try to belittle Joel Pollack on CNN. She may be playing to the red meat left base just fine, but she is doing so by letting every bit of her leftist bias hang out. Is that supposed to appeal to the “moderates” and “independents?”

    Think it over, Sonic. What is your message? Just a hunch? Or are you expressing a repressed fear?

    Comment by Heliotrope — March 9, 2012 @ 12:17 pm - March 9, 2012

  52. Well, now, our comments crossed in the mail.

    You see the Obama radical glass has half empty and therefore as a stagnation of failure.

    I see the Obama radical glass as half full and rising and therefore as a work in progress.

    Furthermore, you don’t apparently see the regulatory end runs around Congress and the billions of tax dollars pocketed and spent in pay to play as having much effect on how the government insinuates itself into the nooks and crannies of private life and enterprise. Fine. Your sunglasses come off the top shelf, apparently.

    I see Obama as a weasel who has done everything the left accused GW Bush of doing and being the most partisan and hard nosed president in my lifetime. His definition of “compromise” is “my way.” He has purposely and assiduously divided the people of this country and punished those he dislikes. He is the stark opposite of the “uniter” he promised in his campaign. He has, however, “united” his victim groups and pitted them against the taxpayers and those who make the economy work.

    To what end does a person do that? He is no shoe-in for reelection. He has little to show for his four years. America is reeling. The deficit has been blown to the sky. What is his game plan?

    He is either the stupidest man in power or he has the iron determination to get this country under the control of a politburo and a ruling class that will orchestrate the economy and personal liberties.

    Sorry, Sonic, you will have to do a lot better in your condescending analysis. The Obama as moderate socialist dog won’t hunt.

    Comment by Heliotrope — March 9, 2012 @ 12:41 pm - March 9, 2012

  53. I see Obama as a weasel who has done everything the left accused GW Bush of doing and being the most partisan and hard nosed president in my lifetime.

    THAT’S what you run on, not “closet radical” conspiracy theories. Unless you really do want to lose.

    Comment by sonicfrog — March 9, 2012 @ 1:13 pm - March 9, 2012

  54. If Obama’s policies haven’t been radical, I would hate to see what radicalism looks like.

    Did you actually go to college

    That’s the kind of thing a condescending leftist a-hole would say. Congratulations. Levi and Cinesnatch welcome you to their team.

    Comment by V the K — March 9, 2012 @ 1:51 pm - March 9, 2012

  55. And notice the edit where you took that completely out of context. If you went to college, and got student loans, you would know that you loan is set up, and paid back, through Sallie Mae. If you didn’t go to college, you might not know this, and thus, think that, under the Obama administration, the government has taken over the student loan industry, when actually, the student loan industry has been a part of the government until 2004, where it became and remains a privately held company.

    Comment by Sonicfrog — March 9, 2012 @ 2:00 pm - March 9, 2012

  56. Note also that your only reply to that fact was to insinuate I’m a lefty. Nice.

    Comment by Sonicfrog — March 9, 2012 @ 2:02 pm - March 9, 2012

  57. If you want to win the White House, use this!

    Comment by Sonicfrog — March 9, 2012 @ 2:21 pm - March 9, 2012

  58. Petty personal attacks aside, the Endgame of the Obama Agenda is a USA in which health care and higher education are entitlements funded by massive increases in tax rates at all levels; a USA in which the most extreme degree of environmental extremism is public policy; in which most if not all industries are heavily unionized and in which most business decisions are subject to union and Government consent; and in which activities that the left frowns upon have been severely restricted by regulation or by making them prohibitively expensive; all of which is overseen by a massive, all-intrusive Federal bureaucracy.

    That, to me if not to sonicfrog, is a radical redefinition of America. Maybe that vision is not enough to motivate voters against Obama, but it should motivate and energize that segment of the population that is as appalled by it as I am.

    BTW, I would like some examples of Republican brownshirt tactics used when they were in power. Stuff that compares to the things union radicals have done in Wisconsin and OWS has done in Oakland and Washington DC.

    Comment by V the K — March 9, 2012 @ 3:13 pm - March 9, 2012

RSS feed for comments on this post.

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.