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.
“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.