|
I find myself wondering why the New York Times Newspaper (as Jimmy Brisling
calls it) is out to get Barack Obama. He is a celebrity, of course, which
means that he is a legitimate target for destruction. But why is the Times
so eager to take him down?
I think that the senator from Illinois has this very serious problem with
the Times: He's not from New York. More precisely, he is from Chicago, the
Second City (more accurately now the Third City, though Los Angeles isn't
really a city). It is simply not correct that a possible first
African-American president be a Democrat from Chicago. |
|
Item: Some genius at the Times gets a
wonderful idea. Let's send a reporter out to Chicago to check up on Obama's
drug usage. He himself admits that he used drugs as a young man, but
stopped. Let's see if we can find someone who has seem him lately on pot or
crack. That may be the scoop of the year.
It was a dumb idea to begin with. If anyone in Chicago had such
information, why tell it to a reporter? The Times person found nothing,
which then led to speculation that maybe the senator had exaggerated his
drug usage to get attention. This notion produced a front-page story. Maybe
the senator claimed he had used drugs because that would appeal to some of
his constituency. The implied accusation is that he lied about drugs to
overestimate his usage and not underestimate it -- like Bill Clinton said
that he had smoked pot but not inhaled. |
_
Keep in touch...
Locally,
and Globally!
Check
out
Andrew
M. Greeley's Columns for the
Chicago SunTimes'
Daily Southtown.
_ |
 |
Either way, the Times had a "gotcha."
On the one hand, if they had found any evidence, the charge would be that
the senator had lied about having stopped taking drugs. On the other hand,
because there was no evidence of recent usage, the charge would be that
Obama may have lied about using drugs in the first place. Heads, the Times
wins, tails, the senator loses. You're guilty till you're proved innocent --
and you can't prove yourself innocent.
Incidentally, the Times never explored in depth the present incumbent's
drinking behavior and the kind of personality that it suggested. The Times
did not ask whether he might be the kind of dry drunk described in the AA
literature -- stubborn, arrogant, self-righteous.
Item: A couple of days later, not on the front page, it was argued that
the senator had been unsuccessful in winning Latino voters because he was
insensitive to them. Never mind that there is a longstanding history of
tension between blacks and Latinos (as there always is among those on the
bottom two steps of the ladder), never mind that he did very well among
Latinos in Illinois elections, and never mind that his Latino support
apparently has increased. The Times could have just as well argued that
Obama was not doing well among older white women because he was insensitive
to grandmothers.
Item: In Sunday's "Week in Review" section, the Times opined that
charismatic presidents were not as effective after they were elected as were
dull presidents. Lyndon Johnson was more effective than John Kennedy. FDR
was not as effective as, let us say, Harry Truman? Ronald Reagan was less
effective than Bush? Abraham Lincoln was less effective than Andrew Johnson?
Teddy Roosevelt was less effective than William Howard Taft? Game a break!
The Times showed more restraint with President Clinton. They began to attack
him only after he was elected.
If the other senator should be elected and become the first female
president, it would be acceptable because she is from Park Ridge, which is
not Chicago.
The senator has this very serious problem with the Times: He's not from New
York.
|
A Stupid, Unjust, And
Criminal War: Iraq 2001-2007
Father Greeley calls to task those who justified, planned and
executed the war and reminds us that God weeps at the destruction of war,
whether lives lost are ‘ours’ or ‘theirs.’
 Order
Book
Read
Reviews
Read
the Introduction
Larger
Image of Cover
Press
Release |
