achilles wrote:Or they could have figured that most Americans already knew about that, considering it was a huge scandal and all...
When we still know almost nothing about Obama, but trusted him with the keys to the country because he can speak from a teleprompter well, wears nice cloths, and someone in his campaign came up with a snappy slogan.
I mean it would have been nice if the media had looked into ANYTHING about the guys deeply, without the taint of "thrills running up" their legs. As opposed to say big exposes on how the manly sweat runs down his body while he works out in the gym, and how the reporter has just fallen in love with him because he's so full of hope and change, and his pecs are so manly...
Well, they really actually didn't ever dig too deeply into Mccain's associations with Keating. Or his wife's. At the time, McCain and Glenn were determined to be only marginally associated in the scandal, but McCain had a close friendship with Keating in the 80s, taking a number of trips to a retreat Keating had in the Bahammas on Keatings dime. McCain did not disclose these trips or their expense until seven years later, when the scandal came to actual light.
Further, Cindy's associations with Keating were never fully disclosed, but it is known she and her father invested in one of Keating's strip malls.
The press didn't really want to stir up that business again, because of the widely held perception that McCain had left all that stuff behind him. it would have been dirty laundry that no one was really terribly interested in giving any play to. Obama might have wanted to press the issue, but it didn't get anywhere.
The left leaning media, deemed so insidious by the right said, "Thanks, we'll pass."
Now, I'm not sitting here trying to say McCain is a bad dude. I'm saying instead that the liberal bias of the media failed to pounce on that story. And if they were so totally biased as folks like to claim, the facts wouldn't have stopped them. The mere mention of it would have been enough to bog McCain down. Even if only for a single news cycle. They didn't consider it fair game, however.
But they spent many weeks wondering if some words some other guy said outside of Obama's presence meant Obama hated America.
And that was just Rev. Wright. That's not even considering Rev Phleger.
They didn't give him a pass on these things, and it constituted what anyone in their right fucking mind would call "bad press."
But because that press is considered to be eternally and irrevocably left-leaning, the right looks at this evidence and dismisses it out of hand. It even refuses to acknowledge all the time the media spent on Bill Ayers.
Hey, do you remember the "presidential seal" story? That got play for about a week. I mean, it's not like it had shit to do with shit, but it still got play. The sycophantic leftists in the media did not ignore it because that is also bad press for their star-bellied golden boy. No, they dug into it with abandon.
Shit, I actually remember an incident on CNN when they totally took a quote by Wes Clark out of context, and edited it to make it seems as if he was bad-mouthing McCain's military service. And as an Obama supporter, CNN spent at least the next whole week lambasting Clark and by extension, the Obama campaign on it. It didn't last long because anyone who'd actually seen the interview knew the full context of the statement. But CNN bent over backwards to spin that into an attack from an Obama supporter on McCain.
Conservatives don't mention that shit though, because it is dreadfully inconvenient to their premise, or because they are simply or willfully ignorant of it.
So no, I don't buy the standard toothless argument that the press unilaterally gave Obama a pass. Even other democrats brought on the news shows as talking heads weren't unilaterally giving him a pass until he got the nom.