paulitician
Platinum Member
- Oct 7, 2011
- 38,401
- 4,162
- 1,130
Scrutinize President Obamas record.
When President Obama has a bad day, or more specifically, on days when the economic news has been bad, I get a slew of feedback from conservative readers that go like this:
See, you liberal media nincompoops, this is all your fault, you treated Obama like a saint when he was running in 2007 and 2008 and you didnt vet him, investigate him, report on him skeptically. You were so fawning (and adoring of his blackness), you missed that he was a (pick your adjective), radical, socialist, Muslim, inexperienced, dangerous, corrupt, weak Chicago politician with no track record of accomplishment, whose only talent is giving speeches.
If you watched the Republican debate Thursday night, you heard a muted version of this criticism of Obama from Mitt Romney, Newt Gingrich and Rick Santorum. (Although Ron Paul almost never mentioned Obama, he criticized the entire system of government instead.)
Deborah Howell, Post ombudsman from 2005 through 2008, said at the end of her tenure that some of the conservatives complaints about a liberal tilt [at The Post] are valid.
I wont quibble with her conclusion. I think she was right. I read all of The Posts lengthier, meatier stories on Obama published from October 2006 through Election Day 2008. That was about 120 stories, and tens of thousands of words, including David Maranisss 10,000-word profile about Obamas Hawaii years, which I liked.
I think there was way too little coverage of his record in the Illinois Senate and U.S. Senate, for example, with one or two notably good exceptions. But there were hard-hitting stories too, even a very tough one on Michelle Obamas job at the University of Chicago Medical Center.
Read More:
The Post needs to spend 2012 scrutinizing Obama’s record - The Washington Post
DRUDGE REPORT 2012®
When President Obama has a bad day, or more specifically, on days when the economic news has been bad, I get a slew of feedback from conservative readers that go like this:
See, you liberal media nincompoops, this is all your fault, you treated Obama like a saint when he was running in 2007 and 2008 and you didnt vet him, investigate him, report on him skeptically. You were so fawning (and adoring of his blackness), you missed that he was a (pick your adjective), radical, socialist, Muslim, inexperienced, dangerous, corrupt, weak Chicago politician with no track record of accomplishment, whose only talent is giving speeches.
If you watched the Republican debate Thursday night, you heard a muted version of this criticism of Obama from Mitt Romney, Newt Gingrich and Rick Santorum. (Although Ron Paul almost never mentioned Obama, he criticized the entire system of government instead.)
Deborah Howell, Post ombudsman from 2005 through 2008, said at the end of her tenure that some of the conservatives complaints about a liberal tilt [at The Post] are valid.
I wont quibble with her conclusion. I think she was right. I read all of The Posts lengthier, meatier stories on Obama published from October 2006 through Election Day 2008. That was about 120 stories, and tens of thousands of words, including David Maranisss 10,000-word profile about Obamas Hawaii years, which I liked.
I think there was way too little coverage of his record in the Illinois Senate and U.S. Senate, for example, with one or two notably good exceptions. But there were hard-hitting stories too, even a very tough one on Michelle Obamas job at the University of Chicago Medical Center.
Read More:
The Post needs to spend 2012 scrutinizing Obama’s record - The Washington Post
DRUDGE REPORT 2012®