Elliot Ganchrow writes:
While it is true that Obama has run a good campaign, he is benefitted greatly from a media that has largely embraced his run as the second-coming of JFK (i.e. a return to Camelot). This largely explains the media giving a free pass to Obama on his lack of experience and the lack of substance to his campaign so far. For example, it has been interesting to see how the media has covered what should otherwise have been three huge stories with respect to the Obama campaign. The first is that Obama appears to be backing out of his initial decision to accept public funding of his campaign in the general election if his Republican opponent did the same. Now that Obama has proven to be a prolific fund raiser, opting into public funding would put him on equal footing with McCain. Second, Michelle Obama stated this week that "for the first time in my adult lifetime, I am proud of my country". She has never been proud of this great country before her husband ran for President? Is that possible? Third, it appears that Obama blatantly plagiarized a speech that was given earlier by Governor Patrick of Massachusetts. What makes this ironic was that the speech dealt with the importance of "words". This is the type of scandal which has caused previous presidential campaigns to end (see Joe Biden, 1988). It is of little consequence to me that Obama and Patrick are friends. The point is that Obama's campaign has been built largely on his soaring rhetoric and now we find out that he has been ripping it off from others. This made even more amazing by the fact that everyone knows that with the internet, people can detect this type of blantant plagiarism in seconds. It is astounding that Obama thought he could get away with it. The media's reaction to all of this has been to ignore the first story, allow the Obamas off the hook on the second and explain away the third. Meanwhile, the ridiculous story on John McCain that appeared in the New York Times has been big news all over the media. It will be interesting to see how long Obama continues to get preferential treatment from the media.
I wanted to clear up a point I made in one of last week's blogs. While I stated that I would consider voting for the Democrat rather than for a liberal Republican, I should have made clear that such a notion only applied if Clinton (whose campaign is literally imploding in front of our eyes) is the nominee. There is no way I would ever consider voting for Obama. Whether or not Obama is a closet Muslim is not the problem. His views on the Middle East, Iran and Israel make him the most dangerous major party candidate in the last thirty years (right ahead of Pat Buchanan and Jesse Jackson) to the Jewish community. For the best summary that I have seen as to the true danger we face with an Obama presidency see here: http://www.americanthinker.com/2008/01/barack_obama_and_israel.html
Jewish politicians who are supporting Obama should have to answer the tough question of how they can support someone with these types of views and advisors. If Obama is the presidential candidate from the Democratic Party, then I will unequivocally be behind John McCain.
One follow-up with respect to my hesitancy to vote for John McCain