My Life as Metaphor

It's a scary time of year.  Normally, I'm referring to Halloween, but in this case, I'm writing about the upcoming election.  I have never seen a more polarized nation.  So many of us have lost the art of disagreeing without being disagreeable.  Furthermore, the media now makes little or no effort to disguise their desire to influence the election. 

Case in point:  Gwen Ifill as the moderator of tonight's vice presidential debate.  Ms. Ifill, a PBS commentator, (there's a bastion of conservative politics - NOT) has an upcoming book to be released on Inauguration day entitled "The Breakthrough:  Politics  and Race in the Age of Obama".  When it was questioned if she could be impartial, Ms. Ifill responded : “I’ve got a pretty long track record covering politics and news, so I’m not particularly worried that one day blog chatter is going to destroy my reputation.  The proof is in the pudding. They can watch the debate tomorrow night and make their own decisions about whether or not I’ve done my job.”   And if she hasn't done her job fairly? Can we get a "do over"? It's very akin to telling a jury to UN-HEAR something.  However, we won't have the luxury of calling for a mistrial. NO.  There's a lot at stake here and SHE knows it.  Ms. Ifill also has claimed she hasn't even written the chapter on Obama yet.  The liberal dominated media has also made the point that there's no way of knowing (since the book isn't published) if it will be positive or not about Obama.  REALLY?  Let's start with the title.  That sounds pretty affirmative, doesn't it?  Furthermore, Ms. Ifill is black and a journalist.  Need I cite those statistics?  But, let's not deal in the hypothetical.  Let's see what we do KNOW that Ms. Ifill has said. 
During the Democratic convention here's Ms. Ifill on Michelle Obama: 

“A lot of people have never seen anything that looks like a Michelle Obama before. She’s educated, she’s beautiful, she’s tall, she tells you what she thinks and they hope that she can tell a story about Barack Obama and about herself.” 

Need more?  I recommend wearing gloves for the treacle sweet article she wrote about the Obama family for Essence magazine lest your fingers stick to the pages.

And how has Ms. Ifill described Governor Palin?

"During the Republican National Convention, the PBS ombudsman fielded numerous complaints about Ifill’s coverage of Sarah Palin’s speech. Wrote Brian Meyers of Granby, Conn.:

“I was appalled by Gwen Ifill’s commentary directly following Gov. Sarah Palin’s speech. Her attitude was dismissive, and the look on her face was one of disgust. Clearly, she was agitated by what most critics view as a well-delivered speech. It is quite obvious that Ms. Ifill supports Obama as she struggled to say anything redemptive about Gov. Palin’s performance. I am disappointed in Ms. Ifill’s complete disregard for journalistic objectivity.”  

Need PROOF of the difference?  Check out her comment at the RNC and see if you can spot the contrast.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4zafLsAtp_Q


Yesterday, her glib dismissal of those that questioned her objectivity and the fact that she has a VESTED interest in Obama winning (her book sales), is dismissive to the point of arrogance. 

Only in a liberally dominated media would Sarah Palin, who stunned the nation in her acceptance speech at the Republican convention, be the underdog in a debate with Joe "foot in mouth" Biden. 

Her stunning success at the RNC prompted a frenzy of hatred that even liberal commentator Susan Estrich said was beyond anything she had ever seen before.  Outcries of those clammoring for an interview have been followed by "gotcha" Katie Couric and Charlie Gibson.  Gibson chose to HEAVILY edit the interview to make Ms. Palin look indecisive while also choosing to wear his reading glasses perched on the end of his nose in a show of condescension.  (What?  His notes couldn't be typed in large print?)  Asking Gov. Palin about the Bush Doctrine, he seemed superior like Alex Trebek with the answer in front of him, and yet, Charles Krauthammer the originator of the term, says Gibson got it wrong and Sarah was right.  The, flailing in the ratings, Katie Couric, who in the past, has been unsuccessful in concealing her contempt for conservatives, was on the attack.  Asking Gov. Palin to list how McCain has prompted reform, she was unsatisfied with only one example.  How about asking Joe Biden these questions about Obama?  No, in HIS case, the smiling Couric didn't blink an eye when Joe, talking about leadership, extolled the virtue of FDR going on television when the stock market crashed.  In 1929 FDR was a Governor.  Let's give him the benefit of the doubt and assume he was referring to the crash of 1933.  FDR was president, so that's good.  However, television wasn't introduced until the 1939 World's Fair.  This wasn't to say that television wasn't used before then.  Germany was the first country to have regularly scheduled (albeit limited) use of daily television and propaganda in the late 30's.  FDR NEVER went on TV after a stock market crash.  Imagine, if you will, the media frenzy if a Republican had made that gaffe.  Couric claimed FALSELY to Palin and the lie was repeated by Obama in his 1st debate that Kissinger said he would meet with any leader (such as Iran's) without pre-condition.  Kissinger has since set the record straight (although if your news source is ABC, NBC, MSNBC, CNN you probably haven't heard this) that he made no such assertion. 

Go back further.  In the Bush debate where he made the mistake of looking at his watch.  My, that was a gaffe!  Listen to the MSM while they praise Obama's debate performance and ignore his having to READ the name off of his hastily offered "I have a bracelet, too" comment.  They also choose to ignore the father of the soldier he named having requested Obama QUIT wearing the bracelet. 

BUT, the fix is in.  Obama is their standard bearer.  He is the most left leaning, divisive candidate in the history of the Democratic party.  His claim of more than 20 years and 500 visits to a racist church and he had NO idea that was going on is deemed credible by the MSM.  His associations with the terrorist William Ayers is dismissed as irrelevant.  His gaffe's are ignored.  He's the left's new messiah.  The inspiration he's received from studying the techniques of Saul Alinsky, who cares?  His lack of experience, no problem.  The fact that he stood on the state floor and dismissed offering care for infants that survived abortion being offered medical care as regrettable because it might impede a woman's right to choose, oh well!  That's abortion in the extreme, isn't it?  No problem for Barry.  The fact that he claims to think so much of women and yet his women staffers earn less than his male staffers, or the fact that he has less women in the higher ranks of staff than John McCain, doesn't stop him from running advertisements about treating women as equals.  His shady real estate deal with convicted felon Tony Rezko? Water under the bridge.  The fact that the hospital where wife Michelle worked gave her a $100,000 + raise mere months before he secured a hefty entitlement for them, just conicidence, right?  Is this change or just corrupt politics as usual?

I'll go further.  Not only do I not feel he is NOT fit to be president, I don't think he's fit to be Senator either. 

God Help America.