I'm not posting any late breaking news but you may have heard that Barack Obama got asked some difficult questions about his personal affiliations and statements during a debate this last Wednesday, April 16th. I was stunned at the sheer gall that the Good Senator was getting the old what for. It has no historical precedent and is an anathema to our political process! Well, that's what I've been hearing not just through the Wild West of Blogs but from editors and columnists alike. It was sheerly an outrage. The temerity of Msr.'s Gibson and Stephanopolous to not re-ask the same questions vetted in the last nearly dozen and a half debates. Perhaps these gentleman opted out of the liberal media play book and chose to ask questions that he been percolating in the minds of the electorate as of late. Still, shocking that such a thing could have occurred and that the so-called 'moderators' have stepped past the boundary of the previous acceptable behaviors from the fine journalists we've come to rely on for unbiased and rhetorically devoid coverage.

...or so it goes in every liberal blog and editorial pages this last week; feigned outrage. What of that outrage? You know, that there wasn't focus 'on the issues' but that the moderators chose to grill Senator Obama about some simmering questions. Have the trusted press always been so even handed and focused on the serious problems of the day? Not really.

Will Bunch of the Philly Daily Press said, as he wrote his post mortem opinion in an open letter to Gibson and Stephanapolous: " It's hard because -- like many other Americans -- I am still angry at what I just witnessed, so angry that it's hard to even type accurately because my hands are shaking." (1) I don't know about you but I think the only time I got shaky hands is when I asked a girl out.  I can't see me feeling the same way about a debate that I do about the romantic aspects of the fairer sex. I like my politics but if the wife is feelin' frisky...What Bunch typifies in this fine, small statement is that after a free-for-all during the last eight years unimpeded by needing to hide liberal bias and unfettered by a deaf eared populace; that the gander does, in fact, get it after the goose and it's kind of a drag.

Mr. Bunch went further to suggest that the line of questioning was 'trivial'. I think he has shortened his capacity to remember or has placed a filter within his consciousness to sift out the stuff of his press compatriots from elections past.

As we all know, Senator Obama has been taken to task on his affiliation with Reverend Wright, to which he answered "Reverend Wright is somebody who made controversial statements but they were not of the sort that we saw that offended so many Americans. And that's why I specifically said that these comments were objectionable; they're not comments that I believe in."(2) The comments are bad but the man that spoke them and believes them is still an alright dude in his book.

That isn't so much the point but that our leftward pundits and journalists think it steps away from the issues. They're right. Still, I don't recollect they cared when it wasn't a Democrat. At the center of this is the Illinois Senator's association through a few decades of church going. In addition how stupid he must think we are to believe that he heard nothing of the like to the offending comments, when these distracted journalists had a chance to point out the folly of the now President Bush stopping at Bob Jones University for a single speech in 2000, it was seemingly egregious and quite a story at least for a single short stop. This would be versus a few decades of Obama's deaf ear-ness to his Pastor. The Press wrote on Bush for a month exemplified by stories on February 4th (3) in the New York Times and February 27 with CNN (4).

In the universe of a liberal journalist, a Republican speaking to a group for a few hours at a location that did, in fact, have a history of questionable policies was worth a month of coverage. Even though Bush had no real long term association. Conversely, a Democrat spends 20 years at a church with a caustic and historically public pastor (whose statements were known to spill to questionable topics), that we should be ashamed that we are not focused on 'the issues'. So, just to keep a record, 2 hours Republican time equals 20 years of Democrat time when it comes to ill associations versus the amount of time we can talk about it.

Shucks, forgot, we can't talk about Obama's judgment lapses at all.

 During the Debate, the subject of Weather Underground activist, William Ayers came up. Just so that you understand, his group bombed government building and the result was much damage and the death of one police officer. Effectively, Ayers killed someone. Mr. Obama's response is to state "And the notion that somehow as a consequence of me knowing somebody who engaged in detestable acts 40 years ago when I was 8 years old, somehow reflects on me and my values, doesn't make much sense, George."(2)

True, the acts were 40 years ago but the association was not, these recent decisions were not of an eight year old child. Barack decided to engage in activities, albeit pretty benign, with a known domestic terrorist and murderer. Why the 'eight year old' bit mattered in the debate, I'm not sure.

If I decided Charlie Manson was my buddy now, would that make my judgment better? You know Charlie had people killed 35 odd years ago, so that means I made good decision today to hang with Chuck. Adult decisions, not that of a child. It matters little that Obama and Ayers didn't do much together, that they served on boards and Mr. Ayers raised some money for the campaign is still close enough for concern with Obama's judgment.

To be told that a few decades ago should not be relevant, I assume that we would have heard little in 2004 about the National Guard. That, and Dan Rather would still have his job. I seem to remember we heard ad nausea about the National Guard service of Bush. I believe that was a few decades ago that occurred. Correct?

The issue with Obama is that he might be a newer, friendlier snake oil salesman. In the Debate, he noted: "And that's why we decided we weren't going to take...money from federal registered lobbyists, that we were not going to be subject to special- interest influence"(2) Except that he has about $3.5million in his coffers from Lobbyists.(5) Senator Obama really just has a truth problem.  But this is a digression.

Still, the outrage that Obama be questioned at all.

On everyones favorite even handed PAC, MoveOn.org, the team over there posted a petition with text titled Enough Distractions: "Editor & Publisher called this week's ABC presidential debate 'perhaps the most embarrassing performance by the media in a major presidential debate in years.'...Moderators George Stephanopolous and Charlie Gibson spent the first 50 minutes obsessed with distractions that only political insiders care about--gaffes, polling numbers, the stale Rev. Wright story, and the old-news Bosnia story. And, channelling Karl Rove, they directed a video question to Barack Obama asking if he loves the American flag or not. Seriously...Enough is enough. The public needs the media to stop hurting the national dialogue in this important election year."(6)

'Seriously', they assert. It's the kind of word insertion used when you try to convinced your other 15 year old friends of something they won't believe. Very professional. Just like spelling 'channeling' with two 'L's'...They'd like us to take them seriously but I'm certain that I won't until they learn how to use Spell Check. I am being kind of petty but, seriously...I mean, with all the 'Roveian' distractions, how are we going to elect Obama? I think that MoveOn suffers from situational inconsistencies. We cannot now speak to these distractions of Senator Obama lest we vere from the path of serious issues. Seriously.

Unless 2004 is the exception year. Remember we talked about the National Guard issues earlier?  From MoveOn.org regarding their reaction to the John Kerry 'Swiftboating': ""The MoveOn response -- airing in the same four markets in Ohio, West Virginia and Wisconsin, and on CNN and Fox News -- begins by attacking President Bush's military record..."George Bush used his father to get into the National Guard, and when the chips were down, went missing,"(7)

I assume this was an important issue in 2004. If I recall from early in this writing, we should not be focusing on stuff from 30 to 40 years ago. I guess that's the new rule for 2008. I didn't get my 'Liberal Guide to Politics and Elections' yet. I shouldn't have allowed myself to fall off the mailing list. I missed all the big changes.

That we cannot ask difficult questions of the man bestowed with the virtues of Senator Obama is really antithetical to the process we've seen come to fruition during the Bush years. The reality is, this stuff goes back to the earliest days of our great nation. It was even worse then. To act as though a few questions is going to derail issues is naive. It's also been the greatest exposure of media bias I've seen. It's not that people would complain that this stuff does sidestep actual issues. I agree. It's that we not have gotten a conscience about when when it is Senator Obama. Not the assassination of Bush over the last eight years, that would not raise the bar enough. It's that it is now, I assert 'one of them'. A real liberal and he was popular.

The reaction to the debate was childish.

My hands are shaking now. Must be low blood sugar. I'm pretty hungry. Seriously.

(1) Bunch, W. (2008, April 17). An open letter to Charlie Gibson and George Stephanapolous. Retrieved from Web site: http://www.philly.com/philly/blogs/attytood/An_open_letter_to_Charlie_Gibson_and_George_Stephanopoulous

(2) (2008, April 16) Democratic Debate in Philadelphia. Retrieved April 19, 2008 from Web site: http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/16/us/politics/16text-debate.html

(3) (2000, February 4). THE 2000 CAMPAIGN: THE CHALLENGER; Bradley Blasts Bush for Talk At Bob Jones U. Retreived April 19, 2008 from Web site: http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9E00E3DA103FF937A35751C0A9669C8B63

(4) (2000, February 27). Bush expresses regret over Bob Jones U. appearance, while Bradley and Gore stump in Seattle. Retreived April 19, 2008 from Web site: http://archives.cnn.com/2000/ALLPOLITICS/stories/02/27/campaign.wrap/

(5) (2008, April 17) Obama tied to lobbyists, but boasts of not taking money. Retrieved April 19, 2008 from Web site: http://www.usatoday.com/news/politics/election2008/2008-04-15-obama_N.htm

(6) (2008, April) Enough Distractions. Retrieved April 20, 2008 from Web site: http://pol.moveon.org/enoughdistractions/?rc=homepage

(7) Kurtz, H. (2004, August 17) MoveOn.org's Swift Response to Anti-Kerry Ad. Retrieved April 20, 2008 from Web site:http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A6381-2004Aug16.html