Barack Obama is supposed to bring us change we can believe in. He is the transformational figure who can bring opposing sides together and who can end the partisanship in Washington DC. He can supposedly feed the masses with loaves and fishes but the problem is, the campaign fails the sniff test.

Within the last two weeks, at least one (and maybe two), television stations have been told they will no longer have access to The Sainted One or anyone connected to his campaign because reporters from those stations asked Joe Biden some tough questions and he did not take kindly to it. Barack Obama prefers to go places where he is adored and worshiped like The View. When he appeared there the three liberal women told him how sexy he is and doted over him. Mrs. Obama received great treatment as well. John McCain and his wife Cindy appeared on The View and the liberal women acted like starving lions on a disable gnu. The point is, sometimes treatment is a bit rough.

Now The Sainted One has thrown reporters from three newspapers off his campaign plane, Airfarce, The One. Reports are that room needed to be made for either reporters from the major networks (are they not already there) or for a documentary crew to film the final days before this historic election. From Greek Columns (hail Obama, all hail) to a documentary crew to a presidential seal, is there nothing this guy won’t do to stroke his ego? If three reporters overcrowd his 757 how does his ego fit on board?

Reporters from The NY POST, WASHINGTON TIMES and DALLAS MORNING NEWS have until Sunday to get off the plane. Coincidentally, those three newspapers have endorsed John McCain.

Is this what Obama means by bringing people together? Is this what people mean when they say he is a transformational figure? Is this what we can expect in an Obama Administration should this country be so foolish as to elect him?

Imagine if George Bush threw reporters off the White House press corps because their papers )or networks) endorsed another candidate or because the reporters did not like him. Besides the fact that there would be no White House press corps, the left would go nuts. Obama himself would use that kind of incident to show how divisive Bush and the Republicans are. That troglodyte Helen Thomas has been a nuisance since Bush took office but he has yet to boot her. He might not call on her but he lets her hang around (she might just be dead and they haven’t moved her).

Banning television stations from interviews, encouraging supporters to flood talk shows when opposition speakers are on and throwing reporters whose paper endorses the other guy off the plane are all examples of a man who, rather than bringing people together, will divide us even more. These are the traits of a dictator which makes Dear Leader Barack Hussein Obama no better than Dear Leader Kim Jong Il.

And these are the kinds of jackbooted things that take place in countries where they spread the wealth.

Source:
Drudge

I am the Big Dog and I approve this blog post.

It is of little consequence that some things are absolutely true if people do not see them that way. When John McCain said that it would be OK to have troops in Iraq for 100 years he clearly stated that it would be contingent upon them not getting shot at and likened a presence to the ones we have in Europe and South Korea. Still, through deliberate distortions, many Americans think McCain wants a 100 year war in Iraq. It does not matter what the reality is, it is how it is perceived.

The Obama campaign is indicating that the fact that a reporter from the New Yorker did not get a seat on his plane for his campaign trip through Europe and the Middle East had nothing to do with the satirical cover the magazine published. The campaign asserts that 200 reporters applied for 50 seats and Ryan Lizza of the New Yorker did not get one. This might be the absolute truth but the perception is that the lack of a seat was retribution for the cover. It is reported that Obama has great respect for Lizza and the piece he wrote in the New Yorker was favorable toward the candidate.

In reality though, it does not matter if this was the luck of the draw and perfectly innocent because it will be perceived as a deliberate payback for the magazine cover. If the Obama campaign really had no ill will toward Lizza (or the magazine) then it should have made sure he had a seat so as to remove all doubt about payback. This would be the most prudent way to show there were no hard feelings.

Instead, the reporter did not get a seat and now the news is that this was “Chicago politics.” Perception is often reality and if people perceive that it was deliberate then the reality will be, it was deliberate. By allowing Lizza a seat the campaign could have avoided the certain criticisms and the assumptions about “why” that will surely follow. The campaign left itself open to charges of retribution, pettiness, and childishness which will naturally progress to questions about whether this is the kind of person we want leading our country.

I don’t know if the campaign deliberately excluded Lizza or not and I really don’t care. It just seems to me that it was a very stupid blunder and one would think people there had to know how leaving out this reporter would be viewed.

The left is always critical of President Bush and they charge that he has manipulated the media and been unfavorable to those reporters with whom he disagreed. Obama could have avoided a comparison to that which he claims to want to replace by thinking about his actions. Instead, he has become that which the left so loathes.

This should get a lot of play. Either it was deliberate or the campaign does not have the ability to think through the consequences of its actions.

In any event, it should cause people to think about how either scenario reflects upon the man who wants to lead this country.