34 thoughts on “Fox News caught lying about Sen. Obama.”

  1. Is it just me (probably) or is the bigger story her “that associates of Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton, D-New York, had unearthed information the Illinois Democrat and likely presidential candidate attended a Muslim religious school known for teaching the most fundamentalist form of Islam.”

    While I agree there’s little excuse for Fox’s sloppy reporting which some can legitimately view as indicative of a right-wing bias, the real story seems to be that Democratic presidential candidates have already begun throwning the mud around.

  2. And I suppose that the point of the Talking Points Memo is to avoid attributing responsibility to Hitlary and her campaign. The Clinton Sleaze Machine rides again! Now with bloggers willing to sell their souls to defend Her Thighness.

  3. If Obama is given the nomination then this will destroy him in the general election. You think the swiftboat thing was bad? You ain’t seen nothing yet. Especially since this is based in truth – Obama did in fact attend a Muslim school as a young child. This alone, absent any other made-up BS, is sufficient to utterly destroy him in a general election. It’s sad to say, but I am pretty damned sure that at least 51% of Americans will refuse to elect a Presidential candidate who is known to have attended a foreign Muslim school as a child.

    There will be talk of ‘indoctrination’ and that sort of thing. And there is no way to counter or stop it. You can’t possibly disprove that Obama was indoctrinated into fundamentalist Islamic values at a very early age. Not that I believe that he’s some sort of ‘sleeper agent’ but I know damn well where this thing will go.

    Better that we’re seeing this now rather than after the nomination. Obama cannot possibly be elected President of the United States with this around his neck. Nominating him would be political suicide for the Democratic party.

  4. You know, I was going to follow this up with something thoughtful, but it’s hard for me to, since James Young had to come along and take a big shit all over this topic with “Hitlary” and “Her Thighness.” I’m sure the Freepers think that’s hilarious, but if you’re actually interested in productive discussion, could we at least raise the ad homonym attacks above the level of name mispellings and criticisms of Hillary’s body? And if you’re not interested in productive discussion, I do hope Waldo bans you as the troll that you’re being.

    Anyway, I’ll just follow this up with this: I see no reason to believe that this has anything to do with Hillary Clinton. If her campaign was going to leak something like this, they’d do it anonymously, since this just makes her look vindictive, and making Hillary look vindictive is what Fox does, not what her campaign does.

    So, aside from the word of a group of liars, why should I believe that Clinton or her campaign have anything to do with this?

  5. @ Jack.

    You may well be correct, but Obama does have one hell of a compelling narrative – at least what we know of it thus far.

    What’s more interesting to me is how our friends, the Saudis, would view a US President who was raised as a Muslim but is now a Christian. If they were true to their rhetoric, they’d have to view him as an apostate worthy only of death.

    Now, I’m not gonna vote for Obama just so’s I can see what would happen, but it’s fun to noodle.

  6. James, if your goal is to persuade people to agree with you, your brand of misogyny will earn you no converts. If your goal isn’t to persuade to agree with you, then I must admit that I’m a loss for what it might be.

  7. “Is it just me (probably) or is the bigger story her “that associates of Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton, D-New York, had unearthed information the Illinois Democrat and likely presidential candidate attended a Muslim religious school known for teaching the most fundamentalist form of Islam.”

    If they lied about the story itself, wouldn’t it stand to reason that they lied about the source too?

    James, you are what is ugly about politics today…that is all.

  8. I have to say, when I heard this last night before anyone said “Hillary” that’s exactly what I was thinking. She’s the only one who would benefit from this. I think her people (with or without her permission and/or knowledge) are behind it.

    The great thing about this for her is that there’s no way to make it stick. Their story was wrong so their claims that she gave it to them are wrong. That’s what most will think.

    I disagree with Jack. I don’t think this is Obama’s Swiftboat. The school isn’t militant. And he never tried to hide it.

    Obama has noted in his two books, “Dreams From My Father” and “The Audacity of Hope,” that he spent two years in a Muslim school and another two years in a Catholic school while living in Indonesia from age 6 to 10.

    Do I think he could win an election for president? No. I think Colin Powell is the only black man that would stand a serious chance for that office, but he won’t run.

    However I am equally confident that Hillary will sink the Democratic party’s chances for the white house if she wins the nomination. She is too polarizing. It would wind up being 4 more years of whomever the Republican’s eventually put up (my personal preference would be Giuliani).

  9. I have to say, when I heard this last night before anyone said “Hillary” that’s exactly what I was thinking. She’s the only one who would benefit from this.

    You mean other than the entire GOP?

  10. By the way, I said the above statement about Clinton’s involvement and James’ political ugliness as a supporter of Mr. Obama.

  11. Oh! The perpetrators assume the posture of the wounded! Foresooth!

    Waldo, I have no illusions of persuading ANYONE who reads this blog. “Hitlary” is a commentary on her socialist politics, as well as the anti-Semitism attested to by Dick Morris; “Her Thighness,” though I wish I could take credit for it, was coined by Mark Levin, and is a rather glib play on: (a) her imperious bearing and nature; and (b) a defining physical attribute. It is certainly not “misogynist,” which is simply a dodge attempting to use her sex as a shield against criticism. Just as those who attack any criticism of a homosexual candidate — say, for quibbling and/or lying — as “gay-bashing.”

    As for Jack’s comment, I see no reason why this alone should sink Obama’s candidacy, even if true. Troublesome, perhaps (especially tho those who are reflexively anti-Muslim), but we’re talking about only two years in a young child’s life. As far as I can tell, Obama is a fairly attractive candidate who is being packaged far differently than his far Left politics. Among the three recently announced candidates, only Bill Richardson seems reasonable.

  12. James Young,

    Despite the name of the Nazi party, you should know that Hitler considered socialism — and specifically Marxism — to be a Jewish movement. But somehow, I don’t think you really care. I think you’re trying to be a gadfly, but by lacking nuance, are just being a troll.

    I’ll echo Kevin’s sentiment that you are what’s ugly about politics.

    I’ll recuse myself from the discussion at the point so-as not to further derail it.

  13. Indeed, Hitler reviled most every value held dear by socialists. Workers did not control the means of production — Nazi Germany was staunchly capitalist. He was not what you might call a great believer in equality, tolerance, cooperator, pacifism, democracy or idealism. In short, precisely the opposite of a socialist. There’s a reason why communist Russia and fascist Germany were mortal enemies — their respective viewpoints were polar opposites.

    Perhaps more important, comparing anybody to Adolf Hitler serves only to demonstrate that the individual doing the comparing does not have logic on his side.

  14. I don’t think Fox has ever sunken this low before, and that’s saying a lot. Before Fox started out, all of the news channels on TV were liberal. I’m happy for conservatives for having a station to watch on TV and all, but I’ve always been dissapointed that Fox is…Fox. I’m probably voting for Obama, but I could criticize him if I wanted to. Just like everyone else, he’s not perfect. But if I were to criticize him, I wouldn’t do what Fox just did. If I wanted to, I could debate issues from a conservative standpoint and still make a good argument. If I could do it, then people who actually stand for those arguments should, too. I don’t believe that the Right in general uses lies and distortions to gain power, but Fox News certainly does, and that’s sad. What’s laughable is their trademarked “Fair and Balanced”. It’s total BS, but the base falls for it every time.

    Who indicated that someone from Clinton’s campaign released this information? I don’t believe that for a second.

  15. You mean other than the entire GOP?

    If the GOP would rather run against Hillary Clinton than Barack Obama, then I suppose both Hillary and the GOP would benefit from the attempted character assassination had it succeeded.

    But I am under absolutely no illusions with regards to Senator Clinton- she (via those in her employ) is absolutely capable of having done this. Whether or not she did- well that’s pretty much a moot point now.

  16. This seems a strange blog entry. A more appropriate title would have been “Insight Magazine caught lying…” or “Washington Times caught lying…”

    Fox is no more culpable in this than the NY Times or CNN itself, both of which quoted the Insight story in much the same way Fox did. Why didn’t you go after them as well, or instead?

    Smacks of selective criticism.

  17. CNN’s is hardly culpable — they’re the ones who demonstrated that the claim was false. Believe me, I’m happy to go after the Washington Times — it’s a terrible paper — though I don’t know the first thing about Insight Magazine. My citation of Fox is because they’re the ones who spread this message far and wide. Insight’s impact is minor. Washington Times‘ is regional. Fox? They constantly brag that they’re the most-watched cable news network (or whatever), giving them a great deal of responsibility in getting their facts right.

  18. Well then what about the NY Times?

    This was sloppy reporting. The failure the check someone else’s facts. It’s not nearly as egregious as, say, attempting to influence a presidential election on a network broadcast with an obviously forged document.

  19. Well then what about the NY Times?

    I never saw any New York Times coverage of this, and it was not mentioned in the CNN debunking, so I can’t say a thing about it. The only thing I can find in the Times containing the words “Obama” and “madrassa” is a single blog entry which, as you can see, serves only to debunk the story.

    It’s not nearly as egregious as, say, attempting to influence a presidential election on a network broadcast with an obviously forged document.

    You’re drawing a line that’s no more factually clear than the one at question here, JS.

  20. “It’s not nearly as egregious as, say, attempting to influence a presidential election on a network broadcast with an obviously forged document.”

    So, you’re saying that reporting something that someone else tells you without any verification is worse than reporting something that someone else tells you without any verification?

    CBS fired or caused those responsible to resign. At Fox? I assume they’ll get raises.

  21. I’m under the impression the Fox was reporting something already put in the public domain by this Insight Magazine. CBS’s infamous 60 Minutes II report on Bush’s TANG records was obtained largely from Bill Burkett – a well-known partisan with an axe to grind. I don’t think the two are comparable.

    I hope you’re wrong about those responsible at Fox not being disciplined, but as I am similarly cynical about the “Big 3″ when they broadcast false reports about the political right, I don’t really blame you for feeling that way.

  22. CBS’s infamous 60 Minutes II report on Bush’s TANG records was obtained largely from Bill Burkett – a well-known partisan with an axe to grind

    If Sen. Hillary Clinton isn’t a well-known partisan with an axe to grind, what is she? :) The claimed source here was just as suspect as the source in the 60 Minutes piece, the difference being that people make up stories all the time, so it’s good and right to suspect them, but forgery of documents presented for national criticism is staggeringly unlikely.

  23. Maybe so, but I bet you, me, and the majority of the people who read this site would have found major problems with the documents in short order had we been given the task of authenticating them.

  24. I’m actually with Judge Smails as far as those documents go. As an amateur typography nerd, several aspects of the “Killian documents” set off red flags for me, but then, I heard the Obama piece and thought it reeked to high heaven as well.

    Fox news was just reporting something put in the public domain by Insight Magazine, which is a subsidiary of The Washington Times, which is a partisan rag with an axe to grind and no verifiable sources. One might expect them to do some fact checking in such a situation, or at the very least to frame their reporting in a more skeptical manner.

    I’m still unconvinced that there’s a difference in severity here.

  25. It wouldn’t surprise me if Hillary had something to do with the story. If she ends up going head-to-head with Obama, this story will be innocuous compared to what the Clinton team will put out there!

  26. This madrassa kerfuffle is small potatoes next to the REAL skeleton in Obama’s closet:

    HE’S A SMOKER!

    Hide the children.

  27. JS,

    Yeah, I thought that was pretty hilarious. But not only is he a smoker, he’s a *secret* smoker.

    Of course, Jed Bartlet was a secret smoker at all. How can Obama lose?

  28. Give me a break. Of course Hillary’s people did this. The Republicans would benefit the most from having Obama win the nomination, then pulverize him. The timing is too early for it to be of advantage to the Republicans. Barrack Hussein Obama would have been the best thing to happen to the (R)s. Hillary is a much stronger candidate and will be more difficult for them to overcome.

Comments are closed.