Letter to the Spokesman-Review

Press prefers close race.

The media coverage of Rev. Wright's remarks the last two weeks has been excessive to the extreme, with some news outlets seemingly running the videos of his sermons continuously. In contrast, there has been virtually no press coverage of Friday's Washington Post story that Sen. Clinton lied outright about running for cover from snipers' bullets upon arrival at a Bosnian airport during her visit there as first lady.

This raises the curious question of Why Sen. Obama should be more accountable for the words of his pastor than Sen. Clinton is for her own words, particularly when those words have been material to her case that she is the better-qualified Democrat to be commander in chief and president.

The furor about Wright's remarks leaves little doubt that being caught in a similar lie would be the end of the Obama campaign. Could it be that journalistic priorities are skewed both toward the more sensational story and toward keeping alive the notion that the Democratic presidential race remains a dead heat since a tight race fuels the corporate profit of news agencies? --Ted Di Maria.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

This is probably the most intelligent letter published in the local papers (Spokesman-Review or the Coeur d'Alene Press) to date. I am more than happy myself to hold Rev. Wright accountable for his own words. To in fact hold any off the wall pastor of any church accountable for their own words. To hold candidates to account who actively seek out the company of fringe pastors. But just because Rev. Wright's most hateful remarks had been televised and replayed endlessly (is that because he is primarily black?) it doesn't mean that Senator Obama exercised poor judgment to have sat in his church for 20 years, unless you would like to pass the same accusation onto evangelicals, Southern Baptists, fundamentalists who had also sat in the pews to listen to equally inflammatory and hateful pastors. And who then went on to spread the remarks of such pastors around. Who then went to vote for the candidates their inflammatory pastors most approved of. Rev. Wright can't be any more of a sensational a story than Catholic hater Rev. Haggee. Or LaHay who fictionalizes as well as politicizes the bible in order to indicate that only people who think just like him (those who buy his "Left Behind: series") will be the only ones who go to heaven. Yet, when LaHay for example gets air time? That would be the History channel and his books being apocalyptic in nature can get lumped in with all other apocalyptic stories. Yet, on the strength of LaHay's books, year of 2000, Christians went to Israel to wait for the Second Coming of Christ. They came home sorely disappointed. And yes, they vote. They think fringe politics and religious canon and they vote. Collectively, they are far scarier than this single black pastor in that Chicago church. But to date, no one asks Rep. Bill Sali to account for the fringe lunacies that deem him "Christian" for policies that would effectively shame Christ. Fringe lunacies that get published frequently in the CDA Press. For the state of Idaho that he represents that is on its way to passing a law that would criminalize "coercing" abortions, but out of concern for "parental rights" won't do anything for the children born in the state, inclusive of those who die at a young age (Huckleberries on-line comment by Ashamed Idahoan). There really is a point in which government can draw a line at when to step in and interfere with parental rights (abortion, planned parenthood) and when "parental rights" trump the child's own welfare. Fringe lunacies that if "guilt by association" were to be applied evenly to any and all candidates for office; there would be few qualified candidates for public office. Yes, the news media has given a pass to the rest of the fringe lunacies because, dare we say it, they are uncomfortable with the very idea that Senator Obama is a credible candidate for the Presidency of the United States.

The rest of what Di Maria said was I am sure just as relevant. The news media wants to fan the flames of a "tight race" a Democratic party imploding and gives brief blurbs to Senator McCain "acting presidential" following around Veep Cheney on a middle east tour. And going on from there to give such "presidential" speeches that tell people the market forces that made their lives miserable are also necessary to correct the problems that the market forces first created. How about that. Senator McCain is so indulgent of "market forces" that he forgets the first amendment allows people to seek out government to redress their grievances. Indeed Bear Stearns was definitely a first amendment beneficiary. But not apparently, the home owner facing foreclosure. And Senator Obama, had no problem critiquing what McCain said. Just how "presidential" are you if you calmly and even callously step up to the people who's vote you depend on and stick a knife in their guts? McCain's telling people that the market forces are the cure for their problems after run amok market forces got them into this mess can't benefit him. And it has just as much "legs" as Senator Clinton more than once telling a fiction of her Bosnian trip. Again, as Di Maria was to note, the "story" to prove her capacity to assume the job of commander in chief and president. Yeah, actually Di Maria, it got some CNN coverage. That is how I knew about it. The "story" that should have been far more sensational than Rev. Wright because a politician who gets caught in this serious a lie while on the campaign trail can't exercise the good judgment necessary to lead a nation in January. She didn't "misspeak," she lied. Another commenter posting on Huckleberries noted that Senator Clinton's poll numbers have dropped severely in Pennsylvania. I'm sure the voters watch CNN in Pennsylvania too.

Wright who?