The Criticality of Vetting

For some reason, the mainstream media has taken Obama as an almost mythical figure to whom the normal vetting should not apply. Perhaps MSNBC's Chris Matthews summed up the feelings of the mainstream media about Obama when he said Obama "sent a tingling up his leg." Said Matthews of Obama: "I've never seen anything like this. This is bigger than Kennedy. He comes along, and he seems to have all the answers. This is the New Testament." To paraphrase Winston Churchill, when it comes to the mainstream media and Obama, never have so many been so uninterested in so much.

To question the Obama narrative is to invite scorn and invective – even if you are Bill or Hillary Clinton. It is enough that Obama represents change – and that change must simply be taken by faith to be good change. But change can be change for the worse. That is why anyone seeking the most powerful office in the world should be carefully scrutinized... [snip]

There are many, many more such shifts in many of Obama's positions, some within mere hours. Now anyone can change a position over time based upon new data and on experience. But if genuine, such shifts usually occur over years, not hours or even months. Shouldn't the press delve much deeper into some of these? What good are the debates if the candidates are not held accountable for their statements?

The mainstream media has gone on a rampage against Sarah Palin since McCain chose her as his running mate. Some of the matters they have pursued have been fair game, some have not been. Shouldn't the mainstream media show at least one-half of the curiosity and eagerness toward finding things out about Obama, the Democrat nominee for president, as they have about Palin, the Republican nominee for vice president?

[the most pervasive spin: omission. America is being duped by the MSM. Highly Recommended {bordering on Must Read} > ]

READ MORE