What radical background? Obama's life is the most open story in the world and it does not include a radical background. His mom was a peace and love hippie and he was raised by white middle-class Unitarian grandparents. As an adult, he knew another University of Chicago professor who had once been a radical in the 60's when Obama was 7 and his preacher was a loudmouth racist. All of that has been reported. The public never bought that far-fetched guilt by association in 2008 and were way past it in 2012. Any media still trying to make a story of that in 2012 was politically motivated and far behind the times. Experience? Hoss, he had just finished four years as President of the United States after experience in the US Senate and the state legislature and years as a constitutional law professor. You think the "liberal media" didn't report that?
No, you didn't read it correctly. They didn't cover Obama (in 2008) the way they covered Romney - dug everything to high school. A week or more of a story about him being a bully. Obama's drug use as Red points out was an open book - his own, so the media used the same logic Red does, nothing to see here move on. They didn't dig into the choom gang, his grades, why his work wasn't published and available as a college student. The did the opposite with Obama. THAT is pretty hypocritical.
They tried to say his birth certicficate was fake, they tried to use some dumb reverend and acorn against him, they tried to say he was a Muslim, and yes they did bring up shit in his book.
Yes they reported his fantastic two years voting present in the Senate, and did no digging on his radical friends, mentors. They asked about Ayres one time and he said, "just a guy in the neighborhood" and they blew it off just like you. He kicked off his campaign there and Ayres is totally unrepentant (they killed people) about the 60s. That isn't just a guy in the neighborhood and was worth more research. I was talking about 2008 as far as digging into backgrounds - just comparing how the media treated candidates. His association with Wright deserved more scrutiny as well. You called him a loudmouth racist. Obama spent 17 years with him. Do you think the media wouldn't crucify a Republican that spent any amount of time with a racist? You only have to go back a few news cycles for that answer.
NBC, CBS, ABC and Fox called him a muslim? Acorn was his baby and they dissolved to keep from facing charges so it deserved some scrutiny but it certainly didn't come from the "mainstream" media.
Just like anyone with sense. Guilt by association is what a mudslinger uses when there is no actual guilt to be found. Obama was never a 60's radical. Period. He happened to meet one years later when they were both respectable professors. This story is old and often told and just as often falls completely apart. Hell, I know two people in Angola, one of them in for life for a double murder. It does not make me a criminal. Even the nutters have let this one go. Well, the media crucified Obama, too and he ended up publicly disassociating himself with Wright. But again, are you responsible for what your preacher says and does? No. Neither is Obama. Guilt by association is a sleazy tactic that almost never works.
You seem to know about his life. I know about his life. I can Google up hundreds of reports on it from back then and ever since. You have no case that Romney lost because the "liberal media" failed to report or investigate Obama. The media was all over Obama in 2008 and in 2012. There was no need to repeat old stories that had not survived scrutiny, but the "conservative media" did anyway. No information was withheld by the media. Proof is all over the internet.
No one that worked directly for them no, but that's how they operate, they get plenty of guests to do that for them especially Fox.
