An Australian’s Take on the 2008 Race Counters American Media’s Anti-Clinton Bias

In scanning the online coverage this morning following the LA debate, it’s clear the press is still giving Barack Obama a pass by not delving into several of his claims throughout his campaign for the highest office in the nation.

The Huffington Post, among other news sources in both the MSM and blogosphere, applauds Obama for having once again brought up his opposition to the Iraq War resolution, without mentioning the fact that he wasn’t in the U.S. Senate at the time or that since joining that body in 2004, he has voted regularly to fund the war.

Ironically, it was left to Michael Costello of the Australian News to present an objective critique of Obama’s candidacy for the presidency and highlight the differences between his qualifications and those of Hillary Clinton.

Costello clearly takes Obama to account for his poor sportsmanship in both victory and defeat throughout the campaign, and he exposes the several smears Obama and his followers have instigated against both Hillary and Bill Clinton in recent weeks. Costello writes:

“He {Obama} showed the same vindictiveness and lack of magnanimity after his victory in South Carolina. The first part of his victory speech was a deeply unpleasant attack on the Clintons. No graciousness there. And how did he handle defeat in New Hampshire and Nevada? With a combination of denial, petulance and the launching of a successful campaign to persuade the American media that the Clintons were engaged in a campaign of lies about him and, even worse, in a campaign of surreptitious racism.”

Costello continues:

Let's look at what happened.

“Obama had successfully appealed in Iowa to an American yearning for change from the Bush years.

“Everyone - Democrat and Republican - jumped on the change bandwagon. Clinton pointed out, however, that it's not enough to hope and demand change; you had to be able to define what change you want and had to be able to deliver it.

“Obama riposted that this failed to take account of the sort of impetus for change created by great rhetoric of the kind used by John F. Kennedy and Martin Luther King. So far, so good. Normal political exchange.

“Note it was Obama who introduced King into the debate, on his side. Clinton then made the obvious, and surely entirely legitimate, factual point that King's rhetoric had certainly been the indispensable inspiration for change, but that president Lyndon Johnson's efforts had also been indispensable in actually getting civil rights legislation through the Congress against deep opposition from parts of his own party.

“The place went into meltdown. This was said to disrespect King. How could Clinton equate King to Johnson? She wasn't: she was simply pointing out that both were necessary, one to inspire and one to deliver.

“Soon her words were being construed not just as disrespect but as hidden racism. Make no mistake: Obama's people joined in briefing the media and others extensively to create this impression.

“The Clintons' record on race in general, and King in particular, has over decades of their public life proved unimpeachable.

“They have both been champions of the black cause. Yet from that moment on, the Clintons have been assailed (with obvious glee and encouragement from Republican commentators) for allegedly mounting a subliminal race campaign.”

Since the American press has chosen to give Obama a free ride, while continuously savaging Hillary Clinton, we’re fortunate to have access to an Australian’s take on the 2008 primary race. My thanks to Mike Costello.

Read More: