Why Does the Press Cover for Obama?

I would have thought the answer self-evident, but Roger Simon adds some nuance. Among other instances, he refers to Obama’s apparent membership in the socialist New Party:

And now we learn of yet another strange obfuscation or omission. In 1996, Obama was apparently a member of the Chicago “New Party,” a now defunct socialist political party of some stripe or other.

There’s nothing wrong with being a socialist. I called myself one for the better part of twenty years. Millions of people have and many still do. But there is something very wrong with hiding who you are or who you were from the electorate—especially if you want to be President of the United States. Yet that seems to be a habit of Mr. Obama’s, with the collusion of the press. To my knowledge, no one in the mainstream media has begun to inquire into the details of Obama’s curiously unreported years at Columbia and Harvard, although much could be relatively easily ascertained. Obama himself has not been remotely forthcoming about them.

My guess is that we’ll learn quite a bit more about Obama once the election is safely over.

To comment on this post, go here.

Responses

Books to read from Power Line