Barack Obama has broken barriers with his history-making electoral victory and for that he deserves a congratulatory note. But now that the seemingly endless campaign has wrapped, the adoration he was afforded by American media outlets hasn’t subsided.
Unfortunately, mainstream media outlets are too busy basking in the glories of Obama’s sweeping success to maintain even a base level of scrutiny. Of course, this inability to be objective did not suddenly emerge following Obama’s victory; the media have been enamored by Obama since early 2007, as they have created and sustained what appears to be a lasting love affair.
While I can easily delve into a long-winded diatribe about the media’s insane infatuation with Obama, I’m not sure that it would be necessary to do so. After all, most polls show that the American people are more than aware of the media’s leftist inclinations.
From August until November, the mainstream media lambasted Gov. Sarah Palin. From the failure to quickly correct the erroneous (not to mention hateful) stories about Trig Palin’s birth mother to the continued sexism that was prevalent in the majority of news stories, the media gleefully chiseled away at Palin’s image. Meanwhile, Barack Obama escaped without a scratch, as media outlets actually went out of their way to baselessly portray him as a reformer who is sure to bring “hope” and “change” to Washington.
Following suit with their pre-election adoration, the media have literally ignored the ironic picks Obama has made for his incoming admin posts. The man who promised us “change” has thus far called upon Washington insiders (i.e. former Clintonians) to fill cabinet posts. While this may be looked upon as a smart move in terms of nominating individuals who have a record of what some on the left call success, it exemplifies the “more of the same” attitude Obama has railed against so enthusiastically in his rhetoric.
Aside from the media’s failure to critique this blatant fact, there is one pick, in particular, that has barely been vetted by the Fourth Estate. On November 17th, the Politico reported that Obama will select Gregory B. Craig for the White House counsel post. For those readers who are not familiar with the role of the White House counsel, the Politico explains:
While this might seem arbitrary to many Americans who are less than familiar with Craig, a cursory look at his past clientele is stunning. According to the Williams and Connolly LLP web site (Craig is a partner at the firm), “In 2000, Mr. Craig successfully represented Elian Gonzalez’s father, Mr. Juan Miguel Gonzalez, in administrative and court proceedings involving Mr. Gonzalez’s effort to regain custody of his son, Elian.“ Yes, this is the same Elian Gonzalez who was sent back to communist Cuba after his mother died trying to bring him to the United States.
Additionally, Craig represented Kofi Annan, the former Secretary-General of the United Nations, “…to defend his interests in the Volcker Commission probe of the Oil-for-Food scandal, which put billions of dollars into Saddam Hussein’s pockets while providing cash for Annan’s son, his deputies, and some allege Annan himself.”
Despite the fact that Craig served on Obama’s campaign, he also represented Bill Clinton during his impeachment trial (he deflected from Hillary Clinton’s campaign during the primaries).
And it gets worse. There are two clients who cause the others to shrink to mere obscurity. The first — Pedro Miguel González  – is a fugitive who is under federal indictment for his alleged 1992 murder of Zak Hernández, a U.S. Army sergeant. While The Dallas Morning News called upon Barack Obama to ask Craig to choose between the Obama campaign and representation of González, HotAir reports that there is no easy-to-find documentation on whether Craig did, indeed, drop the case.
The last client is indefinitely the most concerning. Craig represented John Hickley, Jr., the man who attempted to assassinate President Ronald Reagan. Thanks to Craig, Hinckley was granted an insanity defense.
I must agree with HotAir’s Ed Morrissey: This pick is disgraceful. Can you imagine what would have happened if McCain (pending he won the election) chose someone with a similar past? Mainstream media outlets would rampantly run headlines like “McCain Plans to Nominate Wannabe Presidential Assassin,” “Many Call McCain Pick a Disgrace” or “McCain Pick Raises Eyebrows.” But, in this case, the presses are relatively silent. Surprise!
While Gregory Craig has surely had a successful career and his talents in the legal realm should not be downplayed, the moral fabrics associated with the clientele he has willingly chosen fall short of the “hope” and “change” Obama has pledged to bring to Washington. This pick is indefensible at best and the media ought to report on it more fervently.
9 Comments until now
There seems to be an awareness of the U.S. and international justice system absent in your writing. They call for everyone to have a fair trial, should these people have not been granted a defense lawyer? Also, if you’re foaming at the mouth this much to jump all over anything Obama does and are trying to declare him a poor president before he ever takes office then I recommend you get back down to your basement and commence work on those Romney/Jindal bumper stickers. Good luck.
I am quite aware of the U.S. justice system. Of course everyone has the right to be represented by legal counsel, but Americans also have the right to judge the clientele that lawyers decide to take on. I’m not sure where your confusion is on this. At the end of the day, while Craig is an excellent lawyer, he has a history of representing questionable individuals. Obama promised change. How is Craig reminiscent of this ideal?
I didn’t declare Obama a poor president; I merely questioned this particular pick.
For those of you who are familiar with the book of Proverbs, several might come to mind. By their fruits you will know them, a man is known by the company he keeps, even a child is known by his behavior - these and others certainly are applicable here. The lives of truly great people are open highways to see the reasons and rationale for their accomplishments. Contrarily, those of dubious service have past activities replete with obscure, obfuscated, shadowy philosophies designed to hide their motives, their thoughts, their companions, etc. Their past is sealed, they refuse to divulge such common papers as their birth certificates, their school records, their associates from their childhood onward, their business dealings, their mentors, their alliances, etc. A past like this coupled with free acceptance, little scrutiny, and linked with intense digging into opponents, “eliminating competition” by various and sundry means, and the rush to “hit the ground running” even before the starting gun screams of nothing but dire happenings, subterfuge, and all manner of wrong doing! “If it looks, walks,quacks,… you get the rest!! dave.
Dave, I couldn’t have said it better myself!
Recipe for complaining:
1) Blame the media
2) Whine
3) Cherry pick stats/incidents
4) Whine some more
1) The Media Blames itself…see Time Magaizine’s Mark Halperin and the Washington Post Ombusdman.
2) Barack Obama became the darling of the ultra left for his “opposition to the Iraq War.” But Obama lied when he said he opposed the war “in the heat of a campaign for the US Senate…when it was politically unpopular to do so.” Obama made a speech months before he ever declared his candidacy for the US Senate. What part of his left wing constituency was he possibly alienating by opposing the Iraq war as a state senator.
3) Can you please “cherry pick” us one example when Barack Obama has worked across the aisle in bipartisan fashion and taken a principled stand against his own party? Obama said McCain voted with Bush 90% of the time. And Obama voted with Ried and Pelosi 100% of the time?
4) I hope for the best for the Obama Presidency. I am frightened to think of how awful the state of the US would have to be for him to lose in 2012.
But Barack Obama as a post racial, post partisan leader? I think not.
Non Partisan,
Your comments would indicate that it is impossible to take a principled stand against Democrats as they are never actually wrong.
Or perhaps you are not a Democrat, Liberal or Progressive…
…you are Non-Partisan because you are one of the annointed…the Enlighted ones.
Good morning. I saw your blog listed in urbanconservative. I just started my blog recently, the New Republican (http://thenewrepublicans.net) and was just added to the urbanconservative list. Would you consider linking and commenting on my blog from time to time? Thanks so much.
Enlightened? Do you mean that I recognize that democrats and republicans represent and stand for the exact same tired notions that have plagued this country for years? That lead to travesties like the war in Iraq and the probable depression that is about to take place? Government bailouts for millionaires who were wildly irresponsible with their money as the unemployment rate heads to the double digits? Trickle down economics and bans on gay marriage and widespread capital punishment? Millions of taxpayers dollars wasted on pork barrel spending? The destruction of our natural habitat? These are issues that the dempublicans have failed to address for years. Democrats and Republicans alike are both guilty, since they all have worked together in causing and/or allowing these problems to happen and perpetuate. I am not a liberal, a conservative, a progressive, a democrat, a republican. I am a citizen of the United States who wants the best for the people of this country that work hard to earn it and don’t violate the basic freedoms of others.
Add your Comment!