Blue Mass Group

Reality-based commentary on politics.

NYT Columnist Smears Obama

By

UPDATE [By Bob]. Kristol has admitted he tried to smear Obama, but got called out by Joel and thousands, maybe millions, of others. The following note has appeared at the top of his column:


In this column, I cite a report that Sen. Obama had attended services at Trinity Church on July 22, 2007. The Obama camapaign has provided information showing that Sen. Obama did not attend Trinity that day. I regret the error.

What complete rubbish. He doesn’t regret his error, because it wasn’t an error at all. Everyone with any interest in right-wing U.S. politics knows that NewsMax is an outlet of the Bush/Rove hate machine that pumps out made-up stories for propagandists like Kristol to validate in the more widely distributed publications they work for. The next step is for Republican speakers on radio and TV to mention Kristol’s smear. There are useful conservative voices in this country who make reasoned and principled arguments but Kristol is not one of them. He belongs at NewsMax.[END UPDATE]

The New York Times op-ed page is pushing a false story about Obama.  Claiming that Obama is lying, Bill Kristol repeats a false story from NewsMax as evidence that Obama lied.

I’ll add more context to this later.  For the moment, it’s important that people understand the falsehood and urge the NYT to correct this major, prejudicial error, as Marc Ambinder rightly calls it.  Email to letters@nytimes.com.

NOTE: (By Bob). You can copy Clark Hoyt, Public Editor, whose email address is public@nytimes.com, and the Columbia Journalism Review at letters@cjr.org.

Response from Public Editor:

Dear Reader,

Thank you for writing. Mr. Kristol has affixed to the top of his column a correction on this issue. You are correct, he was wrong.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03…

Sincerely,

Michael McElroy

Office of the Public Editor

The New York Times

Please share widely!
fb-share-icon
Tweet
0

Comments

  1. doesn’t the NYT editor even do a cursory review before it’s published?  This one is so obviously incorrect, why wasn’t addressed?

  2. The original NewsMax story was published on Aug. 9, 2007, shortly after the original author (Jim Davis) says he attended Wright’s church and saw Obama there.  Kessler’s more recent story, cited by Kristol, relies entirely on Davis’s original 8/9/07 story.  

    <

    p>Also, NewsMax has added a “clarification” to Kessler’s story, which reads:

    <

    p>

    The Obama campaign has told members of the press that Senator Obama was not in church on the day cited, July 22, because he had a speech he gave in Miami at 1:30 PM. Our writer, Jim Davis, says he attended several services at Senator Obama’s church during the month of July, including July 22. The church holds services three times every Sunday at 7:30 and 11 a.m. and 6 p.m. Central time. While both the early morning and evening service allowed Sen. Obama to attend the service and still give a speech in Miami, Mr. Davis stands by his story that during one of the services he attended during the month of July, Senator Obama was present and sat through the sermon given by Rev. Wright as described in the story. Mr. Davis said Secret Service were also present in the church during Senator Obama’s attendance. Mr. Davis’ story was first published on Newsmax on August 9, 2007. Shortly before publication, Mr. Davis contacted the press office of Sen. Obama several times for comment about the Senator’s attendance and Rev. Wright’s comments during his sermon. The Senator’s office declined to comment.

    <

    p>Also worthy of note is the fact that even if Davis’s original story is accurate (which the Obama campaign disputes), Wright’s remarks as recounted by Davis are a far cry from Wright’s more incendiary comments about 9/11 and other topics that have caused all the fuss.  Referring to the US as “the United States of White America” is certainly provocative, but it’s not really anything more than that.  And talking about “Bush administration bullshit” regarding the Iraq war in church might not be what you hear at your local Episcopalian parish, but it’s accurate.

    <

    p>Bottom line: even if Davis’s original story is accurate, it doesn’t disprove Obama’s statement that he was unaware of the really controversial stuff.  So Kristol is full of shit.   Surprise.

    • Mr. Davis stands by his story that during one of the services he attended during the month of July, Senator Obama was present and sat through the sermon given by Rev. Wright as described in the story. Mr. Davis said Secret Service were also present in the church during Senator Obama’s attendance.

      (my emphasis)

      <

      p>Is there a way to determine whether Secret Service were there? Certainly their schedule would put matters to rest, one way or the other.

      <

      p>If true, the Davis story creates a very big problem because he’s now denying it.

      <

      p>But in my honest opinion, whether Obama was at this specific service or not, it’s just difficult for me to believe that after a 20 year relationship with the Reverand, Obama was never aware of any controversial statements or positions by him.

      <

      p>Does the Reverand appear to be a guy that hides his feelings in one-on-one conversations? Would nobody in the church talk about such provacative sermons? Would nobody ever think to mention to an aspiring politician that the pastor with whom he has a longstanding and close relationship has said some things that other Americans might find objectionable?

      <

      p>I’m not sure the “I wasn’t aware he was provacative line” passes the smell test.

      <

      p>No matter the agenda of any writer, I keep coming back to that. And though it would help my candidate (Clinton) for him to handle this with butterfingers right now, I really want him to get it right so the right wingers won’t be able to bury him with it in the fall.

      • I would hope that Secret Service “schedules” are not part of the public record.  After all, creating an incentive for public officials trying to “ditch” secret service isn’t a very good security solution.

        • But if there’s a way to tell simply where they were, not how they got in and out or how they deployed that wouldn’t compromise their future missions. Simply stating where they were (or having a spokesperson answer where they were) would do no more or less than confirm or contradict whatever the Obama campaign would put out.

          <

          p>It’s likely, I think, that the Secret Service would simply say it is not an important enough question for which to give a response. Perhaps they would only answer such questions if there were a criminal incident in question.

          <

          p>Too bad the best independent view of this situation can’t/won’t put this specific line of questions to rest.

  3. In this column, I cite a report that Sen. Obama had attended services at Trinity Church on July 22, 2007. The Obama camapaign has provided information showing that Sen. Obama did not attend Trinity that day. I regret the error.

    <

    p>That’s believable …?

    • What a pathetic creature Kristol is. If he was at least honest about what he was trying to do — which is so screamingly obvious no reasonably sentient observer can miss it — I’d respect him more.  

  4. I was not going to post until I confirmed in a non-Newsmax source.  I forget the exact instance, but I was caught using a non-verified NewsMax article once to buttress a claim. It predates my blogging.  I have not trusted the website since.  If I read something on NewsMax and its an AP story I will link to another source.  

    <

    p>I was afraid this was going to be refuted.  The only proof I’ll believe of Obama being at a service is if his image is on a video of one of the sermons.  I truly believe the Clinton campaign has such video and will release it through back channels.  I think they lured Obama into their trap and it’s about to be snared.

  5. His Op Ed piece has now been rendered inaccurate by his own admission.

    <

    p>For Barack Obama to suggest that he was either not present or to be completely ignorant of the rantings and hate speech of the Very Reverend Jeremiah Wright invites incredulity. After one attends a church for a period of six months to a year and the celebrant remains the same, one knows exactly the tone and tenor of the “sermon”. That is why people change churches: because they get stuck with someone stuck on one track,mind numbingly boring or a “lunatic” such as  the Very Reverend Jeremiah Wright.

    <

    p>Barack Obama has painted himself into a corner at a precipitous moment. He can bet the farm that the Clinton attack machine has now or will have the evidence to seal his fate.

    <

    p>For anyone to infer or imply that Barack Obama had no idea what was going on in his church, as pious a man as he is,  
    invites disbelief and ridicule. Obama wants to be president of the United States of America, yet he has no memory of lengthy sermons that he sits through hour after hour, week and week, year after year.

    <

    p>Of course there is the possibility that the vile hate speech being vomited by the Very Reverend Jeremiah Wright only occurred on those instant occasions that the cameras were documenting his hatred and Barack Obama was not in attendance.

    <

    p>But I doubt it.

  6. claiming the “Clinton attack machine” is going to put up evidence of Barack Obama sitting through some sermon they think is unacceptable.

    <

    p>The business about Obama being a secret Muslim started on emails and then appeared in Insight Magazine, and Fox News as a “he went to a madrassa” story.  Emails, Insight, and Fox News are all part of the Republican/right wing attack machine… which did its darnedest to push down the Clintons for years.

    <

    p>Now, NewsMax (funded Richard Mellon-Scaife) and Bill Kristol (editor of The Weekly Standard, owned by Rupert Murdoch’s News Corporation) are spouting falsehoods about Obama’s church (hey, what happened to the he’s-a-Muslim idea?)

    <

    p>…and Eabo & MCRD want us to believe this is all the Clintons’ scheme?

    <

    p>Noooo.  If they want to complain about Geraldine Ferraro, then yes, she might have actually acted on behalf of the Clintons.  But Insight?  Fox News?  NewsMax?  Bill Kristol?  The one thing these people have in common is they’ve trashed the Clintons for years.  Back when Hillary was on top, David Brooks and George F. Will were complimenting Obama.  And now that Obama’s in the lead, the conservative columnists are gunning to take him down, so McCain can win.

    <

    p>And the conservatives don’t get to spin it as being from the “Clinton attack machine.”

  7. That, Rev. Wright was smart enough not to bend the needle when Obama was in the pews.

    <

    p>Ya think?

    <

    p>On the Secret Service: They won’t say shit. PERIOD!

    <

    p>Protective Operations

    The Secret Service is world-renowned for the physical protection it provides to the nation’s highest elected leaders and other government officials. To safeguard Secret Service protectees, the agency does not generally discuss the specific types and methods of its security operations.

    <

    p>Also,

    <

    p>Protective Visits

    In general, for protective visits, teams of Secret Service personnel travel in advance and conduct site surveys, which assess needs for manpower, equipment, hospitals and evacuation routes for emergencies. Fire, rescue and other public service personnel in the community are alerted.

    Before a protectee arrives at any site, a lead advance agent coordinates all law enforcement representatives participating in the visit. Intelligence information is discussed and emergency options are outlined. Prior to the arrival of the protectee, checkpoints are established and access to the secured area is limited.

    <

    p>Obama visits to TUCC, once the Service was in play, were not your everday event.

    <

    p>Why would Wright put Obama in that position?  

    • Certainly, Wright would not want to offend one of his more famous congregants.
      And of course, it’s a little amusing seeing TV elites (who are mostly white) find out that African Americans have a different perspective on American history… one that’s skeptical of beliefs that the government can do no wrong.

      <

      p>But all this is really beside the point–Rev. Wright is not running for President.

Archives