Below is a video of the Charlie Rose show the night after the election. Rose’s guests are Newsweek’s Editor Jon Meacham and Editor-at-Large Evan Thomas. The video is further evidence, or justification if you will, that what got this man elected as our next President and Commander in Chief was more a charade or illusion than what we know. And where the media is concerned, Rush Limbaugh characterizes it this way . . .

[t]his is just indication all they knew that they didn’t report about Obama and his associations and his alliances and how Obama was playing the game.

At 2:30 (two minutes, 30 seconds) into the video, Evan Thomas honestly puts the whole Obama campaign into its proper perspective, one day after the election, by going to the roots of community organizing and its founder, Saul Alinsky. From the transcript, Thomas says . . .

Saul Alinsky is, uh, really was a model from this, er, famous community organizer in Chicago, and this whole idea that Alinsky had that it’s not gonna work if you offend large groups of people. You know, we think of community organizers as having their fist out and, you know? Ah, no, no, no, no, no. You have to win over the majority by being peaceful and nonthreatening. Saul Alinsky used the word “nonthreatening.” This is key to Obama. There’s no militancy involved. This is very important and — and his chief strategist, Axelrod, really understood this. Especially if you’re running a black guy for president, you cannot threaten the whites.

At 6:15 into the video, the discussion goes into the ‘creepiness’ of Obama’s performance . . .

• MEACHAM: He’s very elusive, Obama, which is fascinating for a man who’s written two memoirs. At Grant Park he walks out with the family, and then they go away.
• ROSE: Mmm. Mmm-hmm.
• MEACHAM: Biden’s back, you know, locked in the bar or something.
• ROSE: (haughty chuckle)
• MEACHAM: You know, they don’t let him out. And have you ever seen a victory speech where there was no one else on stage?
• ROSE: Mmm.
• MEACHAM: No adoring wife, no cute kid. He is the messenger.
• THOMAS: There is a slightly creepy cult of personality about all this. I mean, he’s such an admirable —
• ROSE: Slightly. Creepy. Cult of personality.
• THOMAS: Yes.
• ROSE: What’s slightly creepy about it?
• THOMAS: It — it — it just makes me a little uneasy that he’s so singular. He’s clearly managing his own spectacle. He’s a deeply manipulative guy.

At 8:30 into the video, Meacham recounts Obama’s writing in the Audacity of Hope, where he begins to set the stage. At around 9:30 into the video, Rose and his guests begin to get that tingly feeling in their legs in describing Obama’s ascension to greatness, ‘watching us watch him.’

In their continued adoration of Barack, Evan Thomas says, around 10:30 into the video, that Obama says in his book, ‘I’m not sure I am Barack Obama.’ Meaning, according to Rose, that Obama knows that he has created a persona that he thinks the American people want, then questions whether he fits the image he has created on the ‘projection screen’ of American opinion. From the transcript . . .

• ROSE: Watching him last night in that speech, he finishes —
• MEACHAM: Yeah.
• ROSE: — and he sort of — it’s almost like he then ascends to look at the circumstance.
• MEACHAM: He watches us watching him.
• THOMAS: Watching him!
• ROSE: Exactly!
• THOMAS: He does —
• MEACHAM: It’s amazing.
• ROSE: It is amazing.
• THOMAS: He writes about this metaphor being a screen upon which Americans will project. He said they want of Barack Obama; I’m not sure I am Barack Obama.
• ROSE: Mmm.
• THOMAS: He has the self-awareness to know that this creature he’s designed isn’t necessarily a real person, and he’s self-aware enough —
• ROSE: Ahhhhhh.

Listen as Jon Meacham explains that Barack’s ‘whole life is a narrative’ at 15:10 into the video.

The video then turns to a discussion as to whether the United States is still a ‘center-right’ country. What is illustrative here is that Europe is used as the measure of whether or not it is. Whether he will be able to ‘expand the power of the state.’ We know how popular Obama was, and is, to Europeans. They are, in a political sense, soul brothers.

Evan Thomas says that after the economy tanked in mid September, Obama was ‘risk averse, he was laying back in the weeds.’ But that’s alright because as Rose then proclaims, ‘we’re in an age of Obama right now.’ Where were these geniuses a few months ago? Oh right, they were carrying the water for him. They were ‘in an age of Obama.’

Rose ends the segment with this question, ‘Who will be the principle opposition? Where will the voice of the opposition come from?’ Jon Meacham suggests that it will be Gov. Sarah Palin. He and Thomas then proceed to trash Gov. Palin with their anonymous sources from within the McCain campaign over the clothing issue. Real presidential stuff you know. And befitting of Newsweek.

Update 1/23/2013: For reasons known only to the Charlie Rose Show, this video from Nov. 5, 2008, “A conversation with Jon Meacham & Evan Thomas” is no longer playable. Here is the link to it, http://www.charlierose.com/view/interview/9341 Is it now a media cover-up?

Watch twenty minute video segment here.

In discussing Obama’s victory at 11:30 in the video, Meacham makes an incorrect statement that shall be corrected here. He says that Obama got the majority vote which had not been done since George H.W. Bush twenty years ago. In 1988 Bush 41 got 53.4% of the vote. Actually, George W. Bush got 50.7% in 2004. Obama ended up with 52.6%.

related links: Charlie Rose – Jon Meacham, Evan Thomas | Newsweek Liberals Call Our First Black President a Creepy Creature | Tom Brokaw, There’s A Lot About Obama We Don’t Know | The Real Barack Obama

Ever since Barack Obama clinched the Democratic nomination, those of us on the political right have pointed out a few things about this candidate. His lack of experience, his nearly non-existent legislative record, and the the lack of public knowledge about just who the man is and where he is coming from. As has been written here many times, because he is, compared to his opponent John McCain, a relative unknown quantity, taking a look back into the man and his character and his life’s work becomes more important than it otherwise would.

So when it comes to Charlie Rose and Tom Brokaw, why is it that they do not know more about Obama? Is it because they live in their own mainstream media cocoon? Is it because they choose not to look into Obama’s past out of fear of what they will find? Is it because they accept the Obama campaign’s spin that any revelations about him are ‘distractions’ by those extreme right-wing crazies? Maybe it is some of each?

Those of us on the Right have done the work of the mainstream media. We found out much of what the two men who should know, Tom Brokaw and Charlie Rose, do not know about Barack Obama.

Understand the context here when it comes to the inquisitiveness of the media. Here are two media giants, one who has an audience and one who does not, wondering just who Barack Obama is. They are admitting that they don’t know a lot about Barack Obama. Folks, the election is three days from now.

Who would have thought that the American people could possibly elect a President that they don’t really know?

Within 24 hours, the world knew all about ‘Joe the plumber.’ We know about an insubordinate member of Sarah Palin’s cabinet called ‘troopergate,’ and her sister’s messy divorce. We know where Sarah Palin’s clothes came from and how much they cost. Yet, for the last eight months we still don’t really know a lot about Barack Obama? Credit the media for keeping us uninformed.

Below is a clip of Charlie Rose and Tom Brokaw trying to figure out who Obama is. Note that neither of them asks the obvious question. Why?

Rush Limbaugh has the above audio clip and the transcript which is below.

ROSE: I don’t know what Barack Obama’s worldview is.

BROKAW: No, I don’t, either.

ROSE: I don’t know how he really sees where China is.

BROKAW: We don’t know a lot about Barack Obama and the universe of his thinking about foreign policy.

ROSE: I don’t really know. And do we know anything about the people who are advising him?

BROKAW: Yeah, it’s an interesting question.

ROSE: He is principally known through his autobiography and through very aspirational (sic) speeches.

BROKAW: Two of them! I don’t know what books he’s read.

ROSE: What do we know about the heroes of Barack Obama?

BROKAW: There’s a lot about him we don’t know.

Howard Dean thinks it would be a good idea. Well, as long as it is the Democrat party in the White House and with a veto-proof Congress. Dean said, ‘Republicans had a chance to rule. They failed miserably. I think it’s time to give the other party a chance.’

This is the second time I’ve agreed with Howard Dean. I can’t remember when the first time was, it was so long ago. Republicans blew their chance in ’96 when they failed to convince voters that they should be in the White House. But at that time, I remember the media and the Left all up in arms at the thought. They were all on-board with the ‘checks and balances’ act. Saying that the sky would fall if the R’s had both congress and the White House. That a ‘balance’ was needed. For all practical purposes, balance became a synonym for stalling and gridlock, leaving more time for sex scandals. Back then, Dean and his party had no thoughts of giving the other party a chance.

I’ve always been of the opinion that for the country to see what either party is all about, let them govern as they may. In four years, they will be judged again. Democrats might get their wish this time. With Barack Obama, we  must rely on hope. So, one can only hope that whatever they do will be good for America and not do something that will take generations to repair. Have you heard his plan to fix Social Security? I haven’t.

Republicans, and more importantly, conservatives have their work cut out for them. They need to learn what Bill Clinton taught us in ’92. That the campaign does not stop after the election. It keeps on going.

link: Dean: One-Party Rule Would Rule

The times sure have changed from years gone by. No where is the contrast greater than in a presidential election season. Hearken back to 2004 when democratic political activists ransacked offices, stole computers, and slashed the tires of vans that were to be used on election day to carry people to the polls. That was then, however, the danger is not over. And now, if you can believe this, the RNC is going to spend $2 million of campaign cash for added security of their facilities and offices to protect their workers and property from similar thuggish behavior.

From an RNC press release dated 10/11/08 . . .

“There is no place for violence, vandalism, or intimidation in politics. As a result of violence against Republican volunteers and supporters, and acts of vandalism against Republican Victory centers, the RNC has redirected funds previously allocated for get-out-the-vote (GOTV) efforts — totaling at least two millions dollars — for 24-hour security at volunteer centers across the country. We are making this investment in protective security because our staff and volunteers deserve to know they are safe as they work to elect the next President of the United States. “I am appalled that the RNC must take this action. The fraudulent activities of ACORN combined with thuggish behavior of intimidation, violence, and vandalism on the part of others are clear signs that our opponents don’t believe in free and fair elections.

No doubt, in my mind anyways, this will be the next best guarded secret on the part of the mainstream media. Keep your eyes and ears peeled for the media to bring this up.

link:RNC Announces New Security Measures Following Violence & Vandalism

From the start of this presidential campaign, about the only thing the American people knew about Barack Obama were the few who watched the Democratic National Convention four years ago, where he delivered a great speech. Also from the start of this campaign, the mainstream media has been supporting Barack Obama not only in their coverage but in their ‘non-coverage.’

Outside of conservative talk radio and one cable network, the American people still do not know who Barack Obama is and where he came from, or anything about his character. The reason that is important in this election is because everyone knows who John McCain is, his character, and where he came from. Now, with less than 30 days before the election, the McCain campaign has finally come to the realization that if anyone is going to talk about Obama’s past as relates to his character, they are going to have to do it themselves. If this were not the case, then we wouldn’t be seeing headlines like this one ‘Character attacks emerge in McCain-Obama race.’

The reason it is only now emerging is because the media has circled their wagons around Barack from day one. And now that indications of his character are coming out, Obama is calling it a ‘smear.’ Today, on a nationally syndicated black talk radio show Barack said . . .

‘We don’t throw the first punch, but we’ll throw the last.’

Obama’s counter to his association with William Ayers is bringing up the ‘Keating 5’ scam. Something that McCain was absolved of that happened nearly 20 years ago. Meanwhile, Barack will have to explain his associations with people like Rev. Wright, ACORN, Tony Rezko and William Ayers, some of whom he has had ongoing relationships during the last 20 years. It is associations like these that speak to his character. All of which are, for lack of another adjective, far left extremists and America haters.

So rather than characterize Obama’s past as ‘character attacks,’ an honest characterization would be more like character revelations.

Since he has not been challenged on them before, outside of talk radio and Sean Hannity, both of which are summarily dismissed by the mainstream media, this morning in Clearwater, Florida at 9:15am, vice presidential candidate Gov. Sarah Palin brought up Obama’s words regarding our military fighting in Afghanistan. Obama said that our military was air-raiding villages and killing civilians in much the same vein as Rep. John Murtha accused them of killing civilians in cold blood. That tact, although fashionable to the anti-war anti-Bush crowd, is not acceptable coming from someone wanting to be President, and that story should be told.

It is important to know more about who a candidate really is, beyond their talking points. So today Sarah Palin also brought up the name of William Ayers, and Obama associate from the far left. So far left, in fact, that that guy is an unrepentant domestic terrorist, no matter what else he may be.

The media is mute on Obama’s involvement with the far-left group ACORN as well. For the man that wants to be Commander in Chief, the people need to know more about this man than the media and the Obama campaign wants us to know. So when Barack supporters like Lanny Davis, call this as attacking Barack Obama, just remember to put this in the proper perspective. It is not attacking Obama, it is exposing Obama. So to candidate Palin I say, You Go Girl.

To make a judgment about every horse race, you always want to know ‘who won?’. But in the context of last night’s vice-presidential debate, it is also relevant to know ‘who lost?’. And in this case, you have to say that the mainstream media lost, BIG TIME.

Leading up to the debate, NBC’s political director Chuck Todd called the debate and the race as already over. That Gov. Sarah Palin lost the debate and McCain lost the race even before last night’s debate started. They characterized the debate as if, to use a boxing analogy, Sen. Joe Biden would win the match in the first minute of round one in a 15 round fight. Well, if you saw the debate last night, you have to agree that the fight went the distance. And if anyone got so much as a black eye, it was the 35 year defending champion Joe Biden. But in terms of this debate, a draw is a win for Palin.

Based on all the media hype leading up to the debate, you could come away feeling that Palin won only because she didn’t lose in the first round.

It does not take much to confirm the notion that 2008 is the year that journalism died. All one needed to do is to watch last night’s debate analysis on MSNBC immediately following the debate. Remember when journalism consisted of reporting what happened? The lineup on MSNBC last night took shots at Gov. Palin on ‘what she didn’t say.’ It looked like they tried to do in round sixteen what Joe Biden could not do in the first fifteen.