The other day I posted a link to the NewsMax website, referencing Ronald Kessler's claim that Obama was, in fact, in the pews at Trinity United when Jeremiah Wright gave one of his hate speeches about America. Apparently the Obama campaign has been able to prove that Obama was not there on the date in question. The NewsMax story now contains a clarification to the effect that Kessler got the date wrong, but that he is certain he remembers seeing Obama at the church during one of Wright's hateful "sermons." Nonetheless, Kessler's credibility on the issue is severely damaged.

It appears that Kessler printed his account of the sermon without sufficient research and without being sure of his own memory. What we're left with now is a writer claiming "I'm sure I saw Obama there on SOME occasion," which is something else altogether. Kessler has made himself, NewsMax, and each of us who linked to his story look bad. I'm glad I tried to qualify my link slightly by writing that evidence had come to light to indicate that Obama was lying, rather than dogmatically proclaiming Obama to certainly be a big liar.

In a fairly funny sidenote, Scott at Spitball Politics chose to link to my post, only to have Patrick (apparently the guy in charge of the blog) strike out the entry and post details about Kessler's gaffe. Patrick went on to write:

...and yes, Scott used a CONSERVATIVE BLOG as his ht on this. Something akin to placing an anti-environment lobby-monger like Dirk Kempthorne to head the Dept of Interior.

So apparently all conservative blogs are unreliable, simply based on the conservative perspective of the author. I'm glad I hadn't gotten around to blogrolling Spitball, I'd intended to as a courtesy to Scott. I do, however, encourage you to read Patrick's stuff if you're in the market for unequivocal generalities about conservative blogs. Meanwhile, this is my second and last reference to that particular blog (although the comments section at SouthCon remains fair game for anyone).

More opinion on the issue: it's rare that I agree with Pat Buchanan, his brand of conservatism always strikes me as rather unconservative. He usually seems like an extremist to me. But I do agree with much of his take on the Obama/Wright flap:

What is exceptional is that Wright is the spiritual father of Barack Obama, the pastor, teacher and mentor who brought Barack into the church, married him and Michelle, baptized their children and has been a confidant to the man who would be America's president.

For 20 years, Barack has attended Wright's church, listened to his weekly sermons, entertained him in his home. Yet, says Barack, he never heard any racist rants at church, nor was he aware that Wright held so poisoned a view of his country.

Sorry, that is not credible. Wright is a famous preacher in black America, and Barack's denial he was aware of his views marks him down either as a dissembler or a man so obtuse he ought not be a security guard at Wal-Mart, let alone president of the United States.

It is easy now to understand why Michelle Obama, before Barack began to win, had never once been proud of her country. Who could be proud of the America that lives in the malignant imagination of the Rev. Wright?

Exactly. And speaking of Michelle Obama, it occurred to me when I heard the recording of her own clarification of her remarks about America ... one of the things that she said was that opportunities were available to her when she was a child that aren't available to kids today, and she was now proud to see America working to get those opportunities back.

Hmmm. Michelle Obama and I are about the same age. Which means that she, like me, grew up in Ronald Reagan's America. So I agree with her, we really did have more opportunities when she was a child. You know, I do have to admit that I like it when the Obamas directly or indirectly praise Reagan.

Labels: Blogs, Media, News, Obama Watch, Politics