The New York Times just compiled a series of interviews that Barack Obama gave from 2001 to 2004 to provide us with a glimpse of who this illustrious figure was before he began running for president.
What I gleaned from the compilation, which can be viewed here, was definitely the feeling that the senator felt more open to speak freely, but also the distinct feeling that the Times very likely would not have shown a compilation of John McCain's previous interviews in the same light.
Now, this is not to say that I don't admire the positions Obama has taken in the past, because I absolutely do. But in reading the Times, especially the past month, they have devoted much time and energy to unearthing anything even slightly clandestine or backroom-ish about Sen. McCain while lauding Sen. Obama.
There are several matters at hand here. McCain has been on the public stage for a much longer time span than Obama. Naturally, there is going to be much more underhandedness to delve into. However, it could also be said that the nature of the campaign in recent weeks has given some the impetus to uncover who these candidates really are. Where there's mudslinging, there's probably hypocrisy. It's the media's job to bring this to light. That being said, what do ya'll think? Is there more we need to know about Obama and McCain? Do you think the media has done its job in providing the full vitae of these candidates?
[Source: nytimes.com]
1 comment:
Jesus, what more does the media need to do--Take a stool sample? The guy (or one day gal) is not going to be emperor-for-life. Just the head of what in reality is a legislative body. This campaign's been so long and exhaustive. And truth be told, because someone voted one way sometime in the past is supposed to mean they're locked-in to that position? This whole process is so childish and in the end I think the powers that be (the media and big business) already know who's going to win.
Post a Comment