Michael Dukakis

Latest news on michael dukakis

"[J]ournalist" Sean Hannity gives bogus defense for interviewing Andy Martin

On the October 7 edition of Fox News' Hannity & Colmes, co-host Sean Hannity defended his October 5 interview with Andy Martin -- who has called a judge a "crooked, slimy Jew" and accused African-American public officials of corruption -- by saying: "I'm a journalist who interviews people who I disagree with all the time, that give their opinion. Fox has all points of view." However, during the October 5 segment, which aired on Fox News' Hannity's America, Hannity did not challenge any assertion or statement by Martin, nor did he mention any of Martin's anti-Semitic and racially charged statements. On Hannity & Colmes, Robert Gibbs, an adviser to Sen. Barack Obama's presidential campaign, said to Hannity: "On your show on Sunday ... the show that's named after you ... [t]he centerpiece of that show was a guy named Andy Martin." Gibbs added that "Andy Martin called a judge a 'crooked, slimy Jew' " and that "Martin went on to write that he understood better why the Holocaust took place." During the exchange, Hannity said: "When I interviewed Malik Shabazz, when I interviewed Al Sharpton, when I interviewed all these controversial figures -- you see, on Fox, we actually interview people of all points of view, whether we agree or disagree." Gibbs later asked, "Why am I not to believe that you're anti-Semitic? Why am I not to believe that everybody who works for the network is anti-Semitic because Sean Hannity gives a platform to somebody who thinks Jews are 'slimy'?" Hannity, who told Gibbs that Martin's anti-Semitic comments are "despicable," further asserted: "Mr. Gibbs, I'm a journalist who interviews people who I disagree with all the time, that give their opinion. Fox has all points of view. We're allowing you on the program, and I don't agree with hardly anything Obama says." However, despite Hannity's acknowledgment that Martin's comments about Jews are "despicable," not once during the report featuring Martin did Hannity question an assertion or a statement from Martin. And as Media Matters for America has documented, Hannity also failed to note Martin's history of smears against Obama and his anti-Semitic and racially charged comments. By contrast, Hannity has openly disagreed with statements made by others on his television shows, including those by Rev. Al Sharpton and Black Lawyers for Justice spokesman Malik Shabazz, both of whom Hannity cited in defending his interview with Martin. From the April 22 edition of Fox News' Hannity's America, in which Hannity debated Sharpton (transcript retrieved from the Nexis news database): HANNITY: Reverend Al, the only people I see that are using race in this campaign is Barack Obama himself, who brings it up a lot, and a lot of his surrogates. For example, he said many times on the campaign trail, "They're going to try and make you afraid of me. They're going to say I have a funny name. They're going to say I don't look like those guys on the currency. Oh, and did they tell you, he's black?" Can you name anyone in the McCain campaign, any prominent Republican, that has brought up any of those issues? SHARPTON: Well, again, I think you missed what I said. I said that I don't think that race is going to be the deciding factor. HANNITY: I'm not asking you that. Barack Obama has said this five times himself, and I've got it on tape every time. He said this. SHARPTON: I think that, if I recall, Barack Obama stood in this city, Sean, and made a whole speech about race and how we must get beyond it, so I don't see how the one that tried to heal... HANNITY: Wait a minute. SHARPTON: ... the whole racial polarization that was raised about his own pastor, how... HANNITY: No, that's not accurate. He was there... SHARPTON: ... how you can now make him the one that is being racially polarized. (CROSSTALK) HANNITY: No, he was there -- he was there to stop the political bleeding when his pastor of 20 years, his spiritual mentor, you know, called us the U.S. KKK of A. and "America's chickens have come home to roost," and not "God bless America," "G-D America." So he said it at that time. But Barack Obama said repeatedly that "they're going to say I have a funny name. They're going to say that I don't look like the guys in the currency. They're going to say, "Oh, by the way, he's black.'" The only people that I see bringing up race is Barack himself, Kathleen Sebelius, Governor Paterson, and now Michael Dukakis today. All Obama surrogates. Who in the Republican Party is bringing up race? SHARPTON: I think that -- I think, of course -- I would expect a lot of people that are going to try to attack -- going to try to distort the picture. The fact is I think he's gone out of his way and has even been attacked by some in the black community for going out of his way. HANNITY: Then why does he keep saying that? SHARPTON: I would like to be able to finish. HANNITY: Go ahead. From the July 16, 2007, edition of Fox News' Hannity & Colmes , in which Hannity interviewed Shabazz (from Nexis): HANNITY: Malik, do you believe, because we're talking about Nazi references by Keith Ellison. But in your life, do you believe Jewish people had any evidence of 9/11 ahead of time, as you have suggested in the past? SHABAZZ: I only know that Ariel Sharon was scheduled for a news conference at the White House that was abruptly canceled on September 11th. Again, the families of those victims of 9/11 are saying that the government had foreknowledge of what was going to happen and could have been prevented. Congressman Ellison is saying that the U.S., that Bush manipulated the war, the 9/11 events to create a bogeyman called the Muslims, like Hitler created a bogeyman called the Communists, to rise into problem. HANNITY: Here's my problem here. Here's my problem. You were friends with Khalid Mohammed (ph), who once used the term, you know, "hook- nosed, bagel-eating, lox-eating, so-called Jews." You're friends with Louis Farrakhan. (CROSSTALK) SHABAZZ: That's off the topic. You are way off the topic. HANNITY: No, it's not. It's about your conspiracy theory. It's about your associating with known anti-Semites. And now we have a congressman that uses Nazi references to refer to the Bush administration. SHABAZZ: It's about you. Bush has gone from 90 percent approval to 20 percent. You, Sean Hannity, must face it. He's on a sinking ship with George Bush. From the October 7 edition of Hannity & Colmes: GIBBS: Let's do this -- do you think -- so you think he's guilty by association, right? HANNITY: No, I would -- I, Sean Hannity -- here's my answer -- would never sit on a board with a guy that bombed our Pentagon or our Capitol, and I want to know -- GIBBS: Can I ask you -- can I ask you a question? HANNITY: No, no -- wait, wait. Why does Barack Obama sit on a board with -- why did he stay, knowing his past, why did he be friends with him? GIBBS: What William Ayers did was deplorable, and when he did it, Barack Obama was 8. And Barack Obama said it was a deplorable act. HANNITY: Then why would he sit on a -- why would you sit on a board -- would you sit on a board that a guy that bombed the Pentagon and wasn't sorry about it? GIBBS: He sat on a charitable board, and a board funded by a conservative Republican and a friend of Ronald Reagan -- HANNITY: Was that poor judgment? GIBBS: That was Walter Annenberg -- is who that was. HANNITY: Was that poor judgment on Obama's part? GIBBS: I don't think that was poor judgment at all. I think what Barack Obama's done throughout his career is talk about the big issues that are important to him. HANNITY: No, you're giving me spin, now. I'm asking you -- GIBBS: Now let me ask you one question. HANNITY: All right, you ask me a question. GIBBS: OK. Are you anti-Semitic? HANNITY: Not at all. GIBBS: OK. On your show on Sunday -- HANNITY: Mm-hmm. GIBBS: -- you, the show that's named after you -- HANNITY: Uh-huh. GIBBS: -- right? The centerpiece of that show was a guy named Andy Martin. HANNITY: I know you're reading your talking points you brought in. GIBBS: No, no. I don't have talking points -- HANNITY: When I interview, when I interview -- hang on, I'm going to answer your question. When I interviewed Malik Shabazz, when I interviewed Al Sharpton, when I interviewed all these controversial figures -- you see, on Fox, we actually interview people of all points of view, whether we agree or disagree. GIBBS: So -- HANNITY: I -- the statement that you're about to read, I -- GIBBS: Andy Martin called a judge a "crooked, slimy Jew" -- HANNITY: I -- I totally, completely -- GIBBS: -- "who has a history of lying and thieving common to members" -- HANNITY: Here's my answer to you -- GIBBS: -- of his race." Martin went on to write that he understood better why the Holocaust took place "given that Jew survivors are operating as a wolfpack to steal my property." HANNITY: Here's my answer to you: I find those comments despicable. But wait a minute -- GIBBS: You put him on your show. It's the Hannity -- HANNITY: We put Malik Shabazz on the show -- GIBBS: It's the Hannity show. HANNITY: I put Khalid Mohammed on my show -- GIBBS: Why am I not to believe that you're anti-Semitic? HANNITY: Let me -- here's -- here's the answer -- GIBBS: Why am I not to believe that everybody who works for the network is anti-Semitic -- HANNITY: Mr. Gibbs -- Mr. Gibbs -- GIBBS: -- because Sean Hannity gives a platform to somebody who thinks Jews are "slimy"? HANNITY: Mr. Gibbs, I'm a journalist who interviews people who I disagree with all the time, that give their opinion. Fox has all points of view. We're allowing you on the program, and I don't agree with hardly anything Obama says. GIBBS: Well -- HANNITY: So here's my -- no, no, no -- I'm gonna answer -- GIBBS: I really wish you wouldn't give a platform to virulent anti-Semites, who can't even get a law license in Illinois. HANNITY: Here's -- I will tell you this -- if I -- if you -- I'll make a deal with you. GIBBS: Do that. HANNITY: If Barack Obama admits that what he did by sitting on a board with, giving speeches with, having Ayer -- going over to Ayers' house -- GIBBS: You'll admit you're anti-Semitic? HANNITY: No, no. I will admit to you -- I will tell you that Barack Obama wants to be president, that it's poor judgment, it is irresponsible, and it's reckless to be -- let me finish -- to be friends with a guy that bombed our Pentagon, was at war with our country, whose motto was to kill our children and kill your parents -- GIBBS: And I think it's deplorable that you have had somebody on TV that's anti-Semitic -- HANNITY: And I think it's deplorable that your candidate for president has not been honest with the American people -- GIBBS: -- that called Jews "slimy" and understands the Holocaust better because of the way he -- COLMES: We only have a short time here. HANNITY: I'm explaining -- let me finish first -- let me finish. I'm explaining to you -- GIBBS: I can't believe you would give a platform to somebody like that. HANNITY: So you don't want me to interview anybody I agree or dis -- only I can interview only people you disagree with? GIBBS: You put your whole show around him, Sean. HANNITY: Barack Obama -- listen -- GIBBS: Why am I not to believe that you agree with each and every thing that Andy Martin says? HANNITY: Listen, Barack Obama the president sat in the pew of Jeremiah Wright for 20 years, a guy who hates America. Barack Obama is friends with William Pfleger. I have one last question: Did Barack Obama ever sit and meet with Louis Farrakhan? Has he ever met with Louis Farrakhan? GIBBS: I don't -- I don't know the answer to that. HANNITY: Will you give us an answer by tomorrow? GIBBS: Will you get back to me on whether you're anti-Semitic, or whether you're -- HANNITY: Oh, oh -- I'm not anti-Semitic. I'm the biggest supporter of Israel -- [former Israeli Prime Minister] Benjamin Netanyahu blurbed my book. GIBBS: Let me say I don't think you're Jewish viewers are going to take it very well -- HANNITY: Excuse me -- excuse me -- GIBBS: -- that you put somebody like that on your show -- HANNITY: I am the biggest supporter of Israel, and I've got a 30-year history on the record of it. GIBBS: Well, ask some of their friends what Andy Martin said. Here, you take this -- you take that -- HANNITY: I'm not friends with a guy that bombed the Pentagon. I'm not friends with a guy who bombed the Capitol -- COLMES: Let me jump in here for a second -- hold on, guys -- HANNITY: Your candidate is friends with him, not me. [crosstalk] GIBBS: Ask some of your -- ask Benjamin Netanyahu about him -- HANNITY: Your candidate is friends with a terrorist. GIBBS: That's not true. HANNITY: He sits on a board with a terrorist. COLMES: Hey, guys -- guys, stop it. First of all, he's not anti-Semitic, he's not -- HANNITY: Thank you very much. COLMES: He's not anti-Semitic. But look, this game of guilt by association I disagree with on all fronts.

ABC, CBS aired no analysis from Dems during Day 2 of RNC coverage, despite airing analysis by Republicans during Day 2 of DNC coverage

Neither ABC nor CBS aired analysis from Democrats, Democratic strategists, or progressive media figures during their live coverage of the second day of the Republican National Convention on September 2 (the first day of the networks' live coverage of the convention). By contrast, both networks aired analysis from Republicans and conservatives, as well as from Democrats and progressives, during coverage of the second day of the Democratic National Convention on August 26. Media Matters for America counted elected officials and strategists affiliated with each party who appeared on the networks during the 10 p.m. ET hour of convention coverage, but omitted interviews of delegates on the floor of the conventions (who presumably were members of the parties holding the convention). Findings are included in the table below: ABC coverage DNC: Tuesday, August 26 RNC: Tuesday, September 2 Democrats, progressives Donna Brazille CNN political analyst, Gore/Lieberman '00 campaign manager Republicans, conservatives Matthew Dowd ABC News political contributor, chief strategist for Bush/Cheney '04 Matthew Dowd ABC News political contributor, chief strategist for Bush/Cheney '04 George Will Washington Post columnist and regular panelist on ABC's This Week Torie Clarke former Pentagon spokeswoman, former McCain spokeswoman CBS coverage DNC: Tuesday, August 26 RNC: Tuesday, September 2 Democrats, progressives Joe Trippi CBS News political analyst, campaign manager for Howard Dean in '04 Mark Warner former governor of Virginia, candidate for U.S. Senate from Virginia Lisa Caputo press secretary to former first lady Hillary Clinton Michael Dukakis 1988 presidential nominee Ed Rendell governor of Pennsylvania Beau Biden Delaware attorney general, son of Sen. Joe Biden Republicans, conservatives Dan Bartlett CBS political analyst, former counselor to President Bush Tim Pawlenty governor of Minnesota Dan Bartlett CBS political analyst, former counselor to President Bush Mitt Romney former governor of Massachusetts and former presidential candidate Steve Schmidt McCain campaign manager Lindsey Graham senator from South Carolina, McCain national campaign committee member

Boehlert: Hillary Clinton speaks at convention. The press concocts a story

Within the fast-forward world of campaign journalism, it's not considered cool to examine the recent past in order to provide context for today's events. (We know it's not cool because nobody does it.) Nonetheless, here's a very brief history lesson that the political press prefers to ignore. At the Democratic National Convention in 1992, Jerry Brown, who finished a very distant second to the party's nominee, had his name placed into nomination and addressed the assembled convention. After seconding his own nomination (true story), Brown delivered a fiery speech that thrilled his unruly supporters inside Madison Square Garden. Brown's ill will toward nominee Bill Clinton was so legendary that The Atlanta Journal-Constitution considered it newsworthy that Brown's convention address "avoided a direct attack" on the nominee, while the Los Angeles Times noted Brown "did not specifically endorse presidential nominee Bill Clinton." Indeed, for weeks leading up to the convention, Brown refused to back his party's nominee, complaining to The New York Times in June that supporting Clinton was like buying a ticket for the Titanic. Four years earlier, the Democratic convention in Atlanta witnessed even more tumult from the second-place finisher when Jesse Jackson, furious at being passed over for the vice-presidential slot by the party's nominee, Michael Dukakis (who failed to call Jackson and tell him the VP news), threatened to withhold his delegates' support from the party's nominee. In fact, just hours before the convention began, Jackson's supporters threatened to place the candidate's name into nomination for the vice presidency, which would have created a massive floor fight between Jackson and Dukakis' pick, Sen. Lloyd Bentsen of Texas. Pre-convention tension grew so heated that the mild-mannered Dukakis was quoted as saying, "I don't care what Jesse Jackson does. I'm going to this convention and I'm going to win." During his convention keynote address, which lasted nearly an hour -- much longer than expected, Jackson did not specifically endorse Dukakis. End of history lesson. Now, take those historical nuggets from 1992 and 1988 and transport them to Denver this week, and try to imagine what the press reaction would be (not the political reaction, but the press reaction) if Hillary Clinton delivered her address Tuesday night and did not endorse the Democratic Party's nominee. Honestly, I have trouble even picturing the response, mostly because there has already been such an unhinged media response (see Maureen Dowd, if you must) to Clinton's finishing second, speaking at the convention, and supporting the party's nominee. If she snubbed the nominee? We'd probably see a media-credentialed riot, with hordes of pundits and reporters roaming the late-night streets of Denver (Pitchforks? Probably) in search of Clinton and looking to inflict long-term pain. Fact: Many in the press have portrayed Clinton's planned convention address, as well as the fact that her name is being placed into nomination, as an unprecedented, heavy-handed power grab. Fact: It's not. In years past, Democratic candidates who won lots of primaries and accumulated hundreds of delegates (sorry, Howard Dean and Bill Bradley) have always been allowed to address the convention and very often place their name into nomination. It's the norm. It's expected. It's a formality. This newly manufactured media attack on Clinton is just the latest in a long line of press grenades thrown her way this year. But this time, she's not the only victim, because the media's concocted story line is being used to unfairly skewer Barack Obama, too. Consider New York magazine: "Obama Agrees to Roll-Call Vote for Clinton. Does That Make Him a Sissy?" What's so startling in watching the coverage of the Clinton convention-speech story has been the complete ignorance displayed about how previous Democratic conventions have dealt with runners-up like Clinton. It's either complete ignorance or the media's strong desire to painstakingly avoid any historical context, which, in turn, allows the press to mislead news consumers into thinking Clinton's appearance (as well as the gracious invitation extended by Obama) represents something unique and unusual. Something newsworthy. Based on previous conventions, if a candidate had accumulated as many delegates and votes as Clinton did during the primaries and then did not have her name placed into nomination, that would represent a radical departure from the convention norm. But, boy, in 2008, an awful lot of media outlets have played dumb. When covering the August 14 announcement about Clinton's role in Denver, they miraculously forgot to make any historical reference to similar names-placed-in-nomination at previous conventions. Instead, readers and viewers were left with the obvious impression that what was scheduled to happen in Denver was remarkable, an anomaly. And I suppose if you look at the events through a soda straw, it does look unusual. But if you include the slightest bit of context, the story changes into something normal and routine. But that's not the story the press wants to tell (the Clintons are not normal!), so the press simply erased the context and stuck to its preferred story line that Clinton's appearance in Denver and the placing of her name in nomination are one for the record books. Searching the recent news archives, it's hard to find many articles or television segments that reported on Clinton's symbolic nomination and also mentioned that runner-up Jerry Brown had been nominated in '92 or that Jesse Jackson had been nominated in '88 or that Gary Hart had been nominated in '84. (You get the idea.) When The New York Times reported on Clinton's pending nomination, it made no reference to historical precedents. Neither did The Boston Globe, nor The Wall Street Journal, nor The Washington Post. And on and on and on. On CNN, Jack Cafferty commented, "The Democratic National Convention is now shaping up to be quite a party for Hillary Clinton. Her name will be placed in nomination. She'll give a prime-time address." He made no mention that that's what previous runners-up had done at conventions. Let's give credit to the Los Angeles Times, though. In the final two sentences in an article reporting the Clinton convention story, the Times miraculously found space to note that Brown, Jackson, and Hart all had their second-place names placed into nomination. Actually, the real credit goes to CNN polling director Keating Holland (figures, he doesn't work in the newsroom), who posted a lengthy analysis at CNN.com. Holland's piece not only put Clinton's role in Denver into historical perspective ("Overall, between 1972 and 1992, 10 Democratic candidates who lost the nomination in the primaries went on to have their names formally placed in nomination at the convention."), it also pointed out that Clinton represents the only runner-up to speak at the convention who formally endorsed the party's nominee months before the convention; i.e., all the others grudgingly held out on endorsing their rivals. But not Clinton. Yet she's the one slimed by media venom. Even after all these months, I still don't completely understand why Clinton's essentially centrist campaign for the White House ginned up so much open contempt from the press corps, which has felt completely comfortable addressing her in an openly derogatory and condescending manner. The issue of her convention involvement simply allowed the press to whack her around like a piñata one more time, regardless of the facts. Just take a look at a recent edition of ABC's CW-worshipping daily bulletin The Note as it mocked Clinton's convention role with barely containable contempt: Maybe it was better for the Obama campaign to invite you inside, since you would have made an ugly scene outside. Surely Sen. Barack Obama can afford to be gracious, even to you, since he'll leave Denver with the only prize that counts. "Even to you." That's a nice touch, coming from the same press corps that erupts with indignation whenever somebody suggests Clinton might have been tarred with sexist campaign coverage. (Y'think? National Review Online, August 15: "Sure, Hillary's fat and waddly and screechy and gives pantsuits a bad name.") And this from Radar magazine: Barack Obama has approved Hillary Clinton's dubious campaign to put herself up for nomination at the upcoming Democratic National Convention. We have to ask: Is it because she's a woman or just power-hungry? Note that Clinton's convention campaign was "dubious," which was accurate if Radar, y'know, ignored facts and precedent and history and all that annoying stuff. Meanwhile, what was The Note's proof that Clinton would have "made an ugly scene outside" the convention if not included? The Note had none. And that's what's been so amazing about watching the brazen, Clinton's-trying-to-steal-the-convention-with-a-speech coverage: The narrative is built on a swamp. The press has provided virtually no facts, not even anonymous quotes, to support its beloved narrative that Hillary Clinton's planned speech ignited some kind of civil war inside the Democratic Party. What's curious is that journalists who have actually bothered to cite campaign sources about her speech and symbolic nomination came away with a very different picture of what was unfolding behind the scenes. Writing at his Atlantic blog, Marc Ambinder, who seems to enjoy regular access to Obama sources, noted that "reports of strife between negotiators for Sen. Hillary Clinton and Sen. Barack Obama are exaggerated" and that "multiple sources in both campaigns have described the negotiations as relatively free of acrimony." The next day, Ambinder returned to the topic perplexed, wondering why so many members of the press were pushing the clearly inaccurate story line that the Obama and Clinton camps were practically at war over the convention schedule. Ambinder was either being naïve or playing nice with his Beltway colleagues. (My guess is the latter.) Because it was obvious the press didn't care whether the rift about Clinton's speech was real or imagined. The story helped journalists advance their beloved narrative that Clinton is a political-party wrecking ball and that Obama is too weak to control her. So even if the evidence ran counter to that, the press was sticking with its story line. Like Ambinder, another journalist who actually reported the story was Joan Walsh at Salon.com, who wrote, "My sources say the Obama campaign was enthusiastic about the idea of putting Clinton's name in nomination, having independently reached the conclusion that it was the best way to honor her achievement and do more to win over her supporters." She then included a quote from Obama spokesman Bill Burton: "The conversations with her folks were very cordial and we've been able to work very closely with them as we unify this party. ... We couldn't be happier about how things are going with Senator Clinton and her team." Burton made several public pronouncements like that regarding the Denver convention schedule, but New York Times columnist Gail Collins mocked the idea that the scheduling had been cordial and easy, instead comparing the convention task to negotiating a Middle East between "enemy forces." And then there was Washington Post columnist Jeff Birnbaum who announced Obama never should have allowed Clinton to be nominated, suggesting it was a huge political mistake. How did Birnbaum know? He just knew. The fact that polling found Democrats by an almost 2-to-1 margin thought Clinton's nomination would be good for party unity was of no interest to Birnbaum or anyone else in the press spinning the event as a Democratic catastrophe. FYI, Birnbaum told The Wall Street Journal he was "grateful" for "Hillary Clinton's attempt tacitly to take over the Obama victory" because it was a great story that the press could cover throughout the convention. (Oh, goody.) As one blogger wrote after reading Birnbaum's quote, "I thought journalists were supposed to uncover the facts and report the story, not decide on the story and then interpret the facts to accommodate their storyline." Meanwhile, let's be clear: Clinton isn't the only injured party here. After the press constructed the phony premise abut Clinton's convention speech, critics then used it, unfairly, to tag Obama as a softie who can't even stand up to a woman. (Gasp.) "Russia rolls over Georgia, Hillary Clinton does the same to Barack Obama. Now we know who's boss." (Michael Goodwin, New York Daily News) "If Hillary Clinton can ride [roughshod] over this guy what do you think bin Laden will do?" (Dick Morris, on Fox News) "Russia invades Georgia. Hillary invades Obama's convention. Obama does nothing constructive on either count." (Amanda Carpenter, at Townhall.com) Why were critics able to get off those cheap shots? Because the press, strenuously ignoring facts and recent history, was determined to paint Clinton as the ultimate party crasher.

Media outlets reported allegations Biden plagiarized Kinnock, but not that he had previously credited him

In an August 23 article on Sen. Barack Obama's selection of Sen. Joe Biden (D-DE) as his vice-presidential running mate, the Los Angeles Times reported that "when he ran for president in 1988, Biden was accused of plagiarism when he did not credit Neil Kinnock, then leader of the British Labor Party, for much of his stump speech." Similarly, in an August 23 article, The New York Times reported that Biden "was forced to quit the 1988 presidential race in the face of accusations that he had plagiarized part of a speech from Neil Kinnock," and in an August 23 article, the Associated Press reported that Biden's 1988 run for president "ended badly" after he "was caught lifting lines from a speech by British Labor Party leader Neil Kinnock." But those articles did not note that while Biden did not attribute portions of a Kinnock speech he paraphrased during an August 23, 1987, Democratic presidential primary debate, and during an August 26, 1987, interview for the National Education Association, Biden reportedly had credited Kinnock. According to a September 13, 1987, Washington Post article, "Biden and reporters covering his campaign said that in speeches before and after that debate the senator has given Kinnock credit for the same passionate rhetoric, which he has used repeatedly in recent weeks." Specifically, the Post reported that "John Quinlan, a reporter for the Sioux City Journal, said his notes showed Biden said he was quoting Kinnock when he used the same passage in a speech Aug. 14. Stories in The [New York] Times, The Boston Globe and other newspapers also said Biden had used the rhetoric and credited Kinnock for it." In contrast with the August 23 Los Angeles Times, New York Times, and AP articles, an August 23 Chicago Tribune article reported: Twenty years ago, Biden was, in a sense, the Obama of his time, a young turk of a politician with a gift for soaring, transcendental rhetoric. But his first bid for the presidency imploded in 1988 when he was accused of plagiarizing a speech by British politician Neil Kinnock that described the candidate's working-class roots. Biden was forced from the race after the campaign of eventual nominee Michael Dukakis circulated a videotape with Biden failing to give credit to Kinnock for a speech he gave in Iowa. Biden, however, had credited Kinnock with the remarks in his other speeches, leaving many of his supporters at the time -- and long after -- feeling like Biden was pushed from the stage unfairly. From the September 13, 1987, Washington Post article, by staff writer Eleanor Randolph (retrieved from the Nexis news database): Campaign aides to Sen. Joseph R. Biden Jr. (D-Del.) reacted angrily yesterday to a report that a fellow Democratic contender for the presidential nomination had given at least one journalist a videotape suggesting that Biden plagiarized a campaign speech of British Labor Party leader Neil Kinnock. Biden himself said he wasn't angry, adding that his rivals may be "a little worried there's some movement" toward him in the race for the Democratic nomination. The tape, which yesterday's Des Moines Register described as the first example of an "attack video" launched by a political rival, showed an excerpt of a widely discussed Kinnock commercial from last summer's British general election and then an excerpt from an Aug. 23 debate in Iowa in which Biden borrowed the British leader's words. Biden did appear to drop his own family something of a notch downward on the economic and social scale to appear more like Kinnock. But Biden and reporters covering his campaign said that in speeches before and after that debate the senator has given Kinnock credit for the same passionate rhetoric, which he has used repeatedly in recent weeks -- and in a speech Friday night in Philadelphia. "I've been using it all over," Biden said in a telephone interview. He acknowledged failing to credit Kinnock Aug. 23 but said many members of that Iowa audience had heard the same words, fully credited to the Briton, in other campaign appearances. [...] The Kinnock commercial, which was part of a Labor Party broadcast that many British viewers saw as an American-style advertisement, showed the Welshman saying at one point: "Why am I the first Kinnock in a thousand generations to be able to get to university? ... Was it because our predecessors were thick? ... Was it because they were weak, those people who could work eight hours underground [as coal miners] and come up and play football, weak? ... It was because there was no platform upon which they could stand." Biden, in the Aug. 23 debate said: "Why is it that Joe Biden is the first in his family ever to go to a university? ... Is it because our fathers and mothers were not bright? Is it because I'm the first Biden in ... generations to get a college and a graduate degree that I was smarter than the rest? ... Was it that they didn't work hard, my ancestors who worked in the coal mines of Northeast Pennsylvania and would come up after 12 hours and play football for four hours? ... It's because they didn't have a platform upon which to stand." Biden aides said yesterday that Biden began using the Kinnock rhetoric in August and had credited Kinnock on virtually every other occasion when he used it. John Quinlan, a reporter for the Sioux City Journal, said his notes showed Biden said he was quoting Kinnock when he used the same passage in a speech Aug. 14. Stories in The Times, The Boston Globe and other newspapers also said Biden had used the rhetoric and credited Kinnock for it.

CBS Evening News aired portion of Floyd Brown's anti-Obama attack ad, failing to report Obama is not a Muslim

On the June 30 edition of the CBS Evening News, correspondent Dean Reynolds aired a clip of an attack ad against Sen. Barack Obama in which the narrator says, "Obama was enrolled in school as a Muslim while living in Indonesia." Nowhere in his report did Reynolds note that Obama is in fact not a Muslim but, rather, a practicing Christian. Earlier in the report, Reynolds stated that Obama "has faced such questions [about his patriotism] for months, mostly on the Internet," adding, "It's a campaign to sow doubts about him." Previously, the editor of CBS' now-defunct Public Eye blog criticized an April 2007 video by Evening News anchor Katie Couric in which, as Media Matters for America noted, Couric asserted that Obama's "background sparked rumors that he had studied at a radical madrassa, or Quranic school" without noting that the rumors were false. Couric's "Notebook" was later updated to note that the madrassa "rumors [were] later disproved" and that the source for the claim that Obama "grew up praying in a mosque" later backed off that assertion. According to a March 25, 2007, Chicago Tribune article, Obama attended a Catholic elementary school and then a public school during the four years he spent in Indonesia as a child. As Media Matters previously documented, a January 24, 2007, Associated Press article reported that while enrolling at Fransiskus Assisis (St. Francis of Assisi), the Catholic school Obama attended for grades 1 through 3, Obama was "required" to "choose one of five state-sanctioned religions when registering -- Muslim, Hindu, Buddhist, Catholic or Protestant." The AP reported that "documents showed [Obama] enrolled as a Muslim, the religion of his stepfather" and that Obama spokesman Robert Gibbs "said he wasn't sure why the document had Obama listed as a Muslim." The article also quoted Gibbs as stating, "Senator Obama has never been a Muslim." The Tribune article further reported on Obama's enrollment status: At the time, the school most likely registered children based on the religion of their fathers, said Darmawan, Obama's former teacher. Because Soetoro was a Muslim, Obama was listed as a Muslim, she said. The enrollment form from the Catholic school, which has been cited as evidence that Obama was a Muslim in Indonesia, also was rife with errors. It listed Obama as an Indonesian, listed his previous school incorrectly and failed to list his mother, Ann, at all. A May 15, 2007, Los Angeles Times article reported that "[a]fter St. Francis, Obama completed third and fourth grades in what is now called Model Primary School Menteng 1 in central Jakarta. Opened by Indonesia's former Dutch colonial rulers, the public school screens for the best students with writing tests and interviews. Several of its students have gone on to join Indonesia's elite." According to the Times, "Bugs have eaten Obama's file in the school's archive, said Vice Principal Hardi Priyono. But two of his teachers, former Vice Principal Tine Hahiyari and third-grade teacher Effendi, said they remember clearly that at this school too, he was registered as a Muslim, which determined what class he attended during weekly religion lessons." The Tribune also reported: "Interviews with dozens of former classmates, teachers, neighbors and friends show that Obama was not a regular practicing Muslim when he was in Indonesia." Obama has said in speeches that his father "was Muslim but as an adult became an atheist," and Obama's Indonesian stepfather, Lolo Soetoro, was described in the Tribune article as "much more of a free spirit than a devout Muslim, according to former friends and neighbors." During the CBS report, the attack ad was identified as a "YouTube" video from "ExposeObama.com." But Reynolds did not note that ExposeObama.com is run by Floyd Brown, the creator of the infamous Willie Horton ad that ran against then-Democratic presidential candidate Michael Dukakis in 1988. ExposeObama.com describes itself as a "project of the National Campaign Fund," of which Brown is the "Founder and President." From the January 24, 2007 AP article: Obama's mother, divorced from Obama's father, married a man from Indonesia named Lolo Soetoro, and the family relocated to the country from 1967-71. At first, Obama attended the Catholic school, Fransiskus Assisis, where documents showed he enrolled as a Muslim, the religion of his stepfather. The document required that each student choose one of five state-sanctioned religions when registering -- Muslim, Hindu, Buddhist, Catholic or Protestant. Gibbs said he wasn't sure why the document had Obama listed as a Muslim. "Senator Obama has never been a Muslim," Gibbs said. "As a six-year-old in Catholic school, he studied the catechism." The Illinois senator is a member of the United Church of Christ. From the March 25, 2007, Chicago Tribune article: Obama's stepfather, Lolo Soetoro, was much more of a free spirit than a devout Muslim, according to former friends and neighbors. And the school described as an Islamic madrassa in media reports actually was a public school, so progressive that teachers wore miniskirts and all students were encouraged to celebrate Christmas. [...] At the time, the school most likely registered children based on the religion of their fathers, said Darmawan, Obama's former teacher. Because Soetoro was a Muslim, Obama was listed as a Muslim, she said. The enrollment form from the Catholic school, which has been cited as evidence that Obama was a Muslim in Indonesia, also was rife with errors. It listed Obama as an Indonesian, listed his previous school incorrectly and failed to list his mother, Ann, at all. From the June 30 broadcast of the CBS Evening News with Katie Couric: COURIC: Now, turning to the presidential campaign. Today, John McCain returned fire after a surprising attack on one of his biggest strengths. This as Barack Obama tried to shore up what some believe is one of his biggest weaknesses. Here's Dean Reynolds. [begin video clip] REYNOLDS: For Barack Obama, his speech today in Missouri was the latest attempt to rebut insinuations that he is less than loyal to the country. OBAMA: I will never question the patriotism of others in this campaign. [video break] And I will not stand idly by when I hear others question mine. REYNOLDS: But he has faced such questions for months, mostly on the Internet. It's a campaign to sow doubts about him. UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Obama was enrolled in school as a Muslim while living in Indonesia. REYNOLDS: Obama now wears an American flag pin in his lapel and is often at events where Old Glory is prominent. He clearly believes patriotism should be off the table. OBAMA: No party or political philosophy has a monopoly on patriotism. [video break] And surely we can arrive at a definition of patriotism that, however rough and imperfect, captures the best of America's common spirit.

Pittsburgh Tribune-Review blog suggested "giant lead" in poll for Obama foreshadows his defeat

In a June 20 blog post on the Pittsburgh Tribune-Review's Forty-Fourth Estate blog, titled "Shades of Dukakis, Obama up 15," political reporter and editorial page columnist Salena Zito suggested that Sen. Barack Obama's "giant lead" over Sen. John McCain in a June 18-19 Newsweek poll foreshadows defeat for Obama by comparing him to unsuccessful 1988 Democratic presidential candidate Michael Dukakis, who, according to Zito, "enjoyed a 54 to 38 percent lead over" Republican George H.W. Bush "after all of the Democratic primaries ended." Zito wrote: "This evening a new Newsweek poll shows Obama having a giant lead, from 51 percent to 36 percent, over McCain among registered voters across the country." She added: "Obama got his bounce, Dukakis style." Media Matters for America has noted a pattern of media portrayals of any news, even seemingly negative, as good news for the Republicans. Zito's June 20 blog post in its entirety: Shades of Dukakis, Obama up 15 In May of 1988 after all of the Democratic primaries ended presumptive nominee Michael Dukakis enjoyed a 54 to 38 percent lead over then Ronald Reagan wing man George H.W. Bush. H.W. went on to win in that November handily This evening a new Newsweek poll shows Obama having a giant lead, from 51 percent to 36 percent, over McCain among registered voters across the country. Obama got his bounce, Dukakis style.