. You have to laugh at the sheer BIAS of it all. The single most important news in the world today for the BBC to run as its lead story is the selection by the Obamessiah of slow Joe Biden as his V-P running mate. Clearly they don’t buy the view expressed by John Adams that it “the most insignificant office that ever the invention of man contrived or his imagination conceived!” The main BBC news spun this news as if it were of monumental significance and I look forward to seeing their news schedule being led by the announcement of McCain’s V-P selection, with appropriate fever. It is so obvious that the BBC wants Obama in the White House and it permeates their coverage. They wanted Kerry but were denied and now all their focus is on the Chosen One. You can tell how shocked they are that Obama’s poll numbers FELL after his European PR-fest so one can only speculate how the BBC will take an Obama defeat in November. I guess it will be used to insinuate that too many Americans are racist.
BIDEN FEVER
Bookmark the permalink.
Call me suspicious if you want BUT
Obama and binden sounds like
Osama ben Laden.
Bad omen if ever there was, I wouldn’t trust or vote for them even if I could
To anyone with a passing interest in US politics, make sure you e-mail as many beeboid hacks as possible, offering them the very first official Obama BUMPER STICKER.
OBAMA bin BIDEN 08
I see for all the trumpeting of Obama’s “Be the First to Know” campaign tool last week, there is NIL coverage of the complete and total farce it turned out to be. (The story getting reported on CNN first, then mobile subscribers being woken up by text messages at 3 o’clock in the morning. Email subscribers got their notice only a couple of hours ago.)
“The Americans were too racist to elect a black president” articles are already being prepared. Oddly the facts that so far only Democrats have had the chance to vote for or against a black man and a lot voted against has received little BBC coverage. By way of contrast, a McCain victory will be deemed to be because Republicans are racist.
Of course the BBC ignore the fact that that ‘evil’ Boosh has had TWO senior figures that are black in his cabinet.
Colin Powell and Condi Rice. Totally ignored by the BBC.
Hi David,
Remind me, what did SKY lead on?
Biden occupied the first 16 minutes of the 30 minute five pm news on Radio 4 this evening.
Some context that is sorely lacking in your post. Right now, a good chunk of UK media seem to have it as their top story too.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/
http://www.guardian.co.uk/
http://www.independent.co.uk/
Hardly an unreasonable choice for top story – and it appears that I’m not the only one who thinks so. (Personally, I think Sky has it right leading with Russian/Georgia).
Of course the BBC ignore the fact that that ‘evil’ Boosh has had TWO senior figures that are black in his cabinet.
Colin Powell and Condi Rice. Totally ignored by the BBC.
Martin | 23.08.08 – 7:18 pm | #
Are you for real Martin?
Where to start? Biden’s a specialist subject and likely of marginal interest in Britain.
But in case Frei’s mysteriously busy elsewhere, here are a couple of snippets for the next quiz night at the pub:
Biden’s as vain and ego-driven as Obama. He’s known as Senator Hairplug — his thickening hairline is a work-in-progress over decades. He’s also a plagiarist who stole from, ahem, Neal Kinnock.
You can be sure Biden understands The One. He believed himself destined for Sec State under a Kerry admininstration and of his own volition made a special trip to the State Dept car park to select the best parking place — before the election.
As a guy w/ a reputation for hitting up on vulnerable female staff, his performance alongside Sen Kennedy at the Anita Hill/Clarence Thomas hearings stands as a monument to all that’s hypocritical, corrupt and rotten in modern American politics.(‘Turning now to the matter of the pubic hair on the Coke bottle…’)
He’s been a senator for 35 yrs. This, evidently, is where The Audacity of Hope meets reality.
What were they thinking?
gunnar: YES I am for real. The way the BBC has been masturbating over Osama is beyond a joke.
You get the impression from the BBC that America had never had a senior black politician.
In the same way the BBC goes on about the lack of senior women in the Tory party, forgetting that the Tories elected Maggie Thatcher back in the 1970’s. Were still waiting for another major party to elect a female leader.
Sky News 8pm headline. Brown in China
BBC News 24. Fat ugly female beeboids having an orgasm about that black Moozlum bloke who wants to destroy America.
So Gunnar.. Why does the BBC feel the need not only to lead on a non story like this?
Joe Biden is going the way of Walter Mondale, Geraldine A. Ferraro, Michael Dukakis, Lloyd Bentsen, Al Gore, Joe Lieberman, John Edwards, ………………………………………………………………………….and that is where the rotten BBC and its fellow travellers are going too.
Good Luck Losers!
Hmm. The BBC don’t seem to want to mention Biden’s racist comments.
Could you imagine if Boris Johnson said that what the BBC would say?
I’m going to watch BBC News all day when (if) it is announced that McCain wins the US General Election.
It’s going to be delicious.
Both Sky and BBC TV led with Biden on their 10pm news bulletins. Sky mentioned that Biden had, during the primaries, said that Obama wasn’t ready to be President. The BBC didn’t mention it.
Well, it seems, yet again, we have the BBC bang to rights – red-handed, caught lying for the US democrats.
On Radio 4 this evening, the claim was made that Joseph Biden’s troubles began when he lifted ‘a single sentence’ from a speech from the Welsh windbag, Neil Kinnock. Indeed, the R4 News at 5 this evening specifically played just one remark (minus the tragic violin accompaniment) where Kinnock revealed that he was the first of his clan to have gone to university. Cut to Biden saying much the same. Cut again, to the noted EU sponger saying how friendly he had become with Biden, since the incident.
The programme presenter then went out of her way to say that, in fact, Biden had used the line several times before and had hitherto always attributed it to Kinnock. But on the one occasion he forgot, he just happened to have been heard by a Labour Party worker, who shopped him to the Press.
So far so good. To the uninformed listener this would have appeared to be a storm in a teacup. A single phrase, which Biden simply forgot to attribute.
Only that is a lie. A lie perpetrated by the BBC to whitewash Biden who, in fact, lifted a great deal more than a single phrase and who, it appears, has serious previous for plagiarising the work of others.
Allow me to quote from the New York Tmes: “Mr. Biden’s troubles began with the revelation in The New York Times and The Des Moines Register that he had used, without attribution, long portions of a moving address by the British Labor Party leader, Neil Kinnock. Later, it emerged that he had also used passages from the speeches of Robert F. Kennedy and Hubert H. Humphrey.”
In other words, the BBC lied. It deliberately tried to obscure the fact that Biden is a serial plagiarist.
And here is the link to the NYT article: http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9B0DE0DF173AF937A1575AC0A961948260&sec=&spon=&pagewanted=all
So, Joel, MrMinit and all you other BBC fanboys, just what is your response to this categorical proof that your beloved Corporation is currently engaged in propaganda work for the Obama campaign?
GCooper: Biden is well known to Americans for dropping himself in it. Notice how as you point out they go easy, unlike the way the BBC treats Boris Johnson or John Redwood.
I bet they didn’t mention the comment from Biden about Osama being “clean” did they?
Did they mention he voted for the war in Iraq?
The BBC spin the lies they want.
Note in this BBC story, the BBC spins the lie that Osama voted AGAINST the war in Iraq in 2002. He wasn’t in the Senate then, so how could he?
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/7305023.stm
Here’s a quote from an interview that Osama did
RUSSERT: You were not in the Senate in October of 2002. You did give a speech opposing the war. But Sen. Clinton’s campaign will say since you’ve been a senator there’s been no difference in your record. And other critics will say that you’ve not been a leader against the war, and they point to this: In July of ’04, Barack Obama, “I’m not privy to Senate intelligence reports. What would I have done? I don’t know,” in terms of how you would have voted on the war. And then this: “There’s not much of a difference between my position on Iraq and George Bush’s position at this stage.” That was July of ’04. And this: “I think” there’s “some room for disagreement in that initial decision to vote for authorization of the war.” It doesn’t seem that you are firmly wedded against the war, and that you left some wiggle room that, if you had been in the Senate, you may have voted for it.
http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/washington/2007/11/obama-speak.html
The BBC will have a lie half way around the world, before the truth has got it’s socks on. So long as the lie is of benefit to the left.
BBC News 24. Fat ugly female beeboids having an orgasm about that black Moozlum bloke who wants to destroy America.
So Gunnar.. Why does the BBC feel the need not only to lead on a non story like this?
Martin | 23.08.08 – 8:06 pm | #
I assume you mean by “black Moozlum bloke who wants to destroy America” Obama. Is this correct?
For your info, I think that the difference between him and McCain is marginal and it will make no major difference to US and world affairs who will be elected in November.
Do you really think that Obama, if elected, is going to change the DNA of the USA?
Biden pick means McCain doesn’t need to do anything rash. McCain will destroy Obama in any debate where there’s no teleprompter, and a chimp can take Biden apart in any setting, if he doesn’t just implode in a campaign plane chat with reporters.
That means Romney. And that means the BBC and NBC are going to have to get ready to point to all the rascists in America.
An inexperienced stone cold socialist combined with a man who garnered 9500 votes in the Dem primary can’t possibly be beat if it’s not for rascists.
gunnar
You surely cannot believe that with a Dem Congress putting no brakes on Obama, this far-left candidate would act the same as McCain ?
That is like saying that Reagan behaved pretty well the same as Carter. Total rubbish.
For your info, I think that the difference between him and McCain is marginal and it will make no major difference to US and world affairs who will be elected in November.
FYI – that’s ill-informed crap. McCain has many faults for US conservatives. #1. being he delights in pissing off said conservatives… but he’s no BULLY STATE SOCIALIST who spouts sub-Marxist gibberish.
Which is exactly what Mr Obama is and does.
“‘Just Words’ That Joe Biden Would Like To Forget
The curse of a loose mouth and Nexis.”
Jim Geraghty supplies the quotes here:
http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=NGRhNzJlMWY5NjdiNzhjMTRkYjMzNjYwOGJmYzNjMTY=
A sample :
“Biden appearing on The Daily Show, August 2, 2005: “John McCain is a personal friend, a great friend, and I would be honored to run with or against John McCain, because I think the country would be better off, be well off no matter who…”
Do you guys really believe Obama is going to do a Chavez? From your comments it seems that you seem so.
He is part of the elite as McCain and all the guys who came before them were. Seriously, you can sleep as safely under Obama as under McCain. The rethoric will be different, but the deeds all the same.
gunnar | 24.08.08 – 1:46 am |
Do you guys really believe Obama is going to do a Chavez? From your comments it seems that you seem so.
No, gunnar, not really. However, the Obmessiah is certainly going to take that first step. When one takes into consideration the combination of the amped-up influence of the far-Leftoid nutroots and MoveOn neo-Marxists, combined with the nonsense that Nancy Pelosi – Speaker of the House, which is unlikely to change if the Obamessiah wins – has been spouting, the country will most certainly take that first step toward a Chavez utopia.
It’s a small step, but a crucial one I’d rather wasn’t taken, thanks.
Do you really think that Obama, if elected, is going to change the DNA of the USA?
gunnar | 24.08.08 – 1:00 am | #
Why don’t we ask BBC “journalist” Kevin Connolly?
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/7578854.stm
“…we now face the curious spectacle of a man who’s going to change the way business is done in Washington…”
Note: not “a man who’s said he’s going to change the way business is done in Washington”…
No, according to Connolly, a man who IS going to change American politics.
Can you imagine a BBC hack saying of McCain…”a man who’s going to win the war against terror”?
*laughter*
The idea that Biden is an “expert” in foreign policy is a joke.
Biden is about as popular in the USA as Gordon Brown is in the UK.
The Osama/BIN la DIN combo will lose.
The rethoric will be different, but the deeds all the same.
gunnar | 24.08.08 – 1:46 am | #
YAWN. It’s clear from your posts that you do not really follow US politics, except on the most superficial level. Yet you insist on sharing your ignorance with us.
Yeah, fight the power.
gunnar
Stop digging
With Russia upping the gambling stakes in Georgia it is noticeable by its absence that Obamarama has no quotes on this situation in the BBC!
Has he said anything on this issue?
Cassandrina: Osama is an idiot. An air head. He’s good at reading from prepared speeches, but the man lacks serious judgement and ability.
Once the head to heads start for real, Osama will be shown up. ANYONE who saw Saddleback can see just how much better McCain is that Osama.
I didn’t watch any BBC coverage yesterday, but did anyone catch a couple of clips Sky were running from the Biden-launch rally.
First of all, Obama called Biden “the next President of the United States”, only for Biden to turn around and talk about “Barrack America”, like it was his name. Did the BBC show these two gaffes at all?
Cassandrina
Obama first made a wishy-washy equivocating statement. Pleading with both Georgia and Russia to show moderation. In line with his usual wishy washy equivocation. His campaign was forced to issue a toughr statement critical of Russia.
By contrast, McCain who has a lot of prio knowledge about Georgia and East Europe was very critical of the Russians from Day 1.
This sharp contrast is reckoned to have helped plunge Obama’s poll numbers. Obama probably compounded things by appearing to suggest that Russia’s aggression was caused by the US. Just like he now reckons China is a better place than America.
But you would get no sense of all that from the BBC – they probably had 2 dozen stories about the US election over the period, but I saw damn-all about Obama’s weakness on Georgia.
Probably because the Beeb itsaelf takes a wishy-washy equivocating view of most world affairs, never any moral clarity.
And certainly there has been no mention of Obama’s absurd rose-tinted-glasses remarks about China. Again – they fit with the the BBC worldview – US bad, US opponents good.
Cassandrina – Only stupor-inducing platitudes from O, and Biden’s currently busy with his hair and makeup.
Georgia is shaping up to be yet another issue where the US people are ahead of their elites, again.
You may find some comfort here: http://www.americanthinker.com/2008/08/europe_betrays_itself_in_georg.html
…Though it’s a bit long and needs editing, IMO the conclusions are mainstream American, across party lines. You can be sure the Frei-Webb axis will stay well away.
YAWN. It’s clear from your posts that you do not really follow US politics, except on the most superficial level. Yet you insist on sharing your ignorance with us.
Jack Bauer | Homepage | 24.08.08 – 10:03 am | #
Jack and DavidP,
Do you really believe Obama will change the USA and turn it to the left? Somehow, you seem to believe this. But then, you think the BBC is a marxist bastion … so definitions of left may vary.
gunnar
Obama would have let saddam carry on. McCain wouldn’t.
Obama wants to raise taxes. McCain doesn’t.
Obama wants activist justices on the Supreme Court – who would apply the ratchet effect to move law leftwards. McCain wants constitutionalist, not activists.
Obama supported infanticide, could not state when he think life begins. “Above his pay grade” to give a clear answer to a central issue in US politics. McCain gave a crisp instant answer.
Obama has never reached across the aisle. He is the most left-wing POTUS candidate since McGovern. And would not be blocked by a Dem congress.
I really think you are being naive in suggesting that there is no real difference,
On BBC News 24 yesterday evening we had Philippa Thomas in the US chairing a discussion with 3 US commentators ostensibly across the political spectrum. I admit that they were all new to me but what came across is how the 3 were unanimous in their wonder and approval that Obama should have chosen Biden as his running mate.
Apparently Biden’s got it all. For instance: despite being in the Senate for 36 years (very non-Washington establishment!) he’s not become conspicuously wealthy (I daresay he’s not on the breadline either), he’s got working class credentials, he’s someone you could sit down and have a beer with, he’s got foreign policy experience (as a member of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee)and so on and so forth. The guy’s perfect to recapture the redneck vote: not a breath of criticism from the chosen commentators. It was a particularly boring half-hour or so. Wouldn’t it be possible occasionally to bring on a commentator who does not follow the BBC line that Obama is perfect and his every decision and pronouncement is God-like. I know this isn’t an election about climate change – in which case the sceptics wouldn’t get a mention let alone a comment – but just to make life interesting shouldn’t the BBC have somebody on who is not an Obama fan – even if the BBC insists s/he wears a strait-jacket?
John A – a response to a few of your more widly out-there claims. Obama as far as I am aware does not want to ”raise taxes”, except on the very richest americans ($250,000+), whereas mccain has tax cuts for everyone, especially that rich group, but in the lowest three income groups, which make up 60 percent of the population, barry’s plans would leave them slightly better off.
And mccain’s comments at saddleback weren’t in my opinion crisp or to the point, they were blatant appeals to the social conservative views of these evangelicals in bumper sticker slogan form. obama’s while unsure were at least thought-out, and if i might add, more in line with what the science is telling us. i mean, the pragmatic ramifactions of john’s life begins at conception boggle the mind; in facts it’s clear the mccain probably does not even believe this himself – having a foetus legally equal to a man would mean life jail terms for women aborting their pregnancies.
the way it seems to me is that mccain is spouting evangelical catchphrases in an attempt to appeal to this vital demographic, but whether he believes any of this stuff is anyone’s guess. personally i’d like to hope not!
“Do you really believe Obama will change the USA and turn it to the left?”
Gunnar:
In a word, yes. The man is left wing. His voting record is the most left wing in the Senate. He is steeped in left wing politics. If he is President with a Democrat House and Senate, then of course he will take the USA down a leftist road. Why do you think he won’t?
what i don’t get is how barry is the most liberal in the senate when they have bernie sanders, an actual socialist
Hi Rob,
Obama apparently voted along the Dems in 96% of cases. Very leftwing, is it?
http://projects.washingtonpost.com/congress/members/o000167/
Jack,
I guess, one should judge someone by actions rather than words.
JohnA,
“Obama supported infanticide, could not state when he think life begins. “Above his pay grade” to give a clear answer to a central issue in US politics. McCain gave a crisp instant answer.”
I know, this is what people want to hear. I heard McCain stating his position in black and white terms.
You guys may be right so (no pun) and McCain will win.
gunnar
Your odd comments on Saddleback do not chime with general opinion in the US. You say that Obama’s views were well thought out. But everyone has said that he gave verbose replies but never actually answered the questions. That is – he never gave any clear views. Just waffle.
For instance, that life begins at conception is scientific fact. Stating that as a straight answer to a straight question is not some kind of appeal to knee-jerk religion. Nor does it preclude abortion under clearly defined circumstances. The question is where to draw the line.
Obama waffled and confused in his answers, especially on this one.. You would call that “nuancing” – most commentators saw it as evasion. As he said – it is above his pay-grade. For a lawyer with claimed rhetoric ability to be so confusined and confusing was a sign of how unfit he is to lead.
When put to the test of actually choosing to vote (as against his long pattern of duck-the-issue abstentions) voting, Obama’s record shows that simgle-handedly opposed legislation that would require the saving of a near-term baby born after a failed abortion. That too is fact. He blocked legislation that was intended do prevent infanticide, death of a new-born infant by denying it medical succour.
Obama waffled all round the clock on the question “Do you believe in evil”. As if he does not accept that there is such a thing – or if it exists, there are extenuating circumstances. McCain said flat out that evil exists – and islamist terrorism in the form of 9/11 was pure evil. That was a far more considered answer, albeit direct, immediate and crisp, than Obama’s tortuous nomsemse.
Do you dispute that 9/11 was pure evil ? How about the London bombings ? or do you want to nuance like Obama about that ?
Throughout the saddleback interview, Obama ducked and weaved. He came across as shifty, indecisive – and often downright dishonest or disingenuous. Without a teleprompter his performance was a bloody shambles. Even though he and McCain had been given prior notice of the first few questions, and theiy and their staffs could have guessed the general lines of questioning and briefed accordingly.
On taxes, Obama wants to spend more money. McCain wants to spend less. So – tax rises with Obama, falls with McCain. Or can you square that circle too ?
It is on energy policy that Obama comes across clearly as a leftist economic buffoon. He is the one with the knee-jerk policies – tax the oil firms, effectively debar new drilling in areas that have real prospects, no more nuclear, rely on ridiculous estimates of what might be possible from wind and solar power. While forcing reductions in fuel usage. A recipe for economic disaster – but leftist economics merge with green fascism in the Obama world.
I remember the Kennedy election. The mere idea of comparing this clown Obama with Kennedy is an insult.
gunnar
McCain did not set out to answer on when does life begin in a way designed to please the masses. McCain decides his own points of view – often upsetting his side. His answer was his own clear belief. Obama’s answers on most questions at Saddleback were contrived, circumlocutionary and often morally evasive.
Unlike gunnar I watched Saddleback. McCain answered more questions for starters. Osama often waffled for minutes at a time.
are you calling him the hilariously witty name osama for some reason that i’m missing that’s not because they’re both brown
James: Why does it both you so much what I call Osama? Don’t you have a sense of humour? Oh hang on you’re a lefty. Lefties don’t do humour do they?
Here’s a lefty joke “I went to Mcdonalds’ last week, I threw a chair through the window man, Yer! I’m cool”
gunnar | 24.08.08 – 2:11 pm |
Do you really believe Obama will change the USA and turn it to the left? Somehow, you seem to believe this.
Your choice of words is very sloppy. It’s dangerously near the late Hillhunt’s tactic of reductio ad absurdum.
I’m saying – and I think I’m not alone here – that the combination of the Obamessiah’s actual political views (neo-Marxist) combined with the neo-Marxist drivel Nancy Pelosi spouts and the new power which the far-Left activists will feel is an unhealthy recipe. I’m talking wedge issues here, which will be the first steps on a number of slippery slopes.
This is a very real danger. The US is not – contrary to BBC-educated popular belief – a banana republic in which national policy turns on a dime. Once certain ideals and procedures are entrenched in the bureaucracy for three or four years, it’s very, very hard to shift it. Once rules and regulations are set into place it’s very difficult – again, contrary to BBC-educated popular belief – to roll all that back. And before you try to bring it up: No, the US has not been headed in a far-right, nasty capitalist neo-conservative direction for the last eight years. Other than the war against Islamo-fascism and a couple of half-assed attempts in the distant past to pander to the Über-Christians, the Bush Administration has been decidedly unconservative in their approach to government profligacy and a few others. A good precedent for real Socialist activism has already been set, unfortunately.
Our idiot politicians blow with the wind, and under the combined influence of the aforementioned forces, they very well may enact stupid legislation which will permanently cripple this country’s ability to right itself economically, never mind from even the most limited personal freedoms standpoint. This really is a case where one can apply the metaphor of squishing a butterfly now will wreak havoc in the future.
The Obamessiah and his supporters will crush that butterfly, along with several others. That’s all it will take.
You must stop viewing this issue in hyperbolic terms in order to understand what we’re talking about here.
But then, you think the BBC is a marxist bastion … so definitions of left may vary.
True. Many Leftoids define anything to the right of Engels and Marx as “far-right wingnuts”. I wonder what would happen if you asked all BBC employees to make a little graph of their own definitions? Would you care to guess?
McCain did not set out to answer on when does life begin in a way designed to please the masses.
JohnA | 24.08.08 – 8:13 pm | #
Really? The feedback he got was deafining. Remind me, how many people in the USA believe in god or a higher being?
You further state:
McCain said flat out that evil exists – and islamist terrorism in the form of 9/11 was pure evil. That was a far more considered answer, albeit direct, immediate and crisp, than Obama’s tortuous nomsemse.
JohnA | 24.08.08 – 8:10 pm | #
Doesn’t this chime nicely with religious? Not sure, how helpful those black and white concepts are in real life though.
Hi Martin,
Unlike gunnar I watched Saddleback. McCain answered more questions for starters. Osama often waffled for minutes at a time.
Martin | 24.08.08 – 8:38 pm | #
Unlike Martin, I do not make assumptions of what people have seen or not. Unlike Martin, I do not think that a straight answer is necessarily the best. Warning: this is not an endorsement of Obama.
Hi DavidP,
You state:
“Your choice of words is very sloppy.” . Fair enough, but you then seem to come up with sloppy formulations and some hyperbole yourself.
Seriously, I am really amazed, that you are actually state that Obama may hold neo-marxists views and that you believe that Obama may be a Mini-Che or Chavez.
Yes, I would be interested in survey on political and economical beliefs amongst the BBC staff 🙂
And lastly, it is ALWAYS Marx and Engels, never the the other way around 😉
The VP position can be insignificant, it depends on what role the President wants for them.
It is so obvious that Biased BBC doesn’t want Obama in the White House and it permeates their coverage.
Here’s a lefty joke “I went to Mcdonalds’ last week, I threw a chair through the window man, Yer! I’m cool”
haha you sure have your finger on the pulse of modern liberal values