I'm sure you've heard the hubbub about the video the LA Times refuses to release, which is very damaging to the Obama campaign. Of course, I thought the Jeremiah Wright sound bites would turn the Obama Campaign into the Lusitania, but....
At any rate, the great John Hinderaker goes into detail here at Powerline about the whole ordeal.
Says John:
"The L.A. Times has reported that Obama attended the party for his friend, as did Bill Ayers. The paper says it has a video of the event, and that Obama gave some kind of a talk. But it refuses to release the video, claiming--perhaps belatedly--that it promised its source to keep the video confidential."
I'm confused: First, why would someone give the video to Times - or any media outlet in a Free Society, where (in theory) the media's purpose is to bring truth to the people and keep politicians accountable - and ask that it not be shared with the public? Second, if the source is one of Obama's slobbering followers, why in God's name would the source give something so damning to any media outlet, irrespective of the outlet's leanings? If you're a conservative, and your neighbor video tapes you in your pool practicing synchronized swimming or tapes you trying on your wife's bra to stabilize your manboobs, are you going to then take that video and send it to National Review? Hell no, you'd burn it instantly.
The only logical conclusion one could take from this situation is that someone gave the video to the LA Times to share with the public. And the Times knows that it will be very damaging to Obama. And that's what they're trying to avoid. And the easy out is to make up some garbage about "the source doesn't want us to share it."
Jim Treacher at www.jimtreacher.com has this excerpt from another blogger, who was tipped off by a possible Times insider.
Saw a clip from the tape. Reason we can't release it is because statements Obama said to rile audience up during toast. He congratulates Khalidi for his work saying "Israel has no God-given right to occupy Palestine" plus there's been "genocide against the Palestinian people by Israelis." It would be really controversial if it got out. That's why they will not even let a transcript get out.
Yes, rabid Leftists, I'm fully aware that it is a third hand "he said she said" quote. But, the Times can just release the tape and end the controversy right now.
