Let me not beat around the bush on this point, National Post is a right wing newspaper (with an exception of a few commentators). Most people could see that after reading a few lines.
I don’t have a problem with that, the idea of an unbiased newspaper seems like a distant ideal that no one seriously believes. Why shouldn’t the Conservatives have National Post if the Liberals have Toronto Star to support that specter of views. Freedom of Speech after all.
But this time, Ezra Levant, a commentator, goes too far in this piece titled “What if Obama were white?”, no doubt inviting controversy purposely with that title.
In the article, she writes that because Obama is black, everyone (media, Democrats, voters, reporters, pretty much the whole world) is “giving Obama a free ride.” Suggesting that if he was white, he would get much tougher criticism on his record.
I think we just found our selves a Bill O’reilly wannabe hoping to get attention by saying the most offensive nonsense he can think off.
Is Ezra Levant serious? Does he watch the debates? The questions? The articles? The criticism on experience and votes? The attack ads? He gets attacked from the right and the left on absolutely everything.
Or maybe, because he is black, no amount of criticism will be enough for Ezra because he will forever remain the conservative jealous type who thinks “he got that job because he is black” about anyone who is more successful then he is.
If you (Ezra) want to know why Obama is successful, read what the guy just bellow you wrote in the hard copy about Obama being an “anti-politician.”
“He has a policy platform, but in the eyes of many media commentators being black is his platform.”
I’d say being charming is his platform, but I feel Ezra’s pain, and I don’t mean to fault Obama so much as the media. I spent the better part of two mornings trying to differentiate between the obama and clinton platforms. I read both of them through, which didn’t illuminate a thing. had to turn to political commentary, where they identified the more subtle nuances which eluded my untrained eye - e.g. that the essential differnce is that of “love” vs. “intrigue” (Clinton = love, obama - intrigue. clearly.) I was hoping the NYT would have more substance, but the analysis they ran at the time was just an eloquent extrapolation on absolutely nothing. The closing point was that the columnist “feels” obama is more “elegant”. sounds like love to me. back to square one I guess.
The Democrats have two leading candidates whose publicized differences are superficial. Commentators are at a loss of interesting things to say. If Obama’s ideas are worth talking about, articles like Ezra’s might just be the thing to push them out into the open.
A word on Ezra: He isn’t out to shock people per se, he is out to sell articles. Or magazines. As long as it makes him money. at least that is what he said when his (now out of print) newsmagazine was the only one in Canada to publish the Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons and was sued by the human rights tribunal. but I digress. The article isn’t about Obama’s race, it’s about his policy, which Ezra argues is not as post-partisan as it seems - a valid entry into the debate surrounding which candidate best represents the democrats.
Interesting blog Vlad, all the best.
Meredith