Politi at Slate:

Knowing that the Republicans are attempting to distract voters away from the big issues of the day, “are we in the media going to aid and abet the McCain campaign’s obvious ploy?” asks the WP’s Eugene Robinson. Even if reporters point out that that the allegations McCain’s campaign makes are false, “writing about them at all gives them wider circulation.” Journalists “have a duty to avoid being turned into instruments of mass distraction” and must press for answers about the issues that really matter. “The McCain campaign has made clear that it wants to change the subject,” writes Robinson. “We can, and should, change it back.”

Well, sure, Eugene, let’s take a closer look at who did what with respect to Fannie and Freddie.  The NYT recently published the story in their Saturday edition, and I earlier speculated that this was a form of pre-emptive ass covering for when people start asking why they weren’t better informed after the election.  The McCain campaign has had to make an issue of Obama’s relations with Ayers because, absent that, the media weren’t going to touch it.  And it’s not a matter of whether Obama might be making bombs in the basement of the White House, but first that in his rarefied community hobnobbing with unrepentent former terrorists doesn’t seem like a bad idea for a would-be politician (and here, too), second that he seems to share some of the fundamental educational philosophies of said radical and the Alinsky methods that he espouses, and third that he’s lied about the extent and nature of those relations with the active complicity of the media, just as earlier he lied about who filled out the guns survey.

Of course, we know now that questioning Obama about anything at all with be characterized as racism–and that that principle extends as well to Congress, now.  The argument seems to be that everyone who’s not enamored of Obama for whatever reason must be (at best) an unconscious racist, and that they therefore need to be deprived of any information that such geniuses as Ambinder deem likely to be construed in an alienating light, never mind that Obama may not represent their beliefs.  That 19 of 20 African-Americans intend to vote for O! on the other hand, apparently is dispositive of nothing at all.

Perhaps if the media had done their job better earlier on, and vetted the candidate the way that candidates should be, this wouldn’t be an issue now.  The fact that Obama and his agents have so aggressively attempted to quash criticisms based solely on their representation that they’re untrue doesn’t add to the public’s confidence.

In short, Eugene, there’s a reason that the public believes, by and large, that you guys are in the tank for O! and your suggestions do nothing but reinforce that correct perception.

Let me ask you these racist questions: 1) What’s Obama’s affiliation with ethically challenged ACORN?  2) What’s ACORN’s role in the Fannie and Freddie collapse?  3) What does the collapse of Fannie and Freddie have to do with the present dire condition of the credit markets?  4) Which campaign has been more transparent with regard to its funding?  5) Has Obama’s campaign accepted illegal foreign donations?  6) If you don’t know the answer to 5), why don’t you?

More: Nothing to see here.  Move along.  Dead pigs, hahahahaha.

More more from Stanley Kurtz on Obama and ACORN

More more more from James Lewis on ACORN and Obamarx