By Selwyn Duke

When all is said and done, the slippery Illinois senator running for president may steal Molly Brown’s nickname and be known as the unsinkable Barack Obama.  This is especially likely given the kid-gloves treatment he’s receiving from the media.  And, unfortunately, Mr. No Spin himself, Bill O’Reilly, is part of this.

Before you O’Reilly fans scream at me, I give credit where it’s due.  Unlike the mainstream media, which had to be dragged kicking and screaming into the Reverend Wright story, the pugnacious pundit is not reluctant to cover it.  His only problem is that it’s hard to be fair when you don’t know what fair is.

This past Thursday, O’Reilly focused on Arianna Huffington’s vile blog, the Huffington Post, and how she doesn’t delete hateful comments from it.  For instance, the loving left-wingers who post there register sentiments such as wishing Nancy Reagan a slow, painful death, which, incidentally, is much like the experience of reading Huffington’s commentary.  Anyway, while I can’t remember O’Reilly’s exact characterization of her, in essence, he called her a vile, cowardly woman.

Now, as far as his distaste for Huffington goes, more sympathetic I could not be.  She is absolutely the worst that my wanting field of journalism produces, a glittering example of our cultural affirmative action.  Devoid of both ability and principle — she was a small "r" Republican before becoming a Paul Bunyan size "L" leftist — she only has her career because she married a multi-millionaire politician (he made a switch, too, becoming a homosexual; they then divorced and she received millions). 

Having said this, there is a tremendous contradiction in O’Reilly’s commentary.  While he castigates Huffington in the strongest possible terms for letting hateful posts stand, his statements about Obama have been quite measured.  Why, he says that he wants to give Obama the benefit of the "doubt" with regard to his bigoted associations.

What doubt?  And, if there’s doubt about Obama, how can there not be doubt about Huffington?

I’ll explain.  Obama has chosen a vile, bigoted, hateful man to be his "mentor," "friend" and surrogate "uncle," and he has known this man for 20 years.  Obama chose to have this man, Pastor Jeremiah Wright, marry him and his wife and baptize their child.  Obama has attended this man’s church during these two decades and has donated $20,000 to it.  There is no doubt in my mind that, in the least, Obama is sympathetic to Wright’s views.

In contrast, all Huffington has done is allow free speech to reign at her site.  In fact, it could be argued that it’s a good idea to let hate-mongers vent in certain settings so we can at least know where they stand. 

Don’t get me wrong, I have no use for Huffington.  But my problem with her isn’t that she allows hateful postings to remain at her site, but that — and there’s no doubt in my mind about this — in the least, she is indifferent about them.  And there is no doubt about Obama either.

As for O’Reilly, I wouldn’t accuse him of hypocrisy because I realize that he’s influenced by unconscious biases.  It is a contradiction, however, another example of our very common, warped idea of fairness. 

His problem is that he spins himself.

                                 Protected by Copyright