Topic: Accuracy in Media
We figured some members of the ConWeb would have problems getting over the fact that they don't have Hillary Clinton to kick around anymore for this presidential campaign.
That seems to be the logical explanation for Roger Aronoff's Oct. 21 Accuracy in Media column. Declaring that "It is an open secret, despite the protestations, that the Clintons do not want Obama to win," he constructs his own little Clinton conspiracy:
Could the Clintons be orchestrating one of the biggest October surprises of them all? A story that has been simmering in the blogosphere for months has finally gotten onto at least a couple of news sites. That would be the story of whether or not Obama is legally qualified to be president. The questions involve the truth of where he was born and the status of his citizenship.
The lawsuit was by a Philadelphia attorney, Philip Berg, who is the former deputy attorney general of Pennsylvania, and a former Democratic Party official there as well. He was also a strong Hillary supporter in the primaries.
In the full conspiracy spirit, Aronoff buys into the birth certificate canard despite acknowledging that both FactCheck.org and WorldNetDaily have debunked it and even stating that "We at AIM looked at it at the time, and didn’t feel there was enough to go on to run with the story." But that means nothing when there's a Clinton involved, however tangentally:
[T]he fact that this story is out there cannot be denied. The question is, will it be resolved in any way before the November 4 election, and the bigger question: will anyone in the mainstream media even report on this story, and investigate who, if anyone, is behind Berg on this matter, much less the validity of his claims.
So even though Aronoff doesn't think the birth certificate lacks evidence and even though it's been debunked by third-party sources he appears to consider authoritative, it must still be "resolved." Is Aronoff really that desperate to indulge in some nostalgic Clinton conspiracy-mongering?