Is this a case of the media not vetting another Obama associate? Why have we not heard of this man before and why is the media silent on him? After the stories of John Edwards' anti-Catholic bloggers, you'd think that the media would have been on the lookout for campaign blogger related stories. Yet, this guy and his questionable past has been ignored by the same media that tried to give Edwards' bloggers a pass.
A fellow that blogs at a site called "Common Ills" did a lot of leg work to dig up some of the publicly known utterings of Mr. Graham-Felsen prior to his elevation as the Obama campaign's official blogger, so he deserves the credit for raising a "red" flag on this one.
What we know for sure is that in May of 2006, Sam Graham-Felsen wrote a short piece in the socialist magazine Socialist Viewpoint describing his participation in some French labor riots.
Graham-Felson praised Chomsky for having "taken on (what he perceives as) the ultimate bully -- the United States," and gives Noam some unsolicited Graham-Felson advice.
Unfortunately, Chomsky continues to squander this potential by making decisions that destroy his credibility in the eyes of most Americans. In perhaps his most infamous move, on the day after the Sept. 11 attacks, Chomsky stated: “The terrorist attacks were major atrocities. In scale they may not reach the level of many others, for example, Clinton’s bombing of the Sudan with no credible pretext, destroying half its pharmaceutical supplies and killing unknown numbers of people.” As a result of his poor timing and unwillingness to moderate his tone, his message was lost to anyone not already on the extreme Left. He sounded callous and dogmatic; instead of provoking change, he provoked disgust.
Yet, even if he is waiting for Americans to rise up in mass movements, he’s not going to spark widespread protest unless he can get more people to embrace his message. And if he wants to convince Americans, he’s simply got to tone it down.
Also in the Harvard Crimson in 2003, Sam Graham-Felson is noted for having hung a communist flag in his dorm room.
Behind the bar, in the corner, hangs a Communist Party flag that Sam and Kieran bought on their trip to Russia the summer after sophomore year.
So, what we have here is a kid who is an official blogger for the Obama campaign having written for a socialist magazine, is known to favor the anti-American views of Noam Chomsky, had a "communist flag" in his dorm room in college, and has attended riots in France and acted as a flack for them here in America. None of these ideas as espoused by our young Obama blogger are those commonly held by a majority of Americans. In fact, many people would consider a person who appreciates communism not an American at all.
The famous conservative blog "Little Green Footballs" calls this young Obama blogger a "hardcore Marxist." To be fair, it is not known in public records if Mr. Graham-Felsen claims himself to be a "hardcore Marxist" or not, but his known associations with foreign rioters and socialists is of public record.
What cannot be ignored is that this is yet another close Obama associate who seems to hate what most Americans love. Barack's wife could never be "proud of America" until her husband ran for president. His "spiritual advisor" wanted God to "damn America." Barack even launched his Senate bid in the home of a man that belonged to the Weather Underground, a radical, anti-American group that is responsible for murder. And these are just a few of the Obama associates that seem to hate what makes America great.
So, why does the Obama campaign surround itself with people like this, people who hold views that most Americans despise? And why is the media not looking into every Obama associate out there? Why does it take the Internet and bloggers to do this reporter's leg work?
Your guess is as good as mine. But the whole thing reminds me of an old saying: you lie down with dogs and you wake up with fleas.
The sort of people that Barack Obama surrounds himself with does say something about the character of the "candidate of change." It makes one wonder what sort of "change" Obama is interested in, anyway?
