Bombshells sometimes have long fuses

A correspondent wonders why I didn't spark to an email and link about a 2001 radio-interview potential bombshell of Obama talking unabashedly —and even admiringly— about "redistributive change."

I responded:

I didn’t read it because it was three screens deep of unformatted tiny type on my large-acreage 30” Apple LCD screen. (And just as tedious to read on Glenn Beck’s website.)

This is why God invented art directors. And editors.

If the content is a bombshell, I don’t need it obscured by Beck hogging the stage.


Drudge links sent me to vastly more accessible versions of the same content via Breitbart.com and YouTube.

http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=081027191640.ak3b09o7&show_article=1

Is it powerful? Yeah, sort of. If you have enough time and GRPs to really seat the charge in the public's mind.

With respect to "October surprises," the revelation of Bush's DWI was a simple, undeniable fact, impervious to spin by W’s handlers.

Obama's comments on “redistributive change” are more amorphous and need to be inextricably linked through repetition and elaboration to the precepts of welfare and socialism.

At this late date, they've already been spun by Obama apologists into yet another Vast Right-Wing Conspiracy.

Accuracy doesn't even come into play when the other side has at its disposal millions of dollars and a pliant media.