It's not the media's role to be "conservative" or "liberal"

Scandal week.

If this past week has brought anything to light for the media, it's that everyone but Fox News understated the Benghazi situation.

This reporter, all along, was pushing for transparency and strongly suspected that President Obama and Secretary Clinton were covering up the truth. Suspecting is not the same as stating, conclusively, but it's the role of the press to follow curiosity as the clues unravel.

Instead, what the so-called "liberal" press did, mostly, was accuse Fox News, the Republicans and those crazy Conservatives of a witch hunt. Yet in hindsight, even the fair and balanced Grey Lady needs to be squirming this week.

Clearly, Obama wanted to be re-elected. What happened beyond that regarding the watered-down talking points indicates that his agenda was furthered before Susan Rice spoke on camera. Coincidence?

Further, regarding the AP scrutiny from the Department of Justice, there is no reasonable explanation for the latter to snoop on the former. AP cowtowed beyond what was required due to the government's investigation of a proposed al-Qaeda plot out of Yemen, a story the AP wanted to and did run. It would appear, and I suspect, that when the DOJ asked the AP to wait another day to run their story -- so the DOJ spin doctors could craft a saleable press release -- the US was pissed off at the lack of compliance.

I was at the New York AP offices on Apr. 18, 2012. It's creepy to imagine that around that time, DOJ was busy wire-tapping, or however the phone records snooping occurred. Getting into the AP itself requires a careful process of showing one's ID and going through an electronic gate.

As for the IRS, clearly there is no reasonable explanation for what they did other than the president was targeting them prior to the election. Win at all costs, even if an ambassador has died, conservatives' applications for non-profit status are unfairly targeted, and the world's oldest and one of the most respected news agencies is bugged.

In the midst of all this, we're seeing the once only liberal press -- the same press that chuckled at Obama's jokes at the White House Correspondents' Dinner just a few weeks ago -- call a spade a spade, or in this case, a liar a liar.

I would have more respect for Obama, Holder, Miller, et. al if for once, one of them could say, "We overstepped our authority. We were wrong."

But then, this is politics, after all.

Obamagate and the correspondents' dinner

I wasn't the biggest Obama supporter, but I came round. By the time he was elected, I'd joined the pandemonium, against the protestations of my one Republican friend: "He's up to something. I don't trust him."

I told her I wasn't quite sure if I did either, but I had to support his (wildly) liberal agenda.

However, ever since Benghazi or wait, maybe about the time all my friends started getting laid off, I began to question him again. Don't get me wrong: the alternative (Mitch Romney, as Letterman calls him) would have been national suicide. OK, that's dramatic.

But so many scandals, so much subterfuge, so much telling the American public he had nothing to do with it. What will it be this week? Hillary on the Hill asking, "What difference does it make?" was some convincing emotion. She had to have known darn well what difference it makes/made.

Shame on this president for all of these news items: Recession, Corexit in the Gulf of Mexico, Benghazi, IRS targeting Tea Partiers, the DOJ targeting the AP, drones killing civilians, even killing bin Laden before we knew, conclusively, whether he could be captured alive? I am not convinced.

And yet, I still support my president. This is like finding out the man you married may be cheating on you, but you just aren't sure. But as "facts" roll in -- female hairs on his collar, hang ups at 3 a.m., etc, one is forced to confront evidence. Despite knowing he's the one we fell in love with, in our hearts, we also know he's letting us down.

Good lord, this is making me pine for a Lewinsky scandal. How much more innocent was the blue dress in the Oval Office than targeting American taxpayers, snooping on hardworking journalists and worst of all, not telling the American people on Sept 12 of last year: "We have been attacked by terrorists in Benghazi, and I wholeheartedly condemn these attacks. We will hold them accountable."

Telling someone in the Rose Garden that it was an "act of terror" -- come on, don't insult our intelligence -- is not the same thing. Words matter. Especially for a president who was elected on his eloquence with them.

Which brings me to: the White House Correspondents' Dinner.

The night it played (yes, it was a show), I told my mother I hadn't watched.

I said I sort of agreed with Tom Brokaw for not wanting to be in the frame with the latest celebrity, or whatever it was he said. I have nothing against celebrities, though; my reason was more practical.

"Mom, what would happen if the president was found to have done something really wrong, like, like--"

"Watergate?"

"Yeah, Watergate. Then if that happened, all the journalists who were schmoozing with him that night would be forced to be completely objective. Is this really possible under such circumstances? So even if I were a White House reporter, if I could, I would stay home. If I had to go, I'd leave early."

Obama has been schmoozing the American people from Day One. He's charming. He's the guy we'd like to have for dinner. We want to see his wife's haircut and biceps, his tall daughter and his shorter daughter, the adorable black and white dog. Heck, I think I made that dog on the snowy White House lawn my screen saver.

What we don't want to see is what we are seeing now: scandal after scandal, and it's getting far more serious.

This president better not take our vote for granted.