The Post uses a lot of breathless language today to announce the scandal over the AIG bonuses is "increasingly blowing back on Obama" and "threatening to derail" the young administration's agenda. Not just its banking agenda. But the AIG story, according to the Post, could torpedo everything Obama wants to accomplish.
Really? Americans, as well as members of Congress, are that angry at Obama? After hearing about the bogus bonuses they're focusing their wrath on the White House, and not the insurance execs and the culture of Wall Street greed? According to the Post, that's how the story's playing out. It's "hounding" Obama.
How does the Post know the Obama White House is paying a stiff political price? The Post just knows. Meaning, the Post doesn't/can't actually point to anything to suggest "the public" is taking its anger out on Obama, or that the public has decided he's to blame for Wall Street's greed. (Greed the president has denounced.) The daily can't point to any polling data, and provides no anecdotal evidence to suggest Obama's entire agenda is now threatened. The Post just knows.
Are people angry at AIG and the government for the bonus scandal? No doubt. Are people focusing their wrath on the White House, and is the entire Obama agenda now in danger of collapsing? There's no proof of that.
- Posted In