Here, you are urged and encouraged to run your mouths about something important.

Tuesday, November 30, 2010


Anonymous blogger Ulsterman has posted another interview with the alleged 'White House Insider' (WHI) and if true, as has been the case with previous entries, the claims are beyond explosive. Anyone with a modicum of objectivity knows the media favored Obama during the 2008 campaign but this behind-the-scenes look - again, if legitimate - perfectly illustrates how it happened.

Via News Flavor:
Ulsterman: Back to 2008…the campaign. You want to talk about the campaign. Why?

Insider: Not so much the campaign, but the media’s role. The media – what I saw happen around me with the media. Never seen anything like it before. It was great…at the time it was great. Made all our jobs a helluva lot easier, right? We would literally give the media a script and they would follow it. It would come from on high down to me and all the others who were doing the same thing I was, and then I just passed it along to this reporter or this news producer or whatever and watch them repeat it. They just took it and ran with it over and over again – no questions asked.

Ulsterman: You hinted at that in our very first interview. Something along the lines of showing favoritism to certain media – allowing them access to Obama for supportive reporting.

Insider: Yeah – yeah that was part of it. But there was more of that at the beginning, the very beginning, and then we didn’t even have to do that anymore. There came a time, I don’t know exactly when, it just kind of evolved I guess, when basically, the media was coming to us saying how can we help? What can we do for you? Not literally saying it, but…you know, the meaning was easy enough to pick up on. I would come into a city – they know I’m with the campaign, and they would literally kiss my ass. I mean kiss my –expletive- ass. It was all very much “what can we do for Obama?” That was all they seemed to care about – helping Barack Obama. I was there 24 or 48 hours ahead of the Senator, or the First Lady, or somebody else high up in the campaign, and literally able to tell these people what to say, how to report on the arrival – I mean create the image from the ground up before any of them had arrived. I have never seen anything like it. Never – no candidate has ever been given such favoritism by the media. Like I said, at the time it was fantastic. I was in the entourage of a –expletive- political god. Looking back now…it was, it was…not right. It wasn’t right. A campaign should not have that kind of…it shouldn’t be that easy. There’s a danger to that. I didn’t want to admit it then, but I sure as hell realize it now.

Ulsterman: How do you mean “danger”? What’s the danger?

Insider: The danger is that there was almost no media to put this candidate through the lens. No media to ask questions that normally would be asked of anybody running for office. So now we got more and more of us looking back at the last two years asking ourselves, “Who the hell is this guy? What the –expletive- did we do putting him in the White House?”
The entire interview is definitely worth the read. WHI points to David Plouffe as the person to come up with the strategy of using the media to announce Obama's use of Secret Service much earlier than any previous candidate in the past to exploit white guilt; the Obama campaign told the media they wanted to go against McCain in the general and it happened.

Read it all.


Munsterwoman said...

Ulsterman is a fraud.


Ben Barrack said...

While I am not 100% convinced Ulsterman is the real deal, the article you posted provides no evidence to the contrary.

Munsterwoman said...

He's completely fabricated at least seven stories in the past two months. Making up imaginary people and organizations, and creating quotes to associate with them, and passing them off as real news.

And he scrubbed four of his fake articles when he got called on the most blatant one, where he pretended that a stock photo was a picture of his interviewee.

How is such a pattern of made-up stories NOT evidence that he habitually makes stuff up?

Ben Barrack said...

1.) Which seven stories were fabricated and how can you prove?

2.) Who are the imaginary people?

3.) I've read all of the articles and have seen none of them scrubbed. Which ones?

4.) What stock photo are you talking about?

A lot of accusations here but where is the proof? I'll gladly accept it.

Munsterwoman said...

Just click through to the link:

Each of the seven stories he faked has its own post. Every one has a different person he made up, some associated with companies or organizations that he also made up.

The specific one with the stock photo is this one:

He scrubbed that article, and three different articles he wrote about the "Rally to Restore Sanity." The posts about those scrubbed stories all have links to PDFs of the pre-scrubbed articles.

toddwrong said...

Munsterwoman: It's always good to view blogs and post like Ulsterman with a healthy bit of cynicism. None of us want to be like the left and automatically give credibility to something simply because we want it to be true. (i.e. Himalayan Glaciers) And I don't think Ben has done that here. Until Ulsterman ultimately identifies himself and possibly the insider, he will need to be taken with a grain of salt. However, you pointing to another blog created to discredit Ulsterman with no real factual proof certainly doesn't discredit him either. In fact, you two may have more in common than you originally thought.

snff, smells a troll

Ben Barrack said...

Along the lines of what #13 said. Creating a blog to debunk everything someone else says can - I emphasize the word "can" - carry an air of "Thou doth protest too much."

Case in point is what the Center for American Progress (CAP) does on a daily basis.

That said, I still have an open mind but don't think Ulsterman has been debunked simply because there's a blog set up to refute what he / she says.

Munsterwoman said...

"However, you pointing to another blog created to discredit Ulsterman with no real factual proof certainly doesn't discredit him either."

I don't understand what you mean by no real proof. He's conducted 'interviews' with people that don't exist. Who work for companies and organizations that don't exist. Just Google it and see; for instance, there is no "Allied Essence Investment Group." He uses stock photos to represent people he's made up. And when called on it, he started scrubbing the faked articles.

What more proof do you need?

Munsterwoman said...

"Creating a blog to debunk everything someone else says can - I emphasize the word "can" - carry an air of "Thou doth protest too much.""

I first tried to submit it to another blogger, TexasDarlin, who'd already expressed skepticism of Ulsterman and said she'd be interested in running it.

But when she didn't get back to me, I needed some kind of forum to publish what I'd found. So setting it up on a free Blogger account and separating the items as posts seemed like the easiest way to do it.

Ben Barrack said...


Do you support Obama?

Munsterwoman said...

Nope. I was an avid Bob Barr supporter in 2008. I've never voted for any Democrat for President, in fact.

I just get really riled by people who try to profit by lying.

Ben Barrack said...


Accuracy in Media
American Spectator
American Thinker
Big Government
Big Journalism
Doug Ross
Flopping Aces
Fox Nation
Fox News
Free Republic
The Hill
Hope for America
Hot Air
Hot Air Pundit
Jawa Report
Jihad Watch
Michelle Malkin
Naked Emperor News
National Review
New Zeal Blog
News Real
Pajamas Media
Red State
Right Wing News
Say Anything
Stop Islamization of America
Verum Serum
Wall Street Journal
Washington Times
Watts Up With That
Web Today
Weekly Standard
World Net Daily

Blog Archive