Media should let us decide about Obama

While I in no way disagree with Cynthia Tucker's assertion, in her recent editorial, that the election of Barack Obama to the presidency demonstrates America's renewed commitment to multiculturalism, human rights and international law, I do take exception to her introductory comment that the president elect has been repeatedly insulted.

This is a charge I heard during the primary, during the campaign and even during the election. I continue to hear it, even now. This is unfair.

When Bush does something wrong, we hear about it right away, in all its gory detail. Psychologically speaking, that's how we achieve closure. We know all there is to know about something, so we can rest our minds toward it, in a manner of speaking. But when Barack Obama is savaged by insults, repeatedly and to "the apex of absurdity" - the brave, watchdog media does ... next to nothing.

What are these so-called insults? What are they, word for word? The public deserves to know. Publish the insults for the public to evaluate them, so that the untruths of which they speak may come out in the open, and the perpetrators may be duly shamed, and so that - finally - closure may be reached.

The media does President Obama no favor in this regard. Their silence serves to only further invite public speculation. The sooner this matter comes to light, the sooner we can all get on with the work of the future administration.

Steven S. Robnett

Elgin