You can just hear the crickets chirp

Pamela Geller, who blogs at Atlas Shrugs, has spent countless hours following both McCain’s and Obama’s money.  In a carefully detailed article at American Thinker, she explains that McCain’s donations are squeaky clean, while the donations coming into the Obama campaign are, to put it tactfully, questionable.  For example, Obama’s gotten more than $30,000 from a couple of brothers in a Gaza refugee camp (and that goes to my point about the anti-Israel crowd smelling a fellow wolf no matter how careful Obama’s pro-Israel rhetoric).  He’s also gotten some very large donations from people who live in Gibberish-land:

How about this gibberish donor on the 30th of April in 2008.

A donor named Hbkjb, jkbkj

City: Jkbjnj Works for: Kuman Bank (doesn’t exist)

Occupation: Balanon Jalalan

Amount: $1,077.23

or the donor Doodad,

The # of transactions = 1,044

The $ contributed = $10,780.00

This Doodad character works for FDGFDGF and occupation is DFGFDG

Geller’s outrage doesn’t stop with the fact that the Obama campaign has such poor gate-keeping that it takes any money from anybody (and it’s up to you to determine whether that poor gate-keeping is accidental or on purpose).

She’s also furious that the MSM resolutely refuses to report about these donations.  Indeed, when pushed hard enough, the MSM types do only one thing:  they go after McCain:

Despite the evidence of dirty campaign donations, crickets chirped in newsrooms across the country. The moment my Gaza story started to get some chatter on talk radio, the left and their supplicant handmaidens in the media sprang into action and created a McCain illegal campaign contribution “scandal”. The Washington Post published an inaccurate allegation and then retracted not a day later, at the risk of looking stupid. They are jeopardizing the little credibility that they have left.

….a Washington Post story detailing some suspicious looking contributions to the McCain campaign bundled by Harry Sargeant III. Shortly after posting, a correction appeared in the original report, as follows:

An earlier version of this story about campaign donations that Florida businessman Harry Sargeant III raised for Sen. John McCain, former New York Mayor Rudolph Giuliani and Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton incorrectly identified three individuals as being among the donors Sargeant solicited on behalf of McCain. Those donors — Rite Aid manager Ibrahim Marabeh, and lounge owners Nadia and Shawn Abdalla — wrote checks to Giuliani and Clinton, not McCain. Also, the first name of Faisal Abdullah, a McCain donor, was misspelled in some versions of the story (noted by Amanda Carpenter).

So here an intrepid blogger finds a keg of dynamite of dirty dollar donations to Obama and what does the media do? They ignore it. And when forced to confront it by the sheer newsworthiness of the story, what happens? They go after McCain. They punish McCain.

It’s an old pattern and a true one.  When rumors swirled about John Edwards’ fidelity, the NYT did precisely the same thing regarding sex that the Post did about money:  It published a virtually foundation-free article accusing McCain of having a cozy relationship with a lobbyist.  It wouldn’t touch the well-sourced Edwards scandal.  SoccerDad gives a good rundown of the Times‘ intellectual contortions explaining why one fact-free scandal was news, while another fact-filled scandal remained locked in the vaults.