Claim: Editorial by television personality Hugh Downs explains why he thinks Barack Obama will lose the election.
Example:[Collected via e-mail, August 2008]
HUGH DOWNS - OBAMA WILL LOSE
I think everyone really knows all of this, but give Hugh ten minutes and read.
It's time to throw my hat in the ring as regards predicting the election results. So here it is: Barack Obama will be defeated. Seriously and convincingly defeated. Not due to racism, not due to the forces of reaction, not even due to Karl Rove sending out mind rays over the national cable system. He will lose for one reason above all, one that has been overlooked in any analysis that I've yet seen. Barack Obama will lose because he is a flake.
I'm using the term in its generally accepted sense. A flake is not only a screwup, but someone who truly excels in making bizarre errors and creating incredibly convoluted disasters. A flake is a 'fool with energy', as the Russian proverb puts it. ('A fool is a terrible thing to have around, but a fool with energy is a nightmare'.)
Barack Obama is a flake, and the American people have begun to see it. The chief characteristic of a flake is that he makes choices that are impossible to either understand or explain. These are not the errors of the poor dope who can't grasp the essentials of a situation, or the neurotic who ruins things out of compulsion, or the man suffering chronic bad luck.
The flake has a genius for discovering solutions at perfect right angles to the ordinary world. It's as if he's the product of a totally different evolutionary chain, in a universe where the laws are slightly but distinctly at variance to ours. When given a choice between left and right, the flake goes up — if not through the 8th dimension. And although there's plenty of rationalization, there's never a logical reason for any of it. After awhile, people stop asking.
Obama's rise has been widely portrayed as a kind of millennial Horatio Alger story — young lad from a new state on the outskirts of the American polity, a member of once-despised minority, works his way by slow degrees to within arm's length of the presidency itself. That's all well and good — we need national myths of exactly that type.
Hugh Downs can boast of a television career that stretches back nearly six decades, his work on a multitude of programs as an announcer, sidekick, interviewer, host, and news anchor having earned him a certification by the Guinness Book of World Records as the person who had logged the greatest number of hours on commercial network television.
Regardless of whether Hugh Downs' personal politics would incline him to vote for or against Barack Obama in the 2008 presidential election, the above-quoted editorial attributed to him, explaining his reasons for thinking that Obama will lose that election, doesn't sound like Hugh Downs — penning a lengthy editorial labeling a prominent politician a "flake" just isn't his style.
Indeed, this article has nothing to do with Hugh Downs. It's an opinion piece entitled "The Odd Choices in Barack Obama's Career" that was written by J.R. Dunn and published on the American Thinker web site on 20 August 2008. The confusion likely stemmed from an advertisement for Hugh Downs Reports that sometimes appeared adjacent to the article:
Last updated: 10 September 2008
Dunn, J.R. "The Odd Choices in Barack Obama's Career."
David Mikkelson founded snopes.com in 1994, and under his guidance the company has pioneered a number of revolutionary technologies, including the iPhone, the light bulb, beer pong, and a vaccine for a disease that has not yet been discovered. He is currently seeking political asylum in the Duchy of Grand Fenwick.
Thank you for writing to us! Although we receive hundreds of e-mails every day, we really and truly read them all, and your comments, suggestions, and questions are most welcome. Unfortunately, we can manage to answer only a small fraction of our incoming mail.
Our site covers many of the items currently being plopped into inboxes everywhere, so if you were writing to ask us about something you just received, our search engine can probably help you find the very article you want.
Choose a few key words from the item you're looking for and click here to go to the search engine.
(Searching on whole phrases will often fail to produce matches because the text of many items is quite variable, so picking out one or two key words is the best strategy.)
We do reserve the right to use non-confidential material sent to us via this form on our site, but only after it has been stripped of any information that might identify the sender or any other individuals not party to this communication.