Paulie Abeles’ guest tonight on“Sins of Omission” at 9:00 pm EST is Pulitzer prizing winning journalist, Carl Bernstein.

Bernstein will share his perspective on the Election of 2008, discuss sexism and media bias, and how his perspective on Secretary Clinton has changed since he wrote the critically acclaimed biography: A Woman In Charge: The Life of Hillary Rodham Clinton”

Here is Paulie’s image. Details for the show, including live chat and caller instructions, are below the fold.

Carl Bernstein shared a Pulitzer Prize with Bob Woodward for his coverage of Watergate for The Washington Post. He is the author, with Woodward, of All the President’s Men and The Final Days, and, with Marco Politi, of His Holiness: John Paul II and the History of Our Time.

Bernstein is also the author of Loyalties, a memoir about his parents during McCarthy–era Washington. He has written for Vanity Fair (he is also a contributing editor), Time, USA Today, Rolling Stone, and The New Republic. He was a Washington bureau chief and correspondent for ABC News.

As always, Host Paulie Abeles will take calls from listeners starting at 9:30 p.m. at 1-347-677-0792 This will be a great show! Don’t miss it!

(So we can accommodate our many callers, as always, please keep your questions short and to the point and take your answers off the air).

My guest on Monday night’s“Sins of Omission” at 9:00 pm EST is Pulitzer prizing winning journalist, Carl Bernstein. Our topic will be the 2008 Election and how his perspective on Secretary Clinton has changed since he wrote his 2007 biography: A Woman In Charge: The Life of Hillary Rodham Clinton”

I urge you all to tune in for some insights from Bernstein– one of the most perspicacious analysts and journalists alive today—but with this caveat.

As we know, the overwhelming majority of the mainstream press did not support Hillary Clinton, and many of us believe that their coverage of Sarah Palin (whether we agree with her on the issues or not) was as John Ziegler has famously termed it “Media Malpractice.” So, it’s more than likely that Mr. Bernstein will say some things with which you (and I) will disagree. But that, I think, is the point.

A good interview is a dialogue—but it’s also about eliciting information. As I understand it, it’s about asking thoughtful questions and being respectful enough to allow the person their point of view. When I took over from my good friend, Dr. Lynette Long, I billed the show as interviews with newsmakers “beyond the nightly news”. If you tune in, that’s what you get.

Some of my guests represent a point of view vastly different than the majority of NoQuarter enthusiasts (David Alinsky speaking about the tactics of his father Saul Alinsky, for example). Others like Lilly Ledbetter or Bernard Goldberg (Author of “A Slobbering Love Affair”) and my guest on March 30th –will find many who are in agreement.

But the point is information—and a respectful dialogue. I suppose I could ream recent guest Newsweek Editor-at-Large, Evan Thomas for the media bias against Hillary—but then he will hang up—and what have we learned? Nothing. And who will come on the program next time? No one.

These guys are the smoothest operators around—the idea of “besting” them in an argument is a chimera—but getting them to acknowledge (as Evan Thomas did the other night) that more attention should have been paid to investigating allegations of caucus fraud, or illegal campaign contributions—surely that’s more useful than the momentary satisfaction of venting about the failures of the MSM? If we restrict the universe of potential guests to only people that agree with our point of view, we are not being informed; only confirmed.

My issue with the Obama campaign started on the internet when his band of cyber-bullies did everything possible to prevent the HRC supporters from receiving a fair hearing. I wonder how many of us would have been as opposed to the Obama campaign if we hadn’t felt they were so disrespectful of opposing points of view.

My sense has always been that we are better than that. So, when Carl Bernstein comes on “Sins of Omission” on Monday night, I will promise an interesting interview; one that will ask good questions in a fair and respectful way. Why? Because as one of the most influential journalists on the planet, I want to know what he thinks about the 2008 election (and the female candidates), and why. I hope you do, too.

I have spent the past six months actively supporting Hillary Clinton by setting up a network of bloggers to ensure that Senator Clinton’s positions were understood by the electorate. My family and I campaigned on her behalf in the primaries. I supported Hillary Clinton because of her experience, knowledge of the issues, and her practical approach and commitment to the bread-and-butter issues facing this country.

During the campaign, I have become increasingly alarmed by the refusal of the media to properly scrutinize Senator Obama’s actions and associations. I have also been appalled by the political maneuverings of the DNC to ensure that their chosen candidate was selected—including, just as one example, breaking their own rules to ensure that the two states that supported Hillary were stripped of their delegates even though five states broke the rules.

Lastly, I have been aghast at the vitriol and name-calling being spewed by Obama supporters against anyone who has an honest disagreement with them.

As documented throughout by the “attack timeline” formerly found on the HRC website—the Obama campaign employed a concerted strategy of constantly questioning the likability, honesty, experience, and integrity of Clinton. While the candidate portrayed himself as ‘above it all’—his campaign relentlessly faxed pages and pages of material designed to stoke the fires of false controversies.

I do not believe that Barack Obama would make a good president of the United States. Frankly, I think there is a minimum standard of accomplishment and experience we should expect from a candidate for the toughest job in the world. By any metric Obama falls short. Kirk Watson couldn’t name Senator Obama’s legislative accomplishments. I can– two bills: to promote democracy in the African Congo and to name a post office. Certainly, Senator Obama’s 130 “present” votes in the Illinois legislature when asked to take a stand on controversial issues do not inspire confidence.

Many of the people that supported Hillary Clinton have similar reservations about Senator Obama’s fitness to lead. Thus, on Saturday, I helped organize an informational meeting and teleconference with John McCain for supporters of Hillary Clinton who were trying to decide whether to support Barack Obama or John McCain.

Less than 48 hours later, I was attacked, called “deeply racist”, a “lunatic”, “rabid” and with “a history of jobs, statements, actions and practice that leave her very vulnerable to accusations that she is a ‘racist’”. One site even claimed: “keeping black people out of the party has been a lifelong ambition of hers.” The basis of the attack was a controversy involving my husband’s ancestor, Thomas Jefferson.

As many of you have probably heard, some descendants of Sally Hemings, a slave in the household of Thomas Jefferson, have claimed that they are descendants of Thomas Jefferson. Sally Hemings had three sons: Thomas Woodson, Madison Hemings, and Eston Hemings. Descendants of Thomas Woodson had their DNA tested 7 times—each time there was no match. Descendants of Madison Hemings declined to be tested. The white descendants of Eston Hemings had their DNA tested and were a match to a Jefferson, but the DNA tests could not determine if the Jefferson genes were from Thomas Jefferson or one of the 27 other Jefferson males that lived in the area at the time and visited frequently. Additionally, since Thomas Jefferson was 64 at the time of Eston’s birth and was suffering from prostate cancer, which often caused impotency, it is less likely that Eston was a son of Thomas Jefferson. A 2001 Scholars Commission of 13 prominent Jefferson historians (including the former chair of Harvard’s Department of Government), examined all the evidence for a year, and issued a 500-page report that concluded that the allegations of a relationship between Hemings and Thomas Jefferson were not true, and that was not enough evidence to determine Eston Hemings’ paternity.

During 2003, a member of the Jefferson family set up a Yahoo chat room for family members and Hemings descendants to discuss the issues. Unfortunately, discussions became strained and many individuals who disagreed that Thomas Jefferson fathered Eston Hemings were barred from the site. Bloggers from both sides used assumed names to try to get information from the other side. When the moderator discovered me, a Washington Post reporter asked me if I was on the chat room under a pseudonym—and I—foolishly perhaps—answered honestly.

However, it was never a racial issue. Eston Hemings’ descendents (the only Hemings that applied) are, by any calculus, white. No doubt passions at the time were overheated, and honorable people can disagree. Part of the consideration was that as DNA typing becomes more sophisticated, a definitive analysis could prove the issue in the future.

This is the sum and total of the activities for which I have been vilified. I am a private citizen who has never held a position with either the Clinton or McCain campaign.

But, there is a curious double standard at work here.

Barack Obama, the presumptive nominee of our party and possible President of the United States participated in a racist church for twenty years. A church whose “Black Liberation Theology” is the apotheosis of hate. In one year alone, Senator Obama contributed $22,000 to support the church. He has allied himself with other racists: namely Rev. James Meeks and Father Pfleger.

The National Review reported that in a single year, Senator Obama appeared on the cover of the church magazine four times. Three of those times, Senator Obama shared the cover with Louis Farrakhan. How is this double standard rational?

I am a mother of two small children living in a diverse community who has seen my life turned upside down by half-truths and vicious attacks. Some have printed my address and phone number. I have been harassed and threatened.

But, as far as I can tell, that has been the Obama campaign’s strategy all along—to isolate, to discredit, to destroy. But, Clinton supporters have seen this game before. You will not frighten us anymore. Even when four of our member networks were disrupted by mysterious viruses—with barely 24-hour notice—we managed to turn out thousands of HRC supporters on a conference call with John McCain. Supporters that will not, under any circumstances vote for a “democratic” party that disenfranchised us—not because we are racists, or ‘closet republicans,’ but because we are Americans.

And that must have you very worried.

============

View the videos of my appearances on television:

“Paula Abeles on the Obama Thugs’ Attacks” – posted the evening of June 20, 2008

“Paula Abeles on Neil Cavuto Today” – posted the morning of June 20, 2008