I guess somebody at the Financial Times read the piece on Bachmann that was published in Rolling Stone this month.
The Financial Times just published the first half-way decent profile of her in a daily. It's half-way decent because it alludes to the fact that Bachmann and her husband claim to have received prophetic visions (it loses points because 1) the FT profile fails to emphasize Bachmann's claim that these prophetic visions were sent by God Himself, and 2) they didn't make that the headline--and whether you believe or not, her claim to be acting on God's direct instructions is certainly one of the most important things you need to know about this presidential candidate.)
You can see this "God tells me what to do, politically" stuff for yourself by looking at my edit of Ken Avidor's videos of Bachmann telling church members about all the instructions she's received directly from God (prior to 2006), here:
http://www.youtube.com/...
(CONTINUED)
Now look...
I've been saying this since 2006, when the original videos first became available, posted on YouTube: why doesn't the news media report that an American politicians claims to be in receipt of direct instructions from God--regularly, throughout her lifetime?
It's clear that if that happened all those times (as Bachmann claims)--direct communications from the Lord to Bachmann--are the most important items on her personal and political agenda. And there's no question of privacy or propriety here: Bachmann's made these claims publicly.
More importantly: now that she's a candidate for the White House (six years later) some professional media are beginning to look at this sort of thing, referring to it in their profiles of Bachmann for the first time.
The Minnesota political media simply ignored it when it was brought to their attention in 2006. Or maybe they decided to spike the story after seeing it. We'll probably never know unless one of the reporters and editors who received reports of Bachmann's claims of prophetic visions and instructions from God comes clean and explains why they didn't run this stuff prior to Bachmann's first election to Congress. (That's when these claims were made, prior to Bachmann's first election to Congress--and that's when this news was sent to Minnesota reporters and editors, prior to that first election.)
This stuff is just surfacing in the world press, now, five years later. It's being circulated as "news" because previous professional media profiles of Bachmann simply left this out. (The Minnesota political press was useless on "Bachmann's claim to be receiving supernatural political instructions from God," they just wouldn't touch it, so it never made its way into the national news databases until now.)
Now here's the next thing. And it's actually quite important, whether you believe Michele Bachmann's claims or not. It's important in terms of election results next year.
It's important that some news reporter from the professional media ask Bachmann if she has received any instructions or visions regarding public policy or political matters since 2006 (when she made these remarks.) That is critical, in allowing voters to determine whether they want this politician to enter the White House in some capacity.
The Financial Times profile is still pretty softball. Look at that headline they went with! ("MEET MICHELE") I think the editors had the article fact-checked, and found out she really had made all these supernatural claims and said all those wacky non-supernatural lies. And then they honest-to-God couldn't come up with a relevant headline that readers wouldn't perceive as some kind of challenge to Bachmann's fitness to hold any political office. So they settled on "Meet Michele," as the headline. They just gave up, at the Financial Times. I'm sure they've never seen anything like this before.
But even if the FT profile is softball, it raises issues about Bachmann's fitness for office. If the American people come to understand that Bachmann claims she is receiving supernatural communications from God, and that these are informing her decision-making--then the American people will probably also understand that no human views will matter to Bachmann, once she is sure that she has received such instructions and guidance. The American people will have to decide if they want such a person in the White House, with official command of the Pentagon and access to nuclear weapons.
Financial Times profile:
http://www.ft.com/...