It seems the only reasons the Jackson story got so much attention was that it was easy to cover (i.e., it required no real reporting), it included a juicy off-color quote, it did not involve any sort of public policy issue, and Matt Drudge said it was important.

Bingo...! The proliferation of media outlets is analagous to professional sports. It's logical that the more teams there are the fewer exceptionally talented pitchers or quarterbacks there will be for each team. Talent is diluted. Generally speaking the media today are embarrassingly incompetent...overrun by hacks.

I hate to say it, I think it's much more insidious than mere incompetence. It's intentional.

These outfits all have editorial staffs who think long and hard about topics. They have top-down interference as well. There is a clear effort to discredit Obama because the American management class does not want him to win. And they all think alike--  they hire themselves into top positions.

So the script has become:

a) Obama really can't be trusted, can he?-- even his own supporters don't like him,

b) McCain and Obama have basically the same positions on important issues, so

c) why in the world should we take a chance?

Echoing what is said above, and what I've quoted below - the right and the media has a history of trying to conflate unequivalent happenings in order to de-emphasize the problematic behavior of those on the right.

It makes me sick, and it is making many current voters sick, and it those unfair comparisons that are often made that are turning voters away from candidates and politicians on the right.

That was also my reaction to reading the July 11 New York Times dispatch that quite belatedly addressed the McCain controversy. The Times story was startling because it presented McCain's astounding Social Security remark right alongside a completely benign comment Obama made last week about American children needing to learn a second language. The Times presented the two quotes as being equal, as being examples of the kind of "controversies" that can arise when candidates veer off scripted remarks.

But the only reason the Obama remarks became a so-called "controversy" was when right-wing groups purposely misinterpreted the remarks to mean Obama was demanding that Americans be forced to learn Spanish.

By contrast, the McCain remarks were controversial because liberals online repeated and highlighted precisely what the candidate had said about Social Security.

You're probably not gonna like this then...

Oh, come on.  More over-the-top parody from the NY'er magazine?

It's satire-- don't you get it? Postmodern Yeah, that's it. What idiots liberals are--- they can't take a joke. And oh yeah, what if it's true?...(nudge nudge)

I like what Logan Murphy had to say about Mike Meehan, the man behind it:

"I give it 48 hours before this moron shows up on FOXNews and is hailed as a patriot."

You mean Sean Hannity hasn't already hailed the guy as a GREAT AMERICAN? Ahhhhh...what a bizarro world this country has become. ;>)

That's a beaut, Snoop. I wonder why the man behind the billboard wants to see more terrorist attacks.Or should I say "Does Florida Republican want to continue the pattern of national security failures demonstrated by the Bush administration?"

 

I think you're right, Col. Lefty.

Advertising usually shows you a picture of a product, then tells you why you should get it.  In this case, the product is Terrorism and Burning Buildings, and the way to get it is by not voting for democrats.

The message is clear and compelling.  Nice job, Florida Guy!

I'm a sucker for a web address. I went to the site (www.therepublicansong.com) and found the lyrics to the song.

Here's a few lines.

"our Constitution, Nation and God are under attack,

and that's why we can't vote for a Democrat."

Funny the song doesn't say anything about who's attacking the Constitution, but I'm guessing they meant the Republican Party.

It's a great song. One that makes you want to tap your toe, but not your fist.

But of course you'd only want to tap your toe in the privacy of your own stall.

HAHAHAHAHAH!!!!!

Funny post Worrier.  On another note, I've been complaining about the media bias in this race from day one.  The most obvious sign that this wouldn't be a fairly covered race was the disrespect about Michelle being a baby mamma.  The fact that McCain fits more of the negative descriptions they attempt to label Obama, such as having a baby's mamma or being elitist is almost comical.  Never has a candidate's wife been so blatantly disrespected.  And it has all been tolerated because of one factor, race.  Just my opinion.

How short thy memory.   Does the name "Bill" ring a bell?

I don't recall any candidates wife who was named "Bill", not in my lifetime anyway. If there was one, I'm sure the press & the late night guys had a field day with that.

AA,

Are you saying the media disrespected Hillary Clinton when Bill was President?

That's exactly what he's saying and he's wrong.  Hillary wasn't disrespected until it was suspected she was going to run for president.  Throughout Bill Clinton's two terms Hillary was suspected of being in illegal activities, but never called a "b" or a "baby mamma".   Sorry A.A.  The nasty name calling didn't start until she had the audacity to hope. 

"our Constitution, Nation and God are under attack,

and that's why we can't vote for a Democrat."

 Wow, things are looking pretty bad at the tail end of 8 years of mostly GOP control of our entire gov't. This guy is really not very good at getting his message out, is he?. I hope the song is at least easy to dance to,

last i looked, congress is controlled by illustrious democrats, such as pelosi, reid, and waters.

maxine waters must be the dumbest person in the house, but she has some close competition from her fellow dems.  nationalize (she said socialize) the oil companies, that was one good idea.  then, if bank of america after taking over countrywide ever makes any money on the mortgages in the portfolio, they're supposed to give it to homeowners.  that wwas a real good one.  i missed bernanke's response to that as the channel cut away to a commercial, but i bet it was choice.

Sands, did you accidentally post on the wrong thread? At the wrong website? Are you drinking?

If he is, that would mean he's permanently drunk based on past posts. Maybe he's just plain extatic about Bush bailing out Freddy Mac and Fannie Mae. I wonder how I can get a bailout like that?

it was a direct respons to your claim of gop control.

Typical crazy wingnut logic - The Repubs screwed everything up but you should keep voting for them because the Dems didn't fix it instantly.

Hissy you have no right to be debated as a thinking adult.  You repeatedly post debunked and false claims and advertise them as facts.  You digest and regurgitate the lies of any right wing blowhard who has a radio station.  You are so worthless that you change your screen name over and over again in what has to be one of the worst attempts at subterfuge ever.

Go Cheney yourself.

ive had this screen name for months. 

So, you think that the fact that there are multiple ill-informed, under-educated and incredibly biased right-leaning posters on this site is something to crow about, instead of there being only one who has multiple names?

So you agree with everything else there?  Great.

By the way, never said you didn't have that name for several months.  For a guy who uses multiple accounts changing his name just means pressing the log out/log in click.  Don't forget to do that when you switch to respond to this.

SANDSSS...go to IMVOTING REPUBLICAN.com.

You mean this wonderful site? My fav...

"Are you drinking?"

You had to ask, didn't you. Now were going to get the story about how he started with a cocktail at the house of a Saudi Prince who was a friend of the drummer from Benny Goodman's Band.

Then they went to a restaurant where they were joined by an heiress to the ALCOA Aluminum fortune and her husband the half blind, hunchback agent for Guns N' Roses.

After dinner they adjoined to a private room when they sipped Absynith from an old shoe once owned by Imelda Marcos.

In short, yes, he was drinking.

Hey King, I did the same thing last night..then went to Primanti's.

Fries and coleslaw on a sandwich... only in the 'BURGH, baby!

Worrier,

I always knew your posts were flights of imagination, but this one was great!

Cheers!  :-) 

Sands,

Give us the exact quote from Maxine Waters.  Otherwise, we might think you're just some dumbass who's spouting off the talking points of a cheese-head like Rush Limbaugh.

www.youtube.com/watch?v=niJAkR_6tKQ - 110k

 

Chris, your link isn't working for me but I think this is the Maxine Waters quote he's talking about.

and here's the analysis by McDonalds Corp. spokesman the Evil Grimmis, on Waters comment.

I'm all for letting big oil drill off the coast of Florida, close to the Grimace's estate.

Just stay the flock away from NJ and California. I'm sure you'll be OK with that concession HB.

I'm sure that will work nicely for the infamous Chickenhawk plagued with boils too?

Don't worry about me, Worrierking, I'm all hooked up in HB !

of course, it's nothing like the old days here. Now that was productive !

im going to guess this picture is of the california coast line near signal hill or el segundo.  it is unlikely anyone would drill like this anymore, because it is quite wasteful and damaging to the underlying reservoir.  now there are spacing requirements and unitization laws that allow for more efficient exploitation of reservoirs.

 

It's Huntington Beach, in Orange County, where I live. I think the photo is from the 30s. If I heard right, the wells were drilled laterally and out under the water.The remainig rigs are moved back a ways , but I think they still reach out under the water. The upper link is to a photo of one of the offshore rigs that's right near me .

I'm originally from NW Ohio and that is what it looked like in the early 1900's (without the beach, of course). 

As Rush said, she is a colossal idiot.  She made noises about getting into my golf club, but was told, it ain't gonna happen.  she was told this by the first black member of the club.  he became a member about 20 years ago. she lives in Hancock Park in which the club is situated.

Her husband was ambassador to the bahamas, under clinton.  he insists now that he be addressed as ambassador.

 

i was not able to find a link to the idiotic things she said two weeks ago about mortgages, bac, and countrywide, but she said them.

Sands, I know this isn't going to be easy for you to hear, but as a friend I've got to tell you;

Worrierking does a much funnier boring-blowhard-name-dropping delusional Walter Mitty type wingnut character than you. I know you started it, but he's polished it up to the point where you might want to just pass the baton.

he lost me at the absinthe.  actually, barnaby conrad wrote a book about absinthe (along with a book on martinis, and cigars too i believe).  I knew his stepfather who recently died.

long outlawed, absinthe is making a comeback.

Yeah, but what's available here just ain't the same.

The good stuff comes from Eastern Europe.

I prefer sterno.

I had some absinthe at a good friends birthday party on Saturday night, I'm not sure if it was the real thing or not. Some guy spent most of the night melting sugar cubes into strange little drinks. I'd like to mention some prominent politicians or semi-celebrities, but I'm a little tired.

But of course you'd only want to tap your toe in the privacy of your own stall.

Exactly what stance are you taking here? 

I know I should give this a wide berth, but my answer is a narrow stance.

I wouldn't be offended if accused of spending too much time in public rest rooms but wouldn't want anyone to think I was a Republican.

I do have my pride you know.

Well then, I guess we should all bend over the page on that one...

McCain's Social Security words were unambiguous; he was absolutely clear. But the press, after belatedly acknowledging them, quickly and charitably concocted an escape hatch for the candidate -- he misspoke! Or, this is what he probably meant to say

Well said Eric, it is just another msm excuse for McCain to say outrageous thngs, he must be too old ?  I remember his disgusting comment on Iran last week about cigarettes will kill them all, no major main stream media outlet covered that disgusting comment.  McCain is the most supported MSM candidate since Reagan , and if he gets elected or steals an election we are all in trouble.

Honestly, what's the point of having an army of reporters follow McCain around the country if they cannot detect news when it happens, or are too timid to relay it when it does?--Boehlert

I think the reason's simple. They agree with him. That's who's getting hired these days at these papers. And that's why it's all a frigging nightmare.

Another explanation is that they do think it's news-- and they are getting edited out. Happens all the time at the LAT. Editors are always inserting right-wing headlines that are not supported by the story itself. 

i don't know why you find that statement disgusting.  anything to speed them along to meet allah.

Anything to show off your ignorance.

Talk about outright lying:

Why are you listing Hagel as a companion on Obama's Israel trip if the Telegraph and other news outlets say he won't be there?

"I think what is really interesting is that Chuck Hagel seems to be the latest in the long line of advisers and associates that Sen. Obama surrounds himself with that really have anti-Israel statements and biases," said Kurtz.

Um... The question had nothing to do with Hagel's record.

"I think it is absolutely about Chuck Hagel's record and the votes."

Ok, let's try a different tact. Yes or no, did the RJC believe Obama was going to Israel with Chuck Hagel?

"I can tell you that it is very interesting that Sen. Obama continues to seek the counsel and companionship of those that have..."

That's not what I'm asking.

"We are going around in a circle you understand."

Yes, I do. Is it easy or difficult to have to repeat the same exact answer, no matter what?

"Is it tough to keep asking the same question again and again?"

Do you think it is the least bit misleading that your website says Obama is going to Israel with Hagel, even though he's not.

"I don't think it is misleading. I think if he is or isn't is a question to be directed to the Obama campaign."

The result: A senior aide to the Obama campaign said that Hagel would not be going with him to Israel.

And as of 7:30 PM ET, the press release remains on RJC's website.

Puppies Across The Border...

Eric, I think your "borderline dysfunctional" is far too generous. 

I think the border was crossed long ago in an Oklahoma Land Rush of lazy, whatever-the-boss-wants, sorry excuse for a journalist, ball-chasing puppies.

Good Puppies!   Goooooood Puhhhh-peeees!

I read an article on another site which said that last week should've have been the week that sunk John McCain's campaign.  His so-called economy guy called Americans whiners and said we're in a mental recession, he confused his own P.O.W. story, he had this social security blunder and he made a seriously insensitive comment about killing Iranians by exporting cigarettes.  Yet, he's right there with Obama, because the media chooses to cover what they want.  I didn't mind the Jesse Jackson story being covered, that actually helped Obama. 

If Obama had called his wife a c*nt he wouldn't stand a chance in November.  If Obama had said we'll be in Iraq another 100 years, he wouldn't stand a chance in November.  If anyone on the Obama campaign had said ANYTHING about Americans being "a nation of whiners" they would've ran Obama back to Illinois so fast he would have gotten drafted by the Bears!

Mr.Boehlert I think it is both nuts and a disgrace the way the MSM has covered John McCain. It is really frustrating watching McCain switch positions and outright lying depending on the audiences he is speaking in front of .  Saying he is stands for "immigration reform", as he spoke in front of La Raza" in San Diego yesterday leaving out the fact that he has heard the voice of "the people"and would now reject the bill he forged with Kennedy. I listened to Meet the Press last Sunday and heard McCains spokesperson make the statement that McCains rejection of Bushs' tax cuts was because there wasn't a corresponding cut in spending,this was a bold faced lie , missed by both the moderator and Democratic supporter of Obama.  I don't remember the exact quote but McCain said that he oppossed the cuts because they disproportionately benefitted the wealthiest amongst us. It's disgraceful and I find the MSM actions concerning McCain coverage to be more than just innocently giving him a pass because he is likable.  I think there is some real manipulation going on that goes right into the inner chambers of some govt. propaganda machine.  Look how the Justice Department has become soooo politicized. The violations of the Hatch Act,and the use of that department to go after Democrats to create a permanent Republican governing body. As far as the MSM and Cable TV News is their a comparable voice on the left to that of the  fascist rantings of Pat B. ?  Why the Media blackout about the Pentagon carrying out pysops using their selected cabal of analyst in the lead up to and continuing during our invasion and occupation of Iraq?  The Red Cross recently said we've been torturing people at GITMO and elsewhere and GB and others have committed war crimes, yet no questions today about it to GB at his news conference????? Come on this to me is more than just giving a break there is some real dirty stuff going on and it's really stinking.

Amen brotha/sista!!! Amen. Great post.

Yes, much of this is intentional. It's not all incompetence. It's downright manipulation.

This is what people said would happen when the Fairness Doctrine was eliminated. It's what was happening in the early 30s when it was first  introduced-- nutcase car-dealer radio station owners were 24/7 railing against Roosevelt and the New Deal

The Jackson comment is important, and had a top level conserative said the exact same thing about Obama, it would be featured here on MMFA and all over the news.  He or should would be labeled a racist, and would have been attacked over and over.  The mere fact that Jackson said it is no less of a story, and it deserved all the attention that it has gotten in the press. 

I think what they are trying to say is that other things on the McCain campaign should have got "as much" attention as the Jackson story.

However, I'm willing to argue that the Jesse Jackson thing actually helps Obama, since many people are uncomfortable with Jesse Jackson and his politics, and Jesse is actually more used to taking the heat than Obama. I'm actually kind of glad it got the media attention that it did.

POV, what do you consider to be important about Jackson's comments?

Pointofview:

Why do you say that Jackson's  comment was important? He holds no official position in either political party or either campaign staff. I thought his comment was pretty lacking in relevance to any issue of importance in this campaign.

RT and Col

Both of you know the Jackson is a figure on the national stage.  While his influence has faded some over the years, he still carries a lot of weight on the national level.  he has atacked conseratives for years, and interjects himself anytime there is a camera or a dollar to be made.  My point, which neither of you addressed, is if some like Ruch or Hannity had been caught saying the same thing about Obama, they would have been branded a racist, and all sorts of links would have been made to lyncings and the klan, and the comment would have made global news.

It is also important when a high profile dem, like Jackson, who claims to support Obama, and claims to be on his side makes such a comment.  His claim that Obama was "talking down to black people" is also important. 

But then again, I am sure you both already know that, and i am sure you would both be filled with outrage, and correctly so, if the comment had been made by a conserative instead of a lib. 

Finally, the McCain comment was his opinion on the state of social security.  While not a popular view here, I for one think he is right about the "outrage".  He stated a view, while Jackson wants to castrate Obama.  If any of us made that comment, we could expect a visit from the secrect service.  That is why it is important. 

OK, let's first get past the concrete thinking, and explain to you that nobody in their right mind thinks that Jackson was literally threatening to castrate Obama. It was a figure of speech.

You've repeated several more times that Jackson's comments are important. The question you were asked was WHY they are important.Not whether or not you think they are important, but why.

The closest I saw you coming to attempting an answer was some hypothetical about the reaction "IF" a conservative had said the same things, your assertion that your fantasy would play out a certain way. Is that the point you made that I failed to address, some imagined scenario from the recesses of your skull that I'm supposed to treat as reality? Sorry, that's a little outside of my jurisdiction.

Col.: Sounds like I'm plagarizing you, but you're just quicker on the draw than I am!

Heh. I think the holes in his thinking were way too big to suggest anybody needed help in seeing them. Grate mines,. like they say.

Col

That is a very weak response.  First, how many times have you and others here attacked someone who claimed a comment was "just a figure of speech" or it was just a joke.  That is sad on your part that you fall back on that now.

Second, a threat of violence, real or not against a preidential candidate is serious in and of itself.

Third, when it comes from a leader of the party, it is even worse.

Fourth, dont give me that fantasy reaction crap.  Rush has been attacked here for far less than a threat of violence.  Look at all the attacks on the satire cover from the New Yorker.  You know full well what the looney left reaction would be if Rush or Hannity had said that.  You are just not man enough to admit it. 

You're comparing things deliberately broadcast and printed to something inadvertently said into a live mic? If I don't get that because I'm not man enough, then call me Nancy.

I served with Nancy, I knew Nancy, Nancy was a friend of mine and senator, you're no Nancy :-0)

Hey Col., how 'bout you, me and Nancy in a three way? 

Madame JJ, Once again you have disturbed the thread with your "overtures". If you continue this common liberal trait, we may have to personally put you over our knees and spank you for being such a baaaad baaaad girl.

Thank You, Your friends

Reverand Hagee and the Spiritual Leader of the Vegetable (or Con World) Rev. Parsley.

Tempting me with a spanking sort of works at cross purposes to your aim of reforming me, wouldn't you say, Rev? :-0) Besides I'm an inveterate hedonist. I make no apologies.

It's Adam & Eve, NOT Adam & Eve & Nancy !!!

The hell you say! Who made those rotten rules? Some self righteous pastor? Besides, I may just be a middle aged guy pretending to be a girl, living in an underground bunker in some undisclosed location in Texas :-0) 

You defend the news media's hyperventilating over Jackson's comment by discussing what you fantasize the media would do in an imaginary situation where Rush or Hannity make statements similar to Jackson's. You have learned this technique well by listening to wingnut radio, but it fails several basic premises of logical thought.

I have no interest in the MSM spending their time analyzing the statemnts of Jackson, Rush, Hannity or other commentators to any significant degree. The point that MMFA is making is that there is a big problem when Jackson's brief comment becomes much bigger news than the actual policy positions of one of the candidates.

RT

Thanks for the laugh.  I have no idea what interests you have, but MMFA is always interested in what Rush, Hannity, and others have to say.  Like the col., it appears that you are not man to admit what would happen if a conserative had made those remarks.

But I will remember what both of you said here.  It will only be a matter of days until a conserative says something that you take great offense to.  And of course you and the Col will cry and hand one another tissues as I tell you it was a joke, it was satire, and no big deal. 

POV, be sure to point it out when that happens. You still don't seem to be getting something very basic here; It's not that we "won't admit" that some hypothetical thing would happen, it's that we can't admit it.We have no way of knowing what would happen in your fictional tales.Don't hate us for our rational connection to actual events that have happened.

Is that clear enough? You're inventing things to make comparisons to, and asking other people to "admit" things that you're imagining. Geez, it's like talking to the stoned clerk at the 7-11, and having to admit that Jimi Hendrix playing with Zeppelin would be the best concert ever before I can get my change..

I'm not man enough to admit to something that you fantasize may happen in the future? Um, I'm kind of at a loss for words on how to respond to that one.

   BTW, POV, I heard a bit of Rush today. He suggested that all liberals should be locked up/ institutionalized. I think it was a little colorful hyperbole like Jacksons 'nad'jacking comment. I wasn't outraged in the least. I thought it was cute.

That's another danger of taking things so literally & seriously- you start to build these wild dream worlds where everything has you fainting & crying, & it's easy to lose any perspective you ever had on reality.

 

And if a politcial cartoon appears depicting McCain sitting around a dinner table eating a steak, laughing and drinking wine with his NV captors while other American captives view him through bars under his feet reaching for the pieces of fat on the floor appears, satire will be a forgotten word. Also in the cartoon, McCain with the presidential crest on his shirt looks down to the prisoners saying..Do I look Presidential??

How would this play in the satirical world of the RIGHT?

Prince,

Don't know if you've seen this cartoon yet--but if not, here's my gift to you & all my Lib buds here ;-) [Hope this works]

If we could get the minds of the satirists to adjust to real issues, we may have quite a few candidates to run for office. They are like hackers.. And can't even invent the next internets...Gore already did that. That one is for you.

That's not bad Jeter2,

But we want a magazine cover of a major magazine.  We don't want no little cartoon tucked away somewhere.

We're just mean that way.

Mean? Nah. You guys just want revenge. Come on Homes be honest ;-)

It's funny but it's an affectionate parody without the bite of the New Yorker. So it's not the same.

Now, if they'd showed McCain dive-bombing innocent Vietnamese civilians, that would be a cover-- and an adequate equivalent. 

It is an "affectionate parody"  

Wow, I want the drugs you are taking. 

It's funny but it's an affectionate parody

Funny? Yes. Affectionate? Are you serious?

A drooling obviously demented old man sits in a wheelchair while his wife tries giving him pills alluding to her prior drug addiction is affectionate? The constitution burning in the fireplace with a portrait of Cheney hanging above is affectionate?

Not where I come from.

Carl you're normally a really fair & reasonable guy. But this time I think your partisan political mindset took over.

The difference, and it's a significant one, is that nothing about the caricature of Obama and his wife is true or accurate.

McCain being old, being disabled, being married to a woman who had an illegal pill-popping addition that she got out of because of connections, that's all true.

They are not the same.

I want the drugs you are taking as well.

They are not the same.

Bottleblonde/Sue/NotThatGeorge/Ellie717...and all the other names you've used here,

DID I SAY THEY WERE THE SAME? No.

Put your glasses on Susie.

I offered it as a "gift" to my Lib Buds [of which you are not one] cause I thought they'd get a kick & chuckle out of it.

Go troll somewhere else if you can't stop misinterpreting what folks here write.

I'd suggest DailyKos, but of course you've been banned there under the names SLOUISE & ELLIE717.

Did I say that you said they were the same? Of course not. That's your delusions speaking.

You offered it. I commented on it that it was not the same as what was shown about Obama, because what was shown about Obama was demonstrably false and what is covered above is demonstrably true.

Oh, and I am not the banned poster you speak of, so it's irrelevant to what I said if she was banned at some other site. Why would you think it was relevant? Oh, that would be because you could not dispute what I said (remember, I never said that you claimed that they were the same) so you felt the need to try to attack the messenger instead of the message. That makes your argument look even weaker than it really is. It's already really weak.

I hit enter too soon.

What I wanted to add was it was that exact issue that Eric Boehlert brought up in this posting too.

There needs to be more fairness. It's not fair to compare that picture of Obama and his wife to this picture of McCain and his wife. Don't even try to complain that you weren't comparing them - if you weren't saying that they were related, you wouldn't have posted it on this site in this thread.

There needs to be more hard work done. Hard work would expose the fact that all the things shown in that Obama picture are false, but too often that hard work is not done. As Media Matters repeatedly demonstrates, the MSM doesn't expose the underlying truth that debunks the lies. It's hard work, but it's their job.

More common sense needs to be demonstrated. Common sense tells us that since they are not comparable parodies, their differences should be pointed out. Just as I explained in other threads on this subject, even though many people understand that the portrayal of Obama is a mockery of those who unfairly attack him, it's still a tasteless and offensive portrayal because it does not clearly explain that its purpose is to mock those who unfairly attack him, and does not tweak those people. It isn't something that they would find upsetting to see, and doesn't rock their boat. On the other hand, the parody of McCain you posted would make McCain supporters upset and feel offended.

There's unfair comparisons made all the time, and it's the journalists job to point out those unfair comparisons. That's what Boehlert did, and that's what I did.

We should start a "Countdown" for the number of days the New Yorker...

has not done a satirical George McCain cover.

 

Good point Homes-- and whatever they do it will not be half as pointed as the Obama one-- it will be softball-- people would go NUTS over any hard-ass McCain mockery.

not bad, kind of like the posting at the l.a. times wondering whether tony snow would be buried in his nazi uniform.

I didn't take that comment as an attack on the entire social security system as much as another display of McCain's astounding ignorance. I could be wrong though.  Either way it completely disqualifies him from being president in my mind.  (Not that I'd have voted for him anyway.)

The American people are getting so angry and disgusted with the news media and AP. They no longer even try to hide their bias. McCain is

their guy and they are going to protect him, cover up his inadequacies,

and do their best to harm Barack Obama. MSNBC, CNN, FOX and others have completely sold out to big corporations, and are intent to sway

the American people their way.

There is no integrity in the news media, AP, and we viewers need to constantly let them know we do not support their irresponsible actions and insulting us as to our intelligence.

I think you're right-- most people hate the news and see the obvious bias. And they're getting burned out at election coverage in general right now.

What Dems need to do is generate a 21st Century anti-establishment script, a 'look at what unattractive squares and morons those corporate guys are.' It would work, I think. 

Why dont you try to start and all lib radio network.  Wait a second, you did that with air america and it is a failure.  Fox news has been number one almost since it went on the air because so many people were so tired of the Dan Rather made up stories and the total liberal biais in the news.  Most people are now getting exactly what they wanted....a few media outlets that dont treat 50% of the people who are conseratives as outcasts. 

Looks like you got those drugs you were asking for, POV.  ;0)

 

The diference between Jackson and McCain stories is that  Jackson's is a "man bites dog" story.

For Jackson, a one time candidate and self styled leader to say something so drastic about Obama is certainly news.  Especially since Jackson's whole shtick has been to advance the rights of blacks. To denigrate Obama publicly is unheard of. 

McCain opining about SS is more of the same old same old by another Republican. 

It's as simple as that. 

 

 

www.youtube.com/watch?v=niJAkR_6tKQ - 110k

What people need to face up and realize is we have a 1 party system here. At the end of the day they all want the same thing. CONTROL. Wake up to the revolution, or find yourself behind barbed wire fencing.

Sen. Obama spoke in Washington D.C. today, "in what was billed as a major foreign policy address" is how The New York Times characterized it: he spoke for 38 minutes at the Ronald Reagan Building and International Trade Center: his speech had the singular theme of U.S. National Security, and expressed thoughts about the U.S. occupation of IRAQ, and about that occupation's place in our National Security, that are plain and sensible and forthright and sort of rare, to be spoken in public by anyone in D.C., let alone a Presidential candidate... it seems almost like it's the first real time in this campaign, that any candidate has spoken publicly and loudly and clearly and truthfully, about IRAQ.

Here's just a brief (but very well spoken) part of Mr. Obama's speech today:

 

“What’s missing in our debate about Iraq, what has been missing since before the war began, is a discussion of the strategic consequences of Iraq and its dominance of our foreign policy...

This war distracts us from every threat that we face and so many opportunities we could seize.

This war diminishes our security, our standing in the world, our military, our economy, and the resources that we need to confront the challenges of the 21st century. 

By any measure, our single-minded and open-ended focus on Iraq is not a sound strategy for keeping America safe.”

 

I hope you read that. I know that our eyes sometime skip right over "cut and pasted" quotes in these comments here (my eyes do), but that single thing Mr. Obama said, is extraordinary: up until now, when has any candidate for President said it so flatly and so clearly as that? When has any U.S. Senator at all, at any time since the invasion of IRAQ, said it as truthfully and as plainly as that?

I don't think anybody of late, if ever, in D.C. has said it so plainly and clearly and truthfully as Sen. Obama said it today, "in what was billed as a major foreign policy address"

 

I do not post to tell you of that speech. The item above addresses the strange way the media deals between John McCain and Sen. Obama... that's why I post, to point this out to you:

The New York Times, in reporting on this event today (and I hardly watch any television, so I don't know what's going on in that Fool's Paradise), the Times began their day reporting this story in the manner that I quoted you they had described the speech, "in what was billed as a major foreign policy address"...

But in a very short time, and at present, they have completely reframed their reporting of Mr. Obama's speech today. At this exact moment, the story of the speech is reduced on the Times front page, beneath something about the All-Star Game, and something about "Fed chief" Bernanke, and something about the G.O.P. in Congress obstructing Legislation, and something about "Military Detentions"...

And yet that's just the place that the Times now puts Mr. Obama's speech (beneath those all-important matters)... I said they reframed the story of the speech, and they have: it is now under the headline of...

 

Obama and McCain Duel Over Iraq

 

True.

How can The New York Times do that, and do that so swiftly: they marginalize and reframe "what was billed as a major foreign policy address" (the Times' own words) into merely Obama and McCain Duel Over Iraq

And the article itself then does this thing of marginalizing and reframing Mr. Obama's speech today: it does begin with the speech, and does contain quotes from it (such as what I included above), but it veers into Mr. McCain's response as though he had given this speech today (when in fact, McCain's response was merely offhand, from Albuquerque, and was merely part of several subjects he spoke of, mainly "the economy"), and then veers also into quotes of George W. Bush, quotes that aren't even about IRAQ.

This seems extraordinary to me: Mr. Obama delivers "a major foreign policy address", that is so unique in tone and controversial even, that I would summarize it as...

Our Military occupation of IRAQ is doing more harm, and perhaps no good at all, to our National Security

...and The New York Times marginalizes and reframes such a bold and up-to-now unique speech, as merely:

Obama and McCain Duel Over Iraq

The New York Times article I referred to, has been marginalized even further at this moment (although it has not yet disappeared from their front page: but the day is still not over)... it has been reframed again also: both the name of the now-obscure link on the front page, and the title of the piece itself, has been changed to...

Obama and McCain Duel Over Foreign Policy

 

very nice

How are you people going to survive the next 8-16 of Democratic Party rule? On the bright side, you will have plenty of ammo to throw around since the Dems are always wrong now.

You must remember that Sen. Obama wants America to regain her proper status in the world  which is not the greatest as of today. Whereas Sen. McCane wants America to, at the least, surpass Czechoslovakia in the world rankings.

Sly dig there prince. This years Czechosloakian tourism sound bite this same as last years,"Come to Wonderful Czechoslovakia. We don't exist!"

Christopher,

Isn't it interesting how people get worked up over the media coverage in this country and get so caught up in the Democrat vs. Republican, conservative vs. liberal b.s. that they fail to see that it doesn't matter which side of the aisle your on. If it did matter there would be more than two options when voting.

The media is doing exactly what it's being paid to do and that is to keep the American public uninformed. It doesn't matter who gets elected president because the president and all other elected officials don't have control over the country, international big-business does. That's why our media caters to the "true patriots" and "die-hard Americans". People who believe that we can do no wrong in our purely noble pursuits of spreading freedom and democracy in the world. The other part of the time they're keeping you occupied with pointless pop-culture drivel. The media has to hide, cover-up, white-wash and lie about the activities the government has actually been up to in order to full-fill the end goal of the real owners of our country... control of the rest of the world.

Do people really think the idea of global domination stopped with Hitler or the Soviet Union? Do people really think America's opposition to Communism was simply self preservation? They want to be the victors no matter the cost (to you). They're not spreading freedom, they're after power. Freedom will always lose in the battle with power and if you get in the way of that you are the enemy.

Money, capital and power are fluid. They easily move across national borders and ideology. While most in this country are trying to be "good Americans" the people behind the curtain, the people with the real power, go about their business without a moments thought about you. You mean less than nothing to them. Wake up...indeed.

Naw Col. POV is off his meds thats why he's having these fantasies.?? 

It is so very evident the media, AP fully support McCain and

the republicans. They don't even try to hide it, They distort,

exaggerte, sensationalize, ignore and out and out lie.

We, the American people are the victimns as  reporting

with integrity is a lost cause.

But, they do not give us enough credit for our intelligence.

I refuse to watch MSNBC anymore (except for Oberman)

as they have gone so far right it is sickening. Unfortunately,

CNN seems to be following their biased reporting.

They all are owned by big corporations, AP even has Murdock

on their board of directors. What does that tell you?