Who ever they are. Will they repeat the effectiveness that they've shown in the last two presidential elections. How they came to put themselves so solidly into an antidemocratic cheering section is a thing of many parts. The biggest part is the size of a wallet and who's carrying it. 

Well, it might be changing.

Andrea Mitchell today was royally teed off at these new McCain tactics. It's obvious that she resents being used in regards to the Germany-injured soldiers stunt, where McCain lied about the reporters trying to be present, and then tried to use those same reporters to vouch for his lies.

Also-- McCain's morning press conference in Florida was a disaster for him-- CNN showed most of it-- the reporters were very hostile, and McCain came off like an arrogant bully, proud of his commercials.

Somerby at the Daily Howler thinks things might have crested as well-- at last. McCain made a big mistake by hassling the press- and then trying to get them to back him up!

I wrote about this earlier this week on this site.

The media needs to evaluate the claims of the ads, and of Jerome Corsi's book, et al, before they talk about them.

If they did that, instead of their knee-jerk 'let's get the story on the air first', or 'let's get the story out there quickly because another media source has already gotten that news out there' promotion of these stories, we'd all be better informed.

Getting info out that quickly is a disservice to the people they supposedly are serving!

It would stop a lot of the 'he said, she said' kind of stories. If they evaluated the items before they aired them, they'd be able to make those kinds of judgments.

John McCain's ad about Obama in Germany actually only aired 5 times in a few markets. How much airtime did the news and commentary broadcasts and newspapers and online news sources give that ad? It deserved none of that time.

They should have evaluated the ad. They should have determined that it was full of baloney, and then they could have told us what we needed to know, and provided the service they should have. Here's what a responsible news source would have said if they'd done the legwork first.

"John McCain's campaign offered a new ad on his behalf yesterday. That ad was not accurate, because it said that Obama cancelled his visit to injured soldiers in a military hospital in Germany while Obama was on a combined Congressional Delegation and campaign trip because he couldn't take media cameras. It also lied when it said that he chose to go to the gym rather than visit the troops and when it said that he didn't visit injured soldiers.

"The real story is that Obama visited injured soldiers while on this trip, and has visited them with no media cameras on several recent occasions. The real story is that the Pentagon said that his visit with a former military companion would be considered a campaign stop because that military man is now an advisor to Obama's campaign, and since Obama's Senate staff had already left for the US, the trip would be seen as a campaign stop unless Obama attended the event on his own. Obama was concerned that even if he went alone, it would still be seen as a campaign event, and inappropriate, and he didn't want the injured soldiers to be associated with that false meme.

"To protect the innocent, injured soldiers, Obama chose to not go. The ad is a lie. Obama made that choice for good reasons, and didn't have bad motives, but McCain tried to pretend they knew better."

Corsi hasn't been seen anywhere else but FOX. That's a good sign.

Last week the MSM also completely ignored the John Edwards/ Beverly Hills Hotel story. Another good sign. I think sites like MMFA and Daily Howler are working to keep people straighter than in 2000. And they're succeeding.

I did appreciate that they basically ignored that smear of John Edwards.

Bottleblonde,

I like your piece, and it would do very well in the New York Times perhaps, but it seems a little too calm and balanced for the American controversy-hungry palate..

I think, for the American television audience--things do need to be pounded in and repeated, it would just be a LOT better if these things were based in fact!!

I submit:

ON-SCREEN GRAPHIC: McCain's Smear Tactics?

HOST: Our next story, a dust-up today on the campaign trail as Senator John McCain releases another ad that independent sources are calling "misleading," "ugly," and "a nasty turn into the gutter." Here with me today to discuss the ad and its implications for the McCain campaign, is GUEST.

GUEST: Hi, HOST, thanks for having me on today.

HOST: Thanks for coming. Now, tell us about this ad, and what makes it different from the ads viewers are used to seeing at this stage in a campaign?

GUEST: Well, the ad focuses on Obama's overseas trip--widely hailed as a great success--and tries to poke some holes in it. But the fact is McCain's story just doesn't add up. He tries to make the claim that Obama canceled his trip to Landstuhl to visit wounded soldiers because he wasn't allowed to bring media, when the fact is the media were never going to be part of that trip in the first place. So, McCain is basically making all that up, about the media. And this is contradicted by the fact that Obama did visit wounded soldiers at other times in his trip without media, and has done so at Walter Reed recently.

HOST: Ok, so for our viewers who might not be familiar with what happened in Landstuhl--Obama did cancel a trip there, right? But then the reason John McCain gave was false?

GUEST: Yes, absolutely. And the thing that is really bad for McCain about this is that the reporters on the trip have independently verified Obama's version of events, and this leaves McCain with no way to even grasp at credibility here. What really happened was that the Pentagon was concerned that if any of Obama's campaign aides went to the hospital, it would be a campaign event, and so didn't let anyone else go. Obama, at that point, made the decision that since he was on the part of his trip paid for by his presidential campaign, it would be too political if he were to go too, so he called off the trip so he wouldn't insult the troops, and kept a low profile by calling them instead.

HOST: Oh, I see, so a simple misunderstanding that the McCain campaign is trying to see if they can twist around? What about this charge in the ad about going to the gym?

GUEST: That Obama went to the gym?

HOST: Right--instead of seeing the troops.

GUEST: Well, that's just baloney. We forget that our presidential candidates are people, and they do need to eat and sleep, and have a daily routine even when they're traveling. It's an important part of being grounded. McCain's charge about the gym is just as funny as if he said, "But Obama still ate dinner that day," besides the Landstuhl decision wasn't about time, it was about appropriateness.

HOST: Thanks for getting the facts for us. So, what effect do you think this ad will have on the McCain campaign?

GUEST: Well, it was a really risky move by McCain to try this, and I'd definitely say it's backfired. You, know, eight years ago, McCain had this "maverick" and "straight-talker" image. But, as we all know in politics, you can destroy a reputation a lot faster than you can build one.

HOST: So, you think this McCain ad is really hurting is image of an honest candidate in voters' minds?

GUEST: Oh, absolutely. And the thing is this is part of a long string of negative and misleading ads that the McCain campaign has released, some of them with made-up numbers and very false claims, so it's really tarnishing the McCain brand.

HOST: So, why do you think McCain took this risk with the ad?

GUEST: Well, I guess the strategy was they'd get these charges to stick in people's minds before they could be corrected. But, it's a tricky thing in politics--these ads can really backfire when the falsehoods are exposed.

HOST: Is the Obama campaign doing anything to see that this backfires?

GUEST: Oh, absolutely. Obama released a statement today that said, "I do notice that he doesn’t seem to have anything to say very positive about himself." And that's a really important campaign strategy: to show McCain as negative and kind of a dead-end, and Obama can show that he's the one making real progress. It also plays into Obama's hands perfectly, because he wants to pin McCain as the same as Bush, and when McCain starts rolling out the negative ads, just like Bush and Karl Rove did in 2000 and 2004, it makes it very easy for Obama to show that McCain is being a politics-as-usual kind of guy, and that Obama is the candidate that has something positive to offer.

HOST: Well, GUEST, we're out of time. Thanks for being with us today.

GUEST: A pleasure to be here, HOST, thank you.

HOST: So, another dishonest McCain ad--seems it might do more harm than good for his chances this fall. We'll be right back.

Journalists need to do their job.

If I went to them and said I had a cure for cancer, or had figured out how to create fission (or is it fusion) cheaply, or if I had simply said that I knew a terrible secret about a public figure, I'd have to prove that I wasn't just some wacko before they'd publish my story. That's their job! Why they don't do their job when it comes to politicians is something I don't really understand.

I think they do it because they want continued access to that politician and his buddies, so they have to take the lies and distortions along with the insider access. It's a system that sucks though.

Journalists should not promote lies and distortions. Politicians and people like Rush Limbaugh are going to spread those lies, but the MSM doesn't have to publicize those lies like they do now! Evaluate them first! Then do what you did above.

the britney ad was so over the top that i think it hurt them.  as for rush and the full tires, limbaugh is the guy who mocked fuel effeciency standards for years, and it was your choice, no, your very duty, to buy the biggest gas hog you could afford.  

"the britney ad was so over the top that i think it hurt them."

And that was nothing compared to the childish idiocy that they released today. Their new "The One" ad basically mocks Obama for sending out inspiring messages of hope and self-reliance.

It's all about ridicule-- like what Johnny Carson did 30 years ago, turning Jimmy Carter into a public joke at the mere mention of his name (anyone else remember that?)

Today's McCain ad was also bigoted-- whenever you liken a prancing Black man to Moses and his flock, you're deliberately conjuring up Hallelluja minstrel imagery.

Anyone else see that? It's obvious. 

Just like when you paste blonde white girls directly before a picture of a Black man, you're doing so to deliberately highlight his Blackness.

While, in contrast, Liar McCain spouts off messages of lies and stupidity and hatred and war-mongering.

... as for rush and the full tires, limbaugh is the guy who mocked fuel effeciency standards for years, and it was your choice, no, your very duty, to buy the biggest gas hog you could afford.  

MeFirst, I'm glad you singled out those bits. These are the sort of seemingly trivial items that, to me, put so much of the far-right's MO, and their way of thinking, into a nutshell.

The term "strawman" gets thrown around here quite a bit, to the point where you hesitate to use it for fear of wearing it out. There were times I was posting here, trying to think of another way to describe a strawman, thinking maybe I was hallucinating, I saw so many of them.

Then one day as I was looking over the comments here, recently- mysteriously- disappearing -poster Solon wrote something here, in reference to the right-wing media; "The Strawman is Sacred". It was probably just another off-hand comment to him, but it struck a chord with me. I probably thought of the logical decoy known as the strawman as "commonly used", or "not out of bounds" or "handy", to both the media and to dittohead posters on websites like this. It's more than any of those, it's their bread & butter. The strawman is sacred.

Which brings my ramble to Rush Limbaugh and the inflated tires. I caught part of Rush's show that day when he was talking about it as I was driving out to a job site, and he obviously had just played a clip of Obama talking about energy conservation.I didn't hear Obama's words, but I'm going to take a wild guess; he was probably talking about the well-known fact that keeping your car tuned up and your tires inflated improves your gas mileage. That works, saving money on a personal level, if everybody does it, it works on a collective scale, decreasing demand.

How about that? I haven't even heard Obama's quote, but I'm pretty sure I'm close just from hearing Rush's interpretation, and I'm not all that bright.

But that wasn't Rush's take on it. He had already dumbed it down to the 3rd grade comprehension level of the dittoheads as this-- "Obama says if we put more air in our tires, oil prices will go down".

This sent him into one of his patented comedy-free comedy routines, where he blathered on about sending his car out to the dealer for a tune-up and tire inflation, and watching the signs at the gas station as the work was done to see if the prices went down. Hilarious!

His monkeys were calling in within seconds, letting him know that gas stations were out changing the numbers due to his car being serviced. Har! It's hilarious mocking the words of people who are smarter than you, when you don't understand them. The callers were people who actually heard the audio of Obama, and they still believed Rush's version over reality. They were riffing like crazy, so thankful for being spared the burden of thinking about an issue.

Trivial? Their votes count the same as yours or mine. Is that elitist of me to say?

Sorry for not trimmng these down, but it's the weekend, I'll be a little rude and take up some more space.

Re: Rush & the SUV; Rush has spent a good part of his career, as mefirst pointed out, encouraging good Americans to buy their birthrights, the huge SUV. He mocked the failures of those who were trying to make progress with alternative fuels and more efficient vehicles, pointing to the inevitable and expected (by  rational people) bugs that were being worked out by those who were taking risks, exhibiting some foresight, and trying to run an intervention on our country's addiction to oil.

These were the losers, in Rush's mind. People who wanted to dictate what Americans drove, out of some mania to control others and envy of success. I only catch bits of his show a couple of times a week, but he was filling up a good chunk of it celebrating any setbacks experienced by the enviro-wackos, assuring the cretins in his audience that the liberation of Iraq would keep the cheap gas flowing, and they deserved to drive around in a ridiculous oversized quasi-military 4 wheel drive vehicle just because they could.

Then a funny thing happened.It turned out that all of the people Rush had convinced his suckling piglets were nuts were, in fact, right. Mostly people who voted against GW Bush, and listened to people (experts, as opposed to dumbshlts like Rush Limbaugh) who made it very clear what was going to happen to energy in general, and specifically to oil.

Recently I tuned in the drug-addled pedophiles show to hear him speaking in very indignant and disgusted tones. He was reading from a newspaper article, and from what I heard, it was a very objective piece reporting on the floundering sales of huge SUVs.

Rush was apoplectic, unable to believe that this paper was gleefully reporting on the hardship of American industry. They obviously hated the movers and shakers and job providers who were chasing a market of short-sighted numbskulls.

You'd think a mildly brain-damaged sea slug would have learned a lesson in common sense and paying attention to the facts from this experience. Where is the Rush-Hannity-Fox audience today? Up to speed? Looking at the big picture?

Nope. Drill here, drill now, pay less. More delusional, short-sighted, fantasies of instant gratification and avoidance of any responsibility or accountability. 

And the GOP is already using this, and it will be successful to some extent, telling their audience that the Democrats don't want to do anything about drilling for more oil. They want Americans to pay more for gas.

Sadly, it will work on some people.

One more point;

NY YANKEES SUCK !!!!!

(Hi Jeter)

Which brings my ramble to Rush Limbaugh and the inflated tires.

So that's where McCain got that story-- he repeated it about ten times today on the campaign. 

Are all of you people selective in hearing what your candidate actually says? Obama mde the statement along his campaign tour, as a counter argument for offshorre drilling, that if everyone in the country just inflated their tires (oh.. and got a tune up) , we'd have no dependence on foreign oil. Apparently Obama and Al Gor share the same research assistants...

 

Here are some additional tips from the EPA to help you get better gas mileage.

Maintain your car

Keep your engine tuned. Studies have shown that a poorly tuned engine can increase fuel consumption by as much as 10 to 20 percent depending on a car's condition. Follow the recommended maintenance schedule in your owner's manual; you'll save fuel and your car will run better and last longer.

Keep your tires properly inflated and aligned. Car manufacturers must place a label in the car stating the correct tire pressure. The label usually is on the edge of the door or door jamb, in the glove box, or on the inside of the gas cap cover. If the label lists a psi (pounds per square inch) range, use the higher number to maximize your fuel efficiency. Underinflated tires cause fuel consumption to increase by six percent.

Change your oil. Clean oil reduces wear caused by friction between moving parts and removes harmful substances from the engine. Change your oil as recommended by the vehicle manufacturer.

Check and replace air filters regularly. Your car's air filter keeps impurities in the air from damaging internal engine components. Not only will replacing a dirty air filter improve your fuel economy, it also will protect your engine. Clogged filters can cause up to a 10 percent increase in fuel consumption. http://www.ftc.gov/bcp/edu/pubs/consumer/autos/aut10.shtm 

That's the selfishness of the conservatives.  We are FREE to drive gas hogs.  We are FREE to waste energy.  But no the buzzards have come home to roost. 

Conservatives know nothing about common goals and cohesive action for the common good.  It's all about selfishness, THe "I've got mine, screw everyone else" mentality.  Well, guess what - now the time has come and these idiots are going to be left to the scrap heap of history with their failed ideology.

Obama mde the statement... that if everyone in the country just inflated their tires (oh.. and got a tune up) , we'd have no dependence on foreign oil (MissDee)

I've been trying to find a transcript of this, mostly the Googles only turned up right-wing strawmen like yours.I did find a youtube clip where Obama said that these things would free up as much oil as any plans for drilling now would create.

If you have a link to Obama saying what you claim he says, I'm open minded. If you have some credible figures comparing the immediate effects of individual fuel conservation vs. opening up additional areas for drilling, I'm open to that too.

 

missdee is going to have to come up with that quote.  since she specifies that it is "foreign oil", i find it highly unlikely obama said that.  we get about 2/3 of our daily consumption from outside the country, about 13-14 million barrels a day.   sounds like a misdeed from missdee. 

Col Sanders, here's some information for you. ThinkProgress is often a good option for source data.

http://thinkprogress.org/2008/08/01/gingrich-tires-loony-tunes/

But more importantly, Obama is correct to suggest that inflating tires properly and getting regular tune-ups “could save all the oil that they’re talking about getting off drilling” — and by a long shot. According to the Energy Information Administration, if Congress lifted the moratorium on offshore drilling, by 2030, oil crude production in the “lower-48″ outer continental shelf will increase by about 200,000 barrels per day. By contrast, the production offset based on Obama’s proposal will likely approach 800,000 barrels per day, immediately.

So while Gingrich is touting his “Drill Here, Drill Now, Pay Less” scheme, car care can provide a real solution that would allow Americans to pay less at the pump today.

http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2008/07/from-the-fact-1.html

"There are things that you can do individually though to save energy," Sen. Barack Obama, D-Illinois, said. "Making sure your tires are properly inflated, simple thing, but we could save all the oil that they're talking about getting off drilling, if everybody was just inflating their tires and getting regular tune-ups. You could actually save just as much."

Read the comment posted by Kris for full details that document the calculations necessary.

Posted by: Kris | Aug 2, 2008 8:25:03 PM

Are all of you people selective in hearing what your candidate actually says?... that if everyone in the country just inflated their tires (oh.. and got a tune up) , we'd have no dependence on foreign oil. Apparently Obama and Al Gor share the same research assistants...

Obama never said that at all. 

He was merely suggesting partial remedies. But McCain took this dishonest cue from Limbaugh, and repeated the lie all day.

Why do republicans lie all the time? 

Can we get two new candidates? Please? Can we start this whole election over again? I'm not happy with either candidate - if it wasn't for the WOT they'd essentially be the same candidate, barring all of the superficial stuff (skin color, age, letter behind name...)

No. They wouldn't be the same. Obama is not perfect, but he is clearly the better leader.

Obama supports unions.

Obama supports investing in America by putting Americans to work rebuilding our neglected infrastructure.

Obama supports fair trade.

Do you see the underlying theme here? It's people first.

McCain is a typical Republican. He would endeavor to hand our future to the unaccountable, anti-democratic, profit first market fundamentalists on Wall St.

True, but I think it's showing. Poeple are getting turned off.

I think Foser is being a little unfair to Mitchell today. She actually got in a major fight with the McCain guy yesterday about these commercials. He was a major a-hole with her.

And this morning she was visibly peeved at the new one, in a discussion with Brownstein. They both brought up the good point that this is all about false ridicule and is not flattering to McCain.

Could Mitchell have been better? Sure. But the last two days has seen a major change in her. Yeah I wish she was more confrontational, too, but face it, she's not Amy Goodman.

 

Then why aren't we seeing Amy Goodman on a major network? I might start watching the news again.

"Could Mitchell have been better? Sure."

It's not enough for Mitchell to get mad every now again. Mitchell (and the others) must -- every single time they're on the air -- exercise the basic journalistic logic that anyone who's taken an "intro to journalism" class knows. That is NOT too much to ask.

The media almost never deserves praise. They are so far below the floor of minimally basic competence that they will never get there.

Here's a clear sign that Dawuss is from the right.

They're the people who seem to have the syndication rights to claiming that 'they both do it' or that 'both parties are the same' or that 'both candidates have gone negative' or 'both are to blame'.

The facts dispute that conclusion. The Republicans are more negative, and are less respectful, and have done everything bad more often and to a greater degree recently.

It will be great for our nation when the Republicans in power currently get kicked off their pedestals. That's why I'm hoping they keep misbehaving for another few election cycles - to lose all respect and power, they need to be losers for several elections I think. I hope that after that, more reasonable people will take over the leadership positions, trash the Karl Rove methods, and act like they should act.

It ain't happening this election though, and I couldn't be more thrilled. I hope they choke on the results when they look at them on November 5th.

I carry some elements from the right, and some from the left.

 

To be honest, FMPOV I see conservatives having more things in common with liberals than they have in differences. Same goes for Republicans and Democrats. Both have their strengths and their flaws, and both have their corruptions and their wisdoms. To me it's starting to feel more like a football rivalry than anything else.

Yet another sign.

There used to be more commonality between the parties.

Today, not so much. Yet you say that you see them as very similar. No thinking person could say that with a straight face. Ignorance is not a defense nor is it an excuse.

"Obama isObama is presumptuous "?? 

Really?  I thought that it was politically a good thing to act as if you were going to be the next president! 

Every presidential hopeful has in one way or another (and not just here in America) gone out of his/her way to act as the winner well in advance of the election!  And why the heck not..... I have no problem that McCain does it.... it won't matter for him of course, as he won't win, but I think its no big deal that he acts it, same as Obama.

Which brings up the only posible scenerio as to why the corporate owned media is trying to make Obama seem....... presumptuous instead of say... confident in his being the next president?

He's black! He's got a funny name! He's popular with a majority of the people! He's not a corporate whore! And..... he's black!

presumptuous = uppity

different = Black

not like most people = Black

not sure about him = he's a Black guy

He's playing the race card = hey everybody, he's a Negro

socialist = Democrat

Democrat Party = Democrap Party 

 

Once you know the code, these people are easy to figure out. 

He's playing the race card = hey everybody, he's a Negro

LOL

Sorry, we haven't been Negro for years. ;-)

Yes, but there are some dumb honkies who are blanco. ;-)

Carlile was mocking conservatives' use of the word. He wasn't using it sincerely.

Carlile was mocking conservatives' use of the word. He wasn't using it sincerely

Clams, I got that, see my 'LOL'.

Whew, Pearlene, I was hoping you got that. Otherwise I was thinking I may have to backpedal on "SpokesNegro".   ;0)

Sorry, I just wanted to be sure.

Sorry, we haven't been Negro for years. ;-)

 

• - pearlene_scott1602 / Saturday August 2, 2008 6:40:12 AM

My husband tells me he was born a negro (says so on his BC), then he was a black man. Now he's an AA. But I just call him sweet ;-0)

Pearlene, I was commenting on the message that they want to get across.

Right on all counts.

Here's more code today, courtesy of Joe Lieberman, a big McCain supporter, on Meet the Press:

Risky = He's Black

Dangerous presidency = you want to elect a Black man?

The Democrats are going to have to step up and condemn this use of coded language, where adjectives traditionally used to define Black men derogatorily are now being used politically against Obama. Otherwise, it will snowball. 

Absolutely brilliant article, Jamison.  I'll post a link to it on OpEd News.  This should be required reading.  I try to get the word out about Media Matters -- and so does Bill O'Reilly.  See?  Both sides gotcher back...

sheila

Call me a conspiracy theorist, but I do believe we have the corporate machine at work in the media coverage of Obama and McCain.  I don't understand how anyone could come to any other conclusion.  The Andrea Mitchell interview, shows a journalist who has been persuaded to show favortism to one candidate, knowing that candidate to be lying while implicating her in the lie for his own benefit. 

The excuse reporters will offer is that the "narrative" is "emerging."

The media unfortunately is authoring the book the two candidates should be writing. Do you think if he had just said -- if he had just said -- "I have become the symbol of the possibility of America returning to our best traditions," that sentence in and of itself, do you think that that is presumptuous?" -Brewer  If he had just said?!?  He didn't.  But the media will validate these things because there is a corporate interest in keeping Obama out of the White House.  Fox pundits get the memo every day from the White House on how to spin today's bs.  CBS, NBC have all engaged in this dishonest journalism.  There are now officially 51 states in the U.S. and the media all reside in that sad state of affairs where lies are heralded and the truth is a liability to republican agenda. 

"The excuse reporters will offer is that the "narrative" is "emerging."

Glen Greenwald has a good article at Salon on this very subject, and he singles out Mitchell as an example. Everyone's praising her "tough" interview, but Greenwald argues that she's playing right into McCain's hands. She reported that these attack ads are based on falsehoods (which is more than most other so-called journalists did), yet she still continues to frame her reports using McCain's "narrative." All these stories begin the same way--"Is Obama arrogant?"--when the real headline should be "McCain Lies About Obama ."

Hm, I can't find the Greenwald article at Salon, but I'm pretty sure I didn't imagine it. 

Wow, I really need my coffee this morning. I conflated Foser's essay above with Greenwald's piece from a few days ago. Greenwald doesn't mention Mitchell in his similar piece. And obviously I was just repeating what I'd read last night in Foser's piece above and attributing it to Greenwald. Duh. Sorry for the redundancy.

Anyway, the Salon piece is called "Karl Rove's media birds chirp about Obama's 'arrogance'". And everyone should read Greenwald's story about the ABC and the anthrax reports.

http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/ 

Glen Greenwald has a good article at Salon on this very subject, and he singles out Mitchell as an example. Everyone's praising her "tough" interview, but Greenwald argues that she's playing right into McCain's hands.

The sad thing is, she's  been better than almost anyone else!

Call me a conspiracy theorist, but I do believe we have the corporate machine at work in the media coverage of Obama and McCain. I don't understand how anyone could come to any other conclusion. The Andrea Mitchell interview, shows a journalist who has been persuaded to show favortism to one candidate, knowing that candidate to be lying while implicating her in the lie for his own benefit.

The excuse reporters will offer is that the "narrative" is "emerging." The media unfortunately is authoring the book the two candidates should be writing. Do you think if he had just said -- if he had just said -- "I have become the symbol of the possibility of America returning to our best traditions," that sentence in and of itself, do you think that that is presumptuous?" -Brewer If he had just said?!? He didn't. But the media will validate these things because there is a corporate interest in keeping Obama out of the White House. Fox pundits get the memo every day from the White House on how to spin today's bs. CBS, NBC have all engaged in this dishonest journalism. There are now officially 51 states in the U.S. and the media all reside in that sad state of affairs where lies are heralded and the truth is a liability to republican agenda.

You don't have to be a conspiracy theorist to see that this corporatist conservative news media wants Liar McCain (or ANY lying right wing Republican, for that matter) to be the president.

The corporatist conservative news media has both financial and political reasons for making sure Republicans stay in the White House, and BOTH Republican Hate Hag Andrea Mitchell AND Republican Hate Hag Contessa Brewer, naming 2 examples, have political and/or financial reasons, and with Obama, racial reasons, for making sure Liar McCain gets elected. 

Considering that the media firms are being run by conservative Republican capitalists, none of this is a surprise. Just wait till it gets worse in the future, when the young guys from E Channel take over journalism.

Foser doesn't even touch the stupidest part of all this. All presidential candidates are arrogant by definition because they think they're better than anyone else at running the country.

Republicans allow me to do this every cycle: I will now claim that Obama is the perfect man, 100% flawless in every way. If that's not true, wouldn't McCain attack him for something real instead of just made-up stuff, or stuff that's not even a problem?

Gore was 100% perfect too, and so was Kerry. The democratic slogan every cycle should be "better than Jesus".

It's untouchable, because no republican will ever release an attack ad that tells the truth.

And didn't Johnnie Mac also say he wasn't going to use attack ads? IIRC Limbaugh was blasting him for that, saying he had no backbone and was totally weak.

We liberals still don't understand certain things about political campaigns. While most of us operate on a rational basis, many Americans don't, as Republicans are very aware of. We get smug about these silly issues because to rational people these things are distractions and besides the point so we think that they will not carry any weight in a campaign and then we are shocked, shocked, when they do. Most Amercians do not vote on the issues. most Americans are ignorant. That's why these kind of campaigns have been successful. Don't we learn from past elections? The McCain people are putting this crap out there because it has worked in the past. Do Americans have the abilty to look past these distracions? Only when a Clinton was the party's nominee and they knew how to fight. Does Senator Obama, whose supporters whine about alleged playing of the race card by the Clintons (no they did not), and now complains about Senator McCain.

Other than Missdee some very good posts up today.

Dawuss your coming along. None of the regulars is blind to the things that conservatism does. Useful and needed in balance with the exploring and experimental elements of humanity.

Todays conservative, is more concerned with profit and power though neocon influence. As has been noted they can win elections, more often than not, they can't lead. There is always the dream of sucessfully defeating the enemy and the applaus of the peole. Ergo they must create enemys to defeat. This has nothing to do with leading a society in our complex world.

"Todays conservative, is more concerned with profit and power though neocon influence. As has been noted they can win elections, more often than not, they can't lead. There is always the dream of sucessfully defeating the enemy and the applaus of the peole. Ergo they must create enemys to defeat. This has nothing to do with leading a society in our complex world."

 

And you forgot "using the government to enforce their lifestyle and their lifestyle only". I think that the liberals are as guilty of this as the conservatives. I could be wrong, I've been wrong before, and I'll continue to be wrong every now and again, but that's how I see it.

Dawuss says "And you forgot "using the government to enforce their lifestyle and their lifestyle only". I think that the liberals are as guilty of this as the conservatives. I could be wrong, I've been wrong before, and I'll continue to be wrong every now and again, but that's how I see it."

Do you even read what you type? Liberals are "liberal". They are willing to allow multiple lifestyles to co-exist. It's the conservatives that don't want to allow alternative lifestyles!

Conservatives, for example, don't want to allow gays to marry. They only want to allow one male and one female to marry. Liberals want that same existing pattern to remain okay as well as allow gays to marry.

Conservatives, for example, want to only allow abstinence to be taught, despite the voluminous evidence that it doesn't work for large groups of people and is actually counterproductive in many cases because it leads some away from using protection. Liberals want abstinence taught as well as protection methods. We don't want everyone to be sexually active. We recognize the value of abstinence. We're just realists!

I could go on and on.

 There are ideological filters to information on both sides true. Though if you examine the arguments that occur here, who would you believe more able to give an objective take on an issue. Tommy, Jeter, Bruce and few other of a conservative bent hold up ok here. Would you trust Science101's take?

Who is most like the public voice of conservatism, Bruce or Science? I wish it was Bruce or one of the others, it ain't.

The liberal position on lifestyle enforcement has little to do with personal social choices. If you have examples that differ, bring them out.

The conservative power seems to have an inordinate cercern about what takes place in my bedroom.

Social irresponsiblity versis personal irresponsiblity.

Seeing error versis seeing evil.

Mitchell who was the reporter covering Obama on his trip abroad for NBC and MSNBC also was the first one to start the narrative about Obama being "too Presidential"!  Within 48 hours, it had grown to hubris, presumption, and empty suit.

 The latest falsehood promoted by Mitchell was last Thursday, while talking to one of the most notorious "compassionate conservatives," Tony Perkins of the Family Research Council.  After giving him a question about McCain's position on gay marriage, she allowed him then to simply run his mouth to attack Obama with lies as usual,  Perkins glibly declared that Obama on the other hand is willing to redefine marriage, clearly meant as a scare tactic for the more conservative minded voter.  That claim, Mitchell should have known is not true.  Obama supports legalizing unions to ensure equal rights and leaving the issue of the term "marriage" up to the religious institutions. 

Mitchell as a respected and seasoned reporter a(spiring to be in the same league as Russert and Brokaw), once again, either deliberately stayed silent or was inept and failed to do her homework!  Not only has Obama addressed the issue in nationally televised events like the forum on faith done by CNN this Spring, but also clearly stated it in his web site.  There was ne excuse for her not to know.

I don't know about you guys, but it sounds to like the media is trying to kill Obama's presidential bid just as hard as the McCain campaign . It's really frustrating to watch these News programs and hear all the constant negativity coming from the pundits. I have never heard a candidate, whether it was during a primary or general election not "arrogantly" or "presumptuously' refer to his or herself as the next president. How do they expect a candidate to act.