No, that's your wishful thinking. Hillary and Obama had a close, highly contested primary long after McCain had the GOP nomination sewed up - his news would still be in the news more than McCain's because he had much higher visibility at the time.
What is really surprising is that this is news! The media has admitted to this weeks ago.
I see the "B" still stands for "bullcrap". This talking point was debunked months ago.
Even worse, you will see people deny that Obama was given better treatment than McCain.
As is usually the case, take the opposite of the wingnut viewpoint and you have reality:
I ask you to imagine an alternative universe where the candidates are the same, but what each has said and done, has been reversed.
What would be happening tonight if Senator Obama had stumbled, over everything from arcane details, to sweeping policies of the utmost importance, and not just once or twice, but endlessly?
What if Senator Obama couldn't tell Iran from Iraq?
Iraq from Afghanistan?
Sunni from Shi'a?
Somalia from Sudan?
What would we be asking ourselves about his capabilities, if it had been Senator Obama who had identified General David Petraeus as the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff?
And Vladimir Putin as the President of Germany?
And Spain as a country in Latin America?
What if it had been Senator Obama who not only used his POW experience at every turn, but wrote of giving to his captors, not the names of his fellow servicemen, but of the offensive line of the Green Bay Packers football team - only to, when he spoke in Western Pennsylvania, change the story so that he gave to his captors, the names of the offensive line of the Pittsburgh Steelers football team?
We all know exactly what would be happening tonight if Senator Obama had made all those mistakes, contradictions, gaffes, Freudian slips, and hypocritical pronouncements.
He would have long since ceased to be taken seriously by any measurable part of the voting public, as a viable, responsible, self-aware, mentally vigorous, non-dangerous, non-risk.
Reality's well known liberal biases raises it's head yet again.
There, fixed that for you. Since you've been in a coma for the last few months, there was this massive bailout of Wall Street backed by financial conservatives.
Look at the 2008 Prop. 8 demonstrations that are ongoing. While this is arguably one of the only things the Democrats lost, they can't accept it, even though it was a landslide.
Since when is 51.8% a "landslide"? You must have been talking about Bush's "mandate" after the 2004 election, even though the electoral vote was 286 to 251 and Bush had the lowest popular vote margin for an incumbent president in a century.
There are plenty of things the Democrats could be screaming about, including McCain breaking the campaign finance law that bears his name, or the low income voters suddenly finding thousands of dollars to max out their donations
Bumper stickers? Seriously? Yawn. No doubt you loved MoDo's recent column where she talked about Clinton's sex scandal and Bush's war crimes as if they were equivilant.
Of the old media, newspapers are the best. You can get right and left versions, and you will usually find the info they would rather hide buried at the end of the 3rd continuation of the article on page 25. There is still some remnant of journalistic integrity.
You can get a variety of newspapers - if you know where to get them and go through the trouble of ordering, say, Mother Jones. Otherwise, you'll probably get your local paper, and newspaper editorial pages are dominated by conservative pundits. And media consolidation hasn't done any more for newspapers than it did for TV or radio.
I'm an American student studying in the UK, and I found that Britain's coverage was obviously biased in favor of Obama. They weren't very happy with McCain.
There wasn't much to be happy about McCain. Everything that made him appealing in 2000, he flushed down the drain to bring in the wingnuts. Jerry Falwell went from being an "agent of intolerance" to a campaign stop. And he flip flopped on literally every issue - the Iraq war, tax cuts for the rich, immigration reform, torture...
I'm certain that Obama's socialistic tendencies
You should see a nice doctor in Venezuela about that anal obstruction of yours. Once he's done pulling your head out of your ass, you can take a look around and see what "socialism" really is.
If you care about the health of our democracy we better hope that the media does not treat Obama with kid gloves here on out, and end up becoming state press.
The one and only time Obama got a free pass from the media was early in the primaries - ask any Edwards supporter. But that all changed when he passed Hillary Clinton, at which point the majority of coverage switched to Concern Trolling (white working class voters) or outright negativity (Rev. Wright). This is because 1) the media loves a horse race (more ad $$$), and 2) is obsessed with balance, faking it if necessary. Like how Mareen Dowd liked the Monica Lewinski scandal to Bush's war crimes - they aren't on the same planet, much less the same page.
I am quite upset that the WashPost did not add too and complete its story on the Barack Obama campaign credit card donation fraud.
Were you as Concerned about low income McCain voters suddenly making maximum donations to his campaign earlier this year?
I provided evidence in the form of bank statements, screen shots, etc and was speaking directly to the reporter who wrote the article.
Can you provide any evidence that Obama is beholden to any group with an average donation of $86, despite raising hundreds of millions of dollars?
Additionally, if BHO and his Democratic allies have their way, the voice of the conservatives on the AM dial will be squelched.
Liar. Even if the Fairness Doctrine is reinstated (and Obama has made no statements to support that) it wont force Limbaugh or Savage or Hannity or Hack $X off the air, it will just force the stations to carry an opposing view. It's telling that wingnuts are terrified of the prospect of a level playing field.
Not really, when you look at the end of that first sentence:
Obama and Biden will fight for a trade policy that opens up foreign markets to support good American jobs. They will use trade agreements to spread good labor and environmental standards around the world...
Much of our blue collar manufacturing base was destroyed by factory owners moving their operations to China, and now white collar jobs are being offshored. Pushing "labor and environmental standards" will help to "to support good American jobs" by providing a more level playing field. Domestic manufacturers wont have to compete with companies exempt from environmental and safety rules, and our workers wont have to compete with people making $1 a day.
Wingnuts would bitch no matter what Obama does. First he's not ready to lead. Then he should sit down with Bush to pick cabinet officials. Now Obama puts out clear goals and plans and the wingnuts are bitching.
Honestly I can't even remember who Condit or Levy were, much less Scarborough, and I really don't feel like doing the research on it.
Sure, sure. Why not try and compare a few articles from Media Matters, here's a good one, to Media Research Council, the right wing's attempt at showing media bias. Or just skim MRC and then try watching this clip - still think media bias is a matter of he said/she said with no way to determine who's right?
What if we would have had Clinton for another 4 years (2000-2004). If my view his sterling image would have faded as people became disillusioned with the failing economy
Yes, it would have been fun watching the free market Republicans whine about how Clinton didn't stop the.com crash. You know they would have done it, too.
the attack on 9/11
911 was completely preventable. Al Queda was the #1 concern of Clinton's national security team. If Clinton had been warned point-blank that Al Queda was determined to attack the United States and that he might use planes to do it, I doubt his response would have been "now you've covered your ass". I also doubt he would have kept reading a children's book as planes were flying into buildings.
and Clinton's poor handling of foreign affairs.
Which ones, exactly.
Clinton still signed that awful Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act...
Yes, he did. But that doesn't change the fact that Republicans authored and pushed the bill. While Clinton deserves blame for this, you can't argue that Republicans don't own the majority of the blame.
Which brings the blame around to the Democrats for the bank failures, not just the Republicans as so many are falsely claiming.
No dice. Republicans own this lock, stock and barrel. The SEC and the Fed under Bush could have stepped in a long time ago to combat subprime loans and risky investments. They didn't.
Second, World War II is what got us out of the Great Depression
Yes, through massive deficit spending, like I said. Only instead of building battleships and tanks, we'd be building new bridges and Internet connections.
by diverting resources away from the massively wasteful government programs that created the Great Depression in the first place.
Say what? The Great Depression was caused by Wall Street over-leveraging risky investments with too little regulation from the government. Hmm, why does this sound familiar?
Whoosh. Name a single contrary example that's on the same planet, much less the same page, as the media's obsession/dismissal of Condit's/Scarborough's intern.
Meanwhile the other side is using opposite examples to make their case.
That's the point: they don't have any. Cruise on over to Media Research Council where their top entry is a complaint over how popular Obama is internationally. Yawn.
So do, please, give the false equivalency a rest already.
Leftists think that the media has a conservative bias. Rightists think that the media has a liberal bias.
Problem: one is a talking point that never had any basis in reality, and the other has a mountain of evidence to support it. But I can skip the mountain and prove it right now:
Remember Gary Condit and Chandra Levy? The media obsessed for months over her disappearance, the possibility that Condit had an affair with her (which he later confessed to), and that he might have had something to do with her disappearance.
Contrast that to Joe Scarborough, who was also a representative in the House. An intern turned dead, in his office, of blunt force trauma to the head, just a few months after the Condit/Levy scandal. Dead. In his office. Of BLUNT FORCE TRAUMA to the HEAD.
Not only did the media not give a shit, Scarborough got a big fat contract on MSNBC to be a pundit.
Slashdot Mirror
They did cover gaffes -- socially awkward or tactless acts. But not the "gaffes" -- stupidities and outright lunacies smoothed-over as mere gaffes.
Not only did they cover both about Biden, it was about the only thing they covered.
but that's the liberal media bias.
No, that's your wishful thinking. Hillary and Obama had a close, highly contested primary long after McCain had the GOP nomination sewed up - his news would still be in the news more than McCain's because he had much higher visibility at the time.
Or, more simply: Obama could have lost both New York and California to McCain...and still one.
If Republicans don't like that, they should try nominating better candidates.
I prefer: if they don't like that, they can bring back the Fairness Doctrine. :)
What is really surprising is that this is news! The media has admitted to this weeks ago.
I see the "B" still stands for "bullcrap". This talking point was debunked months ago.
Even worse, you will see people deny that Obama was given better treatment than McCain.
As is usually the case, take the opposite of the wingnut viewpoint and you have reality:
Reality's well known liberal biases raises it's head yet again.
Controversial because it's complete crap
There, fixed that for you. Since you've been in a coma for the last few months, there was this massive bailout of Wall Street backed by financial conservatives.
Look at the 2008 Prop. 8 demonstrations that are ongoing. While this is arguably one of the only things the Democrats lost, they can't accept it, even though it was a landslide.
Since when is 51.8% a "landslide"? You must have been talking about Bush's "mandate" after the 2004 election, even though the electoral vote was 286 to 251 and Bush had the lowest popular vote margin for an incumbent president in a century.
There are plenty of things the Democrats could be screaming about, including McCain breaking the campaign finance law that bears his name, or the low income voters suddenly finding thousands of dollars to max out their donations
Fixed that too.
Bumper stickers? Seriously? Yawn. No doubt you loved MoDo's recent column where she talked about Clinton's sex scandal and Bush's war crimes as if they were equivilant.
You all may call me a conspiracy theorist, and maybe I am
Nah, we'll just call you what you are: a Concern Troll.
But of course, the ombudsman at the Washington Post took that into consideration in her article.
But of course, the ombudsman is a well known hack.
Of the old media, newspapers are the best. You can get right and left versions, and you will usually find the info they would rather hide buried at the end of the 3rd continuation of the article on page 25. There is still some remnant of journalistic integrity.
You can get a variety of newspapers - if you know where to get them and go through the trouble of ordering, say, Mother Jones. Otherwise, you'll probably get your local paper, and newspaper editorial pages are dominated by conservative pundits. And media consolidation hasn't done any more for newspapers than it did for TV or radio.
Palin got a lot of negative coverage.
But of course she earned every bit of that negative coverage, negating your point.
I'm an American student studying in the UK, and I found that Britain's coverage was obviously biased in favor of Obama. They weren't very happy with McCain.
There wasn't much to be happy about McCain. Everything that made him appealing in 2000, he flushed down the drain to bring in the wingnuts. Jerry Falwell went from being an "agent of intolerance" to a campaign stop. And he flip flopped on literally every issue - the Iraq war, tax cuts for the rich, immigration reform, torture...
I'm certain that Obama's socialistic tendencies
You should see a nice doctor in Venezuela about that anal obstruction of yours. Once he's done pulling your head out of your ass, you can take a look around and see what "socialism" really is.
...and you have a whole lot of BS here.
If you care about the health of our democracy we better hope that the media does not treat Obama with kid gloves here on out, and end up becoming state press.
The one and only time Obama got a free pass from the media was early in the primaries - ask any Edwards supporter. But that all changed when he passed Hillary Clinton, at which point the majority of coverage switched to Concern Trolling (white working class voters) or outright negativity (Rev. Wright). This is because 1) the media loves a horse race (more ad $$$), and 2) is obsessed with balance, faking it if necessary. Like how Mareen Dowd liked the Monica Lewinski scandal to Bush's war crimes - they aren't on the same planet, much less the same page.
I am quite upset that the WashPost did not add too and complete its story on the Barack Obama campaign credit card donation fraud.
Were you as Concerned about low income McCain voters suddenly making maximum donations to his campaign earlier this year?
I provided evidence in the form of bank statements, screen shots, etc and was speaking directly to the reporter who wrote the article.
Can you provide any evidence that Obama is beholden to any group with an average donation of $86, despite raising hundreds of millions of dollars?
Additionally, if BHO and his Democratic allies have their way, the voice of the conservatives on the AM dial will be squelched.
Liar. Even if the Fairness Doctrine is reinstated (and Obama has made no statements to support that) it wont force Limbaugh or Savage or Hannity or Hack $X off the air, it will just force the stations to carry an opposing view. It's telling that wingnuts are terrified of the prospect of a level playing field.
Of course, this is also easily explained by the fact that reality has a liberal bias.
And the fact that Deborah Howell is a complete hack.
Two words for every assertion in your post:
[Citation needed]
The first sentence is contradicted by the second.
Not really, when you look at the end of that first sentence:
Much of our blue collar manufacturing base was destroyed by factory owners moving their operations to China, and now white collar jobs are being offshored. Pushing "labor and environmental standards" will help to "to support good American jobs" by providing a more level playing field. Domestic manufacturers wont have to compete with companies exempt from environmental and safety rules, and our workers wont have to compete with people making $1 a day.
Paul is a certified nutjob. But at least he's a thoughtful, principled nutjob, so I'd take him over the wingnut Republicans.
Wingnuts would bitch no matter what Obama does. First he's not ready to lead. Then he should sit down with Bush to pick cabinet officials. Now Obama puts out clear goals and plans and the wingnuts are bitching.
socialist
That word doesn't mean what you think it means.
but I gave a piece of my mind no matter what
Yes, I can see why wingnuts would be opposed to politicians having clearly stated plans and goals in a publicly accessible format.
Honestly I can't even remember who Condit or Levy were, much less Scarborough, and I really don't feel like doing the research on it.
Sure, sure. Why not try and compare a few articles from Media Matters, here's a good one, to Media Research Council, the right wing's attempt at showing media bias. Or just skim MRC and then try watching this clip - still think media bias is a matter of he said/she said with no way to determine who's right?
What if we would have had Clinton for another 4 years (2000-2004). If my view his sterling image would have faded as people became disillusioned with the failing economy
Yes, it would have been fun watching the free market Republicans whine about how Clinton didn't stop the .com crash. You know they would have done it, too.
the attack on 9/11
911 was completely preventable. Al Queda was the #1 concern of Clinton's national security team. If Clinton had been warned point-blank that Al Queda was determined to attack the United States and that he might use planes to do it, I doubt his response would have been "now you've covered your ass". I also doubt he would have kept reading a children's book as planes were flying into buildings.
and Clinton's poor handling of foreign affairs.
Which ones, exactly.
Clinton still signed that awful Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act...
Yes, he did. But that doesn't change the fact that Republicans authored and pushed the bill. While Clinton deserves blame for this, you can't argue that Republicans don't own the majority of the blame.
Which brings the blame around to the Democrats for the bank failures, not just the Republicans as so many are falsely claiming.
No dice. Republicans own this lock, stock and barrel. The SEC and the Fed under Bush could have stepped in a long time ago to combat subprime loans and risky investments. They didn't.
Second, World War II is what got us out of the Great Depression
Yes, through massive deficit spending, like I said. Only instead of building battleships and tanks, we'd be building new bridges and Internet connections.
by diverting resources away from the massively wasteful government programs that created the Great Depression in the first place.
Say what? The Great Depression was caused by Wall Street over-leveraging risky investments with too little regulation from the government. Hmm, why does this sound familiar?
This is exactly what I mean.
Whoosh. Name a single contrary example that's on the same planet, much less the same page, as the media's obsession/dismissal of Condit's/Scarborough's intern.
Meanwhile the other side is using opposite examples to make their case.
That's the point: they don't have any. Cruise on over to Media Research Council where their top entry is a complaint over how popular Obama is internationally. Yawn.
So do, please, give the false equivalency a rest already.
It's pretty funny, really.
Yes, false equivalencies are a riot.
Leftists think that the media has a conservative bias. Rightists think that the media has a liberal bias.
Problem: one is a talking point that never had any basis in reality, and the other has a mountain of evidence to support it. But I can skip the mountain and prove it right now:
Remember Gary Condit and Chandra Levy? The media obsessed for months over her disappearance, the possibility that Condit had an affair with her (which he later confessed to), and that he might have had something to do with her disappearance.
Contrast that to Joe Scarborough, who was also a representative in the House. An intern turned dead, in his office, of blunt force trauma to the head, just a few months after the Condit/Levy scandal. Dead. In his office. Of BLUNT FORCE TRAUMA to the HEAD.
Not only did the media not give a shit, Scarborough got a big fat contract on MSNBC to be a pundit.
Sen. Kerry's supporters booed his concession speech in 2004.
Because he ignored the problems in Ohio.
To heal the divide in this country, we must first realize that it is not one-sided.
Oh? And where are the Democratic equivalents to Ann Coulter? Tom Delay? Dick Cheney? The US Attorney scandal? The Don Seigleman prosecution? Torture?
No, the first step to healing this country is in prosecuting criminal Republicans, and driving the hard right into irrelevancy.