Obama, Media Darling
It does not take a rocket scientist to understand that the media prefer Barack Obama over John McCain. Obama is their darling. They are doing everything in their power to get him elected, as long as doing so will not directly hurt their career.
Journalists emphasize his strengths and blast McCain whenever they can.
The don’t report, they try to influence the voters. This bias is clear, people complain about it, but nothing is done about it. The bias, the agenda, will continue, as long as Americans continue to buy newspapers, and continue to watch the news.
I don’t know how things are on the far-right blogosphere, but over on the left side all the talk is about how the press gives McCain a pass whenever he makes questionable statements or fails to clarify things.
McCain was the media darling in 2000, it’s Obamama’s turn this time around. I wonder if MSM will ignore McCain’s rewritting history in regards to the Sunnis Awakening and the Surge? McCain On The Anbar Awakening Seems the elder candidate can’t remember the the Anbar Awakening predated the Surge. Dammit when history doesn’t fit into your talking points.
He has also gotten away with over 60 flip-flops and saying that Obama would lose the war to win the campaign while he would do vice versa. If Obama tried something like that he would be young black and outrageous and that is not OK. Being white and old means you can never be outrageous, only outraged.
They frigging edited an interview for him so the meme that he is better on foreign policy would go on. Donuts have been offered, Gramm was skipped because he didn’t fit a tender stereotype like Wright. Michael, what has happened to you?
Obama may be perceived as the "media darling", but that’s only if you count the 70% that’s reported about about him are lies or misqouted. "Media Darling" indeed!
Absolutely correct; Obama is given a pass on anything and everything while McCain is examined with an electron microscope. With a few precious exceptions, there is no news; there’s only propoganda masquarding as news. Obama is a guy who promises to throw money at any problem presented to him but doesn’t explain how he’ll finance his welfare-state agenda. Clearly, Obama speaks to create an impression, and he he’ll say anything, factual or not, to achieve painting the picture he desires. One of his earlier frightening speaches was his recital of how his father took up arms to defend America in WWII and, in this speach, he infered that dear old Dad watched the Americans free the denizens Auchwitz which, of course, was a lie since the Russians liberated that dreadful place. Obama is one scary guy, and anyone who’s even entertaining the thought of voting for him ought to examine what he’s said and discover that, all too frequently, Obama’s words and the facts don’t even have an oblique correlation.
Regarding the perceived media bias against John McCain, I agree that John McCain should have more media coverage. If he had been receiving the same level of coverage that Obama has then maybe he wouldn’t be getting a free pass on all of the gaffes and mistakes that he has been making. (i.e. Pakistan/Iraq Border, Czechoslovakia, Sunni vs. Shi’ite, Surge Timelines, etc.) For all his talk about making so many trips to the area, you would think he would be a little more educated. DeeDallas, Texas
Obama may be getting more coverage, but consider what I said in my first post about the idea that the frontrunner always gets more coverage. Back in the day, the torch was passed almost weekly between Rudy, McCain, Romney, and Huckabee, then not Rudy so much when it became clear he wasn’t going to ever win. I also said I thought the truth was a combination of some bias and some front runner coverage.
Actually, I think all this non-coverage has been something of a miracle to McCain. Consider that he’s only had to suffer a few minutes of Czechoslovakia or "Al-Queda arming Shiites." Back when Rev. Wright was big news, Obama had to suffer entire days or more of reports about him.
True that McCain isn’t enjoying the good news being reported about him, but neither is the bad news being reported. Not really. Obama, as the front runner, has to suffer everything.
1) Czechoslavakia is a misspeaking, kind of like Barack Obama saying he was in Souix City when he was really in Sioux falls. See the similarity?
2) "Sunni vs Shi’ite" educated Muslims would not doubt that Iran would indeed work together with Al Qaeda simply to anger their #1 enemy: the United States. Regardless of whether this is true or not, McCain immediately fixed the perceived mistake.
3) Surge Timeline:
http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/world/iraq/20070325-1237-fightingbackinanbar.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq_War_troop_surge_of_2007
What do we see here?
Between February and March 2007, 20,000 more troops went to Iraq.
The Anbar Awakening happened late in March of 2007.
What’s the conclusion?
A) The Surge and the Anbar Awakening together made a big difference.
B) The Surge made the difference.
Those are the only two logical conclusions. For you to say that the troops didn’t do anything to help, simply shows how little you know about Geurrilla Warfare and Insurgencies, and that you’ve never read a book on Military History.
"Between February and March 2007, 20,000 more troops went to Iraq. The Anbar Awakening happened late in March of 2007. What’s the conclusion?"
My conclusion is that you are wrong. The awakening began in the summer of 2006.
http://www.defenselink.mil/transcripts/transcript.aspx?transcriptid=3738
"Those are the only two logical conclusions. For you to say that the troops didn’t do anything to help, simply shows how little you know about Geurrilla Warfare and Insurgencies, and that you’ve never read a book on Military History."
You mean like raising troop levels in Vietnam immediately made up for the fact that the tactics didn’t serve a non-existant strategy?