The media has become a joke.

Gag. Hating the media is a great American pastime — like hating lawyers and politicians…. Forget snuggling up to Obama. If the media can’t take some gentle late-night ribbing without going all to pieces, that is the real embarrassment.

The MSM should all be beaten to death with shovels ; they have ignored their real job as watchdogs over our government , and enabled a criminal gang to continue their nefarious ways and continue to fuck up the entire country and the world..............

MCMetal @ 3:

Gag. Hating the media is a great American pastime — like hating lawyers and politicians…. Forget snuggling up to Obama. If the media can’t take some gentle late-night ribbing without going all to pieces, that is the real embarrassment.

The MSM should all be beaten to death with shovels ; they have ignored their real job as watchdogs over our government , and enabled a criminal gang to continue their nefarious ways and continue to fuck up the entire country and the world..............

Amen

[Deleted. Racist-Sitemonitor]

Republican Poster @ 7:

The media wasn't too hard on Clinton.

It was too soft on Obama. Obama's fans are whiners.

Of course SNL had an effect on them. The losers still watch SNL. They don't read. They don't watch C-Span. They think SNL is still hip. They're all waiting for Garrett Morris to come out and play Obama.

"Too soft" on Obama , eh ?

Funny how you don't mention the kid gloves that McInsane the pandering old stupid piece of shit and the criminal Chimpy administration have been treated with ..............

ChrisM70 @ 8:

The Daily Show and Colbert do better political satire in five minutes than SNL do in a FULL SEASON, yet they can actually have a role in our choosing a President?

SNL did good to point out the idiotic way the press covers the "horse race", but they did it in a way to hurt Obama, and not make any real political point - or make a good joke.

It's disgusting to think this is the same SNL that used to have the guts to make real political statements and write good jokes - but now the show is just filler in between the commercials aimed at 18-25 year olds that will help NBC make more money.

Man, that was harsh

but true.

michelle @ 4:

get real. the media has long since rolled over for mccain and OBAMA. the media was routing for clinton to lose as well as a woman losing. many of them clearly show they have little real respect for us when it comes to us as commander in chief. we may not be stronger but we make better decisions then men in general in my personal opinion. men are even willing to vote for a lite candidate because of their lack of respect for women. as i was told this is still a mans world.

Remember when they basically crowned Hillary many months ago? I do. Am I the only one? And can we get off his "a vote for someone else is a vote against women" jag? It probably holds true for only a tiny fraction of men (and some women!). It's Hillary I don't trust to fully support progressive issues. That being said, I'd definitely vote for her over McCain any day if she gets the nod.

SNL is aimed at people who are such losers that they don't have a date on Saturday night.

The MSM has taken note of "Obama-mania," likening it to a cult, but has not given scrutiny to the rabid devotion to HRC of people, mostly older women, who want a woman in the Oval Office so badly that they are convinced any doubts about Hillary are misogynism. And Hillary plays to them, playing the victim card over "pimping Chelsea."

Republican Poster @ 12:

MCMetal @ 9:

Republican Poster @ 7:

The media wasn't too hard on Clinton.

It was too soft on Obama. Obama's fans are whiners.

Of course SNL had an effect on them. The losers still watch SNL. They don't read. They don't watch C-Span. They think SNL is still hip. They're all waiting for Garrett Morris to come out and play Obama.

"Too soft" on Obama , eh ?

Funny how you don't mention the kid gloves that McInsane the pandering old stupid piece of shit and the criminal Chimpy administration have been treated with ..............

The NYT just ran a hit piece on McCain. Anonymous sources saying he had an affair seven years ago. Why anonymous? If someone can't speak their mind about someone's sex life seven years after the fact, they have no credibility, and no business being in quoted in the paper.

There isn't a day that goes by that Bush doesn't receive criticism in the media. He got hiatus in negative coverage after 9-11 (as he should have), but it's absurd to say he got kid gloves after that.

Did you feel the same way about Valerie Plame's identity being revealed ?

I bet you didn't ...........And McInsane is a piece of shit ; and a stupid one at that.

BTW

The "hiatus in negative coverage" you claim Chimpy the retarded shitstain got and deserved (lol...Yeah , right) after 9/11 is laughably untrue ; he got positive press everywhere , especially at the NY Times , with their pushing the administration's lies in the run-up to the Iraq war.

Stop posting idiotic nonsense

[Deleted. Off topic-Sitemonitor]

It is true, though, that the media have been tougher on Clinton than on Obama. And it has nothing to do with any votes she has cast (after all, she's a running dog, the same as McCain, yet the media don't hate the war hero, do they?); it's merely a continuation of the irrational Clinton-hatred the media have always evidenced. It's bias, pure and simple; and anything that calls them on it and makes them a little less biased for even one day is okay in my book.

[Deleted. Off topic-Sitemonitor]

But could one skit — which, if ratings are any indication, was watched live by a small percentage of the population — really have a significant impact?

I think you are missing a very important statistic here. One skit? Why not, if it's given wings all over the internet on blogs? Both good and bad, it's time the internet starts to realize that yes blogs and websites have an impact on voters too, do they not? Hell, the media even mentions blogs by name now. Is that not proof of power?
I've been online since 1995 and I see the difference the internet has become. A pile of politicians go to the internet for their own talking points, and to sway voters as well. It's the power of the medium, and the internet is more powerful than the MSM.

Anyone remember those jokes about President Bill Clinton being a proxy for Hillary? That Hillary was the one who really wore the pants in the relationship.

The article was written by Katherine Q. Seelye. This is the same Kit Seelye who still thinks she was more than fair covering the Gore campaign in 2000. Even after being confronted with the many, many, many things she got wrong, she's still saying she did fine work.

Katherine Seelye. The anti-journalist.

No.

Republican Poster @ 23:

MCMetal @ 17:

Republican Poster @ 12:

MCMetal @ 9:

The NYT just ran a hit piece on McCain. Anonymous sources saying he had an affair seven years ago. Why anonymous? If someone can't speak their mind about someone's sex life seven years after the fact, they have no credibility, and no business being in quoted in the paper.

There isn't a day that goes by that Bush doesn't receive criticism in the media. He got hiatus in negative coverage after 9-11 (as he should have), but it's absurd to say he got kid gloves after that.

Did you feel the same way about Valerie Plame's identity being revealed ?

I bet you didn't ...........And McInsane is a piece of shit ; and a stupid one at that.

BTW

The "hiatus in negative coverage" you claim Chimpy the retarded shitstain got and deserved (lol...Yeah , right) after 9/11 is laughably untrue ; he got positive press everywhere , especially at the NY Times , with their pushing the administration's lies in the run-up to the Iraq war.

Stop posting idiotic nonsense

I don't know what Plame has to do with it. Bush got plenty of heat about the Plame affair, the trial, the handling of Libby after the conviction.

You may have lived in a different country than most of us the last fifteen years. In fact, I'm sure you did, in your way. For years, Saddam Hussein was thought to have WMDs. The Democrats thought so, the Europeans thought so, the Bush administration thought so.

Then, after 20-20 hindsight, you all decide that it was a lie fabricated by the Bush adminstration. At the time, however, the press didn't see it that way, because it wasn't that way.

That's why the liberal media didn't scream about invading Iraq. Because they thought, even by their standards, it was the right thing to do. So did Clinton. So did Kerry. So did almost everyone but some corrupt state Senator in Chicago, who thought he'd gamble on being contrarian as a means for self-advancement.

Uhhh! What planet are you from. The lie that there is a liberal media is just that, a lie.

Even the inept (and faintly smelling of urine) members of the campaign press agree that the differences between Clinton's and Obama's platforms are immaterial at best. Meanwhile, no one can deny the increasing spiritual chasm that separates the two candidates; a widening yawn between the Clintonistas: grim, angry Boomers, and gray, angrier, avuncular women in the twilight of their frustrated lives, both ideas and bodies desiccated and deserted - versus the Obamaniacs: untainted, young, vital, hopeful, idealistic Tweeners, X, and Y generations and Boomers with a clue.

This has been and will remain the politics of personality and while Bill Clinton may have charmed the socks off most folks at any given time, his wife will not. I just hope this can be solved before the convention or I fear many of the Obama supporters will sit out the election. Seeing as many of those are kids, that would be a crying shame.

Has the Media even mentioned this:

Senator Clinton, who has served only one full term - 6yrs. - and another year campaigning, has managed to author and pass into law - 20 - twenty pieces of
legislation in her first six years.

These bills can be found on the website of the Library of Congress www.thomas.loc.gov, but to save you trouble, I'll post them here for you.

1. Establish the Kate Mullany National Historic Site.
2. Support the goals and ideals of Better Hearing and Speech Month.
3. Recognize the Ellis Island Medal of Honor.
4. Name courthouse after Thurgood Marshall.
5. Name courthouse after James L. Watson.
6. Name post office after Jonn A. O'Shea.
7. Designate Aug. 7, 2003, as National Purple Heart Recognition Day.
8. Support the goals and ideals of National Purple Heart Recognition Day.
9. Honor the life and legacy of Alexander Hamilton on the bicentennial of his
death.
10. Congratulate the Syracuse Univ. Orange Men's Lacrosse Team on winning the
championship.
11. Congratulate the Le Moyne College Dolphins Men's Lacrosse Team on winning
the championship.
12. Establish the 225th Anniversary of the American Revolution Commemorative
Program.
13. Name post office after Sergeant Riayan A. Tejeda.
14. Honor Shirley Chisholm for her service to the nation and express
condolences on her death.
15. Honor John J. Downing, Brian Fahey, and Harry Ford, firefighters who lost
their lives on duty. Only five of Clinton's bills are, more substantive.
16. Extend period of unemployment assistance to victims of 9/11.
17. Pay for city projects in response to 9/11 18. Assist landmine victims in
other countries.
19. Assist family caregivers in accessing affordable respite care.
20. Designate part of the National Forest System in Puerto Rico as protected
in the wilderness preservation system.

There you have it, the fact's straight from the Senate Record.

Now, I would post those of Obama's, but the list is too substantive, so I'll mainly categorize.

During the first - 8 - eight years of his elected service he sponsored over 820 bills. He introduced
233 regarding healthcare reform,
125 on poverty and public assistance,
112 crime fighting bills,
97 economic bills,
60 human rights and anti-discrimination bills,
21 ethics reform bills,
15 gun control,
6 veterans affairs and many others.

His first year in the U.S. Senate, he authored 152 bills and co-sponsored another 427. These included

1. Coburn-Obama Government Transparency Act of 2006 - became law,
2. Lugar-Obama Nuclear Non-proliferation and Conventional Weapons Threat Reduction Act, - became law,
3. Comprehensive Immigration Reform Act, passed the Senate,
4. 2007 Government Ethics Bill, became law,
5. Protection Against Excessive Executive Compensation Bill, In committee, and many more.

In all, since entering the State/U.S. Senate, Senator Obama has written 890 bills and co-sponsored another 1096.

Where did Hillary get her experience, protecting Bill during his affairs? Stran'gely Obama doesn't have to tout that kind of experience. His house seems much more solid, just like his campaign. SNL didn't do anyone any favors with their two week Hillary fest. They just help to hide her lame record. I do believe it worked, but only to extend our ears, minds, and eyes to more what Hillary can't do, doing it for her public.

Occam's Razor says the voting machines are rigged.

Republican Poster @ 34:

nyguy @ 30:

Republican Poster @ 26:

nyguy @ 24:

Who's Randi Rhode?

Some crazy lady on Air America.

They went bankrupt. Aren't they gone?

They are not bankrupt, they reshaped things and have some great shows like The Lionel Show. I know it's Bill O'Reilly's wish they would vanish, but sorry to disappoint republicans.

Republican Poster @ 34:

nyguy @ 30:

Republican Poster @ 26:

nyguy @ 24:

Who's Randi Rhode?

Some crazy lady on Air America.

They went bankrupt. Aren't they gone?

So too did your party go bankrupt.

May god have mercy on your bloodthirsty traitorous incompetent souls...

Pepub Poster Yeah,that 'uniting the country' worked out real swell for US,eh?

Republican Poster @ 23:

You may have lived in a different country than most of us the last fifteen years. In fact, I'm sure you did, in your way. For years, Saddam Hussein was thought to have WMDs. The Democrats thought so, the Europeans thought so, the Bush administration thought so.

Then, after 20-20 hindsight, you all decide that it was a lie fabricated by the Bush adminstration. At the time, however, the press didn't see it that way, because it wasn't that way.

That's why the liberal media didn't scream about invading Iraq. Because they thought, even by their standards, it was the right thing to do. So did Clinton. So did Kerry. So did almost everyone but some corrupt state Senator in Chicago, who thought he'd gamble on being contrarian as a means for self-advancement.

BS. The truth was there to be seen, and even existed in the National Intelligence Estimate at the time. All doubts about Bush's State of the Union address existed during the run up to the war. We already knew that the aluminum tubes weren't for centrifuges and it was later verified they were for rocket launchers. The UN Weapons inspectors couldn't find anything and were begging for a longer reprieve. It was already known that Ahmed Chalabi had massive credibility problems and shouldn't have been trusted as a consultant on Iraq. WMD? Really? There's was only two things going for Iraq and WMD: 1) The hope that they actually find some once they invade Iraq, 2) The fear of that 1/10000 chance that Saddam actually has something. You can't claim ignorance on this.

Look, Its America after all:

-American Idol is the top TV show.
-Brittany Spears is the most recognized woman in the U.S.
-NASCAR is the favorite sport.
-Oprah is Time Magazine's most influential most in the world.

What is so surprising here?

Given that SNL made the same exact jokes 2 weeks in a row in their first live broadcasts since the long writers' strikes, and how much the media itself had covered the fact that SNL was going live again and would be highly watched to see how they dealt with all the politics since the strike -- yeah, it makes sense that their pathetic, badly written and simplistic jokes about how the media fawned over Obama might have an effect.

And if you think the media were 'in bed' with Obama, I'd really like to hear in non-vulgar language what terms would describe their relationship with John McCain.

Republican poster,

Not at all. Why do you think Obama gets such good coverage? Moonbats love him. Clinton - not so much. Some days she’s almost a Republican in their book - something less than human.

We have already seen how well you are informed in your statement about Air America.

To the idiots talking about 'how everyone thought Saddam had WMD's', here's a lesson from the Founding Fathers: when your political leaders tell the American citizens that the best arguments they possess that they need to engage in a huge, dangerous, controversial war of offense far from home is based on secret evidence that politicians claim they have and have seen but which the citizens can't be allowed to have access to, that ought to be kind of an indication of a weak argument.

Republican Poster @ 34:

nyguy @ 30:

Republican Poster @ 26:

nyguy @ 24:

Who's Randi Rhode?

Some crazy lady on Air America.

They went bankrupt. Aren't they gone?

Hey, Sitemonitor...Can't we vote this thread hijacking f*ck ("Republican Poster") off the island?

Sitemonitor: You know, trolls go away when no one plays with them.

Republican Poster @ 38:

Ron @ 33:

Republican Poster @ 23:

MCMetal @ 17:

I don't know what Plame has to do with it. Bush got plenty of heat about the Plame affair, the trial, the handling of Libby after the conviction.

You may have lived in a different country than most of us the last fifteen years. In fact, I'm sure you did, in your way. For years, Saddam Hussein was thought to have WMDs. The Democrats thought so, the Europeans thought so, the Bush administration thought so.

Then, after 20-20 hindsight, you all decide that it was a lie fabricated by the Bush adminstration. At the time, however, the press didn't see it that way, because it wasn't that way.

That's why the liberal media didn't scream about invading Iraq. Because they thought, even by their standards, it was the right thing to do. So did Clinton. So did Kerry. So did almost everyone but some corrupt state Senator in Chicago, who thought he'd gamble on being contrarian as a means for self-advancement.

Uhhh! What planet are you from. The lie that there is a liberal media is just that, a lie.

Not at all. Why do you think Obama gets such good coverage? Moonbats love him. Clinton - not so much. Some days she's almost a Republican in their book - something less than human.

Us "moonbats" were correct about everything ; from the illegal and idiotic idea to invade and occupy Iraq , to Chimpy having no business ever being installed in the White House , seeing as how he's been nothing but a life-long failure and habitual liar and imbecile.

What have you and the rest of the retarded 19% of the most stupid Americans ever shit out gotten correct in 7 years , chuckles ?

If the difference between the platforms are “immaterial” why the fuck do you care whether one group of fans is old and grey and the other is young and hip? How big a shallow bigot can you be? How shallow are these young voters?"

Of course they're shallow. They are raised in a shallow culture by shallow parents. We are what we have made this country and we are responsible for the Bush administration and we are responsible for the cowards in office in Congress.

Do something.

Republican Poster @ 12:

MCMetal @ 9:

Republican Poster @ 7:

The media wasn't too hard on Clinton.

It was too soft on Obama. Obama's fans are whiners.

Of course SNL had an effect on them. The losers still watch SNL. They don't read. They don't watch C-Span. They think SNL is still hip. They're all waiting for Garrett Morris to come out and play Obama.

"Too soft" on Obama , eh ?

Funny how you don't mention the kid gloves that McInsane the pandering old stupid piece of shit and the criminal Chimpy administration have been treated with ..............

The NYT just ran a hit piece on McCain. Anonymous sources saying he had an affair seven years ago. Why anonymous? If someone can't speak their mind about someone's sex life seven years after the fact, they have no credibility, and no business being in quoted in the paper.

There isn't a day that goes by that Bush doesn't receive criticism in the media. He got hiatus in negative coverage after 9-11 (as he should have), but it's absurd to say he got kid gloves after that.

I think the hiatus you refer to was more like pity....like the rest of us, they watched him sit and pee his pants, clueless and afraid, reading to children, while people were burning, jumping, planes and enemies were attacking us....

Then, for the rest of the day, he was literally running scared the entire day, hiding away in airforce one, fleeing like a coward rather than leading his country....

May God have mercy on your party....I pray for your empty souls

L.A. Confidential @ 58:

mitchellews @ 6:

The Democrats are going to do it again -- give us a candidate who most people will want to end up voting against. And to think that the Dems in Ohio and Texas did it on account of an SNL skit? Perfect. We are going to hand the presidency to the GOP for another 4 years. I am really depressed.

If young people can't get it together to go out and beat Emma we are screwed.

http://tinyurl.com/yps93l

Emmas not going to sit around whining because Huck didn't get it and that dumb McCain got it. She's going to vote for the idiots.

nyguy @ 64:

CoIntelPro @ 62:

nyguy @ 24:

The media should scrutinize Obama. Although there are several flaws on both Hillary and MCcain, Obama was getting a free pass and was never questioned over his positions and connections. We know who Hillary and MCcain are, but who the hell is Obama? It's about time the media take his halo off and ask questions. I know the cult following him will be upset, as it can be noted on Randi Rhode's sorry rant today.

I know. you're mad rudy isn't running anymore

I have always been one of his harshest critics here, for some very personal reasons. Got anything else besides false accusations?

Don't you understand that part of the reason for Obama's appeal is the fact he is an excellent public speaker , and most Americans are thrilled to hear someone with such oratory skills after being inundated with a stupid , unintelligible moron for these last 7 years ; along with a woman whose voice screeches quite often and a boring old senile stupid white man who can't say anything without saying "My Friends" like Rudy drooled out 9/11 constantly ?

IF SO your journalists are way lamer than I gave them credit for, the MSM is a joke, and your country is way more fucked than I possibly could have imagined.

How the '08 election turned into a whine-fest.

According to that theory, The Daily Show would have already propelled Obama into the White House. Obama people are hilarious, just like Bush's people.

Republican Poster @ 46:

lorelei @ 35:

Even the inept (and faintly smelling of urine) members of the campaign press agree that the differences between Clinton's and Obama's platforms are immaterial at best. Meanwhile, no one can deny the increasing spiritual chasm that separates the two candidates; a widening yawn between the Clintonistas: grim, angry Boomers, and gray, angrier, avuncular women in the twilight of their frustrated lives, both ideas and bodies desiccated and deserted - versus the Obamaniacs: untainted, young, vital, hopeful, idealistic Tweeners, X, and Y generations and Boomers with a clue.

This has been and will remain the politics of personality and while Bill Clinton may have charmed the socks off most folks at any given time, his wife will not. I just hope this can be solved before the convention or I fear many of the Obama supporters will sit out the election. Seeing as many of those are kids, that would be a crying shame.

O, how you weep for the children! They may just pick up their marbles and go home.

If the difference between the platforms are "immaterial" why the fuck do you care whether one group of fans is old and grey and the other is young and hip? How big a shallow bigot can you be? How shallow are these young voters?

because in a few years, these old supporters will be dead, and under hillary the country will be worse off...but they wont care

cuz the grey haired biddies will die with smiles on their faces as they got to see the first female prez

great reason to vote for someone

"Hating the media is a great American pastime "

I beg to differ. If anyone has watched for the last decade, there is every reason to hate the media. Example: sugarcoating going to war with Iraq. 'Nuf said?

Edwin @ 69:

IF SO your journalists are way lamer than I gave them credit for, the MSM is a joke, and your country is way more fucked than I possibly could have imagined.

I don't know what country you are from, but the MSM is a joke and as far as real news is concerned, yes we are fucked.

kaT @ 73:

According to that theory, The Daily Show would have already propelled Obama into the White House. Obama people are hilarious, just like Bush's people.

Yeah , but with Chimpy's people , it is an unintended zaniness and hilarity ; that tends to be the case when dealing with buffoons , liars and fuck-ups.........

Obama may be attracting young voters, but he isn't one of them. He's 47. That really makes him a late boomer, since the boomer generation supposedly encompasses those born up to 1964.

I think SNL got it right. I thought it was funny and spot on. I think Obama has benefitted from the same treatment GWB got in 2000. "He's a good guy, something different, something new, an honorable guy, straight talker, etc. etc. etc." Deja vu.

Maybe he is a good guy. Maybe he'd be great. But I'm not convinced. And kid gloves won't make me pull a lever for him. And neither will comments like his campaign manager made on NPR today. He simply trotted out all the old attack postures instead of answering questions in a civil way. Yawn.

79 Ron Says: Edwin @ 69:

IF SO your journalists are way lamer than I gave them credit for, the MSM is a joke, and your country is way more fucked than I possibly could have imagined.

I don’t know what country you are from, but the MSM is a joke and as far as real news is concerned, yes we are fucked.

---->>We're just as fucked in Canada, believe me. It was an observational comment. And a bit of a snark.

There is no way any progressive can vote for Hillary. This quote crossed the line. She is saying it is her or McCain:

"Sen. McCain has a lifetime of experience, I have a lifetime of experience, Sen. Obama has one speech in 2002"

Stentor @ 86:

Check out this comment from Obama himself on the linked New York Times article:

Mr. Obama said later that he wanted to meet Tina Fey, the comedy writer and actress who was the guest host on “Saturday Night Live” when it all but endorsed Mrs. Clinton.

“Clearly, Tina Fey and I are going to have to have a conversation,” Mr. Obama said.

What the fuck? Barack sounds like some father who thinks he's going to scold Tina Fey! I'll be willing to bet she tells him to shove it up his ass with walnuts, presidential candidate or not, if he gets out of line. What an arrogant bastard!
I've said it before, and I'll say it again, even if you elect a black man, you're still electing a MAN! The glass ceiling needs to be shattered forever, and Hillary's just the one to do it. I say that as a man, as a Democrat, and as a former Marine. Enough of the patriarchy, enough of Obama's arrogance. His shit stinks too!

I'm guessing he was being tongue in cheek?
I'm not sold on Obama either but I think you could stand to lighten up a bit dude.

I never bought the canard that the media was so kind to Obama. That's an old Republican ploy called "playing the ref". It's the same tactic they used when accusing the media of being liberal. Whenever the media is accused of doing whatever, they react by doing the opposite. Clinton knows it, and so do the Republicans. Don't buy into it. Call it for what it is. If anything, the media bends over backwards not to offend Republicans, and they just love McCain.

Stentor @ 86:

Check out this comment from Obama himself on the linked New York Times article:

Mr. Obama said later that he wanted to meet Tina Fey, the comedy writer and actress who was the guest host on “Saturday Night Live” when it all but endorsed Mrs. Clinton.

“Clearly, Tina Fey and I are going to have to have a conversation,” Mr. Obama said.

What the fuck? Barack sounds like some father who thinks he's going to scold Tina Fey! I'll be willing to bet she tells him to shove it up his ass with walnuts, presidential candidate or not, if he gets out of line. What an arrogant bastard!
I've said it before, and I'll say it again, even if you elect a black man, you're still electing a MAN! The glass ceiling needs to be shattered forever, and Hillary's just the one to do it. I say that as a man, as a Democrat, and as a former Marine. Enough of the patriarchy, enough of Obama's arrogance. His shit stinks too!

and enough of your seeing into what someone said

i respect your service to our country, but you analogy is silly

[73 kaT Says:] "According to that theory, The Daily Show would have already propelled Obama into the White House. Obama people are hilarious, just like Bush’s people."

----> Mayhap, but the Bush brand of hilarity is a wee bit too macabre for me. I just don't think war, death, destruction and torure are that funny. But, that's just me.

John @ 87:

There is no way any progressive can vote for Hillary. This quote crossed the line. She is saying it is her or McCain:

"Sen. McCain has a lifetime of experience, I have a lifetime of experience, Sen. Obama has one speech in 2002"

that was clinton triangulation at its worst

and if she wins the nom, those words will come back to haunt her

i can see the tv ads now

Clinton: "Senator Mccain has a lifetime of experience"

Mccain: "im john mccain and i approved this ad"

5 secs...playing across the country....over and over again

Edwin @ 85:

79 Ron Says: Edwin @ 69:

IF SO your journalists are way lamer than I gave them credit for, the MSM is a joke, and your country is way more fucked than I possibly could have imagined.

I don’t know what country you are from, but the MSM is a joke and as far as real news is concerned, yes we are fucked.

---->>We're just as fucked in Canada, believe me. It was an observational comment. And a bit of a snark.

Only one difference. At least they have candidates. We don't and it's obvious by the dead heat in the polls for how many years now?

Cottle's funny, the key difference between the left and the right is the left wants a free press that's fair and accurate while the right seeks its destruction.

voicetrack @ 93:

idread @ 37:

So youre going to compare the number of Senator Clintons bills enacted into law while she was in the U.S. Senate to the numbers of bills introduced or authored by Senator Obama while he was in the U.S. Senate AND the state legislature?

Just a bit unfair isnt it?

So of those nearly 2000 bills introduced or authored by Senator Obama enacted into law totals 2.

Thats right, 2!

Even with your twisted facts, Senator Clinton has passed 10 times as many bills as Senator Obama.

I await your spin.....

You better pull up a chair and wait. When it comes to facts and substance, the Obama crowd has a little problem. Apparently screaming "Change" and "Yes we can" doesn't work for those with brains.

Edwin @ 82:

[7 Republican Poster Says:] "The media wasn’t too hard on Clinton.

It was too soft on Obama. Obama’s fans are whiners. "

---->>> Do you mean they were too soft on "is he black enough", B. HUSSEIN Obama, (who attended a madrassa by the way), and could be a sleeper terrorist cell unto himself???

Yeah, him. What's your point?

I should say something relevant, witty and to the point but this post 911 world has produced

The Few, The Proud, The Puppy Chuckers!

Ron@108.
:)

Anybody remember any MSM outrage over the troops recording and youtubing the 'Hadritha Girl' music video which celebrated the rape and murder of a 14YO Iraqi child, and the murders of her family too.

Big Dan @ 112:

Short answer: "no"

Long answer: "no"

Very true, a story they dont want to cover in detail if at all.

ferrofluid @ 110:

Lasthorseman @ 107:

I should say something relevant, witty and to the point but this post 911 world has produced

The Few, The Proud, The Puppy Chuckers!

Funny old world when one puppy is worth more outrage in the MSM and online, than 4000 dead US troops, 1000 dead contractors, one million dead Iraqis and two million displaced persons.

1 million innocent casualties, and 2 million refugees should be enough.

Alas, this is the country that has yet to bring any formal charges to the leadership which started this war of aggression, yet it moved quite swiftly when that quarterback was doing them dog fights.

I also find it ironic that a lot of people opposed to this war, cite the American soldier death numbers ahead of the Iraqi casualties (if they even cite the Iraqi death toll at al). Even though the magnitudes are not even close. We are talking 2 to 3 orders of magnitude more Iraqis dead.

If you put the American and Iraqi death tolls on a per capita basis, the American death toll is so insignificant, that you need multiple decimal points to register it. Heck even the current Iraqi death toll has doubled the one during the Iran-Iraq war, and that war lasted 8 yrs of continuous engagement.

Putting all those numbers in perspective, citing the American deaths ahead of the scores of Iraqi civilians --who unlike their American servicemen counterparts, did not have a choice in entering this conflict-- is a tad tacky IMHO.

The sad part, is that the puppy throwing incident will bring far more public outcry and scrutiny that Abu Graib and all the horrors that this country has visited upon innocent foreigners.

Republican Poster @ 104:

MCMetal @ 56:

Republican Poster @ 23:

MCMetal @ 17:

I don't know what Plame has to do with it. Bush got plenty of heat about the Plame affair, the trial, the handling of Libby after the conviction.

You may have lived in a different country than most of us the last fifteen years. In fact, I'm sure you did, in your way. For years, Saddam Hussein was thought to have WMDs. The Democrats thought so, the Europeans thought so, the Bush administration thought so.

Then, after 20-20 hindsight, you all decide that it was a lie fabricated by the Bush adminstration. At the time, however, the press didn't see it that way, because it wasn't that way.

That's why the liberal media didn't scream about invading Iraq. Because they thought, even by their standards, it was the right thing to do. So did Clinton. So did Kerry. So did almost everyone but some corrupt state Senator in Chicago, who thought he'd gamble on being contrarian as a means for self-advancement.

Chucklehead

The Valerie Plame leak was by "anonymous sources" ; that's okay though , huh ?

Especially when it really emerged from the Chimpy administration........

And the bullshit you're attempting to claim is just absolute crap :
Daniel Akaka (D-HI)
Jeff Bingaman (D-NM)
Barbara Boxer (D-CA)
Robert Byrd (D-WV)
Lincoln Chafee (R-RI)
Kent Conrad (D-ND)
Jon Corzine (D-NJ)
Mark Dayton (D-MN)
Dick Durbin (D-IL)
Russ Feingold (D-WI)
Bob Graham (D-FL)
Daniel Inouye (D-HI)
Jim Jeffords (I-VT)
Ted Kennedy (D-MA)
Patrick Leahy (D-VT)
Carl Levin (D-MI)
Barbara Mikulski (D-MD)
Patty Murray (D-WA)
Jack Reed (D-RI)
Paul Sarbanes (D-MD)
Debbie Stabenow (D-MI)
the late Paul Wellstone (D-MN)
Ron Wyden (D-OR)

are the 21 Democrats, one Republican and one Independent senator who voted against the Iraq War , along with 133 Congressmen and women who were intelligent enough not to buy Chimpy's garbage.

And we know the press wasn't against the idiotic Iraq invasion ; the myth that the MSM is "liberal" is a fabricated lie , brought to everyone by the same asswipes who concocted Ronnie Retard's shitty presidency into one of legend.

PS

How does it feel to know that your senile old lying , pandering candidate (dubbed Bush Jr) , knows as much about the economy and most everything else as Chimpy does how to properly speak in public ?

Yes, Plame was anonymous sources. But three points: 1. I can understand someone wanting to remain anonymous on many things, if they are in the government, dealing with matters of national security, etc. I don't necessarily condone it, but I understand it. I don't understand why someone needs to be anonymous if they are accusing McCain of doing some woman seven years ago. 2. I don't think the press should have a shield law. I think that they should be compelled to give up their sources. 3. Libby got jail time. Bush should have let it stand. The system did what it did, right or wrong, and Bush shouldn't have screwed with it. That was no better than Clinton and Marc Rich.

As to who voted for/against the Iraq war - at least those 21 put themselves on the line. A state senator didn't. It was political gamesmanship.

Look, I understand you don't like Reagan, but the poor man is dead. He was quite a popular President with the American people.

Finally, as I'm sure you know, I can point to academic studies that show how media types vote, and study media bias systematically, that support that the media is liberal. It is less so than it used to be - but the fawning over Obama is hardly evidence of anything other than liberal bias. No one would have got the free ride he has, other than a liberal, moonbat-beloved candidate.

There are no "academic studies" you can point to ; merely ones culled from garbage cancervative/neo-con (non) "think tanks" that are about as credible as a statement from this administration.

As for Ronnie Retard being "poor" ; he certainly was , especially when it came to intelligence and honesty.

And it's a damn good thing that typical GOP criminal ex-president is dead .

He sucked ass ; and the opinion of the majority of the American people is based upon what they do not know or realize about the stupid , useless asshole.

BTW

Are you suggesting you understand why a traitor in the highest parts of the Executive branch would want to remain "anonymous" , revealing an undercover CIA officer's identity?

Boy , am I shocked by that "revelation"................

I don't own a TV but recently I was waiting for my oil to be changed and there was a TV turned on in the waiting room. During the 30 minutes waiting for my car I counted 5 subjectively negative comments regarding Clinton and 3 subjectively positive comments regarding Obama during a self-described news broadcast. There were 3 Obama ads played during the commercials, 0 Clinton. Since that event a week ago I have been polling male and female TV-watching friends and there is an agreement that the press has been extremely soft on Obama and harsh on Clinton. It could be that Obama is running more TV ads - and so is a bigger customer -- as I'm sure the ads provided quite a bit of income to the channel.

[Deleted-Sitemonitor]

[Deleted. Abusive-Sitemonitor]

Republican Poster @ 123:

MCMetal @ 117:

Republican Poster @ 104:

MCMetal @ 56:

Yes, Plame was anonymous sources. But three points: 1. I can understand someone wanting to remain anonymous on many things, if they are in the government, dealing with matters of national security, etc. I don't necessarily condone it, but I understand it. I don't understand why someone needs to be anonymous if they are accusing McCain of doing some woman seven years ago. 2. I don't think the press should have a shield law. I think that they should be compelled to give up their sources. 3. Libby got jail time. Bush should have let it stand. The system did what it did, right or wrong, and Bush shouldn't have screwed with it. That was no better than Clinton and Marc Rich.

As to who voted for/against the Iraq war - at least those 21 put themselves on the line. A state senator didn't. It was political gamesmanship.

Look, I understand you don't like Reagan, but the poor man is dead. He was quite a popular President with the American people.

Finally, as I'm sure you know, I can point to academic studies that show how media types vote, and study media bias systematically, that support that the media is liberal. It is less so than it used to be - but the fawning over Obama is hardly evidence of anything other than liberal bias. No one would have got the free ride he has, other than a liberal, moonbat-beloved candidate.

There are no "academic studies" you can point to ; merely ones culled from garbage cancervative/neo-con (non) "think tanks" that are about as credible as a statement from this administration.

As for Ronnie Retard being "poor" ; he certainly was , especially when it came to intelligence and honesty.

And it's a damn good thing that typical GOP criminal ex-president is dead .

He sucked ass ; and the opinion of the majority of the American people is based upon what they do not know or realize about the stupid , useless asshole.

BTW

Are you suggesting you understand why a traitor in the highest parts of the Executive branch would want to remain "anonymous" , revealing an undercover CIA officer's identity?

Boy , am I shocked by that "revelation"................

Man, talk about a clueless partisan. Liberal media bias study by UCLA:

http://www.sscnet.ucla.edu/polisci/faculty/groseclose/Media.Bias.8.htm

You show contempt for the American people in concluding that we all were duped by Reagan. That's the arrogance and elitism that makes people vote against Democrats.

As to the Plame affair, I clearly stated that I was NOT in favor of allowing the source to remain anonymous. Yet, still you twist and turn, because you can't form a coherent response.

BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

Myself and uncle joe above both knew you were going to revert to that higly flawed "study" as the laughable basis to your stupid statement ; it holds no water , Mr "Clued-In Bi-Partisan" , even though your posting name claims "Republican" only .........

What a stupid d-bag.
As faras Reagan goes , umm , not exactly ; you obviously ignored uncle joe's post above completely.

Reagan's popularity was nowhere near anything respectable during his 2nd term , and his overall presidency is considered a success only by partisan schmucks like yourself.

Ronnie Boy is fortunate that Chimpy came along ; otherwise he might very well have been branded the worst president in modern history instead.

And I apologize ; I meant to type "wouldn't" instead of "would".

Now , you better think of changing all your other nonsensical , GOP partisan shit posts; because that's all they simply are.........

Most of this thread is troll garbage. I just wasted 10 minutes of my life to read about 3 good comments.

Mark L @ 129:

Most of this thread is troll garbage. I just wasted 10 minutes of my life to read about 3 good comments.

sorry no refunds

More Deception

Why are the forces at hand trying to frame the media bias, directed at Hillary Clinton, a matter of perception or opinion. It is not. It is a fact as sure as I am posting this comment.

I wanted to throw up the other day when I found Anderson Cooper asking the question of his best in the business staff does the media have a bias toward Clinton. As one of the leaders of this bias, CNN now takes a back of the bus perspective. Now they have become the objective force that is going to straiten it all out. Bull Sh_ _; they have been running this out of control influence since its conception.

I refuse to even add the usual supporting links that would bare this out. It is just that obvious to me. Something must be done about this years media influence. It continues at this moment. They have totally turned the Democratic Party on its head. With the current major primary camps at each others head and CNN and MSNBC playing the school yard instigator,they hardly stand a chance to unite in November. Now that is the real reason for the bias. Divide and conquer.

Joseph

Republican Poster @ 128:

MCMetal @ 125:

Republican Poster @ 123:

MCMetal @ 117:

Man, talk about a clueless partisan. Liberal media bias study by UCLA:

http://www.sscnet.ucla.edu/polisci/faculty/groseclose/Media.Bias.8.htm

You show contempt for the American people in concluding that we all were duped by Reagan. That's the arrogance and elitism that makes people vote against Democrats.

As to the Plame affair, I clearly stated that I was NOT in favor of allowing the source to remain anonymous. Yet, still you twist and turn, because you can't form a coherent response.

BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

Myself and uncle joe above both knew you were going to revert to that higly flawed "study" as the laughable basis to your stupid statement ; it holds no water , Mr "Clued-In Bi-Partisan" , even though your posting name claims "Republican" only .........

What a stupid d-bag.
As faras Reagan goes , umm , not exactly ; you obviously ignored uncle joe's post above completely.

Reagan's popularity was nowhere near anything respectable during his 2nd term , and his overall presidency is considered a success only by partisan schmucks like yourself.

Ronnie Boy is fortunate that Chimpy came along ; otherwise he might very well have been branded the worst president in modern history instead.

And I apologize ; I meant to type "wouldn't" instead of "would".

Now , you better think of changing all your other nonsensical , GOP partisan shit posts; because that's all they simply are.........

I see. Someone on crooks and liars told me that the UCLA study is "flawed" - therefore, case is closed.

Reagan beat Carter by 10 points in 1980. He beat Mondale by close to 10 points in 1984. If you have any evidence at all that Reagan was not, by almost any standard, a popular President, you might want to produce it. Calling people "partisan schmucks" without any backup for your points just makes you look pathetic.

Oh , and a study by Tim Groseclose and Jeff Milyo is gospel ?

1. Is the methodology used for assessing the ideology of think-tanks correct and reliable?
2. Is the methodology used for assessing the ideology of the media correct and reliable?
3. Is the definition of media bias used by the authors correct and reliable?

The answers to each of those questions is NO.

Reagan produced the biggest deficit until Chimpy came along .

Ronnie Retard armed the Taliban , al Qeada , Saddam/Iraq and also Iran .

His "Trickle Down Your Leg" economic 'theory' was even called by Shrub the 1st "Voodoo Economics" , and has destroyed the US economy every time it has been implemented.

BTW

"Popular" doesn't mean "good" ; and Ronnie Retard sure as shit wasn't...........

lorelei @ 61:

If the difference between the platforms are “immaterial” why the fuck do you care whether one group of fans is old and grey and the other is young and hip? How big a shallow bigot can you be? How shallow are these young voters?"

Of course they're shallow. They are raised in a shallow culture by shallow parents. We are what we have made this country and we are responsible for the Bush administration and we are responsible for the cowards in office in Congress.

Do something.

Yeah Lorelei. Tell it like it is.

nyguy @ 130:

MCMetal @ 127:

nyguy @ 126:

jon @ 121:

Since when voting for "Change" and "Yes we can" makes you intelectually superior?

It does when compared to the last 2 elections , where the moron was supposedly worth voting for because he appeared to be the kind of guy that would be agreeable to have a beer with ......................

Obama appears to be the kind of guy that would be agreeable to have a beer with........and your point is?

Wanting change as opposed to wanting to have a beer with a big-eared , empty-headed twit who resembles Alfred E Neumann does make one intellectually superior..........

MCMetal @ 136:

Republican Poster @ 128:

MCMetal @ 125:

Republican Poster @ 123:

BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

Myself and uncle joe above both knew you were going to revert to that higly flawed "study" as the laughable basis to your stupid statement ; it holds no water , Mr "Clued-In Bi-Partisan" , even though your posting name claims "Republican" only .........

What a stupid d-bag.
As faras Reagan goes , umm , not exactly ; you obviously ignored uncle joe's post above completely.

Reagan's popularity was nowhere near anything respectable during his 2nd term , and his overall presidency is considered a success only by partisan schmucks like yourself.

Ronnie Boy is fortunate that Chimpy came along ; otherwise he might very well have been branded the worst president in modern history instead.

And I apologize ; I meant to type "wouldn't" instead of "would".

Now , you better think of changing all your other nonsensical , GOP partisan shit posts; because that's all they simply are.........

I see. Someone on crooks and liars told me that the UCLA study is "flawed" - therefore, case is closed.

Reagan beat Carter by 10 points in 1980. He beat Mondale by close to 10 points in 1984. If you have any evidence at all that Reagan was not, by almost any standard, a popular President, you might want to produce it. Calling people "partisan schmucks" without any backup for your points just makes you look pathetic.

Oh , and a study by Tim Groseclose and Jeff Milyo is gospel ?

1. Is the methodology used for assessing the ideology of think-tanks correct and reliable?
2. Is the methodology used for assessing the ideology of the media correct and reliable?
3. Is the definition of media bias used by the authors correct and reliable?

The answers to each of those questions is NO.

Reagan produced the biggest deficit until Chimpy came along .

Ronnie Retard armed the Taliban , al Qeada , Saddam/Iraq and also Iran .

His "Trickle Down Your Leg" economic 'theory' was even called by Shrub the 1st "Voodoo Economics" , and has destroyed the US economy every time it has been implemented.

BTW

"Popular" doesn't mean "good" ; and Ronnie Retard sure as shit wasn't...........

This is a waste of time. You don't even understand the basics of debate.

There is a reason that Universities pay professors to produce research papers. That reason is, in part, to generate work that carries the prestige of the University and of the degree. Universities and professors then will do more studies, or do critiques of one another's work. When it is a formal process, this is called peer review.

So, if UCLA faculty members put out a paper, it would seem reasonable to refute the paper with some appeal to educated opinion in the field. If the study is so controversial and obviously wrong, surely some ambitious academic would have noticed.

The value of an opinion on the internet - mine or yours - on whether the methodology is correct in the UCLA study is of almost no value. Because both you and I are partisan observers, and we don't have access to the source material, and don't have the training, etc. - it's just another opinion.

If you don't get this about debate - this thing called "evidence" - there isn't any point in having the discussion.

Wow, that's beyond belief!
. . . a media outlet taking liberties, over and above their usual role of manipulating the masses.
Anyone surprised? Anyone even watch it? More blah, blah, blah . . .

The media didn't go to pieces. They saw themselves being made fun of on tv and all SNL had to do was simply point out what everybody aready knew, that Obama's gotten a free ride the entire campaign and the press were ridiculed into FINALLY doing their jobs!

MCMetal @ 143:

Republican Poster @ 142:

MCMetal @ 136:

Republican Poster @ 128:

Oh , and a study by Tim Groseclose and Jeff Milyo is gospel ?

1. Is the methodology used for assessing the ideology of think-tanks correct and reliable?
2. Is the methodology used for assessing the ideology of the media correct and reliable?
3. Is the definition of media bias used by the authors correct and reliable?

The answers to each of those questions is NO.

Reagan produced the biggest deficit until Chimpy came along .

Ronnie Retard armed the Taliban , al Qeada , Saddam/Iraq and also Iran .

His "Trickle Down Your Leg" economic 'theory' was even called by Shrub the 1st "Voodoo Economics" , and has destroyed the US economy every time it has been implemented.

BTW

"Popular" doesn't mean "good" ; and Ronnie Retard sure as shit wasn't...........

This is a waste of time. You don't even understand the basics of debate.

There is a reason that Universities pay professors to produce research papers. That reason is, in part, to generate work that carries the prestige of the University and of the degree. Universities and professors then will do more studies, or do critiques of one another's work. When it is a formal process, this is called peer review.

So, if UCLA faculty members put out a paper, it would seem reasonable to refute the paper with some appeal to educated opinion in the field. If the study is so controversial and obviously wrong, surely some ambitious academic would have noticed.

The value of an opinion on the internet - mine or yours - on whether the methodology is correct in the UCLA study is of almost no value. Because both you and I are partisan observers, and we don't have access to the source material, and don't have the training, etc. - it's just another opinion.

If you don't get this about debate - this thing called "evidence" - there isn't any point in having the discussion.

You're a (typical) waste of time.

What you have presented as "evidence" ; has any "ambitious academic" that has proper credentials , ever supported Tim Groseclose's and Jeff Milyo's purported "liberal media bias" conclusion ?

BTW Milyo is a senior fellow at the Cato Institute and Groseclose is a fellow at the Hoover Institution.

PS

When you're the one making a claim , as you have , the onus is upon you to present irrefutable evidence as to its validity/viability ; you HAVE NOT.

Thus your spew on how I do not know how to "debate" is faulty and outright ridiculous.

Actually, I'm beginning to feel sorry for you. The idea that it is EITHER of our obligation to present "irrefutable" evidence as to validity of any study is beyond delusional. I don't have to present two studies to make a case. I need to produce one. Then it's your obligation to show some competing evidence - not just "it's not valid" in your opinion. I'm not spewing; I'm discussing.

You might want to take a look at how you form your view of the world. I'm completely open to considering conflicting data. I'm just not going to listen to a partisan tell me that a study is invalid, without any competing academic evidence.

Sorry , Andrea Mitchell , not "Kramer" (what the hell was I thinking?)

The SNL piece just essentially echoed what was an open secret whether you like to admit or not.
I have long said it. Apart from eloquent speeches and lofty idealism, when you really scratch the surface, he is short on substance. He is a good, intelligent and fine gentleman, but will not be able to handle the pressure in a national presidential election. He was getting little scrutiny from the MSM until last week when the NAFTA memo surfaced and the Rezko trial got underway. His campaign couldn’t not handle the heat then so what would make me believe that he could handle what the GOP will be throwing at him with venom in a general election?? Talk is cheap.