The truth is somewhere in the middle but try telling the likes of Bill O'Reilly or Keith Olberman that...

Michale.....

Just pulling your chain a bit on the WSJ, but you got to admit all future editorial pages will be looked thru a Fox News Bias. Didn't really get the point of the link, you think the war is won now???

As far as my "delusions" go. To say they are playing by the same rules is like saying Fox is "Fair and balanced". Hell they don't even get to play on the same playing field. If you don't think the CORPORATE media leans right, then you haven't watched ABC, CBS, and to a decree NBC lately. How could Cheney have Judith Miller lie for him, then go on with Tim Russert and state those lies as fact, and the whole country eat that chit up hook, line, and sinker. Where is any journalistic integrity concerning the Anthrax scare? Between Keith Olberman, Larisa (Raw Story), and Mother Jones news nobody else says chit, the rest of media is disgraceful. One 20 min news conference and everybody has washed their hands of it…Ok the point I want to make is the corporate media supports the corporate Repugs, capitalism at it best (worst). Pure self interest. If/when the truth about 9/11 comes out. The neo-fascists were allowed to attack us by paying off those greedy bastards that could have said no. Thereby subverting everything cherished as American.

So when you say everything is equal, I say that is the true delusion.

The 4 democrats aren't even in office anymore. And what did Murtha have to do with it? (Sorry, I'm not super familiar with the issue).

The opening is there for the entire issue to be brought up again because of McCain's son. Too bad the MSM isn't touching it.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/mark-nickolas/fdic-poised-to-seize-fail_b_117283.html

If the FDIC does seize the bank, maybe that will spur the national media to start asking why the Republican presidential nominee's son -- and one of his top campaign fundraisers -- is at the center of a failing bank during the biggest banking crisis in this country in 20 years?

Recall that there's quite a sordid history of failed banks and the McCains.

During the last banking crisis -- the S&L meltdown of the 1990s -- it was none other than Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) who was rebuked by the U.S. Senate for trying to keep federal regulators away from a failed bank owned by a top fundraiser, and his wife's business partner, Charles Keating -- a scandal we would come to know as The Keating Five.

Most notably Murtha of PA....

Incidentally where HAS Murtha been lately??? Haven't heard hide nor hair of him lately...

Michale....

While I'm disappointed that there was no first appearence of the words "Keating Five" on the airwaves, I was impressed with that Maddow quote. I will check out the entire interview, and wanted to thank you for posting the links and the excerpt. I wrote about this a few weeks ago -- how we know what Obama was doing when he was eight years old, but the media has refused to go over McCain's past with even a wide-toothed comb. So it's refreshing to hear it spoken of elsewhere!

Again, thanks for responding to my link/transcript request.

-CW

Just a quick note before I read your post. BLaws was caught by the link filter, so I thought I'd point it out here (I do so every few months, just for newcomers). If you include links in your posts, multiple-link posts are held for approval, just like the first time you post. I will, eventually (gotta sleep sometime!) get around to approving them, but I have to keep this filter in place to comment the waves of "comment spam" which attack this site. Believe me, the site would be worse without this filter!

To get around it, either post only a single link per comment, or just wait until it is approved. Just to let everyone know.

-CW

Something is deleting my comment where I tried to point you to it. I'll email it to you.

All transcripts for MSNBC shows are here:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3719710/

Specific show is here:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/26055108/

She never said "Keating 5". I couldn't remember what it was she said but I knew that Jay Carney and David Gregory cut her off quickly. It reads as if they didn't but if you watch it they ran over top of what she was saying, she just didn't stop talking.
____
MADDOW: There‘s a story to tell about John McCain though that makes him just as unknowable. The guy with nine houses, the guy with 520 dollar shoes, the guy dumped his first wife and married the beer heiress.

CARNEY: He has a very clear and well known biography. I just don‘t think there‘s a similarity there.

MADDOW: I think that‘s true. He‘s been on the scene for a longer time. But how many people know that he has nine homes? How many people know that he wears 520 dollar shoes? We don‘t focus on this stuff about John McCain because people report it with the same intensity and fervor that they report every personal detail about Barack Obama and what he eats for breakfast.

GREGORY: I have to get in here. We have to take a break.

You reference a Murdock rag? Why not just go straight to Fox News?

But you want to "get real"?

I go where the facts take me. Unlike others who would just rather attack the messenger than address the message...

Look at the National Enquirer.. Tabloid trash to be sure.. Yet, they seemed to have nailed Edwards so thoroughly that even the Democrat leadership is saying that Edwards needs to speak up about the issue or risk losing his Convention privileges..

The simple fact is, for each nasty, evil, underhanded, illegal or immoral act you can point to committed by a Republican, I can point to an equivelant nasty, evil, underhanded, illegal or immoral act committed by a Democrat...

When it comes to BS politics and pandering, neither the Democratic Party nor the Republican Party can claim the moral high ground..

And anyone who CAN'T acknowledge the truth of that statement is so deluded by political bigotry that they wouldn't know the truth if it came up and slapped them on the arse...

Michale.....

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/tony-sachs/go-team-how-the-democrats_b_117422.html

Michale.....

(I'm starting from the top here). RE attacking a POW -- well, luckily, you don't even have to mention McCain's service to have all sorts of other negative things you can say about him. Personally, I'd start with the words "Keating Five" and take it from there...

Michale -

There's a HuffPost article by Drew Westin you should read. He explains the difference between a "negative ad" and an "attack" or "smear". Negative doesn't equal bad -- a mistake Democrats too often make. Negative works. Negative defines your opponent in the public eye. But just because you go negative doesn't necessarily mean you have to throw mud. McCain is throwing mud (Moses, Paris Hilton), and it can be met with some negativism without throwing mud back. I'm saying voters look for spine in candidates, and one thing they look for is standing up for yourself (whether they agree with your position or not).

Blaws -

RE: "why isn't Obama doing better?" is the reason I write the stats-n-graphs columns about the electoral race. The MSM (for whatever reasons) just isn't covering this story (see today's article).

Michale -

I have wondered myself whether an Obama attack on the media would be effective or not. I haven't decided, so I haven't written about it yet. I think there's an undercurrent here, though, that is going to change things a bit. McCain's new Rove-trained team has cut off access to him by the national press. This is pissing them off, and they've been a lot more critical of him since it happened. Access is these people's bread and butter, and when it's denied, they have a tendancy to get nasty. So keep an eye on the media's McCain coverage for the next few weeks, is all I'm saying...

BLaws -

You got a link to that Rachel Maddow thing? I would be very interested in reading a transcript of that. Post whatever details you have. This, to the best of my knowledge is the first time the words "Keating Five" have been uttered on the MSM in this campaign.

loslobo -

Good point on the gaffes.

Michale -

Heh heh. You know what? I bet you could get both the lefties and the right-wingers to agree on a very simple statement: "The mainstream media suck." Heh heh. I'm not saying a round of "Kumbaya" would follow, but I bet they'd all agree on that!

BLaws -

That is a very interesting equation you've drawn up. The point is not just "media coverage" it's whether that coverage is (1) negative or positive, and (2) able to be manipulated by campaigns complaining about the media. I liked your quantitative analysis of the first bit, I haven't heard it put like that before.

Anyway, that's it for answering all the comments! Whew! Sorry, I get behind on it at times when I'm counting electoral votes late into the evening...

Thanks to all for writing, as always.

-CW

You reference a Murdock rag? Why not just go straight to Fox News?

But you want to "get real"?

"Democrat, Republican… Two sides of the same corrupt, petty and vindictive coin…."

I'll take the Clinton years anytime, I quess with your Exxon and Haliburton portfolio your making out like a bandit.

Here's a link for ya, it would be funny as hell if the lizard brains weren't serious....

http://www.motherjones.com/news/featurex/2008/07/dont-know-much-about-history.html

And Democrats don't???

Com'on now... Let's be real about things....

My problem with the Republicans is their attitude, disingenuousness, and their shift to some horrible policy platforms.

And MY problem with that attitude is that there is equal horribleness on the side of the Democrats..

To lay everything BAD at the feet of the Republicans without conceding that the Democratic Party is JUST as BAD is the very definition of disingenuous...

Democrat, Republican... Two sides of the same corrupt, petty and vindictive coin....

Michale.....

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB121797955889015047.html?mod=opinion_main_review_and_outlooks

And Democrats thought that there was no victory possible in Iraq! :D

Michale.....

And I'm not on either side of the political spectrum. I just call it like I see it. As a fiscal conservative, social liberal I disagree with pretty much both parties equally on issues.

I grew up in a Republican household and was registered that way for 18 years, only recently changing to vote for Obama. My problem with the Republicans is their attitude, disingenuousness, and their shift to some horrible policy platforms.

I'm not an idealogue. I'll vote for whichever party has the best policies and supports what I feel are in the best interests of the country. And this year that would be the Democrats on most issues.

Your logic is faulty. You can't come to that conclusion simply because the Republicans aren't complaining out of any factual greivance. The Republicans complain as a tactic, even if completely disingenuous about it.

http://www.latimes.com/news/politics/la-na-onthemedia27-2008jul27,0,712999.story

During the evening news, the majority of statements from reporters and anchors on all three networks are neutral, the center found. And when network news people ventured opinions in recent weeks, 28% of the statements were positive for Obama and 72% negative.

Network reporting also tilted against McCain, but far less dramatically, with 43% of the statements positive and 57% negative, according to the Washington-based media center.

Conservatives have been snarling about the grotesque disparity revealed by another study, the online Tyndall Report, which showed Obama receiving more than twice as much network air time as McCain in the last month and a half. Obama got 166 minutes of coverage in the seven weeks after the end of the primary season, compared with 67 minutes for McCain, according to longtime network-news observer Andrew Tyndall.
___________

That comes out to be 119.52 minutes of negative time against Obama, and 38.19 minutes of negative time against McCain. 313% more negative time against Obama vs McCain.

Yet McCain campaign complained about the media being "in love" with Obama... because its a tactic. One they've used for years. To try and not appear biased the MSM go out of their way to be harder on the Dems, which is exactly what the Republicans want.

Clinton did the same thing in the debate. She whined about the SNL skit where they made fun of CNN, and sure enough, from that point on CNN was over the top harder on Obama compared to Clinton. It was disgusting.

Yet, those on the Right claim that there is a mass media conspiracy to promote liberal and Left wing ideals...

Of course, THEY are wrong and YA'ALL are right, right?? :D

I guess that means that the media is doing something correct if BOTH sides claim bias, eh??

One of the nice things about being completely apolitical is I can point out the hilarity from BOTH sides of the political spectrum.. :D

Michale.....

Let's not forget all the gaffes that the MSM has let McCain slide on. All it took for Howard Dean was an inflection of his voice or Joe Biden's semi-gaffe that was blown way out of porportion...

I'm not saying he should attack the media. Not at all. I'm saying he needs to attack McCain in a way that shifts the media's attention onto McCain and off the narrative of "Obama should be doing better".

"Right now, I honestly believe that there is no "conspiracy" or intent to overlook McCain in favor of Obama-mania."

I disagree. When Wesley Clark made a very fair critism of McCain, Bob Schieffer went way over the top to defend McCain. All the media did.

Then last night on Race for the White House, they were all bashing Obama about not defining himself, and when Rachel Maddow asked why the media never mentions McCain's story of his first wife, Keating 5, his son who just resigned from a failing bank, and other issues everyone cut her off and jumped in immediately with "McCain's already well known, blah blah" and shut her down. You see it all the time. Anytime someone starts to question McCain's "maverick war hero" storyline they get cut off and shut down.

I see your point and concede the difference.

The problem with that position is that Obama runs the real risk of pissing off the media..

Right now, I honestly believe that there is no "conspiracy" or intent to overlook McCain in favor of Obama-mania. It's simply a by product of Obama's celebrity...

However, if Obama started attacking the media, such peripheral attention could turn into something more sinister.. And deadly for the Obama campaign.

I agree.. It's not fair.. But things are the way things are..

Michale.....

Race for the White House had a set of polls they showed last week showing the Typical Dem vs Typical Republican at 44% vs 32%, then showed Obama vs McCain at 47% to 43%. And immediately asked "Why isn't Obama doing better?". /facepalm.

I'm so sick of this. He IS DOING BETTER! Typical Dem gets 44%, Obama is getting 47%. That is 3% BETTER. But they keep harping on the margin of lead instead of the actual votes. It's McCain that is doing better than the "typical Republican" cause he's not viewed as a "typical Republican" even though he is (yet another media created falsehood).

It's just another way of tearing down Obama by the media.

He doesn't need to attack McCain, as much as he needs to get the Media to focus on McCain and stop with the rediculous questioning of Obama.

This issue has seemed to become a common theme as of late. Many a commentator has espoused the idea that Obama is being too meek and really needs to get down in the mud with McCain.. Granted, CW's commentary doesn't go THAT far, but the theme is there..

Obama took on and BESTED the largest and most powerful political juggernaut in American history. He was able to do that by doing one thing above all else. Capturing and holding the moral high ground. Both him AND his campaign did not sink down into the mud. The one or two times he faltered and did dip a toe into the mud, he got creamed. Obama doesn't do mud very well...

Although I loathe to question motivations, I think in this case it's appropriate... It seems that those on the Left want Obama to fight back to give McCain and the GOP a come-uppance... In other words, the Left doesn't want Obama to fight back for HIS benefit, but rather for THEIR (the Left's) benefit. Hence the quote that started this post.. Yes, Americans like feisty.. But the real risk of encouraging Obama to lower himself is that the GOP will further drag him down. And ya'all know as well as I do that, in a fight in the mud, the GOP will win. No contest...

It's actually ironic.. What many MANY on the Left are saying is that a Democrat must campaign like a Republican in order to win..

If this is true, what does that say about the Democrats as a Party?? What does it say about the Left if they have to act like the Right to win??

And, more importantly, what does that say about the Right??

Michale....

The "seal" ad was completely racist. It played right into the fears and lies going around that Obama, if elected, would give the country over to blacks and put whites "in the field to work". Seriously... those emails are going around.

Today was one of those days when news events ran ahead of what I was writing. I, too, was pleased to see that "take pride in being ignorant" clip. Barack is not going to go gently into that good night, that's the impression I've been getting...

-CW

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=akjXqfvLu28

...Stan