Fair is Fair

Republicans have had and will in the future have no problem bringing up Rev. Wright in an effort to damage Obama's candidacy.  Now we find out that Sarah Palin's church and personal religious statements are less than conventional, to say the least.  For all that talk of the "liberal media" there sure hasn't been much talk on Palin's religious views even though that "liberal media" had no problem talking about Rev. Wright non-stop, so why is Palin's similar situation off limits?  It shouldn't be, and kudos to Rachel Maddow for bringing it up on her inaugural show tonight --- more shows and networks need to take notice.

It's not that religion should play any role in politics, because it should not, in any way.  The problem is that it appears Sarah Palin thinks religion does have a role, a huge role at that, to play in politics, and scarier still, in policy decisions.  The governor as recently as June of this year has stated that the Iraq War is God's will and that members of her congregation should pray for her oil pipeline proposal to succeed.  

Then, of course, there is the pastor who visited her church who claimed that the Jews being killed in Israel are being killed as a punishment from God since Jews do not believe Jesus is the Messiah.  And what about her church teaching that one can "pray away the gays".  Or how about the idea that the rapture is ever approaching, and that, get this, Alaska is the promised refuge during that supposed great time of peril.  

Please, give me a break.  This is not just religious right wacky (although Palin has that covered with her stances on abortion and creationism), this is frightening, radical thinking.  And the idea that one candidate can have their church's dirty laundry, a church which they didn't even attend consistently, aired for weeks straight and another candidate, who is, by the way, on record as being in church on days when that harsh rhetoric was spewed, can get the proverbial "get-out-of-jail-free card" throws out any claims of "objective journalism".  Fair is fair, or at least should be, but that is not how the media is acting.  Hopefully, they will pick up this story and make Sarah Palin answer those same tough questions that Barack Obama had to.  

Television Journalists and Their Big Push

We all remember how, during the primary season, T.V. journalists piled on Senator Clinton everyday and promoted Senator Obama non-stop.  On the Republican side, they treated Senator McCain and his flip flops with kid gloves.

 

I mentioned during that period of time that if Obama received the Democratic nomination, in time,  journalists would turn on him and promote McCain in the general election.  Well, it is already starting to happen.  They are now promoting a so called rift between Senator Clinton, her husband, and Obama.  They are even saying that Senator Clinton wants her name to be placed in nomination at the convention, although that is pure speculation.  Mike Barnicle, while guest hosting MSNBC's Hardball on 8/7, devoted some time on the subject with 3 guests.  Their tone was that Senator Clinton was going to make demands and split or hurt the party.  What they all failed to report and/or mention is that Senator Clinton herself said that she would work for party unity at the convention and, in fact, campaigned for Senator Obama this week.

 

Journalists will continue to plant the seed that their pronouncements are fact in an effort to create and distract from the actual news on the subject.  They are showing their ass again in trying to manipulate the general election vote in McCain's favor.   Anything to hurt Sen. Obama or portray the Democratic Party weak in any way will be what journalists continue to portray until November.  Hopefully the American people wise up and do their own research in order to inform themselves since journalists can no longer be trusted to do so.  

The Evening News With ABC, CBS, and NBC

The thirty minute Evening News from the above networks is a welcome from the beat of the cable news networks who repeat the same worn out stories over and over.

 

Thirty minutes is just right and is filled with several different news stories which keep people up to date.  The people learn more on the evening news because it is not dominated by journalists who harp on their favorite subject like the cable news journalists. 

 

Keith Olbermann, Chris Matthews, Bill O'Reilly, Lou Dobbs, and other shows are repeated at different times every day and is used to fill up air time and not to educate the people as to what is going on.  ABC, CBS, and NBC also have a Sunday show that views various topics and guests that prove more informative than cable news.

 

Cable news coverage concerning the Presidential campaign is laughable.  The Networks have already chosen sides and drawn the line and are trying to undermine the people's thinking.  I have always followed politics and the news but cable has been a turn off for me for some time.  I am now giving serious thought to give up my cable service since I hardly watch any more and go back to the basic service we had before cable came about.  I certainly can not justify subscribing to cable TV any longer. 

 

It is a pretty sad situation for America when two of its fundamental tenets, politics and the news media, can not be trusted.

Smart Take: The Columbia Journalism Review on "What Wesley Clark really said, and how the press missed it"

Zachary Roth at the Columbia Journalism Review has an new article up rightfully defending Gen. Wesley Clark against the smears by McCain and the media.  Here's Roth's very smart take:

__________________________________________________________

So: The latest round of mock outrage—in a presidential race that has turned the tactic into an art form—now comes in response to comments made by General Wesley Clark.(...)

When moderator Bob Schieffer interjected that “Barack Obama has not had any of those experiences, either, nor has he ridden in a fighter plane and gotten shot down”, Clark responded: “Well, I don’t think riding in a fighter plane and getting shot down is a qualification to be president.”(...)

The McCain camp, sensing an opportunity, complained that Clark had “attacked John McCain’s military service record.” Of course, Clark had done nothing of the kind. He had questioned the relevance of McCain’s combat experience as a qualification to be president of the United States. This is a distinction that you’d expect any reasonably intelligent nine-year old to be able to grasp.(...)

This is the perfect embodiment of the press’s unbelievably destructive habit of assessing every piece of campaign rhetoric for its political acuity, rather than for its validity and accuracy. Clark’s comments may (or may not) have been impolitic. But that has no bearing on their validity or lack thereof—which is how the news media should be evaluating them.(...)

It’s crucially important that we have a political debate in this country that’s at least sophisticated enough to be able to handle the following rather basic idea: Arguing that a person’s record of military service is not a qualification for the presidency does not constitute “attacking” their military credentials; nor can it be described as invoking their military service against them, or as denying their record of war heroism.

That’s not a very high bar for sophistication. But right now it’s one the press isn’t capable of clearing.

It's Controversies Like This That Get My Blood Boiling...

Let's be clear: Wesley Clark, GENERAL Wesley Clark, neither said nor did anything to demean John McCain's service to this country.  

Here's the full quote from Gen. Clark from yesterday's Face the Nation that has stirred up all this controversy:

"In the matters of national security policy making, it's a matter of understanding risk.  It's a matter of gauging your opponents and it's a matter of being held accountable. John McCain's never done any of that in his official positions. I certainly honor his service as a prisoner of war. He was a hero to me and to hundreds of thousands and millions of others in the armed forces, as a prisoner of war.

He has been a voice on the Senate Armed Services Committee and he has traveled all over the world, but he hasn't held executive responsibility.  That large squadron in the Navy that he commanded, that wasn't a wartime squadron....

...I don't think riding in a fighter plane and getting shot down is a qualification to be president." 

What is so damn wrong about what Gen. Clark said?  He spoke the truth.  He did say, after all, that he honors McCain's service and that McCain was a hero to him.  But being in the military does not necessarily prepare you for being President.  And although it makes for a sympathetic story, being shot down and held as a POW is not a qualification for being President.  

And for Gen. Clark to be attacked by John McCain for being somehow disrespectful to the military is absurd.  McCain should apologize.  The media should apologize for making this a lead story today.  And Barack Obama also owes Gen. Clark an apology for coming out against them today.  Why isn't anyone standing up and saying that Gen. Clark has said nothing wrong?  But once again, the media and our Democratic nominee is falling into the trap of appeasing the Republicans.  John McCain says Obama needs to go to Iraq.  What does Obama do?  Schedule a trip to several countries around the world, with the anticipation of an unscheduled visit to Iraq.  McCain says that Gen. Clark was disrespectful to the military.  Obama comes out, agrees, and condemns Gen. Clark.  And all the while, the media plays along.  

I'm sick and tired of the reputation of great men and women being destroyed by the Republicans, the media, and the lack of backbone by some members of the Democratic party.  It happened to Bill Clinton, Hillary Clinton, Bob Kerrey, and now Gen. Wesley Clark.  Enough is enough.

Confirmation Of The News Media Failure

In the past I have written several post concerning the Iraq war including a two part series titled, "The Rosetta Stone To The Iraq War."  My past post were about how Mr. Bush took our country to war in Iraq over WMD that did not exist and how he purposely mislead the American people.  I have not written any post lately concerning Iraq because I feel the people have finally understood just how reckless the Bush Presidency has been.

 

There is another part of the Iraq war that I touched upon concerning how the news media, especially T.V. journalists promoted the war on their own without seeking the truth or facts and aided and abetted the Bush administration in promoting the war.  Now we have some new revelations in a soon to be released book written by Scott McClellan, the Presidents former Press Secretary.  I will not rehash what he said about the President and Iraq because I covered that before but I do want to cover what he said about the news media because the same thing is going on today concerning the Democratic Primaries for that party's nomination.

 

Mr. McClellan called the news media "complicit enablers in the White House's carefully orchestrated campaign to shape and manipulate sources of public approval in the march to the Iraq war."  That my friends is the exact thing they are doing with the promotion and crowing of Barack Obama as the nominee before the process is complete and clamoring for Senator Clinton to drop out of the race.  They have chosen sides instead of covering and reporting on the process for the nomination and how there are many more issues the DNC will have to solve before a nominee can be officially chosen. 

 

Chris Matthews on Hardball ran a caption across the T.V. screen asking Is Clinton hurting the Democrats by staying in the race?  He already knew the answer because the people have already stated they wanted her to stay in the race till the process was complete.  But there he was trying to plant the seed that she is hurting her party.  He really shows his ass and how insecure and dishonest he really is.  When the nominee's for the general election is finally known you can be sure that the news media will choose sides and then go after the other guy or gal.  Journalists have already planted the seed that if Obama is the nominee and looses in the general election it will be Senator Clinton's fault.  They try to cover for Obama every way they can think of.  They have no character.  That says it all.

 

By the way, I wrote several letters to Journalists long before the Iraq war started and told them what I thought about not having the character to look for the facts concerning Iraq instead of promoting Bush's talking points.

Is Senator Clinton's Negative Rating Really 63% As The Polls Say?

I doubt it very much and the voters surely tell a different story.  However,  journalists and pundits have been talking about it for over two weeks and treat it as gospel.

 

As of 4/17/08, Real Clear Politics reports that the popular vote in the Democratic primaries (including Florida and Michigan) as follows:  Senator Obama 13,932,423 million or 47.6%;  Senator Clinton 13,837,418 million or 47.2%, a difference of only 94,005 votes or four-tenths of 1%.  Those voters do not agree with Senator Clinton's negative poll numbers.  They also don't show up in national polls vs. Obama or McCain.

 

Journalists and pundits have shown those negative numbers and then indicate to their audiences that Clinton can't win with those kinds of numbers.  The voters have proven other wise.  Senator Clinton has won New York, California, New Jersey, Arizona, New Mexico, Nevada, Ohio, Texas, Florida, and Michigan.  All of those states have a very diverse population.  That speaks well to her candidacy. Today, it is time for Pennsylvania to vote and we will see how that turns out in just a few hours.  To those who think the votes of the people in Michigan and Florida should not count, you should remember those elections were legal and set up by each state with each and every candidate having the option to put their name on the ballot.  The DNC said they would not seat those states delegates at the convention and they have a right to do that, but they do not have the right to not count the popular vote of the people in a legal election held under state law.

 

Polling has misled the people on so many issues that it has become a tool unbecoming of a democracy.  Questions people are asked are not in tune with what is taking place in America and/or what the candidates really stand for or what they would do if elected President.  All polls are designed to do is influence people's vote and to create news that is not really there.  Voters can do themselves and their country a great favor by not letting anything in the polls influence their vote.  They should also remember that people in the news media always try to influence one's vote with their biased, one-sided coverage.  That is why they come on air after the debates and try and tell you what you just heard in the debates. And worst of all, they use people in the post debates that have no creditability to start off with.  In short, think independently and let election day results, not polls, show you the true feelings of the public.  

The Morning Dose---4/17

The Morning Dose comes to us today from Taylor Marsh, reviewing the debate last night, in a blog post titled, Just How Soft Obama's Coverage Been?:

_________________________________________________________

Down pillow soft.

Baby's bottom soft.

So no one should be surprised that Obama had a nightmare night. He finally got real questions for which he should have had ready answers. Over the last year Barack Obama has gotten a complete pass on his record, his life and everything associated to his political rise. In fact, if Senator Obama had been subjected to the scrutiny that Hillary Clinton has been subjected to he would have turned to ash by now.

So forgive me if all the blogospheric bellyaching permeating Democratic circles is not impressing me much. In fact, it's a laugh out loud moment.

Now don't get me wrong. I'm more than willing to blame the traditional media for piling on a Democrat, which they do often. But do these progressives now crying fowl really believe they could protect Mr. Obama, as his Democratic challengers did all last year, throughout the rest of this campaign? Asking a question about Rev. Wright? A question about William Ayers? The horror! Seriously, is Senator Obama so frail that he shouldn't be subjected to questioning that should have come a long time ago and will inevitably come in the general election? If nothing else and at the very least, everyone in the Democratic party should want to know how he's going to handle this stuff if he's our nominee. Because there can be no doubt that the wingnuts will lock and load Barack's greatest hits, then share them with the electorate in a cascade of negative gifts.

Mind you, this is questioning I've been doing for a year and getting excoriated for it. So I feel Charlie and George's pain. Going for substance isn't easy amidst the Political Idol crowd.

The facts are that the progressive community and Obama supporters have done their candidate no favors by the kid glove treatment they've applied to all things having to do with him and his record, including his associations. What happened last night is a result of one year of people ignoring reality. That's right, reality. Because the closer Obama got to the nomination and the general election, the curtain would eventually be pulled back on every event in his life, good, bad and horror show, which includes Rev. Wright.

This is the reason we lose elections.

What, did Obama's adoring fans think they could hermetically seal him and protect him from the meanies out there, then simply deliver him to 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue because "he's the one?" Good grief.

If Obama would have been put through his paces last fall, he might have been past this by now. If his own campaign had faced up to his associations long ago, head on, he wouldn't be dealing with this now.

Again, I'd blame Gibson and Stephanopoulos, but it's not their fault that someone, anyone finally asked questions that have been out there for months and months. It's not tabloid to ask about Ayers any more than it was tabloid to question Bill Clinton about his past. Hillary's been asked about everything more than once, as they reload to ask it all over again.

Oh, and as for Keith He's No Edward R. Murrow Olbermann, don't send a sportscaster to do a political analyst's job. Talking to Howard Wolfson, with Olbermann whining about the questions about Ayers, isn't doing us any favors either. He's just giving Obama fans a false sense of security. It's as if the only people dealing with reality and preparing for the Republican attack machine is the Clinton campaign. Olbermann is on planet Zen if he thinks that Ayers won't be part of the dialogue come September. (You know, because you never roll out a new campaign in August.)

We need a nominee that can walk through fire. Whoever we offer up should be able to withstand anything, and I do mean anything. Because that's what always comes at Democrats, with the traditional press inevitably having a thing for the guy on the other side. Considering that guy will be John McCain, the hero worship will be out in force.

No Democratic politician in the last 20 years has gotten a softer introduction onto the national stage than Barack Obama. Nobody has gotten an easier ride to the top step of presidential politics either. He paid for it last night.

Journalists and Their Traps: The Charges and the Facts

Journalists have already bated the trap for the voters during this primary season.  It is especially true concerning the Democratic candidates.  There are some signs that voters are willing to play the game.  The charges go something like this:

 

THE CHARGE:  The prolonged Democratic race is bringing out negatives that will hurt the Democratic party during the general election in November.  

THE FACT:  This campaign is no more negative than any past Democratic campaign and in fact has had many civil debates and moments by both candidates.

 

THE CHARGE:  Clinton should drop out for the sake of party unity.   

THE FACT:  Neither candidate should drop out because neither has won the popular vote nor the necessary 2024 delegates to be the nominee.

 

THE CHARGE:  Clinton is playing the race card.  

THE FACT:  It is the news journalists who are playing the race card with their one sided reporting, tilted towards Obama.  

 

THE CHARGE:  Obama is getting the independent vote and the Republican crossover vote and therefore will be a stronger candidate than Clinton in the general election.  

THE FACT:  Those voters will vote Republican in the general election if Obama is the Democratic nominee, especially now after the Wright story.  Many Republicans also want the weakest Democrat to face in November.

 

THE CHARGE:  Clinton has too many negatives.      

THE FACT:  Clinton has won more large states with more diverse populations than Obama.    The "negative" seed journalists try to plant won't wash.

 

THE CHARGE:  Clinton voted to go to war with Iraq.  

THE FACT:  The vote and resolution passed by Congress did not tell Bush that he had to go to war with Iraq.  The resolution gave the president authority to use that option if war was necessary, but everyone knows that war was not necessary and the president hyped the intelligence.  It was Bush's decision to go to war and we also know that he made that decision before the vote by Congress was actually taken.  Bush was going to war regardless, that is why he bypassed the U.N. after telling Congress and the people that he would go through it.

 

THE CHARGE:  Obama would not have voted for the resolution.  

THE FACT:  Obama was not in Congress at the time, so no one knows how he would have voted, including (according to what he said in '04) Obama himself.  We do know, however, that since he has been in Congress, he has voted to continue the war, which is an indication on how he would have voted had he been a Senator at the time. 

 

THE CHARGE:  Journalists are fair and balanced in their reporting on the campaign.  

THE FACT:  John McCain is getting a free ride with his negative comments and his ignorance, flip flops, and false statements concerning the war in Iraq and Al Qaeda being trained in Iran.  Ditto on his voting record in Congress.  A sure sign of their support.  Obama is also getting the majority of positive coverage.  Journalists excuse him for anything negative his campaign says while holding Clinton to a different standard. 

 

THE CHARGE:  Obama can bring unity to the Democratic party; Clinton can not.  

THE FACT:  Two words: "Reagan-Democrats".  They're the crucial swing voters in Ohio, Florida, Pennsylvania, Michigan, etc.  Clinton has won them overwhelmingly; Obama hasn't.  

 

Journalists are trying any trick they can think of to influence the vote of the people for the candidate they themselves support.  They did it during the run up to war with Iraq over WMD that did not exist by not seeking the truth from Bush and by promoting the war on their own.  They are really a sad bunch.  They have no shame or respect for their own profession and certainly do not care about our Democratic process with its checks and balances.  They are part of the problem to our political system---a far cry from what our founding fathers had envisioned.  Hopefully enough people can think for themselves; that would make all the difference.  

Pollsters, Journalists, and Pundits...Oh My!

Pollsters in the past have generally been accurate in their political forecasts, so what happened in the New Hampshire Primary this past Tuesday?  The New York Times reported many pollsters and news organizations plunged into a post-mortem of how they did not see what was coming.

 

What happened was very simple.  The pollsters, journalists, and pundits were pushing Obama, especially after the Iowa caucuses.  Obama was their candidate and they went to great length to talk him up and great length to knock Clinton down.  The polls just prior to the New Hampshire primary showed Obama with a lead, a sure indication that something was wrong and the pollsters knew it but the game was on for Obama.  T.V. journalists were the worst.  Obama received most of their air time and then used their programs to knock Clinton.  The worst was Chris Matthews of MSNBC.  He attacked Clinton daily because she was campaigning and would not come on his show.  He really showed his ass.  The big baby could not get his way so he tried to get even.

 

CNN, on the night of the returns, had William Bennett and Ralph Reed on to offer commentary.  Those two neocons represent the worst in politics, but there they were for all Americans to see.  CNN has no shame.  That shows just how far T.V. will go to try and intimidate the people.  T.V. journalists represent the worse when it comes to broadcasting the facts.  They are the same ones who promoted the Iraq War  and the WMD that we now know did not exist.  And they were the ones hyping war with Iran until the recent NIE report came.

 

The best thing for people to do is tune the cable news networks out and just watch the 30 minute evening news of ABC, CBS ,and NBC.  Shows like Meet the Press and Face the Nation are copying off the cable news networks and are also pushing their favorite candidates.  Their questions tell the real story. 

 

Many pollsters and journalists undermine America and its people with their outright lies.  Once they pick out their favorite, they gear their questions to flatter that person.  They really are a sad bunch.  They remind me a lot of Bush---they have no character or ethics, and they are determined to continue to mislead the people and the country. 

POLITIDOSE's Beat The Press

I am pleased to introduce POLITIDOSE's new periodical version of  "Meet the Press".  From time to time, I will be taking a look at some of the stupidest, most outrageous, and most biased personalities in the media.  In today's edition, may I present to you, the sexist, the obviously biased, and the just plain crazy, Chris Matthews, who is now on my list as one of the biggest @$$es in the media.

Now, I don't necessarily agree that Matthews is the cause for the Clinton New Hampshire win; I think the hard work and dedication of Clinton and her supporters is what led to her win.  But, as Rachel Maddow told Matthews to his face, Chris Matthews has had and continues to have a flagrant biased towards Obama and strongly against Clinton: 

And, if Chris Matthew's biased towards Obama and against Clinton wasn't clear enough yet, look at this shortened video where Matthews compares Obama to Lawrence of Arabia.  This man is insane:

And what does Matthews do to guests he disagrees with? He yells at them:

And then, of course, is the near-orgasmic outburst from Matthews after Obama wins Iowa, saying that his win was "the deliverance" in the "biblical" sense of the word:

And here is Cenk Uygur, directly taking on Chris Matthew's apparent hate for Hillary Clinton, citing quotes from Matthews over the last 3 months:

And here is the final video where Hillary herself confronts Matthews and rightfully calls him "obsessed" with her. Matthews than proceeds to whine that, "I'm not obsessed". Yea, right Chris. O, and by the way, what the hell was Chris looking at around the :35 mark?

Congrats Hillary Clinton; My Message To The Media

Sen. Hillary Clinton, much to my and everyone in the world's surprise, pulled out a 3 point win in the New Hampshire primary when every poll proceeding Iowa had Clinton behind 8-15 points. Sen. Clinton deserves nothing but credit; she worked and her supporters worked their hearts out and in the end, that never-say-die attitude delivered Clinton a much needed win heading into the next stage of caucuses and primaries.  And I must say, Sen. Clinton's victory speech was so telling of exactly why she won, saying, "Over the last week, I listened to you and in the process I found my own voice."  Sen. Clinton did in fact find her own voice.  She found a way to connect with voters in the last day or two before the primary in a way that she was never able to do before.

And now, I want to address the media, particularly people like Chris Matthews.  Last Friday, after the Obama win in Iowa, the media became instantly obsessed with Barack Obama.  They flirted over him and played him up as if there was no tomorrow.  They instantly turned on Hillary and became unfairly harsh, bordering on cruel, to the Senator from New York.  There was no logical explanation for it, except of course, that Obama won Iowa and thats all the American people needed to know.  They didn't need to learn about Obama's record nor did the media think it was necessary for the American people to have any choice of their own in choosing the President.  Pundits were clear in what they wanted----a coronation for Obama.   

Last night, I was hopeful.  I though to myself, maybe this will be good enough to make the media realize that there is an actual Presidential election going on here.  I thought that maybe the media would see that the American people, not they alone, will choose our next President.  I was also hopeful for a less biased look at Sen.Clinton and at all the great qualities---experience, strength, leadership, perseverance---that she brings to the table.  Instead, what I awoke to was the media still giving an unfairly and unwarranted harsh look at the Clinton campaign in contrast to the soft, ultra-positive outlook they give to Obama.

What makes me even angrier is how the media is trying to spin this into an Obama win---somehow completely discrediting  Sen. Clinton's hard work that she put in to New Hampshire.  The most insulting explanation, came from people like Chris Matthews, Tucker Carlson, Eugene Robinson, Michael Eric Dyson, among others, who somehow attribute Clinton's win to racism.  They claim that white people, at fear of sounding racist, told pollsters that they support Obama, even though they supported Clinton.  This explanation is beyond ridiculous.  The fact is that most recent polls had Obama in the 35-37% range.  This is exactly where he scored on Tuesday.  The difference is, of course, Clinton's votes, which saw an obvious spike.  What explains this?  The fact that anywhere from 10-15% of people in the conducted polls where undecided and about the same amount said that they supported a candidate, but could change their mind within the last few hours.  So, memo to the media, give credit where it's due.  Sen. Clinton worked tirelessly, taking hours and hours of questions from voters and truly opening herself up to voters.  Racism was not at work here, like her or hate her, Hillary Clinton's victory must be attributed to the facts---that she herself and her hard-working supporters won over the many undecideds.

And, just to mention it, when Obama won Iowa, I didn't here anyone cry that Iowa was sexist.  I didn't here anyone say that, "o, you know, Iowa never elects women to high offices."  And rightfully so that they didn't say that.  Obama won Iowa because he worked hard at it and had impeccable organization.  So why the double standard?  Simple, Obama is the media's baby, and they have a natural hate for the Clinton's.  It's not fair, it's not right, but it is, for right now, reality.  The only way the American people are going to get a more fair, balanced media is to give the media a reality check----the American people will vote how they want to vote----not how the media tells them they have to.  So, to say that there was a racist undercurrent to Clinton's win, is not just insulting to the work of the Clinton campaign, but also to the integrity of New Hampshire voters. 

And finally, the Obama campaign is also out making sad excuses.  Their latest spin, laid out by Obama co-chair, Jesse Jackson Jr., has attributed Hillary's win to the tears she shed over a very emotional moment a few days ago.  If attributing a win to tearing-up wasn't silly enough, not to mention insulting to the very serious New Hampshire primary voters, Jackson went on to question the authenticity of Hillary's tears.  Again, like her or not, that moment where Clinton got teary-eyed was one of the realist moments ever seen on a campaign trail.  Again, this spin from both the Obama camp and the media is getting out

of control.  There is such a hate for Clinton that people are willing to say whatever they want to bring her down, and quite frankly, it's just plain wrong.  

On a side note, I give huge credit to people like Pat Buchanan, Dan Abrams, Craig Crawford, and Rachael Maddow for saying, in essence, "enough is enough" and trying, at least, to give fair coverage and change the media narrative towards Sen. Clinton. 

The Key To Ending The War: The News Media

Yes, there is a way to end this unnecessary war in Iraq.  And it can happen rather quickly if the news media cooperates.  It was television journalists who failed to seek the truth concerning Iraq having WMD in the lead up to the war, mainly because they let themselves be intimated by the President.

 

This is what television journalists should do.   Rerun all the speeches Mr. Bush gave the american people during the run up to war in Iraq when he repeated over and over he knew for sure Iraq possessed WMD that were stockpiled and ready to use against america or transferred to terrorists.  Rerun his speeches over and over every night so the people would be reminded just how reckless this president was and still is.  Rerun all his speeches about Saddam trying to buy uranium from Niger and trying to tie Iraq to the tragic events of 9-11. 

 

Rerun the president's speeches when he told the people Iraq reconstituted its nuclear program and then talked about a "mushroom cloud".  Then rerun over and over all the other charges he made about Iraq that were completely false.  Journalists need to step up to the plate to make up for their own reckless behavior by promoting on their own that Iraq had these WMD.

 

Mr. Bush has always tried to change history and change the reason why he took the country to war in Iraq after no WMD were found.  Rerunning his speeches will remind the people of the real reasons he is so incompetent and the real reasons why he started this war and blatantly misled the American people.  And most importantly it will remind the American people why there needs to be change in '08.  

Playing the Gender Card?

Ever since Tuesday's Democrat Debate, the media has been all over Sen. Hillary Clinton. They call it her "worst week ever", or they say "she has ruined her chances at the nomination". The media has gone after Clinton nonstop; it's as if someone is paying them to do so.

Listen, I realize that Tuesday was not Hillary's best night, I said that in my review of the debate, but it is by no means something that is going to completely derail her campaign as the media is suggesting. Even the usual far left "Hillary-haters" are standing up and saying "whoa, it really wasn't that bad." Daily Kos, a common source for Hillary bashing, is among those speaking up:

"The reaction to Hillary's debate performance has been way out of whack with, well, her debate performance...But bottom line is, that at worst, she held steady. At best, she may have gained a little support. It wouldn't be the first time the media completely missed actual public sentiment."

What makes me the most irritated is that the media is, all of a sudden, jumping on Hillary for "playing the gender card". They keep quoting a statement Hillary made when visiting her alma mater, Wellesley College:

“In so many ways this all-women’s college prepared me to compete in the all-boys’ club of presidential politics.”

So, as far as I'm aware, that was the only comment Hillary made about gender since the debate. Yet, the media is hyping it as if she blamed her debate performance on her gender. The point is, that statement is not about "playing the gender card". Rather, it's called "playing the crowd". Hillary was in front of an all girl's school and she was obviously trying to excite them. Obama did the same thing yesterday in South Carolina when he was in front of an all African American crowd. He talked about how he has a chance to make history because of his skin color. And while he was speaking, he clearly took on an accent of a southern black. Do I blame Obama for that? No, it's called getting the crowd excited and into your what you're saying. It's what all great speakers do. Even more importantly, did the media blame Obama? No. So why attack Hillary for essentially the same thing?

But I can assure you that the media will continue to attack Hillary for "playing the gender card", even though she didn't. Hillary made a statement yesterday in which she said that the reason why the other candidates are going after her is because "I am the frontrunner". She also said she didn't mind being challenged on the issues and said "I can take the heat". But will the media cover that statement, in which Hillary clearly states the reason she is being attacked is because she is the frontrunner, not because she is a woman? No, sadly they won't. They'll instead keep replaying the quote from Wellesley and will keep falsely asserting that somehow, in that one statement, Hillary is acting as if she is being attacked because she is a woman.

The Right Wing Conservatives in the Media (a special editorial by John Lucia)

You know them by name and the lack of substance in their talk on T.V. and Radio. They continue to bash Democrats while the Republicans are running the country. They do that because they can't articulate what they themselves, and other so called conservative republicans, stand for.

They always speak on issues that divide the country instead of those that unite us. They like to talk about the U.S. going to war to prove to the world the U.S. is the leading military power in the world and therefore can do whatever we want to do. They have a lot of influence, not because they are right but because they only tell half the story and mislead people.

They try to cloak themselves with moral and family values and patriotism to hide their own character problems. They feel so inadequate they lash out at Veterans in an effort to hide their own guilt feelings. They believe in Ronald Reagan's commandment of never speak ill of another republican even if they do something that puts our country at risk. They flash names of elected officials on the T.V. screen knowingly with the wrong party affiliation to try and deceive their viewers. Some of them screen their calls because they can't handle the truth. They share the same ideology as the neocon politicians.

They act like cry babies when they invite Bill Maher and President Clinton on their shows and Maher and Clinton get the best of them. They end up shouting at people on their shows when they can't get their way. That is the mark of an insecure person. They try to give the impression they support our troops but are now beating the drums of war concerning Iran.

They represent the worse in free speech on the air because they lack the character necessary to compete with the facts and truth in an open society. You know who they are. Many of them work or appear on the Fox News Channel and on radio, on the EIB network and on CNN's Headline News talk shows. But there is one thing you will never hear them talk about. What did they do for their country during their generation's war. That says it all.