...reporters with a shred of integrity left to ask about those  "inconvenient truths" (to coin a phrase) that will show Obama to be the inexperienced, amateurish, dangerous candidate that he is.

Meanwhile HRC waits and plots her next move.

This is too funny.

The media can't watch FOX news and troll the right wing blogs without finding an acorn they understan once in a while.

Usually it's "what's all the fuss about?"  But for some reason this one resonated.

Pretty bad when Obama has to invoke the services of Saint Caroline to make his water carriers appear above reproach.

• LYDSEXICS UNTIE

...or Hillary's minions haven't given up the fight. Democrats spent most of the last decade fighting trench media wars against Bush when they lost in 2000. We're seeing the same being applied towards Obama. If they can start smearing him now, and force negative sheeple opinion soon, then Shrillary can make a move for 2012.

Or, scarier, if her people can whip up enough hatred, and Obama gets "incapacitated" before the election, Hillary's back in the saddle.

"to call an illegal immigrant an "undocumented alien" is the same as calling a streetcorner drug dealer an "unlicensed pharmacist".

Mmmm..  So long Sunlen.

Oh, for the day we won't have to celebrate just one challenging question to Obama from the mainstream media.

Journalism is not just asking questions, it's also getting answers. If you pose difficult questions,  but you let the target completely evade answering your difficult questions, you really aren't doing any good.

• As a case of good journalism, I refer to the most recent ABC debate, where Charlie Gibson asked Obama why he wants to raise the capital gains tax. After all, Gibson pointed out, every time we cut the tax, revenues rise. So why not cut the tax? Obama tried to duck, but Gibson pressed him. He forced Obama to explain himself, and Obama revealed that his motive was pure egalitarianism -- i.e., Obama just didn't feel it was fair that some people made a profit. 
• Now a conservative journalist would have pressed even further, asking Obama where he got the authority to use his feelings to distribute wealth? Or whether he intends to structure the tax system to produce an Obama-based view of who should keep their money? That would have been true hardball questioning. But give Gibson credit - he did his job well in that debate.

My only hope in this election is that Obama will be forced to explain himself, because when he has to explain, he's a complete disaster. When they let him ramble on with soaring rhetoric, he's fine. But when he was forced to explain his tax policy, he blurted out pure socialism. When he was forced to explain his foreign policy, it became clear that he has a schoolyard grasp of negotiation - just talk everything out. Have you ever heard him explain his positions on social issues, like gay marriage and abortion? He rarely explains that, but when he does, it's all stumbling ahs, uhs, you knows, and then he'll regurgitate catchphrases, a few more you knows ... and then an urgent appeal not to get bogged down in social values.

Make him explain himself, and he unravels like a Looney Tunes character.

Has anyone else noticed that this guy seems to surround himself with criminals?  Look at Rezko, now these 2 guys.  So the people he has "working" on his campaign are criminals, crazy anti-American pastors and ex-news reporters.  Insteresting.

methinks the 'probama' media might not be so pro. maybe they're going to utterly destroy him so as to bring hillary back into the picture? i'd like to think that maybe the media is going to remember who they loved first and are simpy toying with barack

login bounce 

• LYDSEXICS UNTIE