Did McCain get any coverage this past week? I didn't notice.

Impunitas semper ad deteriora invitat.

The Democrats couldn't put forth a candidate with legitimate positions (as none of theirs are legitimate), and they knew this, so they put forth someone unusual and use this person's unusual traits as an excuse to give them excessive media coverage, seeing as people remember a.) information as it pertains to them, but more importantly, b.) what they see frequently/a lot of.

Of course, not that John McCain would know what to do with an increase of media coverage toward him even if he did receive it...most of his important positions contradict his history, and he can't argue his way out of a paper bag. That says something about his entire candidacy.

------------------------------------------------------------

"It could be the answer to our age-old, philosophical question, 'Why are we here?' PLASTIC!"

I can't believe that Howard Kurtz still has a job at CNN after his accurate analysis against the MSM's" template. The backlash has already begun in earnest.

John Edward's love child scandal is capable of sinking Obama's cardboard cutout appeal and that's why the MSM's are trying to tape up the cracks...with Scotch tape.

Don't you just love the internet and talk radio?

Drill ANWAR

rhetorical?

I mean the msn did cover the golf cart ride of President Bush and McCain.

They made fun of it and laughed. 

And they Never mentioned the two hip replacements our X president has had.

McCain respects our X president and skips the walking photo op and out of respect for our troops, McCain skips photo ops as well. 

Obama on the other hand, refuses to go anywhere without cameras, lights, and his media pals.

He says, If I can't take my media, my cameras, my jumbotrons and ballon, I will NOT visit wounded troops.

Actually, our troops are better off not having to perform for this arrogant, I can walk on water, creep. 

It really is OK to give Obama double the coverage.  We just have to  figure out how to accomplish it, without making it so obvious.  Perhaps, we'll divide the day into 2 parts and give Obama all the coverage from 10 in the morning until 10 at night and then give McCain from 10 at night to 10 in the morning.  That's fair, that's 50/50.  

Democrats: Stuck on Stupid since 2000.

 You may now start to see the eroding of the massive press overload towards Obami. I am still convinced that the American people see through this smoke screen. Even the segment that only follows politics part time.

Again, Dukakis had a 13% lead over GHW Bush (certainly no conservative) at this time in 1988. The MSM were, as usual, in love with the witless democratic candidate. Granted, Bush was the sitting VP at the time.  Needless to say, Bush won by 6%.

Obami is even more of an empty suit than Dukakis was. Now, if only McCain would jab at Obami a few times and the hit him with a right cross, we can get some action. I hope McCain is up for it, or we, collectively are in a world of....you know what.

OK, I'm tired of the Obamatrons, Obamamaniacs, etc... I have a new name for the Obamahoards... the Obamaslobberers! That's my take and I'm stickin' to it! Amen.

"Nuke 'em 'til they... oh hell, just shoot 'em!"

Sometimes more coverage just isn't a good thing. The LA Times is reporting on a new study by The Center for Media and Public Affairs at George Mason University, "where researchers have tracked network news content for two decades, found that ABC, NBC, and CBS were tougher on Obama than on Republican John McCain during the first six months of the general election campaign."

For Obama 28% positive versus 72% negative.

For McCain 43% positive versus 57% negative.

And before the echo chamber starts up, let me point out that the center's director, Robert Lichter (one time Fox News contributor) was praised during the last election cycle by such "liberal thinkers" as Bill O'reilley and Glenn Beck -- even appearing on their shows to discuss his research, which at that time detected more favorable coverage for democrats.

The lesson of the story is that Noel might be right about a greater quantity of news stories about Obama in the current cycle, but the style and quality of that coverage certainly isn't playing into your parallel reality where all news is good news for the democrats.

In fact this horse has been dead a long time; you should stop beating it. 

PS -- it also might be more newsworthy when a sitting senator travels abroad than when a sitting senator visits a german sausage joint in Ohio. Maybe. 

I wouldn't worry too much anymore about the blatant political biases of the MSM and how it might affect political campaigns. The MSM becomes more irrelevant with each passing day. They did their best to influence the 2004 election, even resorting to forging documents, and failed miserably. They'll fail even worse this November, and by 2012 they will be about as influential as Dear Abby.

Imagine how crazy they will be come the morning of November 5th when they realize that all of their efforts to get the Messiah elected have come to naught. They will have failed because for every one of these MSM clowns like Chris Mathews or Keith Olbermann, there are literally hundreds of bloggers exposing their lies.