Yes, but only to denonuce the shoe thrower instead of making him a hero by throwing it at Bush.

www.theholyrosary.org

"There is no problem, I tell you, no matter how difficult it is, that we can not resolve by the prayer of the Holy Rosary." -Sister Lucia

To proclaim the shoe thrower anything but what the Arab world portrays him to be would cause havoc and Obama has already worked pretty hard to build inroads into the those nations and put a better 'face' on America.  So coverage, just far less.  Certainly no cheering.

"part of what I'm hoping to introduce as the next president is a new ethic of [government enforced] responsibility" - B. Obama

Of course not...and when they did cover it, they would make O a great hero, plus of course not have the sympathy for the slime-ball who threw the shoes like the majority of the msm has.

The coverage has been shameful, despicable.

The msm should be ashamed, but that is something they will never be familiar with.

Dan Rather is a perfect example, the majority are just perfect replica's.

"America isn't the problem...America is the solution." ~ Rush Limbaugh

The media would be demanding to know how someone wearing shoes got so close to the Messiahed one.

Andrea Mitchell :"Do you think that maybe this would be a good time to review the policy on shoe wearing at press conferences....?"

Chris Matthews: "It sure might be a good idea now Andrea.Why do reporters even need shoes at a press conference?Is it a risk worth taking given how much the world needs Barack Obama right now?"

Andrea Mitchell: "Maybe we could at least have some sort of mandatory waiting period to buy new shoes and get rid of the flea market loophole where people can buy unregulated shoes."

Chris Matthews: I agree Andrea.Good idea.Maybe we could require all reporters to now wear flip flops or at least sandals at press conferences with the Messia..Oh ..I mean BarackObama.

Andrea Mitchell: "I don't see a problem with that."

I answered Yes, under to context that the shoe-throwing incident would happen 2 months from now.  If that did happen to Obama, the press would be all over it, covering it in a similar way they are today.  By that I mean they would say, "Obama: victim of Bush tyrannical regime".  They still would not denounce the act, but moreso imply it was warranted based on the Bush admins unpopular war.  They would play up Obama as an "Innocent victim of undying resentment of Bush's war."

The more likely scenario however, may play out like this: Obama would not have the dexterity to avoid the shoe, therefore it nails him in the head causing him to cry (or the shoe would just bounce off of Obama's invisible MSM protective shield).  The crying would be a [accurate] show of weakness, consequently, before the video would be released, it would be sent to a Hollywood digital studio for a makeover.  In the released video, Obama karate chops the shoe in mid-air, then Superman-flies over to the assailant and swiftly snaps his neck.  MSM... "Our Hero Obama Defends USA".  That quells the patriotic question right there.

There would be a lot of coverage, but the shoe-thrower would be denounced as being crazy.  You would not see stories about how he is a hero in the Islamic world.  There would be more concern expressed for the overall safety of the president, that it is not acceptable for someone to so easily assault our leader. 

As it is, I have seen no stories which indicate that the president could have been hurt.  Most of what I see are philosophical stories, many of which are taken from the idiot reporter's perspective. 

The bottom line is that nobody has the right to take off their shoes and throw them at anybody, much less a world leader.   This is a crime which should be punished harshly.  Yet, few stories have come from this perspective.   The angle seems as if the behavior of this journalist is completely acceptable.

While touting their reporters excellent aim during public stoning on the WH lawn.

It would be covered, but a lot differently.  First, they would portray the shoe thrower as some kind of nut like John Hinckley or Squeaky Fromme (though less favorably than they've portrayed John Hinckley of late).  Then, they would turn heavy scrutiny on the Secret Service.  They would question whether there was a slow reaction by the Secret Service and, if so, whether or not it was intentionally slow.  They would look into the backgrounds of all Secret Service agents on this detail to see if they could find six degrees of separation between their past and any loose associations (a hairdresser's 2nd cousin's substitute mail carrier in the Klan) with racist organizations.  They would conclude that such loose associations constituted proof of malice and intentional indifference on the part of some/all of the Secret Service Agents.  They would demand their jobs...and that a prosecutor be brought in to press criminal neglect charges (they would also order the prosecutor to add "hate crime" enhancements and Federal Civil Rights violations to the charges).  They would demand a full investigation into the chain of command to see if any higher-ups assigned the accused Secret Service Agent(s) to this particular detail knowing the loose racist associations...and they would demand the heads of some up the chain at Secret Service.

"Government's view of the economy could be summed up in a few short phrases: If it moves, tax it. If it keeps moving, regulate it. And if it stops moving, subsidize it." -Ronald Reagan

fitzfong.blogspot.com

And they would probably insist the death penalty on the person who threw the shoe.  Afterall, its blasphemy to show any sign of dissent let alone disrespect to the Almighty Obama.

Also, I have nothing vested against Obama and I *do* hope he ends up being a great president, I'm just burnt out on this love fest the media has for the man.  If he spoke just as passionately and well, yet had an R in front of his name, you'd better believe the honeymoon would be over... 

The people should not fear their Government,

The Government should fear the people. 

  But what  would be different is that the media would be covering it as a an utter disgrace.  We would be hearing about people around the world and in the Middle East condemning the shoe tossing.

  The media would also cover it as Obama's ability to stay gracious and calm in the face of such an insult.

  The story would be covered, but the spin would be completely different.

YES, they would cover it MUCH more , only it would be in outrage instead if humour or self-satisfaction as they cover the Bush incident 

VOTE REPUBLICAN 

Chris Matthews - "Mike, Doesn't it seem, as we look at the replay, that the trajectory of the shoe is inexplicably deflected in midair so as not to harm the shahinshah?"

Mike Barnicle - "You know Chris, we've observed this from several camera angles, and it does indeed seem as though some unseen force, angels, if you will, are ministering to the messiah".

• LYDSEXICS UNTIE!
  

They'd cover it as much as with Bush but the tone and content would be totally different.  They'd want the shoe thrower hung by his genitals and his family investigated and probably arrested.  In the MSM eyes there is a major difference between the hated George Bush and the Messiah, Barack Obama.

Yes there would be coverage on the incident, perhaps it would be like this:  Angry heel (rep.) attempts to give NObama the boot.  We will investigate this poor lost sole to see what made him feeeeeel so desperate to do such a grievous act.  Film at 11:00

Does anyone else find it odd that the camera angle was nearly perfect for viewing the entire shoe-throwing incident? It was like setting a camera for baseball, viewing the pitcher right behind the mound. Maybe neo-Marxist and Goebbels protege Oliver Stone set it up.

Another point is that media should compare the punishment that Saddam Hussein's regime would've meted out to the offender compared to the kids-glove treatment this guy gets under the new Iraqi leadership -- but I haven't heard a word about that.