|
|
|---|
|
American Politics Journal Atrios Barry Crimmins Betty Bowers Buzzflash Consortium News Daily Howler Daily Kos Democatic Underground Disinfotainment Today Evil GOP Bastards Faux News Channel Greg Palast The Hollywood Liberal Internet Weekly Jesus General Joe Conason Josh Marshall Liberal Oasis Make Them Accountable Mark Morford Mike Malloy Political Humor - About.com Political Wire Randi Rhodes Rude Pundit Smirking Chimp Take Back the Media Whitehouse.org More Links |
The Bigger Picture
It's my opinion that America's whore press,
who we've all hated for at least a decade
have slanted their coverage towards Obama
and against Hillary - severely slanted.
For months we've heard the cry from the
Obama camp:
"But his name wasn't even on the ballot in
Michigan!
How can you call that a fair election
without our man's name on the ballot?"
Sounds like a fair argument, right?
But I submit it only sounds fair because, once again,
the whore media has covered up
the truth because the truth would hurt their candidate, Obama.
The Democratic Rules Handjob Committee met Saturday, I caught
parts of it.
Harold Ickes said that nobody asked Obama to take his name
off the Michigan ballot.
He says it wasn't a rule, wasn't a requirement, wasn't a suggestion
- so why did Obama do that?
Ickes suggested Obama did that to curry favor with Iowa votes, and that rings true.
Hillary "allowing" Michigan to vote early? Hillary "helping"
Michigan
to steal the well-deserved thunder from you fine, fine Iowa
folks?
One could argue that Obama won Iowa because he told them
he loved them more,
while that two-timing Hillary has a Michigan suitor on the side.
The nerve of some people!
One could also argue that Obama put Iowa in his pocket with that
pandering stunt,
but that Hillary won Michigan because she saw the bigger picture
and acted on it.
Why would a candidate take his name off the ballot?
The only answer I can come up with is Obama chose to gamble.
Telling Iowa, "You're the one for me,"
helped him there, but to get that date
he had to snub more-than-twice-as-big Michigan and now he
wants a do-over?
Yes, Obama chose to gamble, and now that he's lost, he wants
a do-over.
But my main complaint is with our pro-Obama press - why
can't they just tell the truth?
Why didn't they tell us that Obama, by pandering to Iowa voters,
stupidly perhaps,
screwed up big-time? He might've lost Michigan because
his gamble didn't work.
Michigan has 17 electoral votes - Iowa has 7.
If Obama wanted 7 more than he wanted 17, why shouldn't he get
his wish?
Seems like the Obama campaign wants it both ways but the pro-Obama
press has painted
Obama out to be "another victim of that
awful Hillary's scheming manipulations."
Maybe Hillary's refusal to pander to Iowa was a smart move.
Maybe Hillary's just a better poker player than Obama.
Send e-mail to Bart | Discuss it on The BartCop Forum | Comment on it at the BartBlog
One other thing...
We both know Hillary was not threatening Obama's
life with her RFK comments.
We also know that she was not signaling some kook
to shoot him so she could win.
The pro-Obama press made that up - why?
As the calls for a "unity ticket" grew louder, it's my guess that
the whore media
trumped up this RFK horseshit
to give Obama what he needed to kill the idea of
the unity ticket by giving him the excuse, "How
can I trust her to be my VP
when she openly and publicly and repeatedly
has
called for my assassination?
How do you not see that?
You're being played by the pro-Obama press.
This is the same whore media that screwed Gore, Dean and Kerry
- now you trust them?
Note that I'm not calling you stupid, out of touch,
delusional or any of the other
hundreds of names that Obama people call
the
majority of Democratic
voters
in the United States..
The worst thing I'll say about Obama voters is that it's been
a generation since anyone on TV
or radio has said something good about a Democrat so I can see
where hearing Matthews and
Russert and Dowd and FOX News etc cheer your candidate undoubtably
has a great emotional appeal.
But you know deep in your heart that CNN and MSGOP and the big
networks etc have been
100%
pro-Obama and 100% anti-Hillary and you're being
hustled by
the same team of whores that threw gasoline on the Clinton
impeachment fire which brought us
8 years of the illegal, Fascist Bush bastards and who are
now working for McCain.
When the whore press joins a campaign to spin things for their
favorite (temp) candidate,
that should make you angry.
The same bastards who lied Bush into office are,
for the moment, pro-Obama but those lying
bastards just can't be trusted.
Why can't you see what they are doing to
the 2008 elections?
Scott McClellan said the 'liberal' media
neglected
their watchdog role in the run-up to Iraq,
calling reporters "complicit enablers"
of the Bush's push for war. Katie Couric said she
felt pressure from corporate executives
to cast the war in a positive light.
Even
when they confess, you still don't see it?
Right now, the whore media is neglecting
their watchdog role in this election and reporters
are "complicit enablers" to Obama's
camp. And those sellout bastards some call "journalists"
are feeling pressure from corporate
executives to cast Obama in a positive light while they
sharpen their Obama knives for the general
election so the "straight-talking war hero" can win..
It's right there
in front of you.
They want McCain, his wars, his tax cuts
and his "hands off" policies towards gas prices.
The Republican party and the whore press
(one and the same) want four more years.
How can you not see what they're doing?
If you disagree, I'd like to hear from you.
But if all you have are personal insults, expect the Monkey
Mail graphic.
Remember, you're not supposed to feel strongly about a subject
unless you
can explain yourself - and "Bartcop
is delusional" is not an explanation.
Send e-mail
to Bart | Discuss
it on The BartCop Forum | Comment
on it at the BartBlog