Why aren't McCain's gaffes getting much coverage?

Yeah, actually, it is typical of this Yawn inducing poster. It is no surprise that he would go to a extremely right wing website to determine that McCain hasn’t received as many minutes (doesn’t say whether it was good or bad) as Obama.

Of course, this is the actual opening from that crappy blog:

Yup, that was McCain “showcasing his Commander-in-Chief” chops when he had no fucking idea about the Anbar awakening.

Sorry, but that is just pathetic.

You mean when you just heard someone on Rush Limbaugh's show making the absurd claim.

 

Absolutely they are. It's a much better story than someone who has been around as long as McCain has.

I understand it's the better story, but let's not pretend there is no bias here.

 

You can joke about the angry "LIBERAL MEDIA!" cries, but this is a perfect example of how conservatives can dictate news coverage. News organizations don't want to be accused of bias, which people scream about constantly, and so legitimate issues that might make a conservative candidate look bad get downplayed and buried. Eric Alterman wrote an entire book about the phenomenon.

 

The guy looks like he is undergoing a Reagan deterioration in front of our eyes.

 

From the Chicago Tribune...

• Marking the anniversary of the March 1965 "Bloody Sunday" in Selma, Ala., Obama, speaking at a church, said his parents got together "because of what happened in Selma." Obama was born in 1961.

• Obama told Larry King on CNN -- asked about that anti-Hillary Rodham Clinton YouTube ad, a doctored version of a spot created for Apple computers -- "We don't have the technical capacity to create something like that."

Obama did not know what he was talking about. Any professional media consultant can manipulate images on video. Turns out the creator -- unmasked last week as a political operative who worked for a firm overseeing the technical side of Obama's Web site -- made it at home on a Mac.

• Obama, asked if homosexuality was immoral, in the wake of comments by Joint Chiefs of Staff chairman Gen. Peter Pace, sidestepped the question. After pressure from gay groups, Obama issued a statement stating he did not agree with Pace "that homosexuality is immoral."


Cynicism is like terrorism?
• One of Obama's stump lines is that the biggest obstacle he fights is not any of his rivals, it is cynicism. He used a variation of it during a reception he hosted at a conference here sponsored by AIPAC, the American Israel Public Affairs Committee. Displaying a tin ear, Obama said that one of the enemies is not "just terrorists" or "just Hezbollah" or "just Hamas" -- "it's also cynicism."
• The Tribune dug this up: Obama, in his memoir, Dreams of My Father, writes of a story in Life magazine that influenced him -- about a black man trying to bleach his skin white. No such article could be found in Life or Ebony.


Insider or outsider?
• Another Obama stump line -- he said it again Tuesday morning to the Communications Workers of America here -- is that "I've been long enough in Washington to know that Washington needs to change." He is running against Washington yet his campaign is populated with political professionals who are Washington insiders.

• Obama's embrace of some rhetoric used by rival John Edwards is getting attention. Edwards, in a 2003 speech made for his first presidential run said, "I've spent enough time in Washington to know how much we need to change Washington."

Bill Burton, an Obama spokesman, said in reaction to the Obama stumbles: "If there are people looking for a candidate running to be the darling of the Washington insider crowd, this campaign is not for them. We are encouraged by the growing, unflinching support of Americans who believe we can transform our country by changing our politics."

 

Usually, Mizzou, it's customary to provide a link if you steal something off the Interwebs.

Also, much of that stuff absolutely got press coverage, so what's your point?

Oh, I know. You don't have one. As usual.

 

Read the whole ABC blog:

"I am not persuaded that 20,000 additional troops in Iraq is going to solve the sectarian violence" in Iraq, Sen. Barack Obama, D-Illinois, said in January 2007. "In fact, I think it will do the reverse."

In Baghdad yesterday, after a day spent witnessing the reduction in violence in Iraq, Obama was asked by ABC News' Terry Moran if he was wrong..

"Here is what I will say," Obama said, "I think that, I did not anticipate, and I think that this is a fair characterization, the convergence of not only the surge but the Sunni awakening in which a whole host of Sunni tribal leaders decided that they had had enough with Al Qaeda, in the Shii’a community the militias standing down to some degrees. So what you had is a combination of political factors inside of Iraq that then came right at the same time as terrific work by our troops. Had those political factors not occurred, I think that my assessment would have been correct."

If you had to do it over again, Moran asked, knowing what you know now, would you support the surge?

"No," Obama said. "These kinds of hypotheticals are very difficult. Hindsight is 20/20. But I think that what I am absolutely convinced of is at that time we had to change the political debate because the view of the Bush administration at that time was one that I just disagreed with and one that I continue to disagree with is to look narrowly at Iraq and not focus on these broader issues."

 

Concentrating heavily on McCain's gaffes would be like concentrating heavily on Cumberland's run defense in the third quarter versus Georgia Tech. After a certain point, it doesn't matter all that much. The vote percentage in November might not reflect it, but McCain's about to endure a Dole-sized ass kicking in the electoral college.

 

You mean like this ...

 

The media also never fully vetted McCain's ties to Phil Gramm, which are much more scandalous than anything they can come up with on Jeremiah Wright.

 

And this proves that the media is bias towards Obama... how?