There is not one discussion on media bias in which someone on our side won't quip, "Oh yeah? If the media is anti-McCain, why does he call it "my base"?

Two things must be investigated:

  1. Did McCain really call the media "my base"?, and if so,

  2. When?

We are in campaign 2008. If McCain called the media his base in 2000, I don't think that argument has any bearing on discussion of current media bias.

A baseball player is not necessarily great now because he was great in 2000.
Jack doesn't necessarily like Jill now because he liked her in 2000.

One commenter speculated that John McCain was using the strategy Clinton allegedly used, that is, working the refs in order to gain sympathy. Besides the fact that Clinton did not put a gun to SNL's staff's heads to mock pro-Obama/anti-Clinton coverage, I have this to say:

First of all, Barack Obama received immensely better coverage than Hillary Clinton, just as he is receiving immensely better coverage than John McCain this time around.

Second, John McCain declined to comment when asked whether he thought the media was going a bit too far in its coverage of Barack Obama's trip.

If you want to continue the primary fighting-mode, bring it on. I will gladly debunk your BS, my cultist friends. If you act as if the primaries are over and stop picking on Hillary, I will give you a pass on your fabrications against McCain. In the meantime, allow me to debunk your falsehood:

Howard Kurtz, AP's TV critic David Brauder, and the director of the Project for Excellence in Journalism, among others, and not John McCain, have been complaining about the fawning coverage received by Obama in recent weeks:

See "Kurtz: Media "Covering Obama As If He Were Already President" (July 21, 2008):
http://www.mediabistro.com/tvnewser/poli tics/kurtz_media_covering_obama_as_if_he _were_already_president_89744.asp?c=rss

See, "Is media playing fair in campaign coverage?" (July 20, 2008), where Bauer observes:

The news media have devoted significantly more attention to the Democrat since Hillary Rodham Clinton suspended her campaign and left a two-person contest for the presidency between Obama and Republican John McCain, according to research conducted by the Project for Excellence in Journalism.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080720/ap_e n_tv/ap_on_tv_obama_s_trip

See Tom Rosenstiel, director of the independent Project for Excellence in Journalism, saying,

"No matter how understandable it is given the newness of the candidate and the historical nature of Obama's candidacy, in the end it's probably not fair to McCain,"

.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080720/ap_e n_tv/ap_on_tv_obama_s_trip

The economy is the top issue in Americans' minds right now, and the #1 factor in deciding for whom to vote in November.

Cruel as it may sound, Obama would benefit greatly if gas prices continue to climb to the point that Americans cannot afford it. Unfortunately, said prices have tubled $16 the past week.

As we all know, Americans associate McCain with George W. Bush. The former voted with the latter approximately 90% of the time last year, if I'm not mistaken. Americans also have the false impression that the president of the United States has control over the price of crude, when in fact, this is barely true.

And if oil prices deline, the American voter will believe Bush, and by extension McCain, did it.

You've gotta be kidding me. McCain guesses the dates of Obama's trip to Iraq and many here are going bonkers.

But an Israeli official has just made public the dates when Obama will visit the middle east, a far more incendiary place than Europe, and no one says anything.

http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1003 424.html

I already hear apologist say, "But an official said it! It's different!"

No, it's not different. Why announce the arrival of Obama when not announcing it would make him safer? Don't we all agree on that?

This is not an invitation to vote for or against Cynthia McKinney. I don't even know if she shares your views or not. I also understand the reality that McKinney will not be our next president.
We already know Obama's agenda, and we like it.
Now it's time to get to know a candidate about whom the media says next to nothing:

On war:
# Declares independence from Democratic Party and its war. (Mar 2008)
# Cut funding for wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. (Feb 2008)
# Immediate withdrawal from Iraq & from rest of world. (Jan 2008)
# Introduced articles of impeachment at end of 2006 session. (Dec 2007)
# Voted NO on declaring Iraq part of War on Terror with no exit date. (Jun 2006)
# Voted YES on disallowing the invasion of Kosovo. (May 1999)
# Condemns anti-Muslim bigotry in name of anti-terrorism. (Oct 2001)

On the economy:
    *  We have plenty of money for programs; it's just misallocated. (Jan 2008)
    * Get minorities into home ownership & global marketplace. (Jan 2001)

On Civil Rights:
    *  Keep affirmative action in college admissions. (Feb 2008)
    * Supports gay adoptions. (Feb 2008)
    * Repeal the Patriot Act and end Islamophobia. (Jan 2008)
    * Reparations for former slaves, as promised & never delivered. (Jan 2008)
    * Introduced MLK Records Act, to unseal assassination files. (Dec 2007)
    * Voted NO on making the PATRIOT Act permanent. (Dec 2005)
    * Voted NO on banning gay adoptions in DC. (Jul 1999)
    * Voted NO on ending preferential treatment by race in college admissions. (May 1998)
    * Supports reparations for slavery. (Aug 2001)
    * Ending racial profiling is part of fight for justice. (Jan 2001)
    * Constitutional Amendment for equal rights by gender. (Mar 2001)
    * Require "Privacy Impact Statement" on new federal rules. (Apr 2002)
    * Issue a commemorative postage stamp of Rosa Parks. (Dec 2005)
    * Rated 80% by the HRC, indicating a pro-gay-rights stance. (Dec 2006)
    * Rated 97% by the NAACP, indicating a pro-affirmative-action stance. (Dec 2006)
    * Supported legislation on violence against women & safety. (Jul 1999)
    * Supported funding for women's and disadvantaged businesses. (Jul 1999)

On Health Care:
    *  Supports single-payer universal health care. (Feb 2008)
    * Resources for health needs, pre-natal & post-natal care. (Jan 2008)
    * Take insurance companies out of health-care equation. (Jan 2008)
    * Affordable health care is a matter of national security. (Dec 2007)
    * Against rationing or voucher-based system of insurance. (Dec 2007)
    * Voted NO on denying non-emergency treatment for lack of Medicare co-pay. (Feb 2006)
    * Voted NO on allowing suing HMOs, but under federal rules & limited award. (Aug 2001)
    * Voted NO on subsidizing private insurance for Medicare Rx drug coverage. (Jun 2000)
    * Voted NO on banning physician-assisted suicide. (Oct 1999)
    * Increase funding for AIDS treatment & prevention. (Jan 2001)
    * More funding for Rx benefits, community health, CHIPs. (Jan 2001)
    * MEDS Plan: Cover senior Rx under Medicare. (Jan 2001)
    * Provide mental health services for older Americans. (May 2005)
    * Make health care a right, not a privilege. (Nov 1999)
    * Supported funding women's health needs. (Jul 1999)
    * Supported funding older women's health. (Jul 1999)
    * Supported funding Prenatal and Postpartum Care. (Jul 1999)
    * Supported funding Family and Children's Coverage. (Jul 1999)

On gun control:
    *  Voted NO on prohibiting product misuse lawsuits on gun manufacturers. (Oct 2005)
    * Voted NO on decreasing gun waiting period from 3 days to 1. (Jun 1999)

To view her position on more issues, visit http://www.ontheissues.org/GA/Cynthia_Mc Kinney.htm

It would take 17 years for offshore drilling to affect gas prices  (savings of "a couple pennies per gallon")

Experts agree that offshore drilling will cause no cuts on gas prices for about another 17 years, and when it does, the savings are estimated to be "a couple of pennies" per gallon, according to an EIA expert.

Brookings Institute's David Sandalow notes, ""Drilling offshore to lower oil prices is like walking an extra 20 feet per day to lose weight,"..."It's just not going to make much difference."

If you asked 100 people to choose between red and blue, 55% might answer "blue." This 55% preference for blue over red will be reinforced if several others surveys find a similar result.

But if one day a guy decides to add "green" to the questionnaire, then the numbers for "blue" as well  as "red" would doubtless decrease. Would this scenario mean that blue (or red) is losing ground as a color in terms of popularity? Absolutely not.

But this is what Rasmussen wants you to believe, only instead of colors he is stretching the truth on congressional approval numbers. Such approval rating is now in the "single digits", he claims. Matt Drudge touted the new poll in his website yesterday; but by not stressing the significant difference between this and all other congressional polls conducted by other polling firms, which place the approval in the mid-20's, the careless Drudge and the conservative Rasmussen may be leading many too believe that congress has experienced a sudden, sharp, recent drop in popularity.

The section of Obama's website titled "Bringing Our Troops Home" reads thusly:

Obama will immediately begin to remove our troops from Iraq. He will remove one to two combat brigades each month, and have all of our combat brigades out of Iraq within 16 months. Obama will make it clear that we will not build any permanent bases in Iraq. He will keep some troops in Iraq to protect our embassy and diplomats; if al Qaeda attempts to build a base within Iraq, he will keep troops in Iraq or elsewhere in the region to carry out targeted strikes on al Qaeda.

Why is it important to highlight the keyword "will"? Simple logic.

If it were true that Obama had always been willing to and open about consulting with generals on the ground before taking a stance on Iraq, then he would have used the word "might", since it would be dishonest to promise immediate withdrawal without first asking said commanders.

I "might" remove our troops". I "might" remove 1 or 2 brigates, etc. Why? Because if it all depends on the commanders on the field, then nothing "will" happen for sure yet.

One friend tries to prove to me that barackobama.com does cite an instance where Obama speaks about consulting with these chiefs, but this is false, as I explain below:

Barack Obama would immediately begin redeploying American troops from Iraq. The withdrawal would be strategic and phased, directed by military commanders on the ground and done in consultation with the Iraqi government.

This quote says NOTHING about consulting with military commanders. It simply states the obvious fact that the immediate redeployment would be directed by those who are paid to direct.

There is a big difference between telling someone to direct, and consulting with that person about the best course of action.

It would not be the same, for instance, for George W. Bush to ask Donald Rumsfeld to direct torture against terrorism suspect, as opposed to consulting with Rumsfeld, who may or may not approve of the action.

Figuring this out is no brain surgery. In the primaries, liberals are the main target. During general election season, moderates and some conservatives are the price, as they constitute a large segment of voters. Obama, a typical politician, has acted accordingly.