Incidentally, with all the clamor tonight about the Clinton's $100 million income, I haven't heard one MSM word about McCain's rich wife and his tax returns...

I think the last time I saw a Presidential candidate get a free pass like this from the media was... well, the last Republican candidate, GW Bush. I begin to see a pattern.

Really, it's ridiculous how such a large swath of the media is rushing to defend McCain. The only reason I can think of is that they're trying to make sure they're not perceived as "liberal". 

That is exactly it fawltylogic. Decades of social intimidation by conservatives with their letter writng campaigns have made journalists apprehensive over even sneezing in the direction of a Republican.

That grip of intimidation on the media is slipping as the conservative agenda has proven to be fraudulent, corrupt and just plain bad for most Americans.

These journalists have entrenched habits, it's going to take awhile to shake down the conservative bias in media.

The mainstream media is NOT liberal, contrary to perception. We now have 5 companies that control >80% of the channels on your television. And these 5 companies, of course, are owned by Wall Street investors since they all have publicly traded stock. I worked on Wall Street for many years, and Wall Street despises Democrats since they generally oppose tax cuts for the rich and big corporations. Note how the media are ALWAYS quick to jump on Clinton or Obama, but then give McCain a pass using a plethora of excuses (ex: that he's a "war hero", etc. btw wasn't John Kerry a war hero also but they let the Swiftboat Veterans destroy his military record?hmmmm....) Check out this table here on media ownership: http://www.mediachannel.org/ownership/chart.shtml

There is one area regarding McCain where I'd like to see MMFA and critics of McCain shift their focus; His reluctance to give an exact date for withdrawal from Iraq doesn't bother me, and I think it's unfair to say that his options are agreeing to 100 years or settiing a specific timetable.No candidate could be expected to say exactly how long it would take to withdraw starting today, let alone next year.

What bothers me more in the conservatives view of the war is the ridiculous equating of withdrawal and surrender.It was bad enough when this childlike thinking was being screeched out by the bottom rung mouthpieces like Sean Hannity, but to hear a potential presidential candidate seriously pitching the idea that we can surrender to some vaguely defined entity is an insult to the American public.

I'm told that setting a withdrawal date will allow the enemy to fight us, knowing that they'll "win" soon.  But the enemy is fighting us anyway, and they "won" years ago.

I think McCain will lose by 5% in November, but if he doesn't lose by 15%, the American people are unfit for self-governance.  Everything out of a republican's mouth is so easy to see through.

That's a good point.

I'm still miffed that everyone refers to the occupation of Iraq as a war. 

not just "a war" but "THE global war on terrorism". Sounds terrific.

I would give a candidate a pass for not giving an exact date. Once president we DO need to set a date. The government in Iraq cannot really get any legitimacy, that is the legitimacy derived from the will and approval of the people, until they can claim they are not puppets and that the Americans are LEAVING. No real political progress is going to be made until that happens.  Until then we will remain the elephant in the room. So a date is a good idea but I understand a new president needs to get with advisors look at the intelligence and do what it takes to be up to speed before setting such a date. A date NEEDS to be set.

A war whose front is everywhere. No identifible enemy uniform. Eventually, in some cases currently, almost everyone is suspect of? Not being rich, not being 100% behind a brutal attitude against those who are not.

Mutal altruism and compasion is for suckers/targets and fools. 

Color me foolish. %!

memo to Jamison Foser:

Read the Columbia Journalism Review's article on the topic.  You might just learn something.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Just kidding, I don't think you'll ever learn anything!

You forgot to point out that you are "an actual Obama supporter".

Notanothermoron. YOU should read an elementary book on logic. I KNOW you wont learn anything since you are WAY too stupid but for a month or so, that is if the book has more than two pages, you will carry around a book that will give people the impression you MIGHT.

 I think his book is posted on the blank space he likes to leave between his anti-Obama messages and his "go Obama" slogan. 

As Fawlty (basil?) pointed out, he left the slogan out this time:  In his eagerness to write something snarky he omitted his punchline.

And yet it hangs in the air.

 -- he refuses to set a date by which the United States will stop fighting in Iraq, but when critics accuse him of being willing to continue fighting in Iraq for 100 years, he and his campaign reject that. Well, which is it? If he refuses to set a date by which we will stop fighting, then it is fair to say he's willing to keep fighting for 100 years. And if he isn't willing to keep fighting for 100 years, then he doesn't really refuse to set a date by which we must stop fighting. -- foser

Gawd o'mighty...this is one of the most shining examples of mmfa's pedantic wordsmithing...let me help you out Jamison...

...if Foser refuses to set a date by which he will stop writing silly stories, then when critics accuse him of being willing to continue to write silly stories for 100 years, he rejects that. If he refuses to set a date by which he will stop writing silly stories, then it is fair to say that he's willing to keep writing silly stories for 100 years. And if he isn't willing to keep writing silly stories for 100 years, then he doesn't really refuse to set a date by which he will stop writing silly stories.

Your whole premise is ridiculous because Foser doesn't write silly stories.

Wesley, please point us to your web site so we can read your silly stories.

wesley, your whole analogy fell flatter than a pancake.  in fact, calling it an analogy is giving you way too much credit. 

ted turner is right the left has already turned to cannabalism

This piece is too convoluted.