digg

Join DiggAbout

Discover the best of the web!
Learn more about Digg by taking the tour.

See the original image at huffingtonpost.com

Bob Cesca: Have You Left No Sense Of Decency?

huffingtonpost.com — The media is responsible for a lot of this...

Bury
show profanity settings
expand all
  • kdawg1012, on 04/30/2008, -28/+242"If the corporate media had been as diligent about watchdogging President Bush as they have been about watchdogging Reverend Wright, it's very likely we wouldn't have invaded Iraq."
    Absolutely true!
    • p0s3r, on 04/30/2008, -55/+14I wonder what magical force the "corporate media" employed to force Obama, his wife and his kids to sit in that mans church for 20 years?
      • Binxy, on 04/30/2008, -6/+23I doesn't "contaminate" a person to listen to people say things they disagree with. Also, you can still admire someone that holds some opinions that you yourself don't hold. I don't agree with everything MY preacher says and does and yet I still go to church. Obama and his family going to that church for 20 years means nothing except that they have been seeking to worship God the best way they know for 20 years, a fact I applaud.
        • Kangalanatolian, on 04/30/2008, -29/+2Your preacher isn't just someone you like. Church defines your belief system, and as the medias favorite racist says: "Racism is a defect of the Heart" -- Ron Paul
          But back to the corporate media. Obama is a choice that should not have been made. It is sad because Hillary appears to be a gangster (see YOUtube: The Clinton Chronicles - 9 part PBS special) The media manipulates not so much by lying as timing of the coverage, the spin and the blackout. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vTb0lWTE-C8
      • WasabiBomb, on 04/30/2008, -2/+20I wonder what magical force makes you think that investigating a potential candidate's pastor is more important than making sure we're going to war for the right reasons.
        • TheSwashbuckler, on 04/30/2008, -16/+4Ah, and what kind of judgement does a candidate have to call a person their "mentor and spiritual advisor" for twenty years and to only THEN find out the kind of person he is?

          Obama claims he has the "Judgement to Lead" and likes to cite the Iraq war as an example. Yet, that's only one judgement. When it came to Rev. Wright it appears that Obama has made many MISJUDGEMENTS. And that damn sure is relevant when picking the next President of the United States.
          • WasabiBomb, on 04/30/2008, -3/+10Again, how is this MORE important than investigating a President who lied to the public to get us into an unnecessary war? How is it more important than the fact that an administration that has not only driven thousands into debt, but also made it hard for them to recover from that debt? How is it more important than than the fact that the Republican administration has racked up the largest debt in the history of the US? How is it more important than Bush's views on torture, and habeas corpus, and due process?
            It's not, and anyone with half a conscience can see that. The biggest misjudgment was when Bush was elected, TWICE, to an office that he's dishonored and stained.

            I don't give a flying ***** who Obama's pastor was, or what he's said. I care about keeping this country running. Republicans had unfettered power these last two election cycles, and they BLEW IT. It's clear that they can't be trusted to run a government.
          • StarlessKnight, on 04/30/2008, -2/+10George W. "Bankruptcy" Bush was elected as President twice. What EXACTLY about "bankruptcy" constitutes judgment that he should have been elected?

            Hillary R. "Misspoke" Clinton "mistakenly" repeated the Bosnian sniper fire story several times and said she was simply tired. What, exactly, about that constitutes judgment? Judgment expecting the American Public wouldn't learn about her blatant twisting of factual events that she, herself, experienced and could have easily (as in easier than stealing candy from a baby) verified before she started *repeating* her "story?"

            John "I've been eagerly anticipating Hagee's endorsement" McCain's judgment concerning a man that is, evidently, well-known for being in the "intellectual" company of such lovely "philosophers" as Pat Robertson ("That hurricane..." "That Earthquake..." "That tornado..." "I call upon the Almighty Lord to SMITE the evil gays")?

            Interesting how not one of them is perfect. Strange how only one of them is getting their story plastered across multiple news channels for several hours at a time as though they're the only one with ANY questionable "judgment" at all.
      • ngmcs8203, on 04/30/2008, -2/+7And what magical force invited Wright to council the Clinton's when they were having their "marital differences"?
        • p0s3r, on 05/01/2008, -0/+1What magical force makes that relevant to the discussion at hand?
      • alk509, on 04/30/2008, -2/+4I wonder what magical force forced McCain to hire Richard Quinn, a known white supremacist, as one of his advisors since 2000...
      • br0ck, on 04/30/2008, -1/+6Wright himself said that Obama followed his own path and beliefs and that he was not Obama's mentor. "I talked about how rare it was to meet a man whose Christianity was not just “in word only.” I talked about Barack being a person who lived his faith and did not argue his faith. I talked about Barack as a person who did not draw doctrinal lines in the sand nor consign other people to hell if they did not believe what he believed. Out of a two-hour conversation with you about Barack’s spiritual journey and my protesting to you that I had not shaped him nor formed him, that I had not mentored him or made him the man he was, even though I would love to take that credit" Jeremiah A. Wright , letter to NYT, 3/11//07 http://thepage.time.com/text-of-letter-from-wright ...
    • zelduh, on 04/30/2008, -11/+9What's gonna be our excuse when Pinky & the Brain nuke Iran? Are ya watching?
    • RepubOperative, on 04/30/2008, -20/+7Barack Obama said, "I can no more disown him than I can disown the black community. I can no more disown him than I can my white grandmother - a woman who helped raise me, a woman who sacrificed again and again for me, a woman who loves me as much as she loves anything in this world, but a woman who once confessed her fear of black men who passed by her on the street, and who on more than one occasion has uttered racial or ethnic stereotypes that made me cringe."

      From the Moyers interview, Reverened Wright said, "It went down very simply. He's a politician, I'm a pastor. We speak to two different audiences. And he says what he has to say as a politician. I say what I have to say as a pastor. Those are two different worlds. I do what I do. He does what politicians do. So that what happened in Philadelphia where he had to respond to the sound bytes, he responded as a politician. But he did not disown me because I'm a pastor."
      • johnhummel, on 04/30/2008, -3/+14And - what? You put up two quotes. OK - so we have two guys. One saying "I'm going to be loyal to a man who helped bring me to Jesus, even if his views of the world I now find outdated."

        The other man stabbing him in the back saying "Well, you know, he's a politician. So - what do you expect?"

        Am I missing something, or are you posting this as a "Hah - he disowned him! Hahahaha!"

        My father in law once told me "John, your kids are very well behaved. Unlike your sister-in-law, who once brought home a ***** to get me pissed off."

        I told him I didn't want to hear that language, especially around my children. Now, I don't disown the man - he came from another time, a place where that language and attitudes were normal. But he's still family, and he's mostly a good guy. But if he had kept talking like that around my children, you bet I'd stop inviting him over, and start "disowning" him.

        Obama didn't throw his former pastor under the bus - he pointed out where he was wrong, pointed out the good he had done, then said "OK - let's talk about real issues so we can fix the problems we still have." Only after his former pastor finally kept on saying the things that bothered people did he say "OK - enough. I defended you, I gave you the benefit of the doubt. Now, you're on your own. Have fun."
        • TheSwashbuckler, on 04/30/2008, -9/+3"Obama didn't throw his former pastor under the bus"

          True. Obama pulled him under the bus where Wright had already thrown Obama...
        • jabberwolf, on 04/30/2008, -10/+4Yes you're are missing a point BIG TIME.
          Everyone is trying to see how moderate, right wing (of course not), or leftist Obama is.

          Seeing as Obama chose, yes CHOSE this church to go to, and has Wright as his preacher for 20 years, it gives us some idea of who Obama is. When Wright is like this, and Obama chose (at first) to excuse him... then now when it's not politically beneficial for him, excuse him, that speaks volumes!

          Ok lets flip this around, if another WHITE candidate had a KKK preacher for 20 years, would YOU chose that candidate? Even if the candidate later says, he finally disowns him and is "outraged and saddened" ? For 20 years would you believe that the candidate wasn't a radical conservative white racist??

          Sorry but the flip side is with Obama. People now know he's probably a leftist radical, and maybe biased in favor of "blacks", candidate.
          Why is being biased in favor of "blacks" bad? That is the definition of racism, biased by race. And as president you have MANY races you must represent equally!!
          • hipnerd, on 04/30/2008, -0/+6I don't think there is any moral equivalence between Wright and the KKK. He has some views I disagree with and feel are misguided, but nothing that makes me think he is a hateful human being. He thinks the government created AIDS and says "God Damn America" occasionally.

            Well, he grew up while black men were still being lynched for looking at a white woman the wrong way while the rest of the country remained silent. He saw National Guard troop sic dogs on black men for the crime of asking for equality under the law. He saw how our government used black men as a lab rats, letting them wither away from syphilis while intentionally withholding treatment for more than 30 years.

            After all that, he volunteered to serve his country as a Marine during the Vietnam War, a war that Dick Cheney wrangle five separate deferments to avoid; a war that George Bush Sr. pulled strings to make sure that his privileged son did not have to serve in (or learn lessons from); a war that ultimately proved as useless and futile as the war we are pursuing now.

            That's the world that Reverend Wright saw growing up. And while I cannot agree with his current beliefs, it is not difficult for me to understand how -- after all he had seen as a young man -- Wright 's perception of how our government treats blacks may have been permanently colored for the worse.
      • WasabiBomb, on 04/30/2008, -4/+7So is this more important than the fact that the President lied to get us into war? I don't think so. You Republicans screwed up the last two elections- now it's time to pay the bill.
        • jabberwolf, on 04/30/2008, -11/+4Not so much NO, because we had a war with IRAQ in 1991 and Saddam consistently violated the surrender treaty. We had EVERY right to go in.
          Not to mention the SANCTIONS that peace lovers said would work, wound up killing off about 400,000 people.

          So YOU sir are responsible for the genocide, not the Republicans.
      • FredFredrickson, on 04/30/2008, -2/+6We're not trying to nominate Rev. Wright to the presidency, we're trying to nominate Barack Obama. Get it right, retard.
    • lomein987, on 04/30/2008, -17/+2That statement should be reworded...and read:

      "If the corporate media had been as diligent about watchdogging Obama as they have been about watchdogging President Bush, it's very likely that Obama wouldnt be the nominee and McCain wouldnt win in 08."

      isnt this stuff supposed to run its course BEFORE you nominate a Presidential Candidate???

      yeah, sorry, im just clinging to my guns.
      • 47f0, on 04/30/2008, -0/+1"yeah, sorry, im just clinging to my guns."

        And shooting yourself in the foot. Then putting your foot in your mouth.
        As usual.
    • lava, on 04/30/2008, -1/+8I don't really care much for bashing "Mainstream Media", but I thought that Obama's press conference would be the biggest news of the day. I expected it to be the main headline across CNN, MSNBC, etc, but no. What happened?
      • WoollyMittens, on 04/30/2008, -0/+5I don't know. Did Britney Spears slip a tit again or something else that's regarded as more important.
    • jamlarso, on 04/30/2008, -2/+11as a graduating Journalism student who is embarrassed to be joining the same field as these hacks, i couldn't agree more. it blows my mind how inept the msm can be at times. the next generation of journalists that are graduating now are well equip to work online and buck this broken system. we scare the old boys at the top and they should be scared. we are hungry and i predict a power shift in the media back to the people in the next decade... maybe, if my peers (and i) get off our asses.

      dugg for the awesome lead
      • Vet4Peace, on 05/01/2008, -0/+2Good luck sir.
        Seriously, we need a real media. Not this hacktacular crap we've got now...
      • diggbreath, on 05/02/2008, -0/+1Amen! It amazes me to think it never occurred to all these mainstream media people that Wright may have orchestrated his appearances this week with the Obama camp, so that Obama would have the opportunity to more vehemently denounce Wright than was done prior to his dreadful Pennsylvania showing. Wright was indeed a "caricature" of himself in his performances before the media, as Obama himself put it. ;-)
    • dafragsta, on 04/30/2008, -0/+2So what you are saying is that a Fox News is watching the chicken house?
    • purplelantern, on 04/30/2008, -1/+10Leave! OBAMA! ALONE!!!
      Why can't you Leave! OBAMA! ALONE!!!
    • dafunkmonster, on 04/30/2008, -1/+3It's also very likely that the Clinton's could have been indicted on charges of conspiracy to commit murder, but then again, nobody cared about watchdogging anything but Bill's pants.
    • vbullinger, on 05/01/2008, -1/+1Also, 9/11 wouldn't have happened: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UGtOFudmHG8
    • streak, on 05/01/2008, -0/+2Bzzzt! The media is being just as gullible now as they were during the prelude to Iraq. After losing Pennsylvania because he failed to denounce Wright strongly enough, the whole Wright/Obama business of the past 2 days has been orchestrated by the Obama campaign, in order to provide an opportunity for Obama to more strongly denounce Wright. Gosh, oh, golly, who now would believe Obama was ever closely associated with Wright and this church? I've never seen such over-acting at "serious" media events as Wright. Nor such bald-faced lying as Obama the day after.
  • benintn, on 04/30/2008, -23/+154We're more interested in talking about Jeremiah Wright than the fact that over 100,000 innocent Iraqi civilians have died in the war. This is so ugly, it's not even funny.
    • Dragular, on 04/30/2008, -28/+3Civilians have died in an urban war? That's news! Presidential candidate lists a bigot nutjob as a person he finds inspiring? Nah, that's not even interesting.

      I wonder what would happen if Clinton or McCainsaid they consider Fred Phelps inspiring?
      • theaceoffire, on 04/30/2008, -3/+15An urban war that everyone now admits had nothing to do with the CAUSE of the war.
        • lomein987, on 04/30/2008, -13/+0what the heck does that mean?
          • alk509, on 04/30/2008, -0/+3Finishing the first grade first, going on Digg second.
        • Dragular, on 04/30/2008, -8/+2OK. Everyone admits it. No sense in putting it out there, because we all admit it. Now what?
          • theaceoffire, on 04/30/2008, -0/+1I *want* to go find out if Bush knew before we invaded that Iraq was pointless.
            If he did, I *want* to hold him accountable for lying to the Nation.
            Some sort of accountability would be nice. Even just a "Oops, sorry".
      • elamr, on 04/30/2008, -0/+3Its hard to give Neocons the benefit of the doubt when they say stuff like that, Dragular.
    • Binxy, on 04/30/2008, -3/+31McCain has already gladly accepted the endorsement of Rev. Hagee who claimed Katrina hit New Orleans because of excessive sin and a Gay Pride Parade. As well he (McCain) has called Rev. Ron Parsley a spiritual guide -- Parsley is another religious charlatan who believes you can "pray away the gay". So, to answer your question: what we have learned is it's news if a Democrat lists a "nutjob bigot" as someone who they find inspiring and is not news if a Republican candidate does the same.
      • j0ew00ds, on 04/30/2008, -12/+2I agree with you up until your last statement. Anyone paying attention sees McCain's catering to those reverends as simple politicking. He didn't attend their churches for 20 years.
        • KathrynMac, on 04/30/2008, -2/+14So you're saying as long as McCain is just lying to get elected (simple politicking), that's good. But, trying to find Christ in the largest African American church in Chicago is bad? Niiiice.
        • WasabiBomb, on 04/30/2008, -2/+9And yet, given all the flak Obama's drawing due to Wright, McCain hasn't distanced himself from Hagee. That's hypocrisy in action, right there.
        • dafragsta, on 04/30/2008, -0/+2Anyone who caters to people arbitrarily for votes is a *****. I mean they suck pole to get what they want. They are also disingenuous and they shouldn't be elected to office.
        • j0ew00ds, on 05/01/2008, -1/+1Don't misconstrue my comments above as support for McCain's actions. Simply put, the reason this is worth all the talk is someone's past is an indication of their future. Obama is condemned for this is because he followed the man for 20 years. McCain, while currently soaking cork with the Christian Right, hasn't done something that cements his beliefs as much as that.
      • Dragular, on 04/30/2008, -5/+2Accepting someone's endorsement and saying they're *A* spiritual advisor is different from saying "This man is a friend and I am inspired by him" or listening to them blather on for twenty years.

        I don't even understand why you're arguing, even your Messiah proclaims the guy's a whackjob now.
        • MadKennyP, on 05/01/2008, -0/+1Video or it didn't happen. (your criterion, not mine)
      • crocodilexp, on 04/30/2008, -1/+2Wait... republicans are *supposed* to be in cahoots with religious zealot nutcases. With their most fervent voters, it's an advantage, not a flaw.
    • maybach, on 04/30/2008, -7/+6Closer to one million, actually. Fact.
      • IslandDog, on 04/30/2008, -0/+2Fact from where?
        • obamayomama, on 04/30/2008, -1/+0'Cause he says so...so there! Na na na na na naa
        • Monk22, on 04/30/2008, -2/+1liberal land where a "poll" somehow becomes fact
        • mrraven200, on 04/30/2008, -2/+8John Hopkins University School of Public in an extensive on the ground empirical survey:
          "But the major U.S. press rarely considers a most basic measure of that impact: how many Iraqis have been killed. When they do mention the toll, they consistently ignore or malign two major statistical studies, the first conducted by the Johns Hopkins School of Public Health and published in the prestigious British medical journal the Lancet (10/11/06), and the other released by the British polling firm Opinion Research Business (9/07). Both indicate that over a million Iraqis have now been killed. Yet an Associated Press poll in February (2/24/07) that asked Americans how many Iraqis have died received a median response of less than 10,000.

          The Johns Hopkins study estimated that, as of July 2006, 655,000 Iraqis had been killed, about 600,000 of them violently and at least 30 percent directly by coalition forces. It updated an earlier study (Lancet, 10/29/04) that estimated that 100,000 Iraqis had died during the first year of the war. An extrapolation of the Johns Hopkins estimate of violent deaths done by Just Foreign Policy (9/18/07) currently stands at over 1.1 million.

          Both Johns Hopkins estimates of Iraqi deaths have been largely ignored by the U.S. media, as FAIR has noted (FAIR Action Alert, 3/21/05, 3/21/07; FAIR Media Advisory, 12/16/05)."

          http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=3321

          See also:

          http://www.presstv.ir/detail.aspx?id=19326§ion ...
          http://www.jhsph.edu/publichealthnews/press_releas ...

          Put that in your neo-con pipe of lies and smoke it!


          • obamayomama, on 05/01/2008, -0/+0That's just a piece of spin. Of course epidology is a science, but that doesn't mean it's always accurate. It's a very triclky task that can easily get it very wrong. A census of all deaths is not a science but would be far more accurate than this survey.

            The reason you don't want to believe it is because this survey is - as we all know - the final nail in the coffin of the pro-war argument. If "we" have killed at a higher rate than Saddam at his worst, what the ***** was it all for? First of all, "we" are not responsible for any of the killing. Even the people we have killed, 31% of this total, are dead due to the need for counter insurgency operations which the terrorists are responsible for. Many of those will have been combatants, and the rest were directly killed by the terrorists. We're the guys trying to stop the killing. We're in a war time situation here so obviously the death rates aren't comparable to under Saddam peace time. You'd have to compare it with the death rates during desert storm and the Iran Iraq war. When we look at everyone scrambling around trying to think of what we can do about North Korea at the moment - the answer being nothing - the idea of taking out Saddam while his regime was still weak has never been stronger.
    • joeanon, on 04/30/2008, -1/+4The loss of Constitutional rights is actually the bigger deal. Wars happen, people die.

      Constitution's don't just happen and they rarely revert back to greater freedom.

      The Iraqi's will forgive us in time. The Constitution will not and we can never change the fact that we BETRAYED our fundamental human rights and individual privacy's.

      The Iraq war is NOTHING compared to the tyranny that OWNED this world before the US
      SET THE PRECEDENT of freedom.

      And you people, in your righteousness are caught up on war victims, most of which are deaths caused by Iraqi's against Iraqi's.

      There was really no way to avoid the eventual release of the bottled up racial tensions that were oppressed under a torturous dictators rule... one we put into office no less.

      So, SURE the Iraq war is a nice trendy way to beat on the GOP, but it really shows most of you are missing the big picture.

      The Iraq war is a symptom, not the problem. Look deeper. We are following a pattern of mistakes, not simply one blundering administration.
      • Terasiel, on 04/30/2008, -3/+2"The Iraq war is NOTHING compared to the tyranny that OWNED this world before the US SET THE PRECEDENT of freedom. " Somebody studies world history in an American High School. Let me just go talk to a great deal of European countries that were apparently dictatorships until 1776 when America defeated every villain every born.
        • obamayomama, on 05/01/2008, -0/+0Actually, most were monarchies- but yeah, basically the same thing.
    • negative3, on 05/01/2008, -3/+2Uh, me.

      Sorry but when your minister of 20 years is good friends with a black writer(Thomas Cone) that declares white people "unevolved" and has praised black people that "snap" and go on a rampage killing white people, I find that a little disconcerting.

      Obama spent 4 or 6 years of his youth at a radical Muslim school in Indonesia. Both his dad and step dad were radical anti white Muslims (yet his mom is white... of course). I find that a little disconcerting.

      The list goes on (and on and on...). But when your minister of 20 years thinks I'm unevolved because I'm white, and would praise a black person for killing me because I'm white... I have some problems with that. I don't give a ***** about his great view on healthcare or the fact that he mentioned net neutrality, I won't vote for someone that thinks I'm unevolved and should die because I'm white. The fact that so many diggers love this guy is proof that digg is composed of irrational pussies.
      • sonstone, on 05/01/2008, -1/+2Do some research, this is all lies. Stop listening to your crazy ass right wing radio.
        • obamayomama, on 05/01/2008, -1/+0Way to back it up with not even one fact dude.
          • sonstone, on 05/01/2008, -0/+1There is this concept that most modern people abide by called "presumption of innocence". The idea is that when someone makes insane accusations about an individual, the burden of proof is on the accuser.
      • Bronowyn, on 05/01/2008, -0/+1Hey Negative3. I've done some reading about this (as I do like doing some candidate research), and from what I understand the school Obama attended in Indonesia was a Catholic one. I haven't heard the other thing you mentioned, so I'm really disregarding it, as right now Obama has distanced himself due to the comments Wright continues to make. Though, I am wondering how you feel about McCain's spiritual adviser. Do you think standing by someone who claimed God created natural disasters to wipe out sinners is a good person to be allied with?
    • Bronowyn, on 05/01/2008, -0/+0I would LOVE to hear more about the issues. Although, until there's a decided candidate from BOTH sides, I think we are stuck for now.
  • Todash19, on 04/30/2008, -37/+20“Ron Paul is one of the outstanding leaders fighting for a stronger national defense. As a former Air Force officer, he knows well the needs of our armed forces, and he always puts them first. We need to keep him fighting for our country.” –Ronald Reagan

    "The most honest man in Congress." --Senator John McCain
    • scallon, on 04/30/2008, -20/+20What the ***** does that have to do with this post? Ron Paul is no longer a factor in this race, let it go.
      • rozzlapeed, on 04/30/2008, -8/+20First, RTFA. Take special notice of the Youtube clip in the middle of the page, followed by a series of quotes, all referring to Ron Paul. Also, it may be good for you to pay attention to just how much of an effect Ron Paul supporters are still having in the Republican primary. If Obama still manages to win the general election after the Wright controversy, it will likely be thanks, in large part, to Ron Paul supporters doing everything they can to repeat what happened in Nevada over the weekend in order to spoil McCain's campaign.
      • smacksaw, on 04/30/2008, -2/+4If you simply want to talk in forums, why are you on a website dedicated to links to actual information?

        Why not just go to some forum somewhere and start a thread that references nothing.

        I feel guilty if a comment in a thread that I already read the article elsewhere...especially if it's a dupe, I just try to bury it as such. Imagine how much better of a place Digg would be if people actually read the articles they're commenting on.
  • cheezeme, on 04/30/2008, -77/+21Ok, yesterday Reverend Wright was brilliant to the Obama Turds, best speeches they ever heard. Now Obama throughs him under the bus and its great, because its what Obama needs to do. Obama is completely untrustworthy. You seriously want to talk about gas prices, the war in iraq, housing, healthcare, find a serious candidate and maybe we can. You Obama crazies are why we never have serious political discussions.
    • damnitkitty, on 04/30/2008, -6/+12throws*
      it's*
      • wrongonce, on 04/30/2008, -4/+15To be fair, the rest of it wasn't that great either.
        • BeforeSputnik, on 04/30/2008, -2/+5lol. i know my comment is unnecessary but i had to acknowledge this with more than a digg.
    • buhbyebot, on 04/30/2008, -11/+2"Who own the chiefs?"

      Ownz
      Ownz

      http://www.slap-shot.com/DenisOwns.mp3

      BTW: You're an idiot.
    • dinot, on 04/30/2008, -3/+15You believe Obama is a anti-American Muslim terrist, so your opinions are very important to me. I would like to subscribe to your newsletter.
    • Clydesdale, on 04/30/2008, -4/+10Buried as sh*t.
    • mickman17, on 04/30/2008, -2/+7digging you down for copying and pasting your comment from the other Obama article

      Jackass
    • wufoo, on 04/30/2008, -0/+2Are you from ABC?
    • freeth1nker, on 05/01/2008, -0/+1Obama defended him in his initial speech about the issue of race. What did Wright do? He went on a self-whoring media tour, calling Obama a "typical politician" and pretty much threw Obama under the bus (you're bass ackwards). Obama responded accordingly.
      • lomein987, on 05/01/2008, -0/+0Makes you wonder what the hell Obama thought he was doing allowing this guy to be such a part of his personal life - and the leader of his church no??? Bad Bad Judgement. 20 years worth.
  • rozzlapeed, on 04/30/2008, -27/+18As a Ron Paul supporter, I have to say that I find this author's lack of perspective on the media's general treatment of anti-war candidates humorous, in a cynical and depressing way. The author takes up half the article trying to make a point by comparing the media's portrayal of Rev. Wright's criticism of foreign policy to the media's portrayal of Rep. Paul's criticism of foreign policy, all the while imagining that some double standard exists. The quotes that are offered to demonstrate Rep. Paul's support among media personalities and other politicians are taken completely out of context, i.e. not uttered anywhere near a point in time where there was even the slightest possibility that they could have been construed as responding positively to a statement by Rep. Paul linking our imperialist foreign policy to the 9/11 terrorist attacks. Does the author not remember the Fox News debate where Chris Wallace and douche #2 took to laughing in the background as Rep. Paul angrily defended such comments against the implication that he would "take his marching orders from Al-Qaeda?"

    The truth is that the well-founded opinions of Rep. Paul and Rev. Wright have been marginalized by the media, along with those of Rep. Kucinich and Mike Gravel, and, without a doubt, the marginalization will continue. Just an hour ago, I was listening to a guest on NPR who was conflating Wright's comments on foreign policy and terrorism with his comments accusing the U.S. of developing the AIDS virus, the implication being that anyone who believes and makes EITHER of those claims is a raving lunatic who must be denounced and vilified.
    • DaDrake, on 04/30/2008, -10/+15Wright should be denouced and vilified.... monday he DEFENDED his comments about HIV being manufactured "because the US has a long track record of genocide".
      • rozzlapeed, on 04/30/2008, -4/+20Clearly, you missed my point. While I have seen no evidence to suggest that the US manufactured HIV, I HAVE seen and read a great deal of evidence that Al Qaeda's mission statement specifically underlines our stationing of troops in Saudi Arabia, our military support for Israel against the Palestinians, and our enforcement of the U.N. sanctions against Iraq that led to the deaths of hundreds of thousands of Iraqi civilians as the primary motivation for their attacks on September 11th. The two topics are not even on the same plane of reality, yet the media are eager to put them both in the same class of extra-special-crazy ideas.
        • RepubOperative, on 04/30/2008, -20/+5@ rozzlapeed....and so who gives a ***** what Al Qaeda says? Are you a liberal or something? Only a liberal would care what the enemy says so as to not hurt their feelings.
          • facelesscoward, on 04/30/2008, -0/+5Yeah, stupid liberals always trying to find an attackers motive in a time of war. It doesn't matter why they blew up our buildings. The fact is that they did it, and I want to see some dead A-rabs!
          • elamr, on 04/30/2008, -0/+3@RepO, We should know the enemy intimately. We should know every pawn and intention that our opponent has for the strategic dominance to effectively and efficiently checkmate them. Why is that so hard for Neocons to understand? Its like you beat the war drum, just to beat the ***** war drum. Its a complete waste of time and money to play whack-a-mole with Insurgent Iraqis. There are three things that will win the middle east: SEX, Drugs, and Rock and Roll.. Americas greatest and most viral export, media. Ironically, the "War on Terror" is creating more terrorists (and ask yourself this, if the so called "War on Terrorism" was legitimate wouldn't we want to start at the Border and get illegals out since we don't know who the hell they ARE... Bush had 8 ***** years to do WITH A REPUBLICAN Congress)!
          • Jlaugh, on 04/30/2008, -0/+2@RepubO Who was it who trained Al Qaeda to be terrorists? Wasn't it our CIA? Didn't we support them even as late as the Bosnian mission? Didn't they work for us for years?
          • 47f0, on 04/30/2008, -0/+1Wow Repub - just when I think you could not be any more clueless, you manage to create a whole new level of quantum clueless vacuum. Yeah, maybe when an enemy keeps trying to beat you up, it's worth trying to have some actual intelligence about the motivation, instead of painting your pecker red white and blue and waving it in everyone's faces.
        • InnerRayg, on 04/30/2008, -0/+3Oh yeah, how stupid to try and figure out what your enemy is thinking by listening to what they say. Good thing they never tried that in any other war.

          Oh wait. That whole "World War 2" thing. That whole "how London managed to survive" thing. Silly them.
    • InnerRayg, on 04/30/2008, -1/+3I love someone being dugged down for intelligence.
      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AIDS_origin#Likely_sp ...

      I just want to know what proof there is the Government didn't help spread AIDs in Africa. I'm not saying intentionally, although I wouldn't put it past some people, but the only other alternative people love to bring up is that it was caught by having sex with a monkey. Now that's what I call racism-Africans are so backwards they have sex with primates. Nice.

      Seriously though, even the article admits it's inception most likely was caused by Western intervention (King Leopold among them I'd assume, who was acknowledged and commended by the US in his actions) in the country, forced labor, and other terrible conditions. I know Wiki's not always a reliable source, but when it's right it is usually right on the button.
      • Laughsatyou, on 05/01/2008, -2/+1epic ***** fail.

        do you have any proof that the government did spread HIV in Africa?
        • InnerRayg, on 05/01/2008, -0/+2To quoth the Wiki
          "Calculating based on a fixed mutation rate, the jump from chimpanzee to human likely occurred during the French colonial period (1919–1960). Comparative primatologist Jim Moore suggests that this may have been the result of colonial practices of forced labour, which could have suppressed the immune system of the initial hunter enough to allow the virus to infect and take hold. Likewise, using one needle on many patients for forced immunisations for illnesses such as sleeping sickness may have sped the virus's initial spread through Cameroon. Needles were also shared in the booming colonial city of Kinshasa, where the virus spread."

          This is the source: http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?story ...

          The implication is that Western colonization, while not directly causing the disease, enabled it to spread en mass to the millions that it now afflicts in Africa. At least at first, the United States Government supported these actions by the French, British, and Belgians, among others. So it can be argued the Government helped spread HIV.

          Now Wright is probably implying more direct action. He's bitter, what can I say. I'm not defending the man, I'm making an argument that in general western intervention could have been a major factor in the spread of HIV.

  • LKnight, on 04/30/2008, -5/+49Follow the money. There's ratings talking about Obama being tied to a controversial figure, there's no money or ratings in talking about Iraqi or U.S. military casualties... where politics and media come together, always follow the money.
    • Chubaccatron, on 04/30/2008, -1/+1LKnight, thank you. It's so hard to find intelligent, pointed thought in this country anymore, especially during election season.
    • negative3, on 05/01/2008, -5/+1Yeah, the fact that our likely president's minister of 20 years thinks white people are unevolved is no big deal.
  • Binxy, on 04/30/2008, -7/+26For goodness sakes, we are in a war, the economy by any standards is going down the tubes (despite whether you call it a "recession"), the working class is fast becoming the working -poor, the middle-class is overburdened with taxes and under-served by the government (just look at our crumbling infrastructure, the endemic problems confronting returning troops ); access to health care is being rationed according to income (whether we call it that or not), big corporations, investment banks and hedge-fund managers (among others) have plundered our economy and sent jobs overseas, while the corporate control of our media has meant every issue presented to the public has a pro-business, pro-administration slant-- and ultimately what they give us for coverage of one of the most contested, interesting, important elections in the history of this nation is uninterrupted coverage of what one candidate's minister says and derisive descriptions of the other candidates laugh.

    My only hope for America is that the majority of voters are ignoring all of this BULLS**T and seeking their own information on the REAL issues from the internet, from their neighbors, from their families, from discussions with their peers. I believe this election will be the final nail in the coffin of news media as it now exists and if not then we all deserve the consequences that follow.
    • Dragular, on 04/30/2008, -8/+4I don't want someone in office appointing people to cabinet positions and other offices that can't find the psychos in their lives. That's what got us Donald Rumsfeld last time.
    • lomein987, on 04/30/2008, -14/+3uhm - like 21 debates - you arent still wondering where the Democratic nominees stand on the issues are you??? If you are im not surprised...Obama was about rhetoric not issues until this came up. Oh yeah - now he wants to talk about the issues - and Obama supporters are whining about talk on the issues...

      The primaries are almost over guys. Issues should already be known...Unfortunately not too much is known about Obama - and Wright (not to mention Ayers, Rezco..and his own wife Michelle...etc) seem to be filling in the gaps.

      Now they want to talk about issues. sheesh.
      • InnerRayg, on 04/30/2008, -2/+5Yeah, it's a shame there was no large .pdf as well as several seperate pages on his website detailing his specific values, points, and plans for the office should he be elected that has been up since the first day of his campaign

        http://www.barackobama.com/issues/

        Oh wait.
    • IslandDog, on 04/30/2008, -10/+5Too may inaccuracies in your post. Keep reading the DailyKooks for that info though.
      • WasabiBomb, on 04/30/2008, -3/+8IslandDog doesn't like facts if they contradict his opinions, apparently.
        • Laughsatyou, on 05/01/2008, -0/+1nor do you, apparently. if you are defending that junk of a news site.
  • davidkeithjones, on 04/30/2008, -22/+48The fact that Obama, Hillary, and McCain are the best candidates that America can find is a sad statement of American politics as a whole.
    • Dragular, on 04/30/2008, -7/+12Regardless of which party or wing you're on, you have to agree with that.
      • roberthead, on 05/01/2008, -0/+4No, you don't.

        I don't believe we've had a better candidate since June 6, 1968.
        • vbullinger, on 05/01/2008, -0/+3You're right, we haven't had a candidate that's on par with Ron Paul since Barry Goldwater back in 1968.
    • Binxy, on 04/30/2008, -17/+7NO. I don't really have to agree with that. I believe that Hillary and Obama are both very strong candidates.
      • ender7074, on 04/30/2008, -7/+4Sad... Very sad. Two consumate liars is you're idea of strong candidates. You are whats wrong with this country.
        • mickman17, on 04/30/2008, -1/+5I hope you are referring to McCain and Hillary - Obama has been honest is admitting his affiliation with Wright. He never lied about anything - he just did not denouce him fast enough for the conservatives - and now that he has you smack him upside the head for it.. pathetic
        • elamr, on 04/30/2008, -1/+3As sad as it is, any candidate who tells the TRUTH has NO chance (i.e. Ron Paul, Kucinich, Gravel... NO CHANCE). Everyone must play the game because there are so many people you have to please to get elected.

          All we can really do is hope that the person elected will do the right thing when they get to office.
          • Kyan, on 04/30/2008, -3/+2Ron Paul does not tell "the truth". He tells "a truth", truth as he sees it. I don't want him anywhere close to the Oval office.
          • Kronk42583, on 05/01/2008, -0/+1you are 100% right. campain politics are very different from actual politics. just look at this retarted economic stimulus package. what crock of *****. i'm using it to pay off credit card debt. and while its nice, most of me wishes i didn''t have it because its such a stupid idea and socialist policy. politicians are not to be trusted. even the great ones, they know in order to be relevant and make a difference, they have to sink to the level of everone else. this leaves the voter will no way of knowing who will do the right thing, i'm completely disenchanted with it all.
        • Laughsatyou, on 05/01/2008, -1/+1I agree, but the Obamabots are going to swarm you. someone who thinks hillary is a strong candidate should be put in a straight jacket.
    • Defuser, on 04/30/2008, -8/+6The fact that people like you will bitch about ANY candidate, in ANY election, is a sad statement on American voters.
      • Monk22, on 04/30/2008, -2/+2what a good chance to pull out that tired but always a favorite of liberals. "dissent is the highest form of patriotism"
        • InnerRayg, on 04/30/2008, -0/+4Yeah, what would the founding fathers think of that, amirite? Everyone knows they were totally tight with agreeing with authority and following it's every whim.

          Oh. Wait. I forgot that our country was founded on a rebellion against the Government. *****, stupid me.
        • Railz, on 04/30/2008, -0/+2Actually, InnerRayg, while supporters of Jefferson would agree with you, Supporters of John Adams would say that a stronger government is necessary, it just requires law to run it, not men.
          • Laughsatyou, on 05/01/2008, -0/+1Jefferson >>>>>>>>>>>. Adams
          • InnerRayg, on 05/01/2008, -0/+1I know Railz, I was just trying to make a straw man out of Monk's little attack on dissent. Smart politics are not for digg :O
          • Monk22, on 05/01/2008, -0/+1it was hardly an attack i was using it becuase its a relevant quote in response to his comment
    • darkcthulhu, on 04/30/2008, -3/+8There were other candidates that were "found" but the American public rejected them, unfortunately.
      • ostracize, on 04/30/2008, -2/+7Because the media told the public to reject them.
    • mickman17, on 04/30/2008, -2/+4Agreed. But lets ask the question why? Because for some twisted reason we want our Presidential candidates to be like gods - perfect in everyway. We forget that they are human and are prone to mistakes, bad judgements, etc.. No leader has ever existed which doesnt have some unique human experience in terms of failure or bad ideas, or questionable friends.
      The other reason is because the job of president sucks. Its the jobs that doles out favors to the people who bought you the office.
      • InnerRayg, on 04/30/2008, -0/+3Which is maybe why the entire idea of the Presidency might have been a not so good one. It was quite an argued point with the founders, so perhaps a more proportional system is in order?
        • sonstone, on 05/01/2008, -0/+2Yeah, it's very interesting that they made that choice. I just started reading the Federalist papers and haven't gotten to a discussion about that topic, but I often wonder about it myself.
    • seanmc303, on 04/30/2008, -4/+4I dissagree. Obama is a great candidate and this Jerimiah Wright business is unrelated to Obama's credentials to be president. If Jerimiah Wright is Obama's scariest skeleton in his closet, Obama should have nothing to worry about.
    • thelock65, on 05/01/2008, -0/+2that's because no one's want to run this country because it's going downhill. how many of yall want that responsibility?
  • smacksaw, on 04/30/2008, -14/+52THANK YOU...great article. I'm a Ron Paul supporter who finds himself in the Obama camp and this is dead-on.

    I just don't get it. Sometimes the truth hurts. And sometimes controversial ideas hurt. But it doesn't make them any less valid.

    I don't know how many people trashing Wright are RP supporters, but I would hope that the similarities were not lost on all of you. It's like the old "kill the messenger" thing. The message is what is important, not who says it. Just because they may not agree in political philosophy doesn't mean they don't see the same problems. Sure, I think RP has solutions while Wright has rhetoric, but it's a cultural thing.

    Anyway, I can no more condemn Wright than I can condemn Paul, unless Paul changed direction. Even now, Paul has a book that just came out and Wright supposedly will release one very soon. Paul is in the news promoting what he said and so is Wright. The difference is that Wright is using someone else negatively to promote what he said. The real issue that no one is discussing is that instead of clarifying what he means he is using misunderstanding of what he said to his own self-promoting advantage.

    I think that's the bigger difference between Paul and Wright. Each can point out a problem, but Paul doesn't go out of his way to offend people. My problem with Wright isn't what he says as much as how he's saying it these days. He's better than that. He has to be if Obama can be a man of character. You don't learn character from your pastor if they don't have some to begin with.
    • saska, on 04/30/2008, -4/+17I dugg you up for specific points, but I don't think it's even remotely possible to equate Paul and Wright. One is a preacher with a phenomenal education and understanding of the experience of African Americans in the past in America, but who resists improvement when the rubber meets the road. The other is a strict Constitutionalist who has plenty of opinions I disagree with, but who does not use his position in the legislature to advance his personal opinions.
      • smacksaw, on 04/30/2008, -2/+10Well, I get wordy because these articles bring up a lot of inspiration for me, but I hope I can refocus on this point: Both Paul and Wright are speaking honestly about problems facing the US and Americans today. They might not be the most reasonable, the best orator, etc. But unlike most other people who are in charge of our fate, they're at least bringing up the ACTUAL issues.

        I don't think we can fix things if we cannot first identify them as problems. Our defining political moments of recent time is failing to identify the threat of Islamo-terrorists and 9/11. It's failing to understand the nature of Iraq. It's empowering Iran and North Korea through bad policy. It's things like that. We can't even get the topics right...we can't find a solution when we aren't discussing the right topic.
        • satanatnmtedu, on 04/30/2008, -4/+1No. Paul is a lying sack of *****. His "ideas" are half baked at best.
          • sonstone, on 05/01/2008, -0/+3Yes, that whole constitution thing. What a joke. It's so old school....
      • satanatnmtedu, on 04/30/2008, -3/+1Paul is ANYTHING but a strict Constitutionalist despite what people claim. There are multiple examples of where he differs from the Constitution that I turst no person that supports Paul.
    • cjshamrock, on 04/30/2008, -7/+28It's a shame what they did to RP.
      • smacksaw, on 04/30/2008, -5/+23It's a shame what they're doing to Obama. I think that's a lot of the reason why I find myself defending Obama, a man who politically I have much less in common with than I do RP. I don't like the idea of the system holding down people who actually call attention to the real issues instead of diverting our attention to invented problems, like Iraq's WMDs.

        I don't want to see them do to Obama what they did to RP.
        • fokov, on 04/30/2008, -1/+3If they did, then they would be considered racist. All 3 candidates are the same enemy of the middle class.
          • Laughsatyou, on 05/01/2008, -0/+3"how are you going to help the shrinking middle class?"

            "tax them to pay for healthcare."
      • rdoger6424, on 04/30/2008, -1/+2They did nothing. Bastards.
      • satanatnmtedu, on 04/30/2008, -5/+1Paul is a lousy candidate. His ideas are crap. People who follow him are delusional. I am honestly surprised that the idiots that backed Bush didn't back Paul.
        • vbullinger, on 05/01/2008, -0/+1Your idiocy knows no bounds, satan@nmt.edu. I didn't even know that Lucifer was in college! Whatcha studyin', there, morning star? Pathology?
    • oldhick, on 04/30/2008, -10/+7I'm an RP supporter and I think your argument is BS. No one is just killing the messenger with Wright. We're killing the message too and sure the same thing happened with RP. The Wright/RP comparison is awful. Sure both got ***** media coverage but the similarities stop there. I'm not going to defend a clown like Wright who's made a career out of being divisive and offensive. And I'm not going to give Obama a pass for supporting him and especially not for ditching him when the going got tough.
      Have some decency. Stick to your guns. That's what RP is doing. He didn't change things up to improve his chances. He held true to his principals and beliefs. The same is not true of Obama. From how long we'll be in Iraq to Wright, Obama changes his policies for votes.
      • InnerRayg, on 04/30/2008, -0/+1proof on the changing principles for length of time in Iraq plz
        • oldhick, on 05/01/2008, -0/+2Do Obama supporters even keep up with his positions on issues? This really isn't NEW news. But if you somehow missed it, then here you go: http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2008/03 ...
          By the way, a google search will give you hundreds of other articles about his changing stance on Iraq. I don't think its wrong it re-assess your position from time to time. In fact its probably the only intelligent way to be, but it certainly means he's not the anti-war candidate people think he is.
    • GhostyBoy, on 04/30/2008, -1/+10I'm a Paul guy and to be honest from what I've seen I agree with a lot of what Wright says as well.
      • Monk22, on 04/30/2008, -6/+1then your a racist you should be proud of yourself
        • InnerRayg, on 04/30/2008, -2/+2You really like that stuff your mouthpiece is feeding you.
          What Wright said was not racist, it was anti-government and considered by some to be anti-patriotic. You can argue against it on these points, but he didn't say White people caused black people's troubles, he said the government did.
          Now, you could argue that the Government is all white, but I'm pretty sure that would imply only white people can do government jobs...which is a little racist. Anyway.
          • Kyan, on 04/30/2008, -1/+3Wow, you certainly failed to follow through on Wright's train of thought, didn't you?
    • manamizer, on 04/30/2008, -0/+3comparing RP and Wright is foolish. the media isn't all over this because of a blowback comment, they talk about "goddamn america" and Wright saying that the government invented AIDS. RP stated his logical position with respect. Wright, whether you agree with him or not, was as big of a confrontational douchebag as he could be and made some comments totally unsupported by any evidence. his willingness to continue to damage obama's chances with further rants is just more proof of what an angry, bitter man he is.
    • elamr, on 04/30/2008, -2/+2What I like about Wright and RP is that they are not afraid to say America has done some very bad things and, worse, continues to be on the completely wrong track (with war and pre-emtive strikes). I think both of them would be super powerfull if they were politicians. They have a lot of wisdom, but to win votes you have to be like a serpent. Forsaking their honesty in their oppinions would fly in the face of what they are.
      • satanatnmtedu, on 04/30/2008, -1/+1Paul IS a politician. Wow, you are dumb.
    • randumbusername, on 05/01/2008, -0/+2i personally could care less about wright. im not about to hold obama accountable for what someone else's view are. that being said i agree with none of obama's proposals and that's why i don't support him. as far as this article goes it pisses me off how paul is picked up and used by people who despise him just as much as the mainstream republican party does. they (left leaning sites) will run articles calling ron paul a racist or use other fear-mongering tactics to put him down but to get obama out of hot water all of a sudden his ideas are welcome.

      after obama's grandma ron paul is the second person thrown under the bus.
  • nsummy, on 04/30/2008, -19/+10Only digg could spin this as an Obama article when that is far from the intentions. Good job on putting his picture up so everyone can digg it and then only discuss the first 4 paragraphs and disregard the rest of the article.
  • oldhick, on 04/30/2008, -28/+8I always love the misdirection defense, or as I call it "but, but, he's bad too!!!!" Yeah, we know Bush sucks. We know the war was *****. We know we've been lied too.
    THAT'S THE REASON WE DON"T WANT IT TO HAPPEN AGAIN!
    Obama deserves every bit of the ***** he's getting right now.
    • wendelgee2, on 04/30/2008, -6/+4Progressive Obama =/= Neocon Bush.
      What the hell are you even talking about??
      • oldhick, on 04/30/2008, -3/+6Maybe try reading the article... The author talks about how we could get back to focusing on how Bush ***** everything up if we could quit talking about Obama.
      • wendelgee2, on 04/30/2008, -1/+4I did read the article, uncle grandpa. And I understand what you're saying in the first two lines of your post.
        What I don't understand is the implied connection in your last two lines between not wanting this to happen again, and Obama deserving this ridiculous overblown scrutiny on an issue that has nothing to do with the things you mentioned in the first two lines: The War, Bush Sucking, etc. The list of crap wrong with this country would clog the intertubes, and we'd likely agree on most of them, even though we're at opposite ends of the political spectrum.

        So, there are all sorts of reasons to criticize Obama on issues from the Patriot Act, to biofuels, to his healthcare plan, etc., but saying that this stupid Wright thing somehow makes him a risk to this country on the level of Bush, which is what you are implying in your last two lines. Well, that's just totally unfounded.
      • elamr, on 04/30/2008, -0/+1You had me at "uncle grandpa" lol. deliciously offensive like a 50's Disney cartoon
    • ender7074, on 04/30/2008, -9/+4Stalinist Obama =/= Good for America. How is progressive to want to push a country into a form of government that has already proven it stinks? Guess thats just more lib "progressive" *****.
      • elamr, on 04/30/2008, -0/+1neo conservitism doesn't seem to be working. you better hope McCain seperates himself from the economic situation and the neo-con war if you don't want the Libs in.

    • WasabiBomb, on 04/30/2008, -4/+9Bush is the son of a previous President. He's inherited millions. He was the governor of Texas. He ran multiple companies into the ground. He deliberately "dumbs himself down" to appeal to the common man. He's proud of his ignorance of current events, as evidenced by his statements that he never reads a newspaper.

      Obama is none of these things. Your analogy is false. A vote for Obama is NOT a vote for another Bush. The closest candidate we've got to Bush is McCain.
      • oldhick, on 04/30/2008, -6/+4I didn't say they were similar because of their backgrounds. Let me check, nope, didn't say that.
      • lomein987, on 04/30/2008, -1/+0dude - no one reads newspapers anymore.
    • burningmanstan, on 04/30/2008, -1/+6"Yeah, we know Bush sucks. We know the war was *****. We know we've been lied too. " And we know that McCain and Hillary with their infinite experience and wisdom fell for it hook line and sinker. THEY deserve every bit of *****, and they aren't getting it.
      • oldhick, on 04/30/2008, -1/+6No argument there. They ALL deserve a lot more ***** then they're getting. Unlike most diggers, I don't give one candidate a pass and ***** on the others. They all get ***** on.
        • InnerRayg, on 04/30/2008, -0/+2oh *****!
        • wendelgee2, on 04/30/2008, -0/+2The difference is, that's policy *****. That's important, and I'm totally with you on that. Grill Obama about biofuels PLEASE!!! Someone!! On something of substance!!! I want to hear him talk about the global food shortage. There are so many problems, but we aren't hearing about how he would approach any of them. It's exasperating. It's all sound and fury and no sense.
        • elamr, on 04/30/2008, -0/+1well, said.
      • anbublackops, on 04/30/2008, -0/+2That's just not true. There have been as been as many, if not more negative stories about McCain and Clinton.
  • Nodaki, on 04/30/2008, -11/+9Poor article...comparing Ron Paul's reasoned objection of U.S. foreign policy and our intervention in the Middle East with Wright's bombastic conspiracy theory rhetoric was a cheap shot at the good Doctor.

    The article goes on to list prominent 'white-conservatives' who whole-heatedly agree with Ron Paul on some issues. Most of them vehemently disagree with Paul's philosophy of non-interventionism.

    The only similarity is the two blame the U.S. Federal Government for most of the problems in this country and the world.


    • GhostyBoy, on 04/30/2008, -9/+8"comparing Ron Paul's reasoned objection of U.S. foreign policy and our intervention in the Middle East with Wright's bombastic conspiracy theory rhetoric"

      Yeah, because no Ron Paul supporter ever believed in a conspiracy theory before.
      • Akronos, on 04/30/2008, -1/+6There's a difference between Ron Paul supporter and Ron Paul himself. Come on, you should know this.
      • elamr, on 04/30/2008, -1/+2Don't know if you've seen his interviews, but Ron Paul is pretty defensive about being associated with "9/11 truthers". Say what you want about him, but hes an honest man. If he believed in the 9/11 conspiracies, he'd say it infront of millions of people at a Republican debate (just like he did with the Federal Reserve stuff and Iran issues.. ugly stuff that people needed to hear.. NOT popular).
    • XxtraLarGe, on 04/30/2008, -1/+7That's where he got it wrong. The rank and file of the Republican party not only discounted Ron Paul, they did their best to make sure that nobody else got to hear from him either. In that sense, the comparison between Ron Paul & Rev. Wright is was off the mark.
      • Akronos, on 04/30/2008, -0/+4Pretty much. I'm sure Bob Cesca loves to bash on Paul, but once he saw an opportunity to equate Paul to Rev. Wright, he jumped right to it and then started claiming that the republicans who pretty much disowned, made fun of, and laughed at Mr. Paul should now apologize for their hypocrisy?
        And then he says that "[Paul] has basically said -- and repeatedly so -- that America's "chickens have come home to roost". He did just as bad of a job at journalism as the media he is criticizing. Bob Cesca might want to consider that he may be the hypocrite. If he had even a basic understanding of what Dr. Paul said, he would know that Dr. Paul did NOT say that we deserved the attacks, which is what that saying very strongly implies but that our interventionist foreign policy, crafted by a select few elite politicians up at the top, has aggravated Muslims in the middle east, and that is mostly what caused Al-Qaeda to attack us.
        I think I'm done with the Huffington Post. It has become obvious to me that they are just as bad as the corporate media.
        • mister23, on 04/30/2008, -0/+4unfortunately, you can choose:
          1) we deserved the attacks and you love the terrorists and hate america.
          2) they hate us for our freedom.
          so therefore, he chose #1. reason has no place here, you must know that by now.
        • facelesscoward, on 04/30/2008, -1/+3Right, America went and did some real evil ***** overseas (sent out their chickens); then, we were attacked for it (coming home to roost). He wasn't saying that innocent people deserved to die. He was saying that we brought it on ourselves, and whether you want to acknowledge it in that wording, that's exactly what Ron Paul was saying and it's TRUE.
          • Akronos, on 05/04/2008, -0/+1You're missing the point. My point, and Paul's point, is that the "WE" is not us Americans, but the top politicians in D.C. Having a large military presence in the Middle East was not the decision made by the average American, though I'm sure there are some that support that idea. It was Bush, his cronies, and other prominent neo-conservatives.
  • cjshamrock, on 04/30/2008, -4/+15Why won't this story DIE??
    • PolishLogic, on 04/30/2008, -0/+3Mainly because every newscast, magazine, paper, and website dealing with political events continues to pour it on. Now instead of discussing the story itself, they discuss why it won't die....further pushing the exact same story they claim to be a non-issue. If it's a non-issue, why are they giving any bit of it talking time?

      Want it to die? Quit talking about it, period. Pretty simple. That means CNN, MSNBC, FOX, Huff Post, Kos, all of them. They're all guilty of it.

      Although, now that Wright has a taste of the limelight and publicity, as well as having a book due out later this year, don't be surprised to see this whole controversy continue. Once this chapter wanes, we'll most likely be treated to another speech or press conference by Wright to drudge it up all over again.
  • ScienceDoc, on 04/30/2008, -2/+19This story won't die because CNN needs ratings. They invent the news that people want to hear and report the message corporations give them.
    • ender7074, on 04/30/2008, -3/+3The story wont die because it's relevant to judging the character of a man who would be president. Guess we should just bury anything bad about this douchebag right but keep the Hillary hate flowing? You Obamanations never ceace to amaze.
      • sonstone, on 05/01/2008, -0/+2Yes, seeing the positives in people is a horrible character trait.
    • Bamont, on 04/30/2008, -0/+2And user-voted media outlets like Digg will continue bringing up these stories and putting more attention on the issue because they want to justify Wright's positions. Listen, I'm definitely voting for Obama, and my allegiance to him and his cause of peace in the world and building a better America do NOT hinge on the whacked out ideals of Reverend Wright.

      The Obama brigade needs to let bigons be bigons, and stop thinking they always have to defend their candidate. The man is human, there are things outside his realm of control. Focus a little bit of that fanaticism about your candidate and turn it into logical thinking. Perhaps if people weren't so quick to get defensive, there wouldn't be such a major outcry for it. It wouldn't get ratings, and people would laugh it off as just a nutty religious figure expressing radical views and not being capable of shutting up.

      Simply because I like what the man stands for doesn't mean I'm going to defend his every action, nor try to justify what others outside his circle of influence do. Reverend Wright is *not* in a position for his actions to be justified. He's consistently repeated the same bigoted statements over and over again, the first time it was argued that it was part of a sermon taken out of context. When he did it again in front of the press corps, nobody came here to defend him. Because you were wrong about him. He IS a racist, he DOES stand for everything that's wrong with this country, and he IS out of his mind. But that doesn't mean that the candidate I love, respect, and admire is.

      The door swings both ways. Putting defensive attention on a topic doesn't make it go away. If someone is shouting at the rain, you don't shout back. You let the moron continue screaming - people will ignore him after a little while (in reference to the media).
    • jonfleck88, on 05/01/2008, -0/+1yeah CNN needs ratings and the others wont turn down improved ratings
  • lomein987, on 04/30/2008, -18/+7Its absolutely amazing that the liberal bloggers are now bashing the media for this. Amazing. Guys, we are at the tail end of the PRESIDENTIAL PRIMARIES! and this is just now coming out??? The MSM suppressed this stuff for over a year. In fact, Foxnews' Hannity was one of the first to actually report on this back in March of 07. It is big and it was suppressed as long as possible - Dont bash your media guys - once the church's promotional DVD was out there (with all of the famous Wright comments), they had no choice but to go with the stories. Funny thing is - they are the ones who allowed the democratic party to be hoodwinked and have essentially given the nomination to Obama. Now they are stuck with him...and he looks more like a clown than John Kerry or Al Gore.

    Dont bash your media...if they had covered this back in 07 - you wouldnt have the Messiah as your nominee. Kucinich would have gotten more votes than this guy. Sucks to be stuck.
    • Binxy, on 04/30/2008, -3/+11No. This is not big and Obama is not stuck. It is trivial. I am not responsible for the opinions those who are my friends, co-workers, preachers, whoever, express and neither is Obama. The media is being bashed for continuing to focus on the trivial and salacious to fill air time and sell ads.
      • lomein987, on 04/30/2008, -10/+3oh yeah - your right - its not big - LOL -
        you just cant turn on the TV - or browse the internet without seeing something on it.
        and labeling it as trivial is simply pure denial.

        No - it isnt big TO YOU. It is big to alot of people - the Pennsylvania primaries and current popularity polls show that. Of course they are probably just clinging to their guns. If they can just be shown that this isnt a big issue....stuck is the word.
        • moolaismyfriend, on 04/30/2008, -5/+3White trash is a real problem for America.
        • PolishLogic, on 04/30/2008, -1/+5@moola

          Same can be said for black trash, latin trash, asian trash, etc.

          (gee somebody sure dislikes whitey)
          • moolaismyfriend, on 04/30/2008, -4/+1I am reffering to American culture which includes all of the people you mention douche bag.
          • PolishLogic, on 04/30/2008, -0/+3Nice quick reversal there.
        • lomein987, on 04/30/2008, -3/+2moolaismyfriend??? Obama is that you???
        • wendelgee2, on 04/30/2008, -1/+1I love the logic. It's important because it's on tv all the time! HA! That's good material.
        • lomein987, on 05/05/2008, -0/+0You can wish it away all you want - or try to find some other reason that this is so big - but the simple fact is...it bothers people. Maybe it doesnt bother you, but it bothers alot of people. and Obamas reactions bother people. At first (during his hailed race speech in Philly) he could no more disown his own grandmother than he can his pastor.... then he disowns his pastor. I guess grandmother is next. Things just dont seem right - and people are noticing.
      • IslandDog, on 04/30/2008, -1/+5If you want to be Presidents, and you have associated with people like Wright, who are racists and hate America and the success it brings, then you are held responsible for the company you keep.
      • PolishLogic, on 04/30/2008, -0/+4Correct you're not responsible for those opinions of the people you choose to surround yourself with. You're only responsible for having those people around you. One factor in judging a person is by the company he keeps. To go back to a previous claim made in this whole episode, that this guy's opinions weren't known to Obama, basically means one of three things:

        he's completely ignorant
        he's lying
        he's not as close to Wright as he led everyone to believe he was prior to all this ***** hitting the fan

        No matter how you slice it, none of those possibilities are flattering for Obama. Obama made his political bed by not distancing himself from this nut when all this first hit the fan. Now he's going to have to lie in it for a while. Same would be true if Hillary allowed Ferraro to stay on in her campaign after her comments.
        • wendelgee2, on 04/30/2008, -2/+1Option 4:
          He talked to him about religious matters, not political conspiracies.

          Option 5:
          He appreciated his spiritual teachings, but tried to avoid political discussions because he knew they didn't see eye-to-eye.

          Option 6:
          He hoped that he could help Wright see the error of his ways. Help him to be a better, less angry person.
          • PolishLogic, on 04/30/2008, -0/+2I'll give you option 5 as a possibility, but not option 4 or 6. Wright has shown a propensity to speak on what he wants to speak on, and has mixed political views in with his religious ones. Also, considering that, as I said, Wright has been outspoken in this way for such a long time, and is at an age where one's opinions are usually quite engrained, I don't see that as an alternative either.

            Like I said though, I can give you #5 as one of the things it may be, although, I still would wonder why you'd allow a fireball speaker with drastically different political views as yourself to have such a prominent role in your campaign, as Wright did. Considering quite a few Americans of all races have a linkage between their politics and their religion.
          • InnerRayg, on 04/30/2008, -0/+1Because Wright used to have a lot of respect and if he supported Obama, you can bet a lot of his parish would too. It is politics, plain and simple.
          • wendelgee2, on 04/30/2008, -1/+1Polish:
            The answer is in his book Dreams of My Father.
            In short, he was a young man of 1/2 black 1/2 white heritage who was essentially raised white but treated as a black in public (dealing with some racism, etc.). So, he felt this need to discover some of his black roots, some of that identity...to figure out where he fit. So, he awkwardly joined a black church where he only 1/2 belonged, but he discovered something about his heritage that was missing. That's very powerful. Add to that the community that came with it, the outreach programs that made him feel like this wasn't just religion to make you feel good, but religion to do good. Anyway...back then he wasn't making a political decision, it was a personal exploration.

            Can we talk about biofuels now?
        • lomein987, on 04/30/2008, -1/+1Option 7: He let his KIDS sit in sermons where this stuff was being spewed - with people cheering it, because well, in reality it doesnt bother him. Albeit it is rather politically incconvenient.

        • elamr, on 04/30/2008, -0/+2Well, we can rule out ignorant.

          just like Wright said: hes a politician.
    • chrissku, on 04/30/2008, -4/+1What's wrong......pissed off because you know Obama is going to beat McCain in November? The Conservatives have been laughable lately. Notice how they love Hillary now? That's because they know McCain can beat Hillary. McCain can't beat Barack and they know it.
      • IslandDog, on 04/30/2008, -4/+5McCain can easily beat both Hillary or Obama.
        • chrissku, on 04/30/2008, -4/+1McCain- the old fart? LMFAO.


        • lomein987, on 04/30/2008, -1/+5McCain - Vietnam Vet who was captured by the North Vietnamese

          and when they found out that McCains family were respected members in the military - they told him they would release him and let him go home - He said No, im staying, there are others here who have been here longer than I.
        • elamr, on 04/30/2008, -0/+2I'm not taking anything from McCain. What will likely kill him are his positions that have pushed away a lot of Conservatives and Republicans and the fact that he aligned himself with Bush and the Iraq war which will hurt him BIG time with Democrats and many independents.
        • lomein987, on 05/01/2008, -0/+0well see - I see McCain as a more bi-partisan candidate than the other two - in fact hes got many pieces of that sort of legislation with his name on them - Including votes against Bush. Obama??? he just votes liberal - period.
      • lomein987, on 04/30/2008, -1/+2I have to agree - and it may be huge. Until someone can show me that Obama can win Ohio and Florida and perhaps even Pennsylvania and Michigan now - it looks like a McCain landslide.
        • elamr, on 04/30/2008, -0/+1Look at the total numbers that are showing up in votes with both Hilary AND Obama compared to ANYTHING the Republicans have done. Each of them have number twice that of any Republican. McCain's got work to do.
        • lomein987, on 05/01/2008, -0/+0elamr - its called "the primaries" -
          I voted for Hillary in March - and im voting for McCain in November.
  • jayscot, on 04/30/2008, -20/+7Biased liberal blog. Nothing really to say except that there's nothing to say.
    • moolaismyfriend, on 04/30/2008, -6/+10Truth has a known liberal bias.
      • Monk22, on 04/30/2008, -5/+3"liberals love stupid quotes"
      • randumbusername, on 05/01/2008, -0/+0what's with the dumb cutesy quotes? oooh, that was so intelligent and enlightening.
  • chrissku, on 04/30/2008, -5/+32The media is responsible for giving people the idea that Hillary is still in this. I'm a white guy and I must say....it sure seems like the media is trying to keep the black man down. It's been relentless attacks on Obama. Hillary has been caught lying numerous times and has not faced this type of scrutiny.
    • ender7074, on 04/30/2008, -5/+5Yes because everything that happens to a black man is aimed at keeping ole blackie down? Give me a break. Hes getting kid gloves treatment to begin with. This is the first time the media has tore into him. Too bad it didnt happen months ago to expose this piece of trash for what he is.
    • tricks574, on 04/30/2008, -5/+4What the hell media did you see? He didn't get touched by the media until recently, and now that they go hard on him people are saying they are trying to keep the black man down?
  • MrErr, on 04/30/2008, -3/+20May God save us from our media and the common man's love for deception.
    • Izult, on 04/30/2008, -1/+1but the common man chooses to believe all that the media feeds them so who's really doing the deceiving?
      • sonstone, on 05/01/2008, -0/+1yeah, I blame the common man just as much. IMO, the common man needs to turn off the television, read more and stop falling for every logical fallacy that is thrown their way.
  • oakhilltop, on 04/30/2008, -6/+17And why doesn't anyone talk about Mc Cain's Rev Hagee? Talk about wacko's
    • WasabiBomb, on 04/30/2008, -1/+6Because it's in Media's best interests to keep the fight up between Obama and Clinton- controversy brings in the bucks. Once the candidacy is resolved, we'll start seeing more stories on McCain.
    • Hetman, on 04/30/2008, -2/+7And also McCain did not go to Hagee's church he was just endorsed by Hagee. Not that im voting for McCain but the truth is still the truth.
      • WasabiBomb, on 04/30/2008, -2/+4By not rejecting Hagee's support, by continuing to use his money and influence... McCain is providing a stronger, more ringing endorsement of Hagee than Obama did of Wright.

        If Obama can repudiate Wright, why isn't McCain being asked to repudiate Hagee?
      • Hetman, on 04/30/2008, -0/+2Because people like conterversy. And that brings in viewers. The media makes money. They have already milked the crazy right wing conservitive preachers. It was a big deal when they did it. This reverend wright thing is going to blow over. "I have voted for obama primary. and I hope he gets the nomination." The problem I see is Rezko and Rezko contributed heavily to Obama as a senator. You know the slum lord of chicago.
    • pintomp3, on 04/30/2008, -2/+1or mccain's rev rod parsley?
    • Malevolant, on 04/30/2008, -2/+2McCain doesn't belong to his church, doesn't consider him his mentor, he didn't marry McCain or christen his kids. He also didn't right a book using parts of one of his speeches. There's a huge difference, but you idiots refuse to own up to it, like obama won't own up to sitting in and agreeing with all the rhetoric flowing out of wright's mouth.
      People who think there's a parallel are just plain stupid and chose to play ignorant. Continue you on you self-loathing apologists, it's comical at this point:)
  • MikeFallopian, on 04/30/2008, -1/+15It's convenient and easy to blame "the media" as if it were some single entity, but the reality is that the American people are more interested in hearing about Wright than about Iran's nuclear program. The 24-hour cable news networks give people the content that they want - no one is forcing CNN and FOX down everyone's throats, they could just as easily pick up a copy of the Economist and get insightful political news and commentary. The media is only fixated on Wright because the people are.
  • shyboy2008, on 04/30/2008, -14/+5OBAMA IS A ROOSTERSUCKER
  • headzoo, on 04/30/2008, -4/+4Speaking of MSNBC.. I used to watch Morning Joe every morning, because it felt fresh, hip, and for the most part unbiased. I've had to stop watching it completely though, because over the course of the past several weeks it's becoming alarmingly slanted in Clinton's favor, and journalistic integrity has gone right out the window.
    • TheSwashbuckler, on 04/30/2008, -1/+2Morning Joe unbiased?!

      ROFL!

      I admit, JoeS is one of the more tolerable con talking heads on TV, but he's damned sure biased...
  • pintomp3, on 04/30/2008, -2/+9i don't agree with a lot of ron paul's policies, but that interview was just disgusting. he spoke absolute truth while all blitzer could say is "why do you blame america for 9/11?". i don't agree with rev. wright on a lot of things either, but both paul and wright are speaking from a historical perspective when they look at the reasoning behind the attacks on 9/11. it's funny how men like paul and wright are vilified as "blaming america" while people like robertson, hagee, and falwell are not called out for blaming it on the gays. ***** corporate media pretty much dictates this slanted agenda. on a side note, i had to laugh when blitzer called guiliani the front-runner.
  • TheSwashbuckler, on 04/30/2008, -20/+17Oh BS...

    It's not the media's fault that Obama attended a church with a radical pastor.
    It's not the media's fault that Obama didn't disown Wright sooner.
    It's not the media's fault that Wright decided that he was more important than Obama.

    The people responsible for this are Obama and Wright.
    • thespiff, on 04/30/2008, -3/+4But it is up to the media to decide what level of coverage to give to different stories. And the author of this article is commenting on the inappropriate level of attention the media is dedicating to this, relative to other major stories. He's not blaming the media for Obama or Wright's actions. He's blaming the media for their overzealous coverage of these actions.
      • Hetman, on 04/30/2008, -0/+1It is a corporation. Whatever brings in more viewers is what they cover. That is why we had 50 hours of shaved britney spears and like 20 minutes coverage of the war in Iraq.
    • Hetman, on 04/30/2008, -3/+2Agreed. And furthermore its called corporate media because they are a corportaion trying to make money. And racism seems to bring in higher ratings, than just another rant about how GWB is ruining the country.
    • burningmanstan, on 04/30/2008, -3/+4It's not the media's fault that McCain and Hillary voted for the war
      It's not the media's fault that McCain and Hillary didn't stand up to Bush
      It's not the media's fault that McCain and Hillary thought Bushs war was more important than the American people.

      The people responsible are McCain and Hillary.


      We could make these lists all day long. The point is that there are more important things to discuss (LIKE THE WAR).
      • lomein987, on 04/30/2008, -1/+2sure we could make lists like this all day long...
        or we could stay on topic.
        • wafla, on 04/30/2008, -1/+2...you didn't see what burningmanstan did there?
      • TheSwashbuckler, on 05/01/2008, -0/+1Dude, what new things are left to be said about the war?

        Nothing.
    • elamr, on 04/30/2008, -1/+1BS
  • j0hnk377y, on 04/30/2008, -11/+1Here's how this will shake down:
    Hillary gets the nomination as Obama goes down in flames
    The Black voters in the Dem are furious for about 90 days
    Major concessions are promised (new programs) to get the Black vote back
    Obama comes onto the ticket as VP (Hillary would rather have a white guy with foreign policy experience like Sen Dunn from Georgia)
    Hillary is elected the first female president, and the wrinkles start
    Obama comes to office in 9 months after is killed in office
    Obama becomes the first black president (although never elected, although he does win the next term)
  • slartibartphast, on 04/30/2008, -2/+5What a dumb article. I don't really think much effort goes into exposing someone like that compared to something as complicated as iraq. Don't blame the press for iraq, blame the executive and legislative branches.

    But to dismiss this as just a crazy guy obama knows isn't right. I was thinking that at first, but to remain an attending memeber of a church that also exposes your kids to this same kind of information tells me you must be OK with in in spite of denials. It just makes no sense to me.
  • erik22h, on 04/30/2008, -4/+4I am a Ron Paul supporter and I think this is a largely misguided analogy. I do not blame Obama or take anything away from him for having Rev. Wright as his pastor - I know Obama doesn't believe in most of the things that Rev. Wright has said. As for Rev. Wright, I find it hard to comprehend someone defending a person who said that the US government manufactured AIDS to keep black people down. To compare his ridiculous and racist tirades to what Ron Paul said about 9/11 is absurd. This author wants you to believe that like Ron Paul's position on 9/11 was twisted by the media into everything from Ron Paul blamed America instead of the terrorists all the way to a RP endorsed 9/11 conspiracy theory, Rev. Wright's words have also been manipulated and taken out of context. I agree that the media is dwelling on this issue too much. They are doing it because it's about a controversial topic (race), it involves one of the primary Presidential candidates, and some media outlets use it for their political agenda (Fox). The bottom line is that, although the connection between Obama and Wright is way over-played and analyzed, Rev. Wright himself should not be pardoned for his comments nor does he deserve to be even remotely compared to Ron Paul.
    • obamayomama, on 04/30/2008, -0/+0I'm not a RP supporter, but I'm with you on this one. Bob definitely partook of some good weed from his musician clients before writing this garbage.
  • EvilDoer, on 04/30/2008, -5/+2I lived in San Antonio for 16 years an had no idea that McCain sat in Corner Stone church for 20 years on Sundays when Hagee was preaching.
    • Hetman, on 04/30/2008, -0/+5Because he didnt.
    • lomein987, on 04/30/2008, -0/+5Because he didnt.
    • tucsonwc, on 04/30/2008, -3/+2Yet he (McCain) actively sought his endorsement. What would you say if McCain asked for Wrights endorsement?
      And McCain has not disavowed Hagee either.
  • skyz, on 04/30/2008, -1/+2is the question have you left no sense of democracy or have you no sense left of democracy ? i think he means the latter !
  • obamayomama, on 04/30/2008, -6/+10Ho-hum...another Obamabot whining about the unfair "corporate media." And what is the "corporate media" anyway? If it's news disseminated by outlets owned by corporations, then it's certainly nothing new. The three original terrestrial tv stations are owned by corporations, and newspapers and magazines have always been. Or is it any news outlet that is for profit? If it is, that's been going on for quite a while too- and would include Ben Franklin, who sold "Poor Richard's Almanac," among other publications, and made a good living at it. Like a lot of new buzzwords and phrases, "corporate media" is simply a creation of the blogosphere. It's an attempt by bloggers (meaning any idiot with a keyboard and an internet connection) to paint news outlets with which they don't agree as malevolent and monolithic. Stick to animations, Bob... they make you look less cartoonish.
    • tucsonwc, on 04/30/2008, -3/+1The media now is centralized in the hands of a few corporations with interests beyond media itself.
      Journalism be it print or television is now about ratings and corporate policy than presentation of information.
      News is now wed to infotainment with the style and substance of "entertainment tonight".
      Reporters on the White House beat now parrot the lines of the administration with little to no critical thinking or inquiry. They are essentially the public relations arm of the press secretary rather than an independent entity, questioning the motives and policy and actions of the government.

      If you see no difference between how journalism, news and the media have changed from the previous century then you are truly blind.
      • obamayomama, on 04/30/2008, -1/+2You have to be kidding me... news has always been for profit. Do you think that newspaper editors in the past were printing them out of the goodness of their hearts? If so, you need to call your proctologist and have him help find your head. It's always been about sales, ratings and getting the scoop. Sure, they way the news is distributed has changed, but not the motive in getting it out there. That is, has been, and always will be for profit, unless it's state-run- would you rather have that? People have always been fascinated with the prurient, and that's why the media puts it forth. Sensationalism is not a new part of journalism. From the penny presses of the 1830s and 1840s to the "yellow" newspapers of William Randolph Hearst and Joseph Pulitzer, tales of crime and sex have covered the pages of newspapers. With the advent of television and other mass media, these messages have become more pervasive and accessible to all segments of society.
  • Groovydoo, on 04/30/2008, -1/+1The media is always in search of an "opera" albeit gossip, politics or violence. That is why they call them stories as in:"Our top story tonight..."
  • bobbknight, on 04/30/2008, -7/+6How someone who professes to be a Ron Paul supporter, can then say that they are in Barak Husein Obama's court, really has no idea what Ron Paul stands for. Or for that matter what Obama stands for. I still have no idea what Obama stands for, other that that if his radically liberal/socialist voting record.
    It seems to me that the Revrund Wright is just an out for himself, money grubbing ***** who does not care really about anything but himself.
    Until people understand what the original intent was of the US Constitution, all the things that are going on will continue to go on.
    Civics used to be taught in school, why has that changed?
    • satanatnmtedu, on 04/30/2008, -2/+1Hence, Wright and Paul are effectively the same person. Paul is a liar when he claims to be a strict constitutionalist - he is FOR saying the pledge of allegiance in schools. He is for keeping religion in government. These are not the views of a strict constitutionalist. These are the views of a bell weather politician pandering to a specific demographic.
  • jonnyboy1544, on 04/30/2008, -1/+2How is this on the front page? You can make a ton of arguments about what the media does and does not cover, and he certainly has his opinions.

    How exactly did he tie Reaganomics into this? Sounds like someone is still a little bitter over the 80 and 84 election.
    • obamayomama, on 04/30/2008, -0/+0No doubt, but he's definitely got a '60s look.
  • shakbhaji, on 04/30/2008, -4/+1STFU Wright. What is he getting paid off by Hillary to act crazy and tank Obama's numbers and steal this nomination?
    • JointVenture, on 04/30/2008, -2/+2Is that the right side of your brain speaking?
  • Ricemanstm, on 04/30/2008, -4/+7Funny how when the liberally biased left leaning media is friendly to the Dems there aren't any problems, but when they start questioning them, or start turning on their candidate flavor of the month...OMG IT'S A VAST RIGHT WING CONSPIRACY!!!!!
    • elamr, on 04/30/2008, -1/+1Publicans do the same thing even though FOX is clear drinking the Kool-aide (I'm mean, have a Neo-con I V)
    • Malevolant,