This whole myth of the "liberal media" has been one of my biggest pet peeves for a long time. In truth it should have been put to rest long before McClellan's book. The comparative treatment of Bush and his opponents in the last two presidential elections ought to have been the big clue. It should have been obvious to any thinking person that Bush was simply unqualified in intellect or qualities of character to be president. But the media gave us the picture of the good ol' boy you'd like to have a beer with and that was that. On the other hand, they deliberately distorted and misrepresented things said by or about Gore (ie. "inventing the internet") to shape an image of him as loose with the truth. There's no question that had an important impact on the result of that race. And four years later they did a similar job on Kerry, painting the picture of him as effete and actively abetting the swiftboating campaign questioning his patriotism. (I never have understood exactly WHY the press liked Bush and disliked Gore so much, but that's nother issue.) People ought to have been able to see through what was going on, but too many didn't.

What concerns me now is that it shouldn't be allowed to happen again. As was pointed out in the article, we already see sisturbing signs. The insanely hyped furor over the remarks by Rev. Wright belies the idea that Obama will be treated as some kind of golden boy. But it's the favoritism toward McCain that is really troublesome. The press created an image for him long ago of the straight-talking maverick, and they seem extremely reluctant to acknowledge that it no longer reflects reality. McCain is given a virtual free pass about his marital history, the inflamatory statements of his own right wing religious supporters, his lobbyist connections, etc.

The right wing has shouted "liberal media" so long and so hard that it became conventional wisdom despite all evidence to the contrary. It's going ta take a lot of standing up and shouting "CORPORATE CONTROLLED CONSERVATIVE MEDIA!" to even the balance.

There was a time when I would have willingly given Hillary the benefit of doubt and assumed that she didn't actually mean some of the things that her statement can be read to imply. But given the tone of the campaign she has run and some of her other unfortunately ambiguous statements (i.e. "as far as I know" Obama isn't a Muslim)I am no longer able to do that. It genuinely saddens me to acknowledge how much the respect I had for her has been eroded in the corse of thios campaign.

If some people think Obama's relationship to the media has been too cozy. then for heaven's sake what about McCain??? He seems to get a free pass regarding his marital history, his wealthy wife's tax returns, the statements of his extreme right wing religious supporters, his relationships with lobbyists (though that nut seems to be starting to crack) and just about anything else that might appear negative concerning him. And the media definitely seem extremely reluctant to recognize that the straight-talking maverick image they created for him ceased to be reality some time ago. The Democrats are going to need to force some of these issues into the public consciousness if they hope to beet him this November.

For Clinton supporters to fail to support Obama in November, assuming he is in fact the nominee, would be the most perfect example of cutting off one's nose to spite one's face that I could possibly think of. Do they really not have any concept of what the election of John McCain would mean for this country with regard to all the significant concerns they would no doubt claim to care about...Supreme Court appointments and their impact on reproductive rights and civil liberties, the endless war in Iraq and our shattered relations with the rest of the world in general, the health care crisis, the increasing economic squeeze being placed on most Americans, and the critical need to confront issues of global climate change and the related energy policies? McCain offers no real prospect of improvement over the disastrous policies of the Bush administration in any of these areas. Or do they actually not in fact care at all? Are they really in such a deep snit that they don't see that they would be condemning this country to what basically amounts to another term of George Bush? I fervently hope that any who are thinking that way will have their eyes opened before they wind up contributing to sending this country even deeper into the hole Bush has been digging for us.

The administratin's track record certainly doesn't lead me to put much faith in this denial. Here's praying that...at least this once...they are in fact telling the truth.

The fact that Sen. Obama hit back so quickly and forcefully on this matter should give pause to all those who continue to whine that he isn't ready for what he'll face or that he's not a fighter.

That's a lovely picture he's trying to paint all right, but I have seen no real policy proposals from him that would actually accomplish any of those things!

Simply being willing to talk to someone is not appeasement. You talk in order to better understand each other's positions and, hopefully, make progress in resolving whatever issues there are between you. It only becomes appeasement if the end result is cravenly giving in to their demands while getting nothing but vague assurances in return. And just exactly how are violent confrontations to be avoided be refusing to even talk to your adversary? Bush's tough, macho posturing with statements such as this is simply deplorable.