I agree, and predict the MSM will fight the public demand to vet Mr. McCain, Im watching George S. tomorrow just to bear that witness- he will somehow regain his restraint to ask the tough irrelevant personal questions in the face of the right, or the media darling.

Interesting q about the one at a time dynamic. Perhaps too confusing to have more than one bad guy at a time in their script? Compare to other manufactured controversies. Pro wrestling switches bad guys, but it wouldn't rouse the masses if it were confused if it were two good guys, or by fair fights, or non-black and white confrontations. Not that thats what we want to digest, its what the ministers of public opinion want to feed us.

But its also the easy way to report. Make the story, then report on the story, then report on the news that the story is getting big and therefore what the public wants to hear...

I suspect that the reason the media have kept their hands off of McCain is because he is a veteran. Back when Kerry was being swift-boated I noticed the media was hands off determining which side had the facts on its side. The sense I got at that time was that the MSM was afraid to challenge those veterans accusing Kerry, even though the media had records proving they were smearing Kerry's war record. The only MSM personality I ever heard say this was Ron Reagan Jr.

McCain defends their tax bracket interests so why shouldn't any of them do their duty to get him elected? Let's not forget who pays these people, the networks. The same networks who were hawkish for the war and who were paid in deregulation via the FCC.

The MSM is owned by huge multi-national corporations who's economic interests are protected by their ability manipulate the political process through lobbing and campaign contributions. Obama's stunning fund raising ability with unprecedented breadth, has been constructed almost entirely outside of this system. As a result he is not beholden to these traditional interests. I think that might be the motivation behind such horrors as the ABC debate. Unfortunately, we can expect more of the same.

I still have yet to hear an argument that can account for Vicki Iseman. Sex and politics = big ratings. Yet they buried it.

If it were Obama and Vicki Iseman, helicopters would be hovering above her house right about now. She would be bumrushed every morning by reporters with cameras rolling. Instead, she quietly resumes her lobbying work, never having had to answer the adultery charges on camera or even a press release.

So if the MSM wants ratings, they'd be splashing Vicki Iseman and other McCain affairs (strippers, etc.) But they don't. This suggests that they have a doublestandard in attacking Democrats vs. Republicans.

It seems like the rest of the media steered clear of the Vicki Iseman scandal after watching the NYT reach too far and get its fingers burned.

"It seems like the rest of the media steered clear of the Vicki Iseman scandal after watching the NYT reach too far and get its fingers burned."

The NYT got shouted down by the rightwing noise machine. Nothing else.

Obama supporters can't handle the truth. They attack ABC because they have the journalistic integrity to actually vet Obama. Now that it's becoming clear, that Obama is not everything he seemed, Obama supporters who are in denial, have started attacking the messenger. The more they attack ABC, the more they expose the fact that Obama is damaged goods who could cost the Democrats the presidency in November. As for Obama getting hammered by Hillary....... Ahhhhhh.... poor little baby 'bama. And poor little baby 'bama supporters. Go cry to mama

KDH-

Such anger and frustration. Must suck to be you.

They gave him a standing ovation, for frigging sakes! Is there nothing barbeque can't do?

McCain has many vulnerable points that can be attacked fairly.

Flip-flopping on serious issues like the Bush tax cut, his non-support for those generals saying we needed several hundred thousand troops to successfully invade Iraq, his support on video for the war's strategy at the start of the war, his inconsistency between saying he wanted Rumsfeld fired but never actually said so, gay marriage.

His dislike of earmarks and the earmarks he has voted for on behalf of Arizona, his ethics and campaign reform compared with the lobbyists working on his campaign, including one who used to make lobby calls from the bus.

His seeking the support of Falwell after condemning the man, his seeking the support of Catholic-hating evangelicals, the coincidence of campaign donations and FCC committee votes and letters.

His age, in so far as it might affect his several confusions between Shiite and Sunni.

None of this condemns the man for his supporters, just highlights what he himself has done.

Maybe it also has to do with Obama making the elitist comments to his well-to-do West Coast donors just before a primary in a state like Pennsylvania where people have been hit hard but are really trying to go forward.
I live in France and I know 12 American registered voters who have permanently written Obama off due to his unconvincing response in the debate to the Wright question. That number will grow because each of those people will be talking to other people.
Since Obama supporters don't seem to analyze information, they see the whole thing as media bias, but I think the debate was set up so that Obama could clear himself ... and he didn't.

"I know 12 American registered voters who have permanently written Obama off due to his unconvincing response in the debate to the Wright question."

Birds of a feather tend to flock together. You might try expanding your information sources outside your circle of friends/family to get a broader perspective.

Any individual with half an open mind who saw Obama's speech on race and Wright would refer to Obama's response so dismissively. Did you? Tell us what YOU thought of it.

"First off, the second quoted sentence tells me you and your friends weren't "on the fence" to begin with. Second, the critique that millions of people are too stupid "to analyze information" is such a strange statement. I wonder what tool of analysis you used to come to that conclusion?"

And what explains the fact that Obama wins higher educated people overwhelmingly? Clinton and McCain win the people who aren't paying attention or who in fact don't care.

But I can never tell if those dismissive of of Obamaites are 1) older folks who resent young people having their say for a change 2) prejudiced who can't fathom the possiblity that Obama is the smartest guy in the room. (Witness his brilliant questioning of Petraeus, in comparison to the true lightweight, intellectually lazy McCain)

D'oh!! Should read: "...but I don't turn a blind eye to his obvious negatives when strong evidence comes in front of me." At least I attempt not to...

How long must we wait for an edit function?