John McCain has a picture in his website where his teeth appear yellow, if you zoom in close enough.

Upon noticing this, Markos Moulitsas, also known as "Kos", quickly composed a diary about it.

Many Kossacks were not too pleased and pointed out that this kind of trivia was uncalled for in a serious website where policy and other important issues should reign supreme.

See the diary.

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2008/6/5/115643/8150/700/530192

Scroll down to the 20th paragraph or so in this Politico article. Once there you will bump into what Rep: Jesse Jackson Jr. (D-Ill.) wants done about Obama's primary victory:

“I cried all night. I’m going to be crying for the next four years,” he said. “What Barack Obama has accomplished is the single most extraordinary event that has occurred in the 232 years of the nation’s political history. ... The event itself is so extraordinary that another chapter could be added to the Bible to chronicle its significance.”

..and it's not a cult.

Over the course of the primary campaign season greater numbers heard about controversies associated with Barack Obama than heard about other campaign events. Nonetheless, far more Americans believe that the press coverage has favored Barack Obama than think it has favored Hillary Clinton.

Nearly four-in-ten (37%) say that in covering the Democratic race, news organizations have been biased toward Obama while just 8% say they have been biased toward Clinton; 40% say news organizations have shown no bias in their coverage. Substantial minorities of Republicans (45%) and independents (40%) say the press has been biased toward Obama; somewhat fewer Democrats (35%) see a pro-Obama bias.

link

Once again, Barry has been caught making stuff up. Credit to the Washington Post fact-checker for debunking this new lie (link here).

As you may know, Obama recently threw a rant against Rush Limbaugh and Lou Dobbs, accusing them of contributing to the doubling of hate crimes against Latinos.

But guess what? FBI  statistics show that the increase in anti-Hispanic hate crimes from 2005 to 2006 (the last time hate crimes were measured) was very  small--nowhere near the "doubling" claimed by Obama.

The Obama campaign tried to spin the lie by pretending Obama was referring to California hate crimes, but the problem is...that Obama made the remarks in Florida! and didn't say or even hint that he was talking about California.

But wait...there is more...Even if the campaign spin were true, California statistics show that hate crimes did not even double in that state the last year that statistics were compiled! The increase in 2006 compared to 2005 was only 16%.

Finally, I leave you with the fact-checker's conclusion:

This is hardly the first time that Obama has come up with faulty stats. I have already called him out for repeating the myth that there are more young black men in prison than in college. And then there was the time when he said that 10,000 people had been killed in tornadoes in Kansas when the real figure was 12. Perhaps he could do with a personal fact checker.

Obama earned four Pinoccios, an award reserved for indefensible lies only.

This was this evening in Hardball, when it was imminent Obama would clinch the nomination a few hours later:

video

Great news for Obama. He leads McCain in a traditionally red state by 2% according to a just-released Survey USA poll.

With Edwards as VP Obama is even stronger.

See poll details.

There is no doubt Obama will kick McCain's arse in November.

Gobama!

A recent study which found, among other things, that Fox is pro-Obama, MSNBC is pro-Clinton, the media is anti-McCain and Obama and Clinton have been treated equally nice by the media, is being criticized by media critic Bob Somerby in his Daily Howler blog.

For instance, op-ed columnists are not included in this study, leaving out a group known for its hateful anti-Clintonite feelings: Maureen Dowd, Gene Richardson, E.J. Dionne, George Will, Richard Cohen, Bob Herbert, Frank Rich, the whole LA Times and Boston Globe, you name them! are all inexplicably excluded from this study. But it does not end there. I present you with Somerby's argument:

    Bye-bye, Maureen and David: Many bloggers have prayed for the day when Maureen Dowd gets her walking papers. In this study, that day has arrived. In the part of this study which deals with newspapers, only front-page news reports are analyzed. Here’s the problem: When we think of the treatment a candidate gets from a newspaper, we tend to think, in substantial part, of the treatment dished out in the op-ed (and editorial) pages. But those pages are missing from this study! There’s nothing automatically wrong with such a practice. But it’s just one way in which this study measures something a little bit different from the thing you might have in mind when you think about “friendly/tough coverage.”

    Shifting methodology: The PEJ has done studies of this general type in the past several elections. But the group’s methodology seems to shift every time–and no one bothers explaining why. This study’s methodology is massively different from the methodology used in Campaign 2000, for example. What was wrong with that methodology? What makes this new methodology better? No one says. Sorry, that’s weird.

    You don’t need no stinking examples: The high-toned “scholars” at PEJ never seem to give examples. Again: Unless they’ve completely misstated their procedures, they didn’t “rate each story” as “positive, negative or neutral” in this new study. But in previous projects which did follow that model, they didn’t give examples of stories which got rated in each category; thus, we never saw what kinds of stories got rated as “positive” under their practices. But then, no examples of their work are offered this year either.

    Under this year’s methodology, it seems that the researchers went through news reports counting up statements within all the stories which were favorable/unfavorable about Candidate X. But this didn’t just include statements by the journalists who wrote the stories; it includes quoted statements by other people–by voters, candidates or candidate surrogates (among others). This may be a decent methodology–but once again, it may not be what the reader has in mind when he thinks of “favorable/unfavorable” coverage. Under this system, how do different stories get rated? No examples are given. We have no way to get an idea.

    Absolut grandiosity: Are you there, vodka? It’s us, the Project for Excellence. No, we aren’t Chelsea Handler fans, though we think her new book has a catchy title. But here’s a fairly obvious critique: Imaginably, the Project’s methodology may be OK–as applied to a single news org. That is, it might imaginably provide a good reading of how the New York Times (or NBC Nightly News) has treated the various candidates. (Then again, of course, it may not.) But the Project doesn’t content itself with creating individual ratings for a number of major news orgs; instead, it tries to sample a blend of news orgs which represent the “press” as a whole (for the list, click here). Almost surely, this attempt is silly. Almost surely, there is no rational way to “sample” the vast array of news orgs which make up the national media. How silly does it get when the PEJ tries? In this study, the Washington Post is sampled roughly every other day–and so is the Ashtabula, Ohio Star Beacon. We find it very hard to believe that there is any “scientific” justification for the blend of sources which make up this study. Almost surely, this is made-up, make-believe pseudo-sampling. Even if the methodology works for a single news source, the Project offers no reason to think that the sample here really represents the overall “press corps.”

Continue reading.

Keith Olbermann has been summoned to court for not paying owed taxes, The New York Post's Page Six column has learned

Keith Olbermann has been summoned to court for not paying owed taxes, The New York Post's Page Six column has learned:

June 2, 2008 -- PROFESSIONAL angry person Keith Olbermann favors tax-and-spend liberals, but he didn't pay his own taxes. OlbermannWatch.com reports that New York state has issued a tax warrant or judgment against the MSNBC host for $2,269.50 in back taxes owed by his personal corporation, Olbermann Broadcasting Empire Inc. Asked about the delinquency the other night by journalist Evan Gahr, the otherwise loquacious Olbermann uttered nary a word as he scurried into Trump Palace, where he bought condo apartment 40B last year, according to public records.

I am a fan of Olbermann, but in my view, he should pay his taxes. I pay mine on time.

Keith Olbermann has been summoned to court for not paying owed taxes, The New York Post's Page Six column has learned

Keith Olbermann has been summoned to court for not paying owed taxes, The New York Post's Page Six column has learned:

June 2, 2008 -- PROFESSIONAL angry person Keith Olbermann favors tax-and-spend liberals, but he didn't pay his own taxes. OlbermannWatch.com reports that New York state has issued a tax warrant or judgment against the MSNBC host for $2,269.50 in back taxes owed by his personal corporation, Olbermann Broadcasting Empire Inc. Asked about the delinquency the other night by journalist Evan Gahr, the otherwise loquacious Olbermann uttered nary a word as he scurried into Trump Palace, where he bought condo apartment 40B last year, according to public records.

I am a fan of Olbermann, but in my view, he should pay his taxes. I pay mine on time.