David Brooks rips the "most split-personality politician in the country" (Obama) in today's NY Times.

Let's see:

He called him a "promise breaking" politician opportunist  "who’d throw you under the truck for votes," among other things. He goes on to list people and issues abandoned by Obama.

That's gonna leave a mark.

Read the article.

This makes me sick to my stomach.

As the New York Post's Page Six section put it today, "Tim Russert's body wasn't even cold in the ground" when Keith Olbermann decided to put pressure on MSNBC to annoint him as host of Meet The Press, according to an insider.

Chris Matthews was overheard jockeying for the job, too, during Wednesday's memorial service.

MSNBC denies the allegations.

Did you guys read today's New York Times story detailing how Obama kept cameras off a recent meeting with African American leaders?

The campaign on Monday barred cameras from a large gathering of African-American civic leaders Mr. Obama attended.

And I thought this phobia was exclusive of Muslims, after the Obama campaign asked two Muslim women not to sit behind Obama because they were wearing head scarves.

But that's not all! Obama is also afraid of being filmed talking to religious leaders. Hmmm, I wonder what's so wrong about his religious leader friends that he feels the necessity of keeping them away from the cameras. From the Times piece:

When Mr. Obama met with religious leaders last week, his campaign kept out photographers and reporters and refused to share a full list of participants.

At any rate, I highly recommend the New York T'imes article by JIM RUTENBERG and JEFF ZELENY.

    Come on, seriously. Democrats are acting like it's a shocker that one of the top Democratic leaders, a long-time Democrat who once ran and won the Vice-presidency for the Democratic Party, and who ran for president for the Democratic Party, endorsed Obama and not John McCain, a Republican conservative.

And this is getting headlines!

Who is Obama telling the truth?

Obama says in public that he represents change, specially on the issue of Iraq, which sets him apart from McCain and to a lesser extent Hillary Clinton.

I never had reason to doubt his promises until I read the news that, if elected, Obama may leave it up to the "generals on the ground" to decide what are the best steps to take in regards to this war, according to what his advisors just told the Iraqi Foreign Minister.

This was first reported a couple of days ago by the (liberal) London-based Al-Hayat newspaper-the most important Arab newspaper in the diaspora-- and picked up Friday by Wall Street Journal's James Taranto, who quipped, "Obama has gulled millions with promises of "change." But remember, change for a dollar is still a dollar.."

This is NAFTA-Gate all over again. Back then, Obama told voters one thing--basically that NAFTA is bad--while his top economic advisor reassured Canadian officials that Obama's words were just campaign rhetoric.

If these war-mongering generals decide that we need to keep the same level of troops in Iraq for an extended period of time, will Obama comply? Or will he listen to the American people, who has made him favorite to become our next president in part because of his relatively quick troop withdrawal proposals?

We need answers.

Here's the link to the story, via the Middle East Media Research Institute.

I don't know one person whose achievements in life were all positive. MAYBE Mother Theresa, but I know too little about her to reach a conclusion.

Why are major journalists, for example, not pointing out the fact that Tim Russert's anti-Clinton bias during the primaries that just ended prompted the New York Times to recently say:

Mr. Russert has frequently been accused of being too hard on Mrs. Clinton, including in a debate he hosted this year.

Why aren't major journalists telling readers about R
ussert's forgettable performance during the October 30, 2007 Democratic debate, in which he and Charles Gibson piled on Hillary Clinton, asking Obama and Edwards mostly questions to the effect of "what do you have to say in response to what Hillary said"?

Why aren't major journalists pointing out the fact that Russert thought, in the Imus show, that Al Gore's "sighing" during a 2000 debate with media favorite Bill Bradley was "unbelievable". Way to prioritize America's problems, Tim.

IMUS: Were you in the hall last night?

RUSSERT: Yeah, I was in the hall. I'm familiar with the Al Gore sighing. He did 18 in the December debate with Bill Bradley. We were tightly sitting next to each other on the set and every time Bradley would try to give an answer, "Hhhhhh." It's unbelievable.

link

And there are many other examples, but I don't wish to make this diary to long to read.

In short, memo to major journos: Say something negative about this imperfect man once and for all.

And to those who will scream, "for God's sake, this man just died, let him rest in peace!", be aware that I am not a major journalist, therefore I'm not scare of boycotts and angry emails by readers of certain candidates who used to love Russert for whatever reason.

P.S.: Rest in Peace, Tim Russert.