Pittsburgh Police is reporting that a robber carved a "B mark with his knife on a woman's face because the latter's car sported a John McCain sticker.
Here's the photo of the woman's face:
Here's the news report.

I don't know why the letter is being described as a "B" since the letter is shaped like a mirror image of a B. I also wonder how the police knows that the man's reason to attack was the woman's partisan preference. Is the report based solely on the woman's testimony?

Then again, many pundits took the words of unreliable hack Dana Milbank as gospel when he claimed to have heard a fan yell "kill him" at an Obama rally.

I, a long time TPM commenter, support Nader. There.

Today the Washington Post reported that one "long time commenter" in a Taliban website claimed to support McCain. Then they ran a story on it titled, "On Al-Qaeda Web Sites, Joy Over U.S. Crisis, Support for McCain"

Now, Remember the rule: Post anything and your post will be picked up by the mainstream media claiming to represent the whole website or organization.

I have to go now, have to post an "I love Obama" diary on Free Republic which will likely appear in the New York Times' front page tomorrow.

This according to a report released today, conducted by he Pew Research Center.

Those replying to this post will likely pursue two lines of argumentation: 1) That people are brainwashed by the corporate, right-wing-leaning media into buying the "Media is pro-Obama" claim, and 2) Of course the media wants Obama to win. Who doesn't!

But neither of these responses answer a key question: Why have liberals consistently claimed that the problem with the media is that it is "corporate", that is, owned by corporations, and corporations in turn tell these media outlets to publish or air  Republican-friendly content?

Aren't media outlets still owned by big corporations?

Note that another study -- I believe it might be a different part of the same study mentioned above-- found that John McCain has received a much more negative coverage than Barack Ob ama during this campaign.

Again, you might argue that McCain just deserves this pounding due to his negative campaign and the fact that he's the worst candidate. But the question reappears: haven't you been arguing that the "corporate media" is supposed to give a pass to Republicans? Then why is it not giving him a pass now? Did it cease to be "corporate"?

Josh Marshall, whose main job duty consists in repeating what other friendly pundits say with little of no challenge, falsely implied on Octobet 6th that John McCain would pay for his health care plan by making cuts in Medicaid benefits and services.

He based his assertion on a TNR blog post that quoted a left-leaning tank ascribes bogus benefit-slashing numbers to McCain, who has never proposed such cuts. Obama has aired a video contgaining the same falsehood .

In his post, Marshall added sarcastically that "I guess they really are writing off Florida," implying the cuts would target seniors' benefits.

But as noted by Factcheck.org and Politifact.org--the prestigious independent websites admired left and right--John McCain wants to cut Medicare costs, but by other means:

Politifact:

"All fine, except that McCain has never talked about Medicare benefit and service cuts to pay for his health care plan. Instead, his campaign says it would achieve the necessary cost savings by overhauling Medicare reimbursement policies, streamlining treatments for certain chronic diseases, cracking down on fraud and waste, expanding the use of lower-cost generic drugs and assorted other steps. McCain's senior policy advisor Douglas Holtz-Eakin has talked about further policy changes, including extending tax credits so some low-income Americans wouldn't have to enroll in Medicaid, the federal-state health program for the poor. But he has stressed that the cost of these changes could be covered without cutting benefits or services" (My emphasis).

Similarly, Factcheck.org previewed a lengthy debunking analysis as follows:

10-20-2008:

"We're skeptical that either candidate can deliver the savings they promise, but that's no basis for Obama to accuse McCain of planning huge benefit cuts."

I cannot stress this enough: Use TPM as a source of entertainment, not information.

Alex Koppelman runs Salon.com's political blog "The War Room", and has written for the Huffington Post and the New York Observer, among others.

As reported by Koppelman on Saturday, the Secret Service found no evidence to back up Dana Milbank's claim that someone had yelled "kill him" in a GOP rally in Clearview, FL.
"tell him," not "kill him" was heard in the tapes analyzed by the SS agent in charge of the investigation.

Koppelman took the Secret Service's side against Milbank, who I must add was once pronounced "worst journalist in the world":

There have still been plenty of other nasty things about Obama shouted at McCain-Palin events, but the Secret Service takes this sort of thing very, very seriously. If it says it doesn't think anyone shouted "kill him," it's a good bet that it didn't happen.

Milbank became some sort of a Pullitzer Prize Winning Eminence in the eyes of Daily Kos diarists and TPM and Huffington Post bloggers, all of whom reported his claim as fact.

The consistently alarmist Josh Marshall played dumb and pretended that the "call for murder" occurred just as Milbank had described it, but that it was maybe aimed at William Ayers (Milbank later agreed that the alleged epithet was aimed at Ayers).

It's worth noting that a Tampa Bay Online political blogger cited witnesses who had heard "tell em", rather than "kill him."

These bloggers should be ashamed of blindly trusting Milbank despite the fact that he recently took a Barack Obama quote so grossly out of context that he had to quit "Countdown" once it became imminant that Keith Olbermann would kick him out himself. His damaged reputation was not enough to urge these individuals to gather the facts and wait patiently for corroborative information before jumping to hasty conclusions.

The families of the dead in Iraq can find comfort in the fact that even though their sons died partly as a result of Colin Powell's lies, Powell endorsed a candidate that will end the war in a year or so , thus preventing your other sons from dying too.