So nice to see such nasty libtards get hoisted by their own petard!

I don't think you really understand what that means

Except for Fox & the Wall Street Journal, it would be about 100%.

Hahahaha…there was widespread criticism of “Celebrity” in the MSM…just as the McCain team bragged about it. (Interestingly, there was much less criticism and bragging about the smear over Obama ignoring the troops. That was a nasty smear . . . and McCain's team had carefully crafted it . . . yet it got much less coverage than I would have thought. So you may have a point there.)

Re: flip-flops . . . everybody does it. Who is the bigger one?
Well, the progressive howling over FISA ensured Obama got tarred with that one.

As the Democrats have represented McCain as a typical GOPer in the pocket of big business, they can hardly say he is flip-flopping when he acts consistently the way they say he does.

When did McCain accuse Obama of treason?

1. When the Edwards/Hunter tryst story first broke last fall the MSM was on it. Then they got tarnished when someone else admitted to being the father of Hunter's child, and everyone involved confirmed that version of the story.
2. The evidence so far this time around is circumstantial. All we really know is that Edwards visited someone known to be a friend at an unusual hour and in an unusual way. That certainly isn't very smart, but that's all the evidence indicates at this point.
3. McCain was accused of a similar impropriety with similarly circumstantial evidence. And the NYT, which broke that story, was severely criticized for it.
4. If the story is true, who will it harm most? I'd say it's Edward's cancer-stricken wife and his family. Edwards would be exposed as cheating on his wife, and that's pretty much it. Heck, even McCain cheated on his wife. The first one anyway. There isn't the same element of hypocrisy vis-a-vis Edward's public message as there is in other stories of the same ilk. It was the element of hypocrisy that made the Craig, Spitzer, Vitter, Taggart, et. al., stories particularly newsworthy.

So is there a double standard going on here? I don' t know. But for the reasons above, I think it makes sense for credible reporters to be careful.

Hmmm…mea culpa…I enjoy the odd celebrity gossip as much as the next person.
Thus, I should not have said the above.

I was watching “La Dolce Vita” the other night…the movie that gave birth to the term papparazzi…and have been thinking about the vacuity of celebrity culture since.

As Pogo wisely observed: “We have met the enemy and he is us.”

When McCain runs a smear ad, instead of it reflecting negatively on McCain, the press explains it away… “Oh, someone in McCain's campaign is doing this without McCain's knowledge.”

When McCain flipflops on drilling, it's a sign of his Maverickness. When Obama does it, it's a mortal sin.

When a surrogate of Obama's questions whether or not McCain's POW story qualifies him for president, we get a solid week of hand wringing about how Obama denigrated McCain's military service. But when McCain basically accuses Obama of treason, that's just hardball politics.

I agree. There is no venality in the sense of dubiously criminal activity.
If true . . . Edwards did this for reasons of his own, and tried to cover it up.
I suspect the coverup … if true . . .proceeded from personal reasons too. Otherwise, why bother when his presidential ambitions are out the window.

Personally, if it doesn't involve criminal activity or hypocritical public office holders, I think it should be off-limits.

But again, by that rule, there was no reason for the MSM to expose Bill Bennett's gambling problem when he was a private citizen. It hurt no one except himself. Bennett was, however, a Republican.

(2) the following was Edwards' response to CBS News anchor Katie Couric's question about whether voters should care if a presidential candidate is faithful to his spouse:

“Of course. I mean, for a lot of Americans — including the family that I grew up with, I mean, it's fundamental to how you judge people and human character — whether you keep your word, whether you keep what is your ultimate word, which is that you love your spouse, and you'll stay with them. … I think the most important qualities in a president in today's world are trustworthiness — sincerity, honesty, strength of leadership. And — and certainly that goes to a part of that.”

Hypocrisy, thy name is Edwards.

(Edwards quote courtesy of Ann Coulter)

You know there has been endless coverage of “Another McCain Senior Moment” throughout July. The MSM trumpeted these gaffes . . . leading to the total media lockdown McCain is in at the moment.

The mere fact that McCain is in one of the tightest “No Media” bubbles of recent years is evidence that you are wrong in your contention that “stuff about McCain barely registers”.

Conversely, Howell at the WaPo found that images of Obama significantly outnumbered images of McCain in the Post's coverage . . . and, even including McCain's decades longer term in Washington . . . in total number of images.

Some of this is not actual bias, I concede: Obama is the flavour of the month, and a phenomenon.

But this same intense coverage can lead to overexposure. McCain's “Celebrity” ad played to this.

There is a clear MSM advantage to Obama. When McCain and Cindy are in soft focus on the cover of “People” I will concede the MSM might be balanced.