And if you look at the links I provided, cosponsorship was only counted if it was at the time of introduction or “as soon as possible after introduction.” Obama took leadership on these bills and knows what he's talking about, has intelligently considered both national and international issues. Palin is a lightweight ideologue.

I'm not trying to convince you. But for other readers, look at the link I provided and make up your own mind. AR is scratching the ground for anything negative to diminish the significant resume of Sen. Obama.

Oh and yes. Better than McCain's. McCain has probably not even studied constitutional law, let alone taught it. Didn't distinguish himself academically, just the opposite, and has been a lobbyist's lapdog for decades.

As for the dumb attempt at guilt by association, no sale. The association is weak and there's no evidence of his being “mentored” by Ayers, who was a campus radical (non-murderous as far as I know) when Obama was 9 years old.

Let's see, 16 out of 1106 = a 1.4% pass rate (of bills he really had nothing to do with, or were of no consequence).

And according to Politifact, only one (1) of those bills was he the lead sponsor (a bill to provide relief and promote democracy in the Democratic Republic of Congo) became law was actually Obama's. (0.4% pass rate for sponsored bills, rounded up!)

I, for one, am impressed by that stellar display of Senatorial acumen and leadership. Not.

And I have other quibbles with his padded resume, but already stated it was better than Palin's. “neither of them have fully fleshed out resumes (although there is no doubt Obama's is stronger)” [from post above].

Better than mine? Well, certainly stronger academically than mine, and as I have never coveted public office, he certainly has more experience there than I do as well.

However, he does not have my track record in business creation and technological innovation (I own or share WAY more patents than he does, I am sure), and neither do I have his record of being supported and mentored by murdering left-wing activists. But all-in-all, I agree his is a better looking resume than mine.

But better than McCain's? NFW.

Here you go. The US Senate. The rest are in IL state senate. See them all, here

Number of bills sponsored: 272

Number of bills co-sponsored: 834

Number of bills sponsored or co-sponsored that became law: 16

There are 99 Senators roaring in laughter at that statement. He is known for his LACK of any substance or accomplishment of his own within Congress.

Second, although young, I'll bet Obama's resume far surpasses yours, as it does mine. Top honors at Harvard law, pres of the Harvard Law Review, teacher of constitutional law for 12 years, successful author of two best selling books, author or co-author of over 1,000 bills. Know what? I think his resume is better than McCains. That's from someone who has reviewed thousands of resumes.

I have never liked her selection, but we have to step back for a second, and admit that neither of them have fully fleshed out resumes (although there is no doubt Obama's is stronger), and we ignore two key a key points.

First, where would you rather have the least experienced member of your two-person Executive team? As the President, or as the VP?

Second, as mentioned above, Palin is NOT running for VP, therefor why do we insist she needs to have the same level of experience as the top of the ticket?

Historically, the VP selection has been a ticket helper, and for a younger, more inexperienced candidate such as Obama, is a much more seasoned veteran, and for an already experienced candidate, tends towards someone to be groomed for a future Presidential run in 4 or 8 years.

AR, I didn't claim the electorate was informed. I said the MSM has not done a stellar job of helping in that regard.

As for media bias, people are biased. Newsweek, yes, is the most liberal of the major newsweeklies, followed by Time and with US News and World Report consistently right leaning. The Atlantic is liberal, as is Vanity Fair, while Insight is arch-conservative. The networks are owned by GE, Microsoft, Time Warner, Disney and News Corp, none of them paragons of liberal thought, though they know how to market to partisans on both sides.

Different media outlets have different twists. Fine. Let them delineate news from commentary. A big part of the problem is that the news department is now managed as a profit center, pandering to an “infotainment” market rather than serious journalism.

I suggest you take a reading for comprehension class, so that when you rad comments, you do not take them to mean what you desire them to mean, but rather instead learn to interpret what the author actually said.

My comment was directed more at the apathetic, un-informed, sound-bite fed masses than at the media itself. Biased media was, as you said, the norm at the founding of our country (and it was this extreme partisanship that ultimately led to one of the gravest mistakes in US lawmaking, the Sedition Act).

The difference was that voting was a different world back then. A much larger percentage of the voters were educated, and maintained a key interest in local, national and international issues, trade and business, taxes, etc. Of course, the body of work to maintain knowledgeable on was not as wide or deep back then, in fairness.

Additionally, the separation of the Legislative branch from 'mob appeal' (Jefferson's quoted concern) was embodied in the combination of the State Legislators handling the selection process for Senators, and the Electoral College.

The Electoral College in particular was very different than today. You were likely to have real knowledge of your Elector, and he was who you voted for, not the candidate. Granted that Electors usually pledged themselves to a specific candidate, but they expectation was that you trusted their judgment (which is why you voted for them), and if they changed their vote, you would grant to them the conceit that they made the best choice given the fact in front of them at the time.

So I STILL say that had Jefferson (and to be truly fair, Madison) seen how we have become a populist election system for both Congress and (almost now) the Presidency, he would have written stronger language into the Constitution.

You are . . .of course . . . totally right. McCain is a creature of the media. He benefitted from bias in his favor in 2000 . . . covering his anger and his senior moments even then.

But that was because McCain was against Bush . . . who was far more despised by the media. Enemy of my enemy, and all that.

But Mlradio . . . the implication of what you are saying is that there IS MSM bias. McCain benefitted from it, as you say.

Now that McCain is against a Democrat, he is whining that he no longer enjoys the protection of the MSM. And he doesn't. . . Obama currently enjoys that privilege.

Look at how little attention have been paid to Biden's wacky historical gaffes. They vanish into air, like they never were (much like McCain's gaffes in 2000).

The photographer admitted on her website she was astonished the Atlantic would hire her given her fiercely-anti-Republican views. Accordingly, she took very bad pictures of McCain (detailing on her site exactly how every shot was meant to make him look at his worst . . . including the one the Atlantic chose).

The Atlantic was embarrassed of course . . . not by the negative photo of McCain but by the fact that the photographer detailed how and why her portraits were negative.

The editor of the Atlantic still did the old MSM line – “Well, it is all a matter of interpretation. I think it is fine photo of McCain” – however, this was undercut by the photographer's detailed description of how she made McCain look his worst.

I find it amusing how the media, which John McCain once endearingly called “his base” has suddenly turned into his greatest enemy.

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=washingt…

BTW, I noticed a news article earlier today that the McCain team has “banned” Maureen Dowd from their campaign coverage. Oh John, you sly devil you.

Most folks here at TMV are liberal. They agree with the media, and thus don't see any bias. The media are simply revealing the (liberal) truth.

Evan Thomas, Newsweek's Assistant Managing Editor, revealed as much in 2004, declaring the media wanted Kerry to win.

This is not me saying this. This is the Managing Editor of Newsweek. Worse, he even noted how much this bias was worth for a given Democratic candidate: 15 percent.

(Hey, what does he know. He is just an Editor of Newsweek).

“There's one other base here, the media. Let's talk a little media bias here. The media, I think, wants Kerry to win and I think they're going to portray Kerry and Edwards I'm talking about the establishment media, not Fox. They're going to portray Kerry and Edwards as being young and dynamic and optimistic and there's going to be this glow about them, collective glow, the two of them, that's going to be worth maybe 15 points.”

SD, so you're back to the McCain can't win shtick eh? I wouldn't bet against the power of obliviousness, it's show itself to be a force in the past. That said, I am one with the “hope” message – as in I hope the electorate gets a clue this time.

I'm guessing you need to read up on your history. Granted, the media is currently going through a transition. But it is not unprecedented. Okay, in detail it is, but not in substance. In fact, in substance, what is happening now is arguably very similar to what happened in the time of our founding fathers. In those times the press was often very partisan. But it was also decentralized. Anyone with a printing press could express their views. Likewise, in modern times, anyone with a web site, radio channel, or cable channel can express their views. IMO, the danger now, as always through our history, lies in attempts to consolidate those outlets.

I don't know about you, but I sure remember how much the press sat on their hands during the Clinton impeachment process. Man, they sure were in the tank for Clinton in those days…

I've been hearing that for the better part of 30 years. I'm beginning to think the argument is at best disingenuous, and at worst dishonest. If you really think that's true it's well beyond time to DO SOMETHING ABOUT IT! Wouldn't you agree?