I'm more interested in seeing if the GOP will pick a moderate or a
far right firebrand. I hope I've seen the last of the lovely Ms.
Palin, but you never know……..

Here is a related thought though. Who will be on the ticket with Obama in 2012? Still Biden? He would turn 70 right after the election, and would be 74 by the end of a second term. As age was a major factor against McCain (according to exit polls), you do have to wonder if he would pick someone else. The Democrats as a party would like to use that slot to tee up a potential successor, I would expect.

No apology is necessary–but it was gracious of you to offer one
anyway. In the end I just couldn't see the US electing a VP who didn't
know that Africa was a continent, and so got involved at the bitter
end. KR

Seriously though, I am ready to stop this silly tit-for-tat between us. Politics causes strong emotional reactions, and both of us have certainly displayed them during this election cycle.

But the election is over, and it is time to move forward. I do congratulate all who supported Obama, and especially those such as yourself who personally got involved. For any offense I have caused you, both intentionally and unintentionally, I apologize.

If you have read any of my post-election comments, you know I have been very clear that whatever policy differences exist between myself and Obama, you will not find me out there saying anything other than he is our new President, and all of us owe him our respect and support. As time goes on, I am sure there will be objections from me to particular proposals, but I will not be part of any reverse-BDS.

Still, quite an amazing display of your rapier-like wit and repartee. Given another week or two, you might even have managed to have been cogent.

1. Running roughshod over campaign finance laws he helped draft in the primaries. Claiming that Obama “promised” to take public financing when Obama had always left himself a loophole in his rhetoric. Remember, he said he'd like to seek an agreement, rather than he definitely would.
2. Incoherent adjustments to policy that make it impossible to know where he really stands on certain issues like taxes, deregulation, withdrawal from Iraq, bailouts.
3. Saying he was going to suspend his campaign and yet doing no such thing. Criticizing Obama for supporting socialism after voting for the government takeover of a large part of the financial industry.
4. Picking power-abuser and lightweight Palin after meeting her once, and previously pledging that his VP pick would be based on immediate readiness for the presidency
5. Running advertisements that dwarf the negativity of Obama's by painting a picture of Obama as a celebrity, traitor-terrorist socialist who will raise your taxes (even though he won't for 95% of people) and so on.

I could go on but you get the idea. These negative campaign features haven't hurt Obama as McCain's negatives have hurt him- so I say that's mainly because of the wind at Obama's back and the headwind that McCain has to fight. And that's before you even get into the money advantage.

I don't want to make excuses, as McCain clearly could have done some things better. But if the results come out even close, then I think McCain has done incredibly well given the conditions he's had to operate under.

Obama can't downplay a close relationship that was never there.

http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/he_lied…

Bringing it back to the original post, I'd say that removing bias or unfairness from news is an impossible task. I can never quite decide if it's worth the effort, because often times, attempts at being unbiased introduce a bias all their own.

Like CNN's Campbell Brown is fond of saying lately, if politician A tells you it's raining outside, and politician B tells you it's dry and sunny, you can't just report both statements and wash your hands of it.

Journalists can and should provide context and fact-checking for the claims made by the people they report on, otherwise we might as well dismantle news organizations and just get our news directly from campaign press releases.

So what, do I think about this election? Well, I think Obama has received far better coverage than Bill Clinton, Al Gore or John Kerry could have dreamed of. That could be for any number of reasons, the historic nature of his candidacy, his charisma, the level of enthusiasm he's created in the country, disaffection with the Republican party.

But I don't think it comes simply down to liberal bias. We have roughly the same press we had in 2004 and 2000, and yet the coverage in those elections were incredibly hostile to the so-called “liberal” candidates.

I know I see McCain's campaign through my own biased lens, but I think there have been a number of simply absurd moves on his part that can't simply be spun away by media attempts to be even-handed. The non-suspension suspension of the campaign, the Sarah “abused her power, but is a reformist maverick” Palin pick, this Joe “my role model” the Plumber business, the charges of socialism while simultaneously supporting a massive buyout of failed mortgages and banks, the mostly fabricated Khalidi connection that reveals his own deeper financial ties to the man, and on and on.

The campaigns could hardly be more different, so it makes sense that they'd evaluated differently.

He seems to have a long list of friends and associates with very radical views towards America. He has stated that he likes to have multiple viewpoints as the reason, but there seems to be a very real scarcity of of any balance in the types of people he looked to when young. By his own admission, he sought out Left wing activists and Marxist professors in his early academic career. Again, nothing unusual for a young intellectual. It is the constant attempts to pretend that these are not important figures in his life and adult development that make me nervous.

CStanley hit the nail on the head. I remember when Bush got taken to task for weeks in the press for just giving a speech at Bob Jones during the 200 elections. But decades-long associations with Ayers and Rev. Wright, etc., should not even be discussed in polite company.

Oooh, he disagrees with me, he doesn't worship the same sources I do, he was rude to me in my stupidity, and said something I interpret as violating the comment policy (although it didn't. Again, your oinability to read what is there, rather than whwat you THINK is ther, blinds you. I made no threat, nor used profanity. I only implied profanity).

He must be a stalker, and potentially violent! He might even be crazy!

Glad you won't be reading this, I would hate to scare you further with my disagreement with you, and have you try to get a restraining order or something.

Why don't you go take a Zoloft, and calm down.

JWeidner: The clue to answering your question was right there in your parenthetical. I don't recall how the LATimes leaned in the primaries, but it's pretty obvious that a media outfit that perhaps supported Hillary Clinton would have been willing to air some dirt on Obama in APRIL, but not willing to expose him to any further scrutiny now that he's running as the Dem nominee. In fact, I think it's highly probable that the anonymous source for the tape was either someone in the Clinton camp or someone who wanted to do them a favor- which is perhaps why they now don't want to be exposed for having publicized this tape.

My answer to those questions is no, but with a major qualification: you'd have to know more details in order to determine whether or not the relationship is acceptable to you as a voter. And that's what's been missing in Obama's accounting of his relationship with Ayers and others- he hasn't been open and honest about it.

From what I've been able to determine, I don't have any concern about Obama actually sympathizing with Ayers' terrorist activities- I certainly don't think he's a closet anarchist. But I think it's perfectly legitimate to ask what Obama does or doesn't agree with Ayers on, regarding his education agenda and other political views. Ayers' politics may not be violent any longer, but they are still radical, despite what certain people in liberal establishment of Chicago will say. I'm sure there are plenty of people in S. Carolina who feel that Bob Jones University is completely 'mainstream' but that doesn't mean that someone with close ties to it would necessarily be welcomed on the national scene- and I feel certain that such a candidate would have some 'splainin to do. Yet the national media chirps away on how Ayers is now completely mainstream in Chicago circles, and thus it shouldn't be a big deal. How's that for a double standard?