Colour has nothing to do with the reason that I really do dislike the man. I did not like Clinton because I thought he looked shifty. Obama is not able to look directly into a camera lens. That tells me something about the man – and I thought Clinton was shifty!!!!

Regards,
Peter H.

I heard Glenn Beck say yesterday that while doing his radio show that the press lauded the black community in Dallas as supporting BHO by 96% and 4% with no comment.

However many black callers to the show who were critical of Obama said that no one ever asked them their opinion.

What bothers me is that the Obamas hold such contempt for us “greedy” proles who dare to “wave tea bags around” because we don’t like seeing OUR money squandered on vote-buying schemes and bailouts of big-money political donors.

But, the coverage that I’ve seen – certainly not hard data – hasn’t even mentioned that facet since his inauguration.

No, Obama’s coverage has been as fawning as his predecessor’s was damning. The only constant is the folks doing the coverage.

Is this surprising?

Best wishes,
-MFS

Do we not want an engaged populace?

No, the Proles don’t want to see Big Brother at every turn. Frankly, I’m getting tired of a flurry of alerts everytime he takes a breath.

So tell me, TP. Why is Chairman Obama still spank bank material for you?

Covering the actions of the most powerful man on earth by our free press is bad?

OOPS! Sorry. I thought you were being serious in your comment above. Nevermind.

For starters, let’s take your first supposed point:

“The media is covering an president who made large promises as a candidate, now governing in a time of enormous crises, some foreseen, some not. What should they be covering? American Idol?”

No, what they SHOULD be doing is covering the candidate (now president) who made these large promises that he has either failed to deliver or has angered so much of the electorate with his out-of-the-mainstream policies that they rallied en mass on April 15 – which he had conveniently “overlooked” – and hold his feet to the fire the same way they did for 8 years with GWB. Is that too much to ask?

Next supposed “point” of yours:

“The media showed more good press on O than his predecessors. In order to show that this is somehow biased, don’t you need to first, you know, prove that Obama has messed up?”

That is totally incoherent. You don’t need to PROVE anything about who “messed up.” What you do is show a direct correlation between the same parties who are asking how “enchanting” The Snob is versus those who browbeated GWB in his first 100 days.

In case you need a couple of examples, here you go:

1. Chris Matthews and his pre-inauguration pledge across the media: “I want to do everything I can to make this thing work, this new presidency work.” Can you imagine anyone else in the media – even on Fox News – making this kind of statement during Bush’s terms?

2. Time offered a cover story package complete with four pages of Joe Klein hosannas and ten pages of fanzine photos for Barack Obama’s first 100 days. Remember Time magazine’s cover package on Bush’s first 100 days in 2001? No? Maybe that’s because there wasn’t one.

There was only a story on Bush guru Karl Rove and how he won with “the least experienced presidential nominee of modern times.” (That’s no longer true, but you wouldn’t see that phrase laid on Dear Teleprompter.)

In fact, one of the writers of that article – James Carney – is now (get this) VP Biden’s press secretary. How exactly did that happen? I thought that “journalists” were supposedly “independent?” Oh, wait – that only applies to those who are employed by Rupert Murdoch. Silly me.

So you see, there IS bias in the liberal news media. After 100 days, the media still look more like the president’s advertising team than the people’s watchdog.

Checkmate.

Regards,
Peter H.

“Mr. President, what has most enchanted you since taking office?”

Yeah, those MSM reporters are real ball-busters.

Just because you’re losing doesn’t mean someone fixed the race.

Had W been a better president with a better administration, we just might not be in this fix.

Even the tone of the syncophants in the Drool-By Media is obnoxiously fawning. I suppose they only show their knives when the president has a (R) after his name.

Scribes, Pharisees and hypocrites all.

Regards,
Peter H.

If Obama falters, he may not only hurt his party, but he could well bring the MSM down with him as well.

Amen to that, I hope MSM does falter, they clearly aren’t doing their job.