> Curtis, Barack was given a pass not only by the media but by the > Democrats themselves. Palin wasn't. > > Double standard. > > Don't you think Barack should be vetted first? >
She is being given a pass in her own party but never had to go through the scrutiny that Obama did by minds like Hillary Clinton. I would love to see her debate Palin as she did Obama. I can't believe how little info we have about candidates aside from the popularity contest spin bullshit. Palin was the one who put out her family's situation. It all comes out, look how we nailed and destroyed John Edwards. Everyone gets the reaming. So we have to go after each candidate to see what we have and that is ongoing. No one should go soft on Obama for fear of being called a racist and no one should be soft on Palin because of fear of being called a sexist. As far as media bias goes, all media is fractionated to target different audiences. I have to watch Fox news for the right and MSNBC for the left for example and then make up my own mind. > Curtis, Barack was given a pass not only by the media but by the > Democrats themselves. Palin wasn't. Fox news did a fine job of climbing up his butt. I am tired of claims of media bias, there is plenty of news from both sides now with the 24 hour news cycle. Palin is being given a pass right now on Fox. But I have also noticed that the right leaning Fox delights in all the same salacious details that everyone else does, and then has the nerve ro complain that other channels are covering it. BTW, I am watching Bill O'Reilly interview with Obama with great interest. It will continue next week. I despise the guy which is exactly why he is perfect for helping me understand Obama better. That stuff about his associating with terrorists doesn't pass the smell test with me and demeaning his community organizing work is pathetic. Doing good is not bad. Not by a long shot. I dig reading your POV here Shemp. It is not usually my own politically but I learn from it. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "shempmcgurk" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues" > <curtisdeltablues@> wrote: > > > > Sara is applying to run for president (in the case of a 3-4 > > time,cancer surviving, 72 year old, having a serious medical problem > > in the next 4 years) and unlike all the other candidates, we have > not > > had enough time to understand who we are dealing with. McCain is > > bum-rushing us with her and we have two months to get to know her > > before deciding if she should occupy the second most important > > political position in the world. > > [snip] > > Good points all, Curtis. > > However, I can't help seeing a double standard. Certainly, Sarah > must be vetted by the media, as you suggest, for the reasons you > suggest: she very well may become president and we need to know as > much about her as possible before we cast our votes in November. > > But in the 8 or 9 days since her VP appointment was announced, we > know more about her 17-year-old daughter's pregnancy and her > sperminator Levi Johnston than we know about Barack Obama's > relationship with a self-admitted terrorist, William Ayers, a > relationship that was extensive and quite significant in Obama's > life. > > Indeed, I suggest to you that if we did a survey of 100 Americans off > the street right now, chosen at random, I'll bet you a dollar to a > donut that more will know who Levi Johnston or spit-shining Piper > Palin is than they do who William Ayers is. > > And Barack's been running for president for 18 months! > > Sorry, if there's any vetting that needs to be done, it's on Barack > Obama first. Like the Democrats who during the primaries got caught > up in the concept of Obama, to use Geraldine Ferraro's words, the > media, too, got caught up in the concept and never vetted or > investigated him properly. > > And now the Dems are stuck with a terrorist-associating, community > organizer who the 527 groups are simply going to rip apart. For two > weeks solid before election day, the 527s are going to spend about > $100 million on TV ads about Ayers, Wright, and sundry other gems > Barack has dished up (such as an ad contrasting Barack's statement > that if his daughter would ever get pregnant that he wouldn't want > her burdened with "a mistake" with Palin and her five kids). > > Gosh, how many voters in Middle America -- the people Barack needs to > court in order to win -- will vote for him once they see something > like this (scroll down to "latest video"): > > http://www.americanissuesproject.org/ > > Curtis, Barack was given a pass not only by the media but by the > Democrats themselves. Palin wasn't. > > Double standard. > > Don't you think Barack should be vetted first? >
