Columbia Journalism Review to Obama: Why Are You Such a Fucking Liar?

CJR published these two articles on Obama's lying problem 

• about not taking lobbyist money, which he in fact does
• about John McCain's "100 years" Iraq comment

The Obama lie list gets longer...

Research shows anti-Clinton/pro-Obama bias

Bill Maxwell at the St. Petersburg Times wrote this column today that outlined the media's anti-Hillary bias, citing evidence from several new studies:

"...Several independent watchdog organizations, including Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting and the Center for Media and Public Affairs, have documented persistent and widespread bias against Clinton and in favor of Obama.

"The Center for Media and Public Affairs reported that since mid December, when the Iowa caucuses came into play, Obama has received the lion's share of the positive coverage: 'From Dec. 16 through Jan. 27, five out of six on-air evaluations of Obama (84 percent) have been favorable, compared to a bare majority (51 percent) of evaluations of Mrs. Clinton. The gap in good press widened since the New Hampshire primary, with Clinton dropping to 47 percent positive comments and Obama holding steady at 83 percent positive.

" 'NBC's coverage has been the most critical of Clinton - nearly 2 to 1 negative (36 percent positive and to 64 percent negative). Conversely, ABC's coverage was most supportive - nearly 2 to 1 positive (63 percent vs. 37 percent). CBS and Fox were more balanced - 50 percent positive comments on Fox and 56 percent positive on CBS.'

"The Pew Research Center found a sharp difference in tone between coverage of Clinton and Obama. Here, I also must address the pundits. Most, left and right, have been unfriendly to Clinton, some writing her obit and others advising her to fold up her tent. Obama, on the other hand, has been treated like the Second Coming."

more

Hopetards bend over (Nafta Shafta)

Apparently the unmentionable's campaign dispatched senior economic advisor Austin Goolsbee to soothe Canadian Government fears that he was articulating an anti-NAFTA position, despite the fact that he is. "Don't listen to all of that," Goolsbee said. "It's just talk." (ok, I'm paraphrasing for you.)

Thank you to AP's Nedra Pickler for blowing the lid off by obtaining the smoking-gun Canadian Gov. memo and filing this extensive report.

And to Jake Tapper (we heart him, at least briefly) for his post and inspiring headline on ABC's Political Punch, which sums it up this way:

"The Obama campaign over the weekend falsely claimed the CTV story had been 'retracted.' It has not.

And in fact, the story seems today more alive than ever. That is, if the press does its job. If."

Will Hopetards still love him tomorrow?

Take lobbyist money? Yes, Yes he does.

I hear the unmentionable say again and again that he's "not beholden to corporate interests and Washington lobbyists." Another example of his ability to spoonfeed shit to the American people, media, fellow Democrats--and they think it tastes like swiss cake rolls. Here's a break down of exactly how unmentionable is lying about his ties to PACs, lobbyists, etc--from Michael Dobbs' FactChecker blog at WaPo last Fall, which examined his and Edwards' claims to be above it all, etc.:

" -They still take money from state lobbyists.

-They make no attempt to distinguish between lobbyists for big corporations and lobbyists for small non-profits. They treat a lobbyist for Haliburton in the same way as a lobbyist for child poverty or cancer research.

-They accept money from former lobbyists and future lobbyists.

-As Clinton has pointed out, her rivals have no problem taking money from the people who pay the lobbyists, and give them their "marching orders." (ABC News debate, August 19, 2007.)

-They have no problem about taking money from people representing other "special interests," e.g. trial lawyers and the hedge fund industry.

So far this year, according to Opensecrets.org, Edwards has taken more than $8 million from lawyers and law firms, some of whom employ the federally-registered lobbyists whose lucre he refuses to touch. Obama is not far behind: $7.5 million. (Clinton has taken $9.2 million.)

Obama has emphasized that he does not take money from PhRMA, the powerful lobbying arm of the pharmaceutical industry. On the other hand, he does not seem to mind taking money from senior employees of PhRMA members, such as Pfizer and Eli Lilly. Campaign finance records show that he has raised about $250,000 in pharmaceutical-related contributions this year. (Clinton collected $269,000.) He has also not been averse to helping out Illinois-based pharmaceutical companies with "tariff suspensions." more

"A Thin Record For a Bridge Builder." No Shit.

We're at this point in the campaign, and a major national daily finally writes that current Senators and former colleagues in the Illinois state legislature are saying that the unmentionable has a thin record on bipartisanship, that he's unwilling to take political risks, that he's better known for his ambition than substance? Thanks Washington Post, thanks David Ignatius. I wish you had published this months ago before the unmentionablematons' music videos caused this nation (or at least this apartment) to be flooded with vomit. Fortunately, pets like to eat vomit. 

And they blamed papa Bill?

New Republic's Sean Wilentz has a new article that examines how the unmentionable's campaign injected race into the race. Like a prison wife getting his ass slammed again and again, the tards will only love him more for this, I'm sure. 

Battered wife syndrome

Todd Spivak at the Houston Press reveals how a certain Jim Jonesian presidential candidate climbed over the backs of and exploited fellow established state  legislators. Revelations include: using unknown loopholes in election law to get opponents (including established liberal community leader incumbent) thrown off of ticket so he could run unchallenged; didn't accomplish anything in first several terms, until kingmaker state senate leader attached his name as sponsor to more than 20 important bills in one year, so he could have platform of "experience" to run for US Senate; (won US Senate seat against lunatic Alan Keyes--not news, but no feat that. I'd rather vote for Keyes, myself); isn't such a nice guy when not having salad tossed by media and public; etc.