Current News and Media Videos

Am I the only one that can see through the smoke? Sen. John Edwards has come under a lot of media scrutiny lately for having an affair with one of his staffers. Of course, he isn’t the first politician to succumb to such temptation. But he is claiming to have notified his church and his wife and to have asked both for forgiveness. Maybe he did, maybe didn’t. Either way, they are both covering for him. Is that ruse?

I frankly don’t care. I think the more important ruse going on is the supposed “objectivity” of the media. The Republican-controlled media is making an appeal to the Puritan public in order to justify shutting Edwards out of the running for vice president. As if having an affair with a staffer is enough to disqualify someone for being the second in command, but somehow shooting someone (even if by accident) and being in on the scandalous ruse of going to war on false grounds is, strangely, honorable. Of course, one could say that Dick Cheney never cheated on his wife, but that’s like saying that criminal isn’t guilty of theft when in fact he’s a murderer. Big Dick may not have cheated on his wife, but he doggone sure cheated on the truth.

Meanwhile, media conglomerates play up to the public’s fear of infidelity even as the war rages on.

If you’ve been reading the news much in the last couple of days then you’ve likely heard that the Democratic Party is having a little “friction” regarding the Clintons’ role in the upcoming party convention. Hey, what’s the news without a little friction, right?

Well, according to presidential hopeful Barack Obama, that friction is just plain fiction. And if he has anything to do with it, he’s going to ease the friction, and the fiction, by going to Hawaii.

Good plan. This man has an entirely different temperament than our current commander-in-chief, who seems to be as adept at his own brand of fiction as anyone in media circles. Is Obama right? Are the media creating fiction or is there real friction in the Democratic Party?

This message approved by Paris Hilton:

See more funny videos at Funny or Die

According to Media Matters, yes:

It seems to me that “the Maverick” isn’t so maverick any more. He hardly ever says what he really thinks. He just delivers the GOPs talking points and he sounds more like George W. Bush now than G.W. does, except for perhaps the stupid verbal gaffes. I know beneath all of that tough exterior is a melon of a man just dying to say what’s really on his mind. He could explode any day now and it’s my hope that he’ll eventually tell the Republican Party to just go ‘F’ itself. Then I might vote for him. Media love or not.

If you really want to know why Barack Obama will win the election in November, you’ll have to watch this video:

You’d think he was running for president of the world.

This is simply brilliant:

The surge is part of American history, and American history has a number of components. And this American history was initiated in some sense by Captain John Smith, and when I visited with him in 1607, he had already initiated that history at Jamestown, by going in and clearing and holding in certain places. That is American history. And he told me at that time that he believed that that history, which is, quote, the surge, part of the surge, would be successful. [Ed. note: Did you catch that crucial move?] So then, of course, it was very clear that we needed additional troops in order to continue our history. And so I’m not sure, frankly, that people really understand that a surge is part of American history [Ed. note: there it is again!], which means the settlement at Jamestown, declaring independence, winning the Civil War, emancipating the slaves, the New Deal, deciding to invade Iraq, and then clearly a part of that, an important part of it, was additional troops to help ensure the safety of the sheikhs, to regain control of Ramadi, which was a very bloody fight, and then the surge continued to succeed, and that American history.

You’ll have to read the entire article. Andrew Sullivan is the only person I know that is taking the words of John McCain himself and deconstructing them to arrive at the true underlying irrational assumptions behind them. This is true political analysis, the kind you won’t find in the op-ed pages of America’s newspapers.

John McCain is increasingly looking like a grumpy old man on the defensive. It seems that he can’t get any media attention because the black guy gets it all.

He can’t argue that the surge is the reason voters should choose him over Obama. That’s just one issue and most voters are sophisticated enough to think beyond one victory. And given that Obama has recently turned Iraq into a public relations positive for his campaign and that he has communicated a little more clearly that his Iraq pullout policy is based on events on the ground then it makes him look a bit more practical than McCain on the Iraq War. The only negative for Obama is that he opposed the surge, but that was last year’s news.

McCain has nothing else to draw on. His Republican predecessor is laying in the political gutter on his last breath. Fair or not, many voters will give McCain the cold shoulder based on the failures of the Bush Administration. And Obama is capitalizing on that big time.

Every TV appearance of McCain is based on “but I have military experience …”, “but I was for the surge, Obama was against it”, “but, but, but …”. And you just can’t win a political race on buts. That’s why John McCain seems increasingly like he’s just a grumpy old man trying to keep up. He has nothing but ‘buts’ to run on and not even the ash can is paying him much attention now.

Yes, you heard it right. Jesse Jackson said he wants to cut Barack Obama’s nuts off, or out, depending on which transcript you see as the official record. Some news agencies reported “off” and others reported “out.” Either way, it’s a big, fat “Ouch!”

What did Obama do? He allegedly “talked down to black people.” OMG! A black man talking down to black people? What nerve!

Evidently, the Rev. Jesse Jackson thinks it’s OK for a black leader to make excuses for bad behavior, but if one tells black men that they’ve got to start being better fathers then he’s “talking down.” But Obama isn’t the first black leader to make such remarks. Comedian Bill Cosby said it first, but I don’t remember Jesse Jackson ever saying nasty things about him. Of course, the once voice of Fat Albert wasn’t running for president on the Democratic ticket. Well, I guess it just goes to show that if preachers don’t tell it like it is then politicians should know better than to do so as well.

Poor Obama. He gets no respect.

Wesley Clark, a Democrat and retired military officer, told CNN host John Roberts that he honors John McCain’s service as a hero and political of war but that McCain hasn’t held any level of executive responsibility that required making tough decisions like when to attack and when not to attack enemies in combat. Is what Clark said true? Sure. But that doesn’t stop the media from mischaracterizing his comments.

Media Matters, a media watchdog organization, lists these mischaracterizations by top media personalities on its website:

Examples of media echoing this false claim include the following:

* In a July 1 article, Washington Post staff writers Jonathan Weisman and Michael D. Shear quoted comments Clark made about McCain during his Face the Nation interview after asserting that McCain “pushed back hard against criticism of his own record as a Navy flier and a prisoner of war.”

* On the June 30 edition of The Situation Room, guest host John Roberts said that “Clark took a weekend hit at McCain, targeting his history as a war hero and his possible future as president.” Roberts made the assertion despite the fact that immediately afterward, Roberts aired video of Clark saying during his Face the Nation appearance, “I certainly honor his service as a prisoner of war. He was a hero to me and to hundreds of thousands of millions of others in the Armed Forces as a prisoner of war. He has been a voice on the Senate Armed Services Committee, and he has traveled all over the world. But he hasn’t held executive responsibility.”

* In a July 1 washingtonpost.com column, Post media critic Howard Kurtz asserted that “Clark used an appearance on ‘Face the Nation’ Sunday to strafe John McCain over his Vietnam War record.” Kurtz later stated: “No one’s saying that being a POW entitles you to the Oval Office or places you above criticism. But Barack Obama frequently prefaces his criticism of McCain with a nod to his honorable service. Which raises the question: What was Wes thinking?” But Clark’s statement, “I don’t think riding in a fighter plane and getting shot down is a qualification to be president” — quoted by Kurtz in the column and highlighted (and mischaracterized) by several media outlets and figures as controversial — is itself an argument that McCain’s military service does not “entitle[]” him “to the Oval Office.”

Considering that journalists are supposed to be objective and report the facts, don’t you think that they should watch the video of John Roberts asking the question and Wesley Clark answering it. That would clear up any confusion, wouldn’t it?

See and hear it for yourself. Here’s the video:

This is a tale of two presidents. One past, one future. In the words of others.

First, George W. Bush. I say he’s history though he is the current chief. Some have called him a lame-duck president. That’s too kind. It doesn’t do justice to the English language and it’s an insult to other lame-duck presidents of the past. Imagine how Jimmy Carter must feel being equated to G.W.B. What a real slap in the face!

In actuality, George W. Bush is a dead-duck president. His entire administration has been rocked with scandal, stupidity, bad judgments, and just plain ridiculous thought processes filled with non sequiturs, leaps of logic, and synaptic misfires. His war may have been based on bad intelligence, but his legacy of one of no intelligence and it won’t be hard for the next president to look good.

Hear what Kos has to say:

The Congress is about to severely expand the already too-extensive authority of the president in surveilling the citizens of this nation. In doing so, it is ignoring the fact that the government has become a law breaker and made the telcos accessories to the crimes.

OK, so he’s talking about Congress. But he’s inadvertently talking about President Bush, the chief lawbreaker in the land. But he isn’t the first. FISA itself was passed as a result of abuses perpetrated by Richard Nixon. It essentially replaces the Fourth Amendment with a new law of the land with a stamp of approval by the legislative body and the courts.

It’s hard to believe that Congress could actually be less curious and more secretive than than the Bush/Cheney administration in trying to keep this information from ever seeing the light of day.

No, it’s really not hard to believe. Look at their track record.

President Bush has done nothing but subvert the law and replace it with his. Of course, he could not have done that had Congress not fallen asleep. Do I expect changes? No. Not in this lifetime.

And, now, on the future President Obama:

Obama has long been comfortable talking about his moderate to liberal Christianity, and has long been very much at ease with the social Gospel and mixing religion with politics.

Brilliant observation. And the result?

If that happens (and I can’t see how it will because of Obama’s abortion record), we’re talking about a historic landslide. But if only a fifth of them move over to the Democrat, we have a serious realignment - and possibly real movement in a few Southern states.

Yes, if Obama is elected it will be because evangelical Christians have decided that’s who they want to be the next president. But what kind of record does the Church have on picking presidents? Well, let’s see:

• Richard Nixon (criminal)
• Jimmy Carter (ineffectual)
• Ronald Reagan (Iran-Contra)
• George H.W. Bush (liar)
• Bill Clinton (scumbag)
• George W. Bush (warmonger)

Is there any reason to be optimistic?