FROM "The Thought Spigot"
The Los Angeles Times, far from a right wing beacon, has brought issue with Mr. Obama. The "Times" is a little bit hard to figure out, the same paper holding a tape, showing Obama, William Ayers, and Palestinian sympathizer Rashid Khalidi. "The Times" refuses to show the tape, before the election, siting "confidentiality agreements with the tape owner."
( http://www.latimes.com/news/politics/la-na-obamamideast10apr10%2C0%2C5826085.story )
Yet, "The Times" follows Wednesday night's Obama "Infomercial," stating a feeling sorry for McCain: "Still, it's hard not to feel bad for John McCain, even if this page prefers Obama. McCain may genuinely have thought he was doing the honorable thing by accepting public financing, but his $84-million allotment from the Treasury is being dwarfed by Obama's fundraising machine, which took in $150 million in September alone. McCain supporters can always switch to cable on Wednesday night; AMC is showing "Jason Goes to Hell: The Final Friday," a horror film that might suit their mood." However, this is not a joke, and it is the next President of the United States America is voting for, so the innuendo is out of touch.
( http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/editorials/la-ed-obamercial27-2008oct27,0,687727.story )
This is a one of the top papers in the country, and they do not completely understand, or agree with some of Barack Obama's personal and business ties, how he has managed and lied (in some circumstances) on the campaign trail, and when looking thru the "Election Section" and other coverage on Obama, there is more than a little bit of discrepancy on Barack Obama the man and politician. The "Times" has endorsed Barack Obama, but came out with an Op. Ed. stating, there was a large wall around the man and it is to late to find out certain things now. Once again, if a major paper does not have access to a Presidential candidate, how can an everyday person know where a candidate stands, where he has been, and if he is actually fully vetted?
The major media not getting all of the details out, on Senator Obama, and America is left to make a "semi" educated vote. "The Los Angeles Times" should be ashamed of themselves for not raising this question earlier, releasing the full tape of Barack with another shady character (in 2003, not when "he was 4 years old"), and the fact they are just pointing it out now, only makes it worse. Coupled with the rest of the mainstream media, worrying about being talked down to and laughed at (like Biden, in Florida this week, or Obama laughing at "Joe the Plumber" the day after his question, on "spreading the wealth"), having their credentials pulled and not granting any interviews at all (if there is any sense of not full control of an interview), or being called racist, bigots, using the "same old political tactics" (when they do not like the way an interview has gone, is going), they are up against doing their jobs and informing the American people, or ratings. Ratings has won. All political season, 98% of the time, and America deserves better.
( http://www.latimes.com/news/politics/la-na-obamamideast10apr10%2C0%2C5826085.story )
Yet, "The Times" follows Wednesday night's Obama "Infomercial," stating a feeling sorry for McCain: "Still, it's hard not to feel bad for John McCain, even if this page prefers Obama. McCain may genuinely have thought he was doing the honorable thing by accepting public financing, but his $84-million allotment from the Treasury is being dwarfed by Obama's fundraising machine, which took in $150 million in September alone. McCain supporters can always switch to cable on Wednesday night; AMC is showing "Jason Goes to Hell: The Final Friday," a horror film that might suit their mood." However, this is not a joke, and it is the next President of the United States America is voting for, so the innuendo is out of touch.
( http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/editorials/la-ed-obamercial27-2008oct27,0,687727.story )
This is a one of the top papers in the country, and they do not completely understand, or agree with some of Barack Obama's personal and business ties, how he has managed and lied (in some circumstances) on the campaign trail, and when looking thru the "Election Section" and other coverage on Obama, there is more than a little bit of discrepancy on Barack Obama the man and politician. The "Times" has endorsed Barack Obama, but came out with an Op. Ed. stating, there was a large wall around the man and it is to late to find out certain things now. Once again, if a major paper does not have access to a Presidential candidate, how can an everyday person know where a candidate stands, where he has been, and if he is actually fully vetted?
The major media not getting all of the details out, on Senator Obama, and America is left to make a "semi" educated vote. "The Los Angeles Times" should be ashamed of themselves for not raising this question earlier, releasing the full tape of Barack with another shady character (in 2003, not when "he was 4 years old"), and the fact they are just pointing it out now, only makes it worse. Coupled with the rest of the mainstream media, worrying about being talked down to and laughed at (like Biden, in Florida this week, or Obama laughing at "Joe the Plumber" the day after his question, on "spreading the wealth"), having their credentials pulled and not granting any interviews at all (if there is any sense of not full control of an interview), or being called racist, bigots, using the "same old political tactics" (when they do not like the way an interview has gone, is going), they are up against doing their jobs and informing the American people, or ratings. Ratings has won. All political season, 98% of the time, and America deserves better.
