Your Obama = Bush talking point is weak.

The media is not doing their job by giving ANYONE the benefit of the doubt. This is the same as how John McCain is portrayed as a maverick in the media still to this day. They need to dig under the talking points of all the candidates, whether they are Republican or Democrat.

The problem is that eventually someone won't give him the benefit of the doubt and if this happens before November, it could be really bad.

The Clintons have never been given the benefit of the doubt, and I think they are ultimately stronger for this.

Bush, on the other hand, in 2000 was a really fun guy to drink a beer with. He was so "likable". Al Gore was mind-numbingly boring. I remember how the media kept putting this narrative forward. Never mind that if they did any vetting of Bush, they would have seen what a failure he would have been as President.

All I am saying is that it's disturbing to see the media act like this over and over. It's like they are sheep for one candidate or another and not unbiased journalists.

We are choosing the leader of the free world here. I expect the media to investigate all of the candidates. I expect them to try to figure out if their spin is true and if their claims are valid and consistent. Clearly, the media has not and will not live up to those expectations.

and he will not be UNTIL he has the delegates, which will likely be 2118 after Saturday.

Is just plain creepy.

Seriously, it's almost 3AM and I'm starting to exit my caffeine berzerking. I can't watch stuff like that now.

That's going to give me really disturbing nightmares tonight.

Scary, stylized, obnoxiously colored nightmares.

Hey Student Guy, I just realized...with our sigs, we can now salvage some benefit from troll diaries by posting in them!  It's like recycling, for the netroots!

Lou Dobbs is a racist, xenophobic piece of garbage.

I wouldn't be proud of his support if I were you.

Now THERE is some great support!  Too bad he wants to deport one of her largest blocks of supporters.

I'm pretty damn tired of people either too obtuse, too blind, or too dishonest to bother with the truth of that first campaign.

The FACTS are that:

1. Challenging nominating petitions is done for EVERY RACE in Chicago.  I've volunteered in aldermanic races where I've helped do research for it.  Richard Daley routinely gets his nominating petitions challenged.

2. Alice Palmer PROMISED NOT TO RUN FOR REELECTION!   She was the (well-liked, yes) incumbent for the Senate district.  Congressman Mel Reynolds got arrested and she decided to seek his seat in a special election.   Obama specifically got her blessing to run for the seat.  Check the Trib archives, the Reader archives, the Sun-Times archives -- there are even stories with Palmer endorsing Obama, saying her district would be in "good hands" with Obama.

Palmer then lost the special election and reneged on her decision not to run - but it was very late to get on the ballot... and the rest is history.

Obama is running for President - he's never claimed to be running for Jesus.

The other is that they "ganged up on her" because she was the frontrunner.

I'm no expert on frontrunners, but I suspect Howard Dean, Mitt Romney, and any number of others would say that it's not all that unusual for frontrunners to get 'ganged up' on.

Well, if you consider what made signatures invalid, like writing your name outside the boxed area, or printing instead of signing, it's merely technicalities that got these people out, not trying to get on the ballot illegally.

You might be right, but while we may not know what it is, I certainly know what it isn't...

No, it's not better because it doesn't make our candidate stronger in the long run. When someone in the media does decide to ask questions about Obama, it will be much harder for him to respond since he's not used to being treated like that. I think his treatment with Wrightgate has been fairly mild too.

I think it's better if the media is unbiased. I don't want to watch news that is tilted toward my point of view, I think it's a good thing to be exposed to opposing viewpoints. If you aren't strong enough in your beliefs to be able to watch news coverage that isn't sometimes critical to them, you're probably a Republican...

Excellent comment.  Would rec if I could.

I never said that they disrespect Hillary, I just think of Obama got the kind of scrutiny Hillary does every day, he wouldn't be able to take it. He has already complained about how he is sick of the primaries. I think all the candidates need to be heavily scrutinized and the media is not doing this at all.