Yes, we can.

[Strangler Lewis]

Originally Posted by scaeagles

I don't think anyone denies that there is racism from any one race to another. Would the same defense be considered with some white kid growing up in a primarily minority neighborhood who was abused by that minority? Would it be acceptable to defensible if later in life that kid was a racist or uttered racial hatred because of his experiences?

Sure. Does anyone have problems with people who were abused by clergy suggesting that priests are perverts and that priestly celibacy is not a good idea. Raising the question of exactly what racism/sexism/antisemitism/fill-in-the-blank-ism is. In many areas of life, I don't think it's racism to make a personal judgment based on information, experience and apparent probabilities. Political judgments require greater sensitivity to root causes.

[Alex]

Yes, racism is racism. I would just argue with the suggestion that all uses of that word, regardless of speaker and context, is actually racism.

[Cadaverous Pallor]

Jews were a very large proportion of the non-blacks who marched for civil rights causes in the 60s. There are going to be instances back and forth for all sides.

Racism is racism. Jackson is nothing but a detriment to the whole process.

[scaeagles]

Is it just me or is the media having an Obasm about Obama going to Afghanistan and Iraq? McCain went in March and I don't recall all three network anchors going along. Perhaps I'm not recalling correctly.

[Alex]

Yes they are.

[Tom]

According to this, McCain chose not to take reporters with him on his trip in March.

[scaeagles]

It isn't simply the reporters - of course Obama will have reporters with him wherever he goes, but the three anchors don't even go with the President when he goes somewhere. They are like starry eyed groupies.

[Alex]

They certainly would if he gave each of them a one-on-one sit down while he was over there.

If Bush said "I'm going to be in place X, Katie Couric, would you like a 20 minute sitdown with me exclusive for next Tuesday?" her answer would be "yes sir, I would."

Then if Bush said "I"m going to be in place Y, Brian Williams, would you like a 20 minute sitdown with me exclusive for next Wednesday?" his answer would be "Absolutely I would, what color M&Ms would you like in the green room?"

Then if Bush said "I'm going to be in placy Z, Charlie Gibson, would you like a 20 minute sitdown with me exclusive for next Thursay?" his answer would be "Sloppy thirds are good enough for me, Mr. President!"

And that is exactly what Obama has done. To get them to come along he is giving each of them their own daily exclusive and that is all the currency you need to get a network anchor to do a lapdance for you (I'm guessing Gibson gives the best ones).

Plus, McCain suffered from bad timing on his trip, coming as it did after he had locked up the nomination but the Democrat primary campaign was still going strong.

Yes, the press is drooling over Obama but a fair portion of that has to be credited to him having a much better press strategy than McCain has evidenced so far. Back in his two campaigns that is exactly what Reagan succeeded in doing and you could hardly say that the press was starry-eyed with optimism for his victory.

[scaeagles]

This is becoming comical.

The NY Times publishes an Op Ed from Obama, yet rejects one from McCain.

Investors Business Daily has published information about the donations from media to political candidates -

The contributions add up to $315,533 to Democrats and $22,656 to Republicans — most of that to Ron Paul, who was supported by many liberals as a stalking horse to John McCain, a la Rush Limbaugh's Operation Chaos with Hillary and Obama.

What is truly remarkable about the list is that, discounting contributions to Paul and Rudy Giuliani, who was a favorite son for many folks in the media, the totals look like this: $315,533 to Democrats, $3,150 to Republicans (four individuals who donated to McCain).

Let me repeat: $315,533 to Democrats, $3,150 to Republicans — a ratio of 100-to-1. No bias there.

Including Paul and Guiliani, the ratio is actually only 14 or 15 to 1. Journalists can and should be allowed to contribute, so I have no problem with that. I just don't think most can keep their bias out of their reporting, as is partially evidenced by this -

Chris Matthews seems to think how he feels is actually news rather than opinion. I don't care if he wants to tell how he feels, but don't call it journalism. On Leno, when defending the "Obama makes a tingle go up my leg" comment, he said

You know, some journalists only report what a guy says and what they hear and what they see, I report all senses... And I have to tell you..., I was there watching one of Barack's speeches on TV.. and there's something he said about black and white in America...... I just think it's inspiring! I admit it!

That scares me actually, as it is a redefinition of what journalism is. How the journalist feels is not part of the story, it is opinion.

I will credit the three anchors. They have actually asked Obama some tough questions.

All that said, though, this made me laugh.

[Cadaverous Pallor]

"Media" are companies. Companies can donate to whomever they want. They like Obama. SURPRISE! (er, I mean, duh.)

Journalists have reported "feelings" before. It's just that the feelings this man inspires are 10x more powerful than any politician has inspired in the last 40 years. I feel the same way. I can't explain it, and yeah, it has little to do with specific policy. I totally admit that. However, as I've said a few billion times, I hated politicians, and politics, and the government, and I felt completely disenfranchised and hopeless. I have not voted for a true candidate in 10 years. But this guy....this guy is something else, something I can't explain.

Originally Posted by scaeagles

All that said, though, this made me laugh.

There's some great stuff in there

At the mention of his name they quickly laid aside their intrigues and beat their uranium swords into civil nuclear energy ploughshares.