Obama-obsessed conservative mag

It seems to me that the Conservative media has done a great job of smearing Obama and Hillary has picked up on that, adding fuel to the fire. What they obviously forgot is that Obama voters don't read the National Review.

.
war, war, war, war, war, war, war, war, war, war, war, war, war, war, war, war, war, war, war, war, war, war, war, war, war, war, war, war, war, war, war, war, war, war, war, war, war
.
. N E O C O N S

. F O R

. M C C L I N T O N !
.

The final assessment is the correct one, I think - it's pretty clear that the far Right is starting to realize it's likely to be running against Sen. Obama in the fall, and that their preferred opponent, Sen. Clinton, won't be available as a punching-bag. With that in mind, the sliming and tearing-down of Sen. Obama has begun.

Bottom line...the Right is TERRIFIED that they may actually lose the election to an unknown, and that it might not be 'business as usual' in Washington for a few years.

Nothing new there, although I suppose other Obama supporters, like myself, should take heart from the seriousness with which our candidate is now being taken by the opposition.

Go, Obama!

Does the right wing already attempting to 'Swift Boat' Senator Obama bode ill for our entire election process? Has America become about electing the candidate who is least offensive to the lowest common denominator of voter?

Hillary, for the sake of our country's welfare and our people, no matter what happens today, do not stop fighting for the Presidency.

PLEASE DO NOT LEAVE US IN THE HANDS OF OUR ENEMY!!!!!!!!!!!!!

good points...they are worried..he might just win..

the conservatives would much rather have hillary...she can be controlled accommodating and with her husband, is actually right of center

Bush, indentured to the right. Now Obama, indentured to the left. Will we ever return to the center?

Why? Two Words

NUCULAR SHIELD

or

NUKE NUKE NUKE
iran

I'm sick of special interests parading as conservatives. The constitution has been dismantled by Bush and they are silent. The republican attack machine seeks only to destroy, not build. I'm sick of their way of undermining any real chance of debate and allowing the people to choose based on facts, not distortion. That's why I left the republican party. Lately, they have started an unjust war and seriously harmed the economy. They cut benefits for veterans, while calling them heroes. They are dismantling privacy rights. Their court has even eliminated property rights as long as taken property will increase the tax roles. It is a very sick group that does not care about Americans or the country's future.

How much ink does National Review spend on George W Bush, the guy who gave conservatism a bad name? It's time to move beyond ideology and focus good governance. I guess that's why I'm voting for Obama, despite the right's best efforts to tar him.

"The Audacity of Hype," as some journalist/blogger described it, seems to have been limited to National Review and other right-leaning, conservative publications.

For some reason, the mainstream media has chosen not to follow up on any of the issues raised by conservatives. Charles Gibson and George Stephanopolous and ABC News were pilloried for doing so in the most recent debate.

Even the loudly decried matters raised in that debate didn't begin to address all the questions that many voters have about Obama and his wife. (And face it, a future first lady is a campaign issue.)

There's a whole segment of Obama's life that's been ignored. Maybe it doesn't matter, but maybe it does. We're not likely to learn about it before the Republicans run with it in the general election.

Does anyone still read this rag? The National Review raved in 2004 that we're "Winning in Iraq". Anybody who bought the magazine after that headline is as smart as a bobble head doll.

Does anyone still read this rag? The National Review raved in 2004 that we're "Winning in Iraq". Anybody who bought the magazine after that headline is as smart as a bobble head doll.

I like the turtles.

Andrew, was it moveon.org that commanded you to write this bit of fluff? Huffington Post? DailyKook? George Soros himself? Howard Dean?

I know the Obama Tribune serves to protect its Grand Master, but what is wrong with a publication that is about politics covering the leading Dem candidate for president?

The proof of the pudding is in the eating. A politician's worth is intricately tied to his/her political success. If Obama goes on to take the Presidency, then in retrospect, he'll be seen as having been the real-deal all along. Otherwise, conservatives will make the case that he was always heading for a Dukakis-style flame-out.

Any comparison of Obama and Tiger Woods is simply silly. Golf is a game, politics is real life. Tiger Woods is a private citizen who identifies himself as Cablasian. He went to Stanford and spent most of his time playing golf there. The truth is that there is very little substance to the Woods phenomenon. Woods has never done or said anything outside of golf that was truly pivotal. Woods is simply a rich golfer. Compare that to Obama, who already has contributed more to American culture even without living in the White House. I think he has challenged black Americans--in actions more so than in words--to focus less on Reparations, Affirmative Action or History and more on the future and on working hard for success. He didn't originate the paradigm of defining oneself as American before being Black, but he has shown just how rewarding it can be. He has challenged white Americans to accept and identify with a Black man as a leader who would be able to represent them. Though such a movement has been going on in American politics before Obama, he is clearly the epitome of this movement.

Politics makes strange bedfellows. With so many Obama bloggers obsessed over Monica Lewinsky and what supposed shame Bill Clinton brought on the Democratic Party, it is not surprising that many Clinton backers would find such coverage to pretty accurate.

I guess we should seek truth, no matter what the source. I will accept that Bill Clinton DID have sex with that woman, if Obama backers will recognize that no other candidate has ever gotten so much out of so little.

It's hard to trust any of the news media. The white male moderate or liberals are in the bag for Obama.
Perhaps that's why the Obama machine could censorially exclude or threaten the McClatchy journalist.
Margaret Talev is to be commended for challenging the Messiah (and that's why I call him that--he or his organization or his 'bloggers' (I think Elizabeth Edwards coined the word 'trolls'?) intimidate journalists or other bloggers who challenge him on his 'message'--no deviation, please.
Everyone should MEMORIZE this paragraph:
" On the way into the studio, I asked Obama why he felt it important to respond to the late-breaking Clinton ad with an ad of his own and what he thought of her ad. “Are you supposed to be doing this with the pool?” he asked, and laughed. Then he sat down and had the earpiece put in. I asked him if he’d give us a comment after the taping and he said, “Maybe, it depends on how well behaved you are.” But then after the taping, I was whisked off ahead of him and didn’t get to bug him again."
What will happen when and if he assumes the presidency? Real Journalists to Guantanamo? We already have an Arab cameraman rotting there. But no screaming from the left, from Keith Olbermann about that. They only scream when somebody other than Messiah seems destined to win.
Michael Moore and Jon Stewart are on the Messiah Ship of Fools. Let's finish with Jon Stewart, first. Where's the FCC? The FCC? To host a candidate the night (and day) before the election, another attempt to rehabilitate himself from FINGERING a fellow candidate (a more statesmanlike one) who painted Petreus into a corner the other week (Alert Move on.org--that's still ignored) --that should be a violation of the Fairness Doctrine. Oh wait! We don't have one! (Alert Free press =--oh wait! The only unfair debates they care about are the ones who make Obama be accountable.
So of course 'naughty' pool journalists must be hustled away from candidate.
HOW IS THAT NOT 'POLITICS AS USUAL?'
And Michael Moore's diatribe against Hillary is unconscionable. It's interesting he's not paying attention to the tidbit in the (horribly biased with its adjectives--but not facts) article about Michelle Obama's so called 'humble roots'--Daddy making 40 grand plus is pretty darn good. But why didn't Mike point out that Michelle's U of C hospital also allowed an insured man to die--a lot like one of the examples in his excellent Sicko.
I had so much respect for all three men--Stewart ( for taking on big media's biased and stupid practices), Obama (for saying he'd end the war, gun control, environmentalism--all words, turns out, no action), and Moore (for being, well, real).
I realize all politicians, and people who want to interview them have feet of clay. I know who HIllary is. I'm liking her more and more as this campaign continues

National Review has the circulation of how many, 40? My church's weekly publication is more substantial. Who cares what they have to say. They have no presidential candidate to fawn over so they have nothing left to write about other then another lame swift-boat attempt at one of the greatest presidential candidates of a generation.

They're just haters.

Senator McCain, a loyal member of the " Military-Industrial Complex ", is indentured to the " Fourth " branch of our government, The Lobbyists!!! We need him, like we need another George W. Bush!! So, America, the lines have been drawn, it is either, war and more war, or to a brighter and healthier future!!! The choice is ours to make or not to make!!! Let's not fumble it a third time!!!!
SUPPORT OUR TROOPS, BRING THEM HOME, ALIVE. NOW.

Ah yes, the National Review. Another Right Wing ELITIST rag, just like the Wall Street Journal, only exclusive members with PAID subscriptions are allowed to be educated and read the information contained within. Such ELITISM, so typical of the Republican Party. I'm glad there's at least one party in America that believes all art, culture, healthcare and education should be free to everyone regardless of race, ethnicity or affluency.

7 Obama stories in a MONTH? The "conservative mag" National Review is much LESS "Obama-obsessed" than the "liberal mag" the Swamp, which routinely publishes 7 Obama stories in a DAY.

If the Swamp writers want to know what an Obama obsession looks like, perhaps they should read "the Swamp".

Funny how the swamp authors do not seem as concerned with the $60 mill Soros and Move on.org have allocated to attack John McCain. So what is the diff? There is none. However at the swamp we all know that an attack on Obama is an attack on the swamp writers. The swamp is a joke.

Senator Obama reminds me of the academic who ran for City Council in Minot, ND 30 years ago. When asked where he stood on an issue that was dividing the community, he responded: "Half my friends are for it; half are against it and I'm for my friends."

For those interested in facts, not Swamp spin, the May 5th issue of National Review featured 17 columns, articles, and reviews, only 3 of which were on Obama.

Compare that to any day in the Swamp the past year. To give but one example, there were more Obama articles in yesterday's Swamp than in 2 weeks of NR.

Bruce,
That IS shocking!!! I'd surprised too if a Chicago paper had multiple articles about the Chicago Bears on a daily basis and then a national sports magazine had the Bears on the cover twice in one month. What is the local media thinking, covering there local team in depth?

The thing to pay attention to now is Evelyn Pringle's landmark series of articles at opednews on the Rezko (Auchi) Obama Blagojevich gang. These are very important articles because they are starting to pin down the chronology, which will make it possible to ask Obama detailed questions he will not be able to avoid.

It's pretty obvious by now that he's a cheap punk and hood, just an organized crime front. We know now that FBI moles have logs of Obama, Rezko and Blagojevich meetings. The question now is,

What was said at those meetings?

Pringle's work is making it clearer and clearer that illegal activities were agreed on during those meetings. Obama's stand right now is that he does not keep a "calendar" of meetings.

Obviously unresponsive. Did he meet with these two? What was said at those meetings?

It is SUBSEQUENT actions--which Pringle is discovering, at considerable risk to her personal security, I might add--which are the vital clues as to what as agreed to at those meetings. These subsequent actions will make it possible to put to Obama, specific questions about his agreement to vote for certain projects, his understanding and agrrement that others and himself would receive money in return for votes, and his understanding and agreement that other individuals pay "finder's fees" to Rezko or other fronts.

By the way, it would be NOTHING for those individuals who are putting up the $8 million for Rezko, to lose that money if he skipped. It's all ill-gotten gains anyway. So for that matter, was the development interest Rezko supposedly gave up, which was one of the reasons St. Eve let him out. So, she let him out because he gave up an interest which was an ill-gotten gain in the first place? How corrupt they all are, including St. Eve!!

Anyway, I don't think Rezko will skip, but only because he is under massive FBI surveillance. You think OJ was tracked--they have this hyena under a microscope 24/7!

"Though it does contain the interesting factoid that David Duval may be the only registered Democrat on the PGA tour."

Actually, Scott Simpson, the 1988 US Open champ who is now on the Senior Tour, is a Democrat, too. But, yes, they are in the minority. Of, course we all know Fuzzy Zoeller is a typical, re-neck, racist republican. From his comments after Tiger's first Masters.

Wow, look how frightened the neocons are already! Guess it serves them right. They've played to people's fears for some time now. Obama's message of truth and hope now plays to theirs.

The right FEARS Obama, and the biggest chicken (hawks) are those that think local newspapers shouldn't cover local news in depth. But they fear anything they can't control through propaganda, intimidation, bs and bluster.

.

N E O C O N S

F O R

H I L L A R Y

.