I am at the moment an undecided voter who previously leaned to the left. Now that I am square in the middle, I am so much more aware of the bias. I've never seen all the liberal journalists show their true colors as vibrantly as they have here and now with this VP choice. It is really making me more sympathetic to the right because the media is being so unfair to them. It's like rooting for the underdog. Palin was a brilliant move. A pregnant 17 year old is not a republican or democratic issue. Even without Obama declaring it off limits, anyone who ventured forth in to criticizing the candidate for this matter would be playing with dynamite. Meanwhile, Palin has an incredibly high approval rating in her state. She is the only one on either ticket to have balanced a budget and assembled a cabint. She knows all about energy policy and has rallied against corruption. She's smart, energetic and likeable. Politically, she shores up the conservative base; deflates the argument that McCain is same-old same-old; will appeal to some lost Hillary supporters; and was a tremenedous boost for fund-raising. The timing of the announcement and surprise factor upstaged the Dems and helped to ensure that magazine covers show something other than the smiling Obama family for the next two months. Her selection shows McCain to be a very smart tactician -- a quality most of us want in a president.

No. You are not.

You are part of the White House Blogging corps, similar to those who were part of Rush Limbaugh's Operation Chaos. Your purpose is to claim "I am a Liberal", then post pro-McCain statements.

You were on this site before claiming to be a "Hillary supporter who is now going to vote for McCain" because the Democrats were mean to you.

And now your job is to blame the media, John McCain's Base, for Sarah Palin's unwed, pregnant, teenage daughter (shows how well abstinence-only education works).

You sound like you really "leaned to the Left." LOL

Blaming the media... a classic right-wing ploy. You're GOp, why pretend your'e not?

Hmm, John Edwards, who based his campaign on his undying devotion to his dying wife has fathered a child by another woman, during his campaign isn't covered by the liberal press, in fact, the LA Times issues orders NOT to cover the story. And yet all I hear from CNN/MSNBC/ABC/CBS/WashPost/NYT­IMES is how they don't know if they should be covering the fact that SARAH PALIN'S 17 YEAR OLD DAUGHTER IS PREGNANT!. And please don't forget the NY Times smear campaign about McCain having an affair.

No bias there, just prudent decision making.

Barak Obama owes his Senate seat to the Chicago Trib, who went to court to unseal Barry O's opponent's divorce proceedings against the will of both parties to the divorce. Because the public has a right to know the dirt. But where was the Trib, when B. Hussein was covering up his true associations with unrepetant terrorist William Ayers, and the Annenberg Challenge?

Unbiased, or course it is.

Or the fact that journalists give 100 times the political contributions to Democrats than they do to Republican?

No, the media isn't biased, not at all.

pensuesil:

I am at the moment an undecided voter who previously leaned to the left. Now that I am square in the middle, I am so much more aware of the bias. I've never seen all the liberal journalists show their true colors as vibrantly as they have here and now with this VP choice. It is really making me more sympathetic to the right because the media is being so unfair to them. It's like rooting for the underdog. Palin was a brilliant move. A pregnant 17 year old is not a republican or democratic issue. Even without Obama declaring it off limits, anyone who ventured forth in to criticizing the candidate for this matter would be playing with dynamite. Meanwhile, Palin has an incredibly high approval rating in her state. She is the only one on either ticket to have balanced a budget and assembled a cabint. She knows all about energy policy and has rallied against corruption. She's smart, energetic and likeable. Politically, she shores up the conservative base; deflates the argument that McCain is same-old same-old; will appeal to some lost Hillary supporters; and was a tremenedous boost for fund-raising. The timing of the announcement and surprise factor upstaged the Dems and helped to ensure that magazine covers show something other than the smiling Obama family for the next two months. Her selection shows McCain to be a very smart tactician -- a quality most of us want in a president.

here's the thing: "in the middle" between the republicans and the democrats means leaning towards the loony right.

Right_By_Choice:

Or the fact that journalists give 100 times the political contributions to Democrats than they do to Republican?

100 times, eh? that's some of that there Bushie fuzzy math stuff. well, we all know that that 'rithmetic and all those pinko booklarnin' subjects have a commie agenda, that's why them liberals make everybody go to public skool and get indoctrinated.

Journalist contributions to Democrats, 1999-present, $1,342,900
Journalist contributions to Republicans, 1999-present, $301,764

<link>

Tell ya what, when Disney, CBS, News Corporation, Time Warner, and GE, who own most of the media in the country and employ all those "liberal journalists", give 100 times the political contributions to Democrats than they do to Republicans, give us a call. or even when it gets near to 50/50.

"Verizon Communications, SBC Communications Inc. (now AT&T), AOL Time Warner, General Electric Co./NBC, News Corp./Fox, Viacom Inc./CBS, Comcast Corp, Walt Disney Co./ABC, and the National Association of Broadcasters, the National Cable & Telecommunications Association and the United States Telecom Association together gave nearly $48 million in federal political donations since 1997. Of that total, $18.9 million went to Democrats and $29.1 million went to Republicans."

<link>

well, $10 million more corporate donations for republicans vs $1 million more private donations for democrats, it all balances out in the bushie fuzz math.