Bias Against Democrats

McCain/Palin Campaign Relies on Lazy Thinking and Prejudice to Win

dlindorff — Wed, 10 Sep 2008 09:17:45 -0400

By Dave Lindorff

I got an urgent email from an uncle of mine yesterday evening. A
sweet man, retired career military and very religious, he was genuinely
worried about an email he had received purporting to convey an article
said to have been written by New York Times columnist Maureen Dowd and
published on June 29, 2008 alleging that much of the Obama campaign's
"small donations" over the Internet had actually come from several Arab
sources overseas.

Now I could see before reading two paragraphs of the alleged column
he forwarded to me that it was not Dowd's acerbic and witty writing
style, but I cannot expect most people who don't even read Dowd to know
that. Two minutes at the computer, however, and I was easily able to
confirm, as anyone could do, that Dowd had never written the article. A
search of the New York Times archive showed she had written on a wholly
different topic--Hillary Clinton--on that day, and moreover, the
non-partisan truth-checking website Snopes.com had a full documented debunking of the scam.

Why this particular campaign dirty trick--and with Karl Rove in the
back seat of the McCain campaign bus I have no doubt that it originated
in the bowels of that campaign, which has not disavowed it--works, and
why the many other vile efforts, like the latest shameful official
McCain TV ad claiming that Obama backs "sex education for
kindergartners," work is that many otherwise decent Americans like my
uncle first of all are primed to believe such crap by a deep-seated
prejudice against people of color, and secondly that the corporate
media which are supposed to be informing us are afraid to call out a
mainstream political candidate for lying and deceiving the public.
Some, like Fox, actually promote these falsehoods.

Look at the news today. Instead of exposing the blatant campaign of
character assassination by the McCain/Palin campaign, it is focused on
the bogus (and frivolous) claim by the McCain campaign that Obama has
called Palin a "pig with lipstick"! (What did Obama really do? He said
that the McCain/Palin ticket's attempt to portray itself as an
anti-pork, anti-Washington, reform campaign is like putting lipstick on
a pig--a common expression used by McCain himself.) The issue becomes
not "Is the McCain campaign charge true?" but rather "Should Obama have
to apologize to Palin?"

What's depressing about this is how well the McCain campaign's swim
in the sewer is working. A nice kid I know who works at our local
garage told me that he couldn't vote for Obama, despite liking his
policies, "because he'll take his oath of office on the Koran." Aside
from the anti-Muslim bias inherent in this statement, it is based upon
false information being spread virally through the internet falsely
claiming, on the basis of no evidence, that Obama is a secret Muslim
and that he took his Senate oath of office on a Koran.

People on the left may wish that Obama were a more overtly
progressive and more expressly anti-war candidate. I certainly do. But
let's get real here for a minute. With the black-baiting that is going
on by the other side, and the gullible and terribly uninformed or even
misinformed electorate out there, and with a national media that will
simply repeat and spread whatever bilious and false charges are made by
the McCain campaign, what chance on earth would a candidate like Obama
have if he were to call for an immediate withdrawal from Iraq, or for a
government-run medical insurance program? Those who call angrily for
such unambiguous positions by Obama are deluding themselves.

I really have to laugh. He'd be labeled a traitor and a communist,
and you know what? Absent a real analysis and absent critical reporting
by the mainstream media, 90 percent of the American public would
unthinkingly buy that false and ludicrous characterization.

I used to have a higher opinion of my fellow Americans, who had a
reputation for common sense. I used to believe that if a candidate told
them that it made no sense to put insurance companies in charge of
their health care and that people were much healthier and less anxious
about their health and their lives, and spent less on health care in
countries like Canada or Sweden or Germany or France where their health
care was guaranteed by the state, if a candidate told them that half
the money being spent on the US military was a waste and did nothing to
make the nation safer, if a candidate told them that human life on this
planet was in grave danger if nothing was done to seriously reduce
carbon emissions by half or even more, that they would listen and vote
accordingly. I used to think that if only Ralph Nader could shoehorn
his way into the national debates, a wave of popular support would
sweep him into the White House. (And let's be honest here. We on the
left are not immune from this poison of ignorance. I cannot tell you
how many otherwise intelligent people on the left keep writing me to
say that the entire foreign policy of the United States is being
secretly run by "Israel and the Zionists.")

I no longer hold that high opinion. Sure, if this nation were
educating people to think critically--which is not being done--if we
had a media that had a core ethos of getting at the truth and making it
known--which we don't--I would have that confidence. But I think it is
clear that we have traveled so far down the road of creating an
ignorant and fearful electorate that any candidate making such bold
claims would be doomed to either a devastating loss, or to minor party
status. Nader, for example, whose ancestry is Lebanese Christian, were
he to begin to rise in the polls to become a serious candidate, would
certainly be portrayed as a Muslim Manchurian candidate, and it
wouldn't matter what he said or stood for after that.

I don't know what this dismal state of affairs means in terms of
the future direction of American politics, but it doesn't bode well for
the future of third parties, or for the Democratic Party, or for the
country, or for the fate of the world.

And that is the truth.
________________
DAVE LINDORFF is a Philadelphia-based journalist and columnist. His
latest book is "The Case for Impeachment" (St. Martin's Press, 2006 and
now available in paperback edition). His work is available at www.thiscantbehappening.net

Cable Networks Let Rightwing Pundits Ratf**k Democratic Convention

Bob Fertik — Wed, 27 Aug 2008 21:16:37 -0400

John Amato speaks for me:

Right wing TV Pundits destroy every segment on Democratic Convention

Every time I turn on the TV and watch CNN and FOX (my hotel doesn’t get MSNBC) every Republican operative controls the dialog and direction of the panel discussion and it’s disgusting. Just one example—Hillary Clinton gave a brilliant speech last night, but every Amy Holmes-type talking head throws as much cold water on the speech as he or she can. The result is that the Dem talkers spend the rest of the time disputing the outrageous claims made and thus the GOP controls the entire framing and the entire segment. It’s shameful that the networks are allowing this to happen. I saw Jeffrey Toobin tell Amy that she was out of her mind with some of her comments and the discussion continues to that end. Soledad O’Brien comes back and says “well, that was a lively discussion.” Oh, no it was not. It’s a calculated ratf&@k. This is going on all day and all night.

Why is the Democratic Convention being ruined by these creeps? And why do all the networks allow it to happen? Why do we need them on in force to counter what is supposed to be our event?

I’m in Denver and it’s a completely different atmosphere. Party unison abounds, but you’d never know it from watching TV. Karl Rove acts like the biggest troll known to man—making sure to point out every little detail he dislikes. Well, his mission is to get McCain in the White House. But he’s the expert that Chris Wallace goes to for his “unbiased” take.

Will the Democratic talkers be allowed to do the same to the Republican Convention? I think not. It will be viewed as being an incredible event.

Update 1: After Bill Clinton spoke, it took Chuck Todd exactly 1 minute to attack Obama using a bulls**t Republican talking point that Obama is "borrowing" Biden's experience.

Media Matters Launches County Fair

Bob Fertik — Sat, 23 Aug 2008 11:50:54 -0400

Our friends at Media Matters have launched an excellent new media watch blog called County Fair:

Why "County Fair"?

Longtime Springsteen fans may have caught onto our new blogs's name; it's copped from the relatively obscure, Nebraska-era song of his. (Here's a nice analysis of the tune; here are the lyrics.) After running out of "media"-based name possibilities for the blog (we're pretty sure they've all been taken by now), we just liked the idea the song conveyed of a meeting place for folks to gather.

The blog is omnivorous, covering the full spectrum from left to right, from blogs to TV, from obscure (like the AP's McCain mole Ron Fournier) to the famous (Morning GOP's Joe Scarborough). And of course you'll find links to the excellent columns by Eric Boehlert and Jamison Foser.

Enjoy!

How to Get a Job By Shooting Up a Church

davidswanson — Mon, 28 Jul 2008 21:00:27 -0400

By David Swanson

Imagine being so angry that you couldn't find a job that you were able to decide, as a man in Tennessee just did, that the way to solve your problems was to attack liberals - the people who support (albeit ineffectively) workers' rights, union rights, and fair trade, who oppose NAFTA, oppose tax breaks for shipping jobs overseas, support investing in job creation at home rather than wars abroad, and want to tax corporations and the super-rich rather than small businesses and working people.

And imagine deciding that the way to attack the people who stand for everything that might help you is to go shoot up a bunch of men, women, and children. And then imagine telling those damn liberals: "You see, you were wrong at least about gun policies, because if angry desperate people who believe everything they hear on the radio weren't allowed to get mad and go buy guns I never could have shot up your children's play! And why are you showing a dumb play about poor kids, anyway? You never put on plays about people like me, potential billionaires down on their luck who've been threatened by Muslim terorists and mistreated by blacks and gays and women and liberals!"

And imagine the Associated Press report completely playing along with your delusion, and writing:

"Although individual Unitarian churches can vary dramatically in outlooks, most congregations retain a deep commitment to social justice, which has led many to embrace liberal stances on the ordination of women, civil rights and gay rights."

What if labor rights had been mentioned?

And then imagine that the Knoxville News Sentinel gives your heros credit for deranging your mind and filling you up with bizarrely misdirected rage:

"Inside the house, officers found 'Liberalism is a Mental Health Disorder' by radio talk show host Michael Savage, 'Let Freedom Ring' by talk show host Sean Hannity, and 'The O'Reilly Factor,' by television talk show host Bill O'Reilly."

And what if you were then given decades behind bars, without ever a word of thanks from your heros, to think about what in the world you might have been thinking? What would your advice end up being for others in the same sort of trouble you were in?

I like to think you'd eventually recommend selling your radio and television and spending some time talking to real people.

Speaking as a liberal who supports a sustainable full-employment economy with guaranteed education, income, and health care, I'm sorry that we have failed you and so many others so drastically, in fact failed so badly that you don't even have the slightest idea who we are. I suspect that if you knew us you would find us to have goals you approve of but to be grotesquely and despicably timid, hesitant, and easily compromised in how we go about trying to accomplish anything. And you'd be right.

We'll tell your story, for a week or so, both as an example of the effect of hatemongering propaganda and as an example of desperate economic stress and lack of community. But will we DO anything to improve those situations? I seriously doubt it. This is an election year, after all.

Obama Escrow Campaign Hits NY Times

Bob Fertik — Sun, 13 Jul 2008 09:56:13 -0400

A week ago, our Obama Escrow Pledge campaign made the Wall St. Journal. Today we made the NY Times:

Bob Fertik, president of Democrats.com, a progressive Web site, started asking his readers last month to pledge money to an escrow fund for Mr. Obama, as opposed to contributing to him outright. The idea was to make Mr. Obama rethink his decision to support the Bush administration’s wiretapping measure.

Mr. Obama initially said he would try to filibuster a vote, but on Wednesday he was among 69 senators who voted for the measure, which to many liberals represents a flagrant abuse of privacy rights. The legislation grants legal immunity to telecommunications companies that cooperated with the wiretapping program.

So far, 675 people have pledged $101,375 to Mr. Fertik’s escrow fund, money that theoretically would be donated to Mr. Obama once he showed a firm commitment to progressive values, Mr. Fertik said.

But Mr. Fertik also said that while Mr. Obama’s change on the spying issue upset some supporters, it was not necessarily emblematic of a troubling shift to the center. He said he continued to support the senator, though he added, “We don’t see the need to close our eyes and hold our noses until November.”

The article is bizarrely framed by the title, "Obama Supporters on the Far Left Cry Foul." Since when is it a "far left" position to support the 4th Amendment?

It was the NY Times which first broke the story about Bush's warrantless wiretapping - although the Times held the story for more than a year to let Bush steal his second term. And the Times recently published several editorials against immunity.

The NY Times is a case study in ideological schizophrenia. Its editorials advocate "liberal" positions, but its op-ed and news pages publish rightwing lies from the likes of William Kristol and Judy Miller.

The core problem of the NY Times is that it has no convictions whatsoever - just like the current Pelosi-Reid misleadership of the Democratic Party. If they did, Democrats.com would have no reason to exist.

Chris Matthews Lies About the Media's Agenda

Bob Fertik — Wed, 14 May 2008 12:23:31 -0400

Last night, Chris Matthews and Terry McAuliffe got into a remarkably frank debate over whether The Media wants Hillary Clinton to stay in the race until the Convention (Matthews) or get out now (McAuliffe).

Josh Marshall thinks McAuliffe "turned projectile nonsense into something approaching the sublime," but I think McAuliffe was absolutely right while Matthews was lying through his teeth, albeit unconsciously.

Today on Morning Joe, there was no doubt that the MSNBC team wants Hillary out now. Every question they asked was "how soon will Hillary get out???" And it was asked with urgency and desperation, as though their lives depended on it.

Matthews wants to pretend the pundits are interested in the drama, but he's lying. The pundits are really interested in demonstrating their power to determine who wins and loses, which they are able to do by using their vast (but slowly diminishing) power to shape public attitudes towards politics.

That is the single most toxic effect of Cable TV news on our "democracy" - its power to shape attitudes in a way so powerful and seamless that almost no one even notices, not even bloggers as savvy as Josh Marshall.

We saw this in 1998 when Cable TV burned Bill Clinton at the stake for adultery - even though Clinton's accusers (Newt Gingrich) and the pundits themselves regularly commit the exact same sin.

We saw this in 2000 when Al Gore was portrayed as an "exaggerating bore" while George Bush was the guy "you want to have a beer with."

We saw this after the polls closed in 2000 when Al Gore becamse the "Sore Loser" for following the standard rules for requesting a simple recount in an election marred by fraud.

We saw this in 2002 when the entire Corporate Media joined the Bush bandwagon demanding the invasion of Iraq, even though Iraq never attacked or even threatened the U.S.

We saw this in August 2004 when Joe Scarborough and Pat Buchanan gave endless free time to the Swift Boat Liars and convinced a key group of voters that Kerry shot himself for his medals.

Democracy can only work if voters make up their own minds - not if Cable TV makes up their minds for them. But Chris Matthews will be the last to put the interests of Democracy ahead of his lust for power.

Obama Pulls Ahead of McCain

Bob Fertik — Fri, 09 May 2008 10:06:18 -0400

Our likely nominee Barack Obama now leads John McCain by 2.7% in the RCP Average - an astonishing achievement given the month-long Corporate Media sh*tstorm over Rev. Wright.

This is fantastic news for Democrats because the endless primary has been fairly negative, although not nearly as negative as many pundits and bloggers have claimed.

Exit polls in NC and IN showed a lot of Clinton supporters are angry at Obama, and this is depressing Obama's polls. When Clinton eventually drops out and endorses Obama, that will give Obama's polls a significant boost - possibly adding 5% to his lead.

And then Obama will be able to raise and spend huge amounts of money to go after McCain, while McCain scrounges for pennies.

So if things go smoothly, Obama could pull ahead of McCain by 10% even before the conventions begin. And who do you think will give a better convention speech?

Republicans are already getting desperate. Yesterday they sent Mitt Romney onto CNN to attack Obama, as if anyone in America cares what Romney thinks.

Of course, over at War Criminal Central (the White House), they're reading these polls too. And as Obama's lead grows, the odds of an "October Surprise" attack on Iran grow in direct proportion.

If Democrats want to win in November, Congress should get this ugly issue out of the shadows by holding hearings now on Bush's secret plans to attack Iran.

1/4 of Republicans Hate McCain

Bob Fertik — Tue, 06 May 2008 20:08:53 -0400

The Democrat-hating Corporate Media keeps hammering the idea that Democrats are bitterly divided. Today's exit poll show roughly half of Clinton's supporters say they wouldn't vote for Obama in November, while roughly one-third of Obama's supporters say they wouldn't vote for Clinton.

Of course it's an idiotic question to ask without separating out the dittoheads who are only voting for Clinton to divide Democrats. And it's polling malpractice to ask voters amidst the "white hot passions of the moment," when the predictive value of the answers for November are close to nil. November is a political lifetime away, and both Clinton and Obama have promised to enthusiastically support the nominee.

But while the Corporate Media falsely divides Democrats, they are ignoring real divisions among Republicans, where roughly 1/4 are voting against their party's nominee, John McCain.

	IN	NC	PA	TX	OH
McCain	76	77	73	58	60
Not McCain	24	23	27	42	40
Huckabee	11	10	11	31	31
Paul	8	8	16	5	5
Romney	5
Other/none		3

Obviously this is terrible news for McCain, who became the Republican nominee when Mitt Romney dropped out on February 7. McCain has had three months to unite Republicans behind him, but 1/4 of Republicans still don't like him. And the loss of 1/4 of Republican votes in crucial states like Ohio and Texas could be fatal.

This division only compounds all the other problems McCain has: no money, the hug of death from Bush, nationwide disgust at Republicans (especially among younger voters), devotion to a disastrous war, ignorance about the awful economy, and a growing number of "senior moments" which underscore his single greatest vulnerability - his age.

So what percent of Republicans will vote against McCain in November? It's an easy question to ask in polls - why won't the Corporate Media ask it?

Questions for McCain

Bob Fertik — Fri, 18 Apr 2008 21:02:30 -0400

Charlie Gibson and George Stephanopoulos are feverishly defending the questions they asked Obama and Clinton as perfectly legitimate. So BarbinMD has a few equally legitimate questions for the Corporate Media to ask McCain:

Senator McCain, some have suggested that you take on Mike Huckabee as your running mate to offset the mistrust many Christian voters have of you given your support of stem cell research, which as you know, they consider to be murder. So my question to you is, will you ask Mr. Huckabee to join your ticket and can you explain why destroying unborn children isn't murder? After all, this viewpoint can be found on the internet.
It has been widely reported that you told Senator John Cornyn to "fuck off." Given your famous and self-admitted temper, should the American people be concerned that you may use the same sort of language to world leaders?
Let's move on to religion. You have "proudly" accepted the endorsements of Reverend John Hagee and Rod Parsley. Do believe and accept their belief that the Catholic Church conspired with Hitler to exterminate Jews, that Hurricane Katrina was a righteous punishment from God for the sins of New Orleans, and that a part of our American destiny is to destroy the false religion of Islam? If not, why haven't you publicly disassociated yourself from these remarks?
Keeping on religion for another moment; 20 years ago you began attending a Baptist Church, yet you refused to be baptized into that church. Why?
Do you believe that commiting adultery should disqualify someone to be the President of the United States? Why or why not?
It's been noted that you don't wear an American flag on your lapel. Do you believe that wearing one proves ones patriotism and conversely, does not wearing one mean that you don't love your country? In other words, is this an issue that the American people should be concerned about?

Avenging Angel has 10 more questions:

1. Do you agree with Pastor John Hagee that war with Iran is the fulfillment of biblical prophecy?

2. Doesn't your legendary temper make you too dangerous to be trusted with the presidency of the United States?

3. Doesn't your confusion regarding basic facts about the war in Iraq, including repeatedly citing a nonexistent Al Qaeda-Iran alliance, make you unfit for command?

4. Given your past adultery, should Americans consider you a moral exemplar of family values?

5. Doesn't your flip-flop on Jerry Falwell being an "agent of intolerance" show your opportunistic pandering to the religious right?

6. Given your wealth and privileged upbringing, aren't you - and not Barack Obama - the elitist?

7. What is your religion, really? And has the answer in the past changed as the South Carolina primary approached?

8. Didn't President Bush betray you with his signing statement on the Detainee Treatment Act? You claim to be against torture, but aren't you a hypocrite for voting "no" on the Senate waterboaring ban?

9. Why did you flip-flop on the Bush tax cuts you twice opposed? Why do you now support making them permanent for the wealthiest Americans who need them least?

10. With the economy tanking, shouldn't Americans be concerned over your past statements that "the issue of economics is not something I've understood as well as I should?"

John Aravosis adds these 9 questions:

1. Adultery. McCain reportedly was seeing his second wife while still married to his first wife. And, then we have the issue of the blond lobbyist who looks like McCain's second wife. America deserves answers.

2. Does John McCain require his mistresses to wear a flag pin?

3. McCain working for the enemy. If a US soldier made propaganda tapes for the enemy (like John McCain did), then went on to run for president as a Democrat, the Republicans would eviscerate that candidate. I want George Stephanopoulos to ask John McCain if he loves America as much as soldiers who didn't make propaganda tapes for the enemy while in captivity. Oh, and in case you think I'm kidding, here are McCain's own words:

Later, I made a second, feebler attempt at suicide. On the fourth day, I gave up. I signed a confession that "I am a black criminal and I have performed the deeds of an air pilot".

The guards ordered me to record my confession on tape. I refused, and was beaten until I consented.

Well, I'm sure a POW has never been beaten before, so it's totally understandable why McCain betrayed his country during his "hero" years in Vietnam. (Or are we to assume that all American POWs betray their country while in captivity, right?)

4. Old age. John McCain is old, everyone knows it. I love my parents, they're in their late 70s, they're great people, but they probably shouldn't be president at this age. John McCain would be the oldest new president EVER if he gets elected (and we all saw what happened to Reagan in his second term). I hope we'll be seeing some hard hitting questions about McCain being simply too old.

5. That enormous thing on the side of McCain's face. McCain had skin cancer a few years ago. He now has some enormous thing on the side of his face that no one is talking about. I want to know why we shouldn't be worried that John McCain is going to get sick and die in office.

6. Cindy McCain's drug addiction. What message does it send to America's children to have a drug addict, who actually stole drugs, as first lady?

7. Would John McCain quit a church that had his wife as pastor?

8. Is John McCain going to jail for 5 years? McCain has illegally pulled out of the public campaign finance system. That's a crime punishable by 5 years in prison. Is Stephanopoulos going to break media silence on this issue and ask John McCain whether he's too old to go prison?

9. Will McCain make propaganda tapes while he's in prison?

Cliff Schecter adds two more:

1. How can you call yourself a straight-talker in light of the fact that you have changed your positions or rhetorically flip-flopped on the following issues: Abortion, Creationism in science class, immigration, intervention abroad, tax cuts for the wealthy, civil unions, a Martin Luther King holiday, the Confederate Flag, the Christian Right, Bob Jones University, whether Rumsfeld did a good job, whether Dick Cheney is doing a good job, whether President Bush is an honest man, a Patient’s Bill of Rights, global warming, campaign finance reform in general, public financing of campaigns specifically, lobbying reform, whether the War in Iraq would be “easy,” whether Sunni and Shiite are working together, whether “Iraqi blood should be traded for American blood,” military readiness, how many troops are necessary for the suge to succeed in Iraq, ehtanol subsidies, the continuing existence of a minimum wage, closing the gun-show loophole, healthcare for children…and I could go on, but how about we start with those?

2. If Barack Obama must account for everyone he has ever passed within a 100 square mile radius of, then here are some associations you might want to explain, with the indicted, the white supremacists and the downright corrupt: Rick Renzi (indicted), Terry Nelson (racist ads against Harold Ford in 2006), Trent Lott (pining for a Strom presidency), The Wyly Brothers (corrupt), Bob Perry (Chief Swift Boater), Richard Quinn (white supremacist), Rev. Richard Land (homosexual hate), Ken Blackwell (Ohio election suppression), Charlie Black (lobbyist and according to John Gorenfeld’s new book, Bad Moon Rising, Reverend Moon lover). That would be a start.

Keith Olbermann has 8 more:

1. In your book you mention visiting burlesque houses, and you say that in Rio you indulged in, quote “the vices sailors are infamous for.”

Exactly how many times have you employed prostitutes? Or were you just referring to public drunkeness?

2. On your association with shady characters…

As a member of the Keating Five, you helped delay regulators from going after a savings and loan that ripped off elderly investors of their life savings… and cost taxpayers more than two billion dollars.

Why do you hate the elderly?

And taxpayers?

3. Your continuing association with radicals from the 1970’s. A man who tried to destroy the two-party electoral system and subvert Democracy, and to this day remains utterly unapologetic, saying only that he wishes he’d done more of it, and better? As recently as November 8th of 2007, you had a public conversation with G. Gordon Liddy, not merely a criminal, but an unrepentant enemy of the U-S constitution who is now in radio.

Why do you hate the Constitution, sir?

4. After first calling Jerry Falwell an “agent of intolerance,” you took that back and began praising the man, despite the fact that he blamed America for 9/11.

Why in six years have you not repudiated Mr. Falwell’s damning of this country? Why do you still symbolically share the same pew?

5. You proudly accepted the endorsement of Pastor John Hagee who wants the U-S to start a nuclear war as part of the Apocalypse; who called Catholicism “the great whore” and said Katrina was God’s punishment of New Orleans for holding, quote, “a homosexual parade.”

Senator McCain, does Pastor Hagee love Catholics, Muslims, New Orleans, gay people, parades and life on Earth as we know it, as much as you do?

6. Senator, why did you commit adultery?

Not that lobbyist stuff. I mean, with your wife back in the ’70s while you were still married to your first wife?

7. Last year, you admitted lying to voters when you said South Carolina’s confederate flag was strictly a state issue, when you knew it wasn’t, when you knew it was offensive to many Americans, presumably, those who wanted America to win the Civil War.

Why did you lie to protect a racist symbol of terrorists who wanted to destroy this country when you could have, um, not?

8. Finally, sir, a lot of Americans judge their politicians entirely by simple symbols. Flag lapel pins, where your hands are during the pledge of allegiance. Wouldn’t you agree, Senator McCain, that perhaps the most potent simple symbol of loving America, is whether or not you chose to be born in America?

What questions would you like ask McCain?

Update 1: Brave New Films created a satirical interview of McCain by Stephanopoulos asking some of the questions above.

Corporate Media Feels the Netroots Heat

Bob Fertik — Fri, 18 Apr 2008 09:37:33 -0400

Wednesday's ABC debate enraged the Netroots, and the Corporate Media is really feeling the heat. I believe this is the first time MSNBC has acknowledged the power of the Netroots, although of course they turned it into an attack on Hillary Clinton rather than themselves.

ObamaNation's Power: Curious of what the bitterness and anger could look like if Obama is somehow denied the Democratic nomination? Check out the reaction from the ObamaNation over Wednesday's debate. To put it simply, ABC was under siege yesterday. This may only be a taste of how the ObamaNation would react to a Clinton nomination. If MoveOn is motivated to do a petition campaign against the media over a debate, imagine what Clinton delegates and undecided superdelegates would face this summer if there is doubt. And as the Politico's Ben Smith pointed out yesterday, it's also what the GOP would face in the general election, especially if Obama is nominee. The level of devotion among Obama's supporters rivals what Bush had with his flock in 2004. The left-wing blogosphere is MUCH more powerful than what you see on the right this cycle and it reminds us of the advantage Bush had in '04. While we all know about that so-called right-wing voice machine, don't forget that there is now a left-wing noise machine (on the internet) as well. And it has found its voice.

One of our best voices is MSNBC's Rachel Maddow. In fact she's so good that every time she speaks up, Joe Scarborough cuts her off. Last night he was so frustrated, he stormed off the set.