>>>
I do not agree with your frequent statements that the news media is monolithic or has a consistent liberal bias. >>>
>>>Mike, this is just absurd.
>>>
>>>The media has been BRUTAL on Sarah Palin - I'm not saying she's not deserving - but they have been brutal.
>>>
>>>The press has treated Obama with kid gloves - and you know why as well as I do.
>>
>>I think they have been impressed by him. What do you think?
>>
>>I don't think anyone started out intending to beat Sarah Palin up. She earned that with her own words, actions, and general ignorance. You should read "Game Change" -- her awareness of the world was even worse than I knew. The McCain team spent hundreds of hours tutoring her on fairly basic stuff, which she dutifully wrote down on index cards and tried to memorize. They were petrified that she would say something colossally stupid in the debate with Biden. (She didn't, to their immense relief).
>
>Sometimes your naivete is trulyhumorous and other times it is just plain amazing. Evidence has been posted here so many times that I am now convinced that you either live with your head in the sand or are just plain stubborn. How about the bias against Clinton and the pro-media treatment of Obama in the press? Remember those discussions at all? Would you at least consider an opinion piece by Pulitzer prize winner Clarence Page of the Chicago Tribune?
>
>
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2008/02/clintons_bias_charge_has_some.html>and in case you refuse to read anything from that website, here is another:
>
http://archives.chicagotribune.com/2008/feb/20/opinion/chi-oped0220pagefeb20Happy to provide you with humor and amazement ;-)
Uh, what "evidence" are you talking about? My message was almost entirely about Sarah Palin. That stuff was all in the book. If you disagree with it, contact the authors.
Have fun with the political threads. I'm out.
