Apparently there's "...a profound disconnect between the Barack Obama of the candidate's speeches, and the Barack Obama who has actually been in politics for the past decade or so..."
The Brits tumble to Obamalama's record. London can figure it out, but the NY Times can't. Must be the water. And, no, I still haven't figured out who I'm voting for, though the more the rabid lefty cretins show their true colors the more I wanna FLEE.
3 comments:
you live in chicago right? then it really doesn't matter who you vote for. there's no way obama's not winning illinois, so you can get over your whole liberal media conspiracy thing
Actually I don't live in Chicago, but in a nearby state that's firmly in play at the moment, electorally-speaking. So I'm pretty sure my vote'll count.
And I don't have a "whole liberal media conspiracy thing" as you put it. Just a finally-tuned bullshit detector. And it's not my fault if there's lots to be found on the pages of the NY Times.
Sometimes I just wish the Times would fess up and say "We're liberals. We like liberals. We support 'em and vote for 'em. We prefer liberal points of view. So there!" My respect for the Times would grow by leaps and bounds. As it is, their coy dissembling is revolting.
Oh by the way, I forgot to ask: what does Obama's likely victory in Illinois have to do with my views of the media, good, bad or indifferent?
OK, Illinois is Obama's. Big deal. Does that mean there's no liberal media conspiracy? Or that I shouldn't pay attention to it? Or it doesn't matter? Or it's offset by conservative bias at, say, Fox News? Or did you just not pay attention in debate class?
Post a Comment