Dave Neiwart at FDL wonders why the campaign book filled with distorions, Obama Nation, gets so much more media attention that the campaign book that's factually sound; The Real McCain.
Like most Beltway pundits, E.J. Dionne cannot stop writing about the Clinton's. Yet in his Post column today he insists we're the ones obsessed:
"It has been more than two months since Barack Obama secured the Democratic presidential nomination, yet here we are, still fascinated with Bill and Hillary Clinton and what they're up to." [Emphasis added.]
In today's day-late follow-up to the NYT article on Corsi's anti-Obama book and the progressive fact-checking that's raised questions about its veracity, the Post claims "Parts of the book have also been disproved by the mainstream media." [Emphasis added.]
The Post offers no evidence to back up that claim. And trust us, it's just not true.
Watch Paul Waldman TKO the anti-Obama writer on Larry King Live last night.
Radar's Charles Kaiser's tries to find out if the publishing giant did any fact-checking before shipping out Jerome Corsi's Obama book.
Short answer: No.
About how the Pa. gov was supposedly snubbed at the 1992 Democratic convention because he clashed with the party over abortion. The Carpetbagger Report details the mythology and warns of upcoming references.
CNN has hired to pontificate about the conventions. Was Newt Gingrich not available to join the CNN team?
Dowd is furious the Democrats have language in their platform that condemns sexist media coverage and that points out "demeaning portrayals of women ... dampen the dreams of our daughters."
While explaining his newspaper's coverage of the John Edwards affair story, Raleigh's News & Observer editor John Drescher noted, "We've had a poor relationship with Edwards and his top staffers for years. Among other things, they were unhappy about our stories about his new house outside Chapel Hill, his expensive haircuts and his change in political philosophy from one presidential campaign to another."
Hmm, why would Edwards and his aides have been unhappy with the News & Observer's haircut coverage? Hint: It's because the paper returned to the topic 49 times in the last 15 months, according to Nexis.
It doesn't know how to analyze it's own poll data, claims Bill Scher at OurFuture.org.