|
Edited on Mon Jul-14-08 06:42 PM by Median Democrat
I have to say these smears are just confusing, and difficult to keep track of. First, we had Maureen Dowd doing her sexist best to describe Hillary Clinton as a "Man" and Barack Obama as a naive, pansy (aka Obambi) and John Edwards as a "Brett Girl." So, Barack Obama was attacked by the MSM for being a weak naive liberal who was going to passively dialog and discuss America's issues without getting anything done, and without any direction.
Now, we have the New Yorker's article, which describes a ruthless Barack Obama who apparently was seeking the Presidency since he was toddler, and who has planned every step of his life to reach this goal, and who has crushed opponents and tossed aside friends to reach this goal. After I read the New Yorker article, I thought that Hillary Clinton looks like a naive baby in the woods compared to the heat seeking missile described in the New Yorker.
Surely, the cold-blooded, pragmatic ruthless Obama described in the New Yorker can't be the naive, weak Obambi liberal described in homophobic terms by Maureen Dowd.
The MSM needs to do a better job of keeping their smears consistent, because it is difficult for me to get worked up into a righteous liberal outrage when I am confused by smears that contradict each other. After all, the public that relies on the MSM, rather than listening to speeches and checking actual voting records, should be mislead for the correct reasons, rather than contradictory ones.
:sarcasm:
|