Sure, but just because you say it doesn't make it true. In the age of internet and 72 hours worth of cable news in every 24 hour span (and that's just in my basic cable package, before you add in Al Jazeera and BBCWN), the vetting is more thorough than ever. Not to mention he went 18 months in the ring with a Clinton, who took delight in taking swing after swing at him, followed by 6 against the GOP. You think those two entities didn't dig day and night to try and unearth something they could use against him? Why do you think so much was made of his connections to Ayers and Wright?

What credentials? His voting and sponsorship record as a politician is available online. He's got two novels about his life out, one of which contains admissions of cocaine habits during college. What's he hiding if he admits that?

Obama's handling of the economy comes up every time economic numbers come out. It's talked about at length.

The SSN story was a sensationalist joke that didn't deserve to be covered. Until that PI answers honestly how she supposedly obtained Obama's SSN (it's not available on sss.gov as she said, how easy would identity theft be if that were the case?) she doesn't deserve to be taken seriously.

How does that break Obama's oath of office? Rand Paul's knee set off a scanner, for some reason, and he refused to submit to procedure. Now, we can debate the legitimacy of that procedure, and certainly I think it could do to be scaled back and rethought. Public servants are not above the law, however over-bearing the law is, and the whole thing has nothing to do with Obama's oath. And by the way - how does that relate to the media? It's been covered at length since happening, probably more than it deserves.

Natural citizen isn't defined in the constitution, and I see that's already been discussed in an earlier reply so I'll leave it alone. Except to say Santorum's dad was born in Italy, yet the media gives it very little coverage. So if you use that as proof of a pro-Obama scheme, I could just as easily use it as proof of a broader conservative scheme in the media. But I won't, because I recognize how ridiculous it would make me sound.

We're not missing 5-6 trillion, that's a nonsensical claim. Although, federal budgets and a world of additional financial data are available for free online and combed through extensively by the media organizations you're criticizing, so if you'd like to try and find a 5 trillion dollar void over the last three years, by all means let me know what you find.

You're upset that Bill Ayers WASN'T covered? Like I said originally, revisionist history. It was brought up time and time again for a number of weeks. In the end the public got bored and obviously didn't care very much. Leave it alone. They worked together on the board of an educational reform project funded by Annenberg, I somehow don't imagine radical pasts were brought up in the context of school improvements.

The media's job is to report, not to editorialize. If you want editorialized news, the three cable news channels and especially MSNBC and FOX serve it up all day every day. Newspapers have editorial sections. The internet can bring you any opinion on any topic in the world. Foreign news agencies have U.S. bureaus if you want truly objective coverage. I'm sorry, I don't see a media conspiracy. I understand many journalists may lean left, but if they're working for a professional agency (one of the few that remains) that means they're usually able to block it out. Sometimes people believe in ghosts because they want something to fear, but that doesn't mean ghosts exist.

And I've rewritten that a second time because the first time I tried it said it was deleted as soon as I posted it.. weird. I'm new here, does that happen often? Should I get into the habit of copying everything I write before attempting to post it?

Not true. I am NOT pro-abortion. If I were a woman, I wouldn't get one. Under any circumstances. I wouldn't encourage friends, family or a stranger I met on the street to get one, and would in fact discourage it and do whatever I could to connect them with alternative services. I believe an abortion is a terrible mistake. I will make damn sure my kids know what's going on with the science of conception, and that if they screw up I will not support a decision to abort.

We both agree that abortion is unfortunate, and to be discouraged, ideally eliminated. Our disagreement is over fetal rights vs. reproductive rights. I would like nothing more than for all fetuses conceived to be born, but I believe that needs to be accomplished in ways other than telling women what they may and may not do with their bodies - ideally, education. About adoption programs, but primarily about avoiding unwanted pregnancies. The 20 million unsafe pregnancies performed around the world each year tell me making it illegal will not achieve that end.

Pro-choice is not at all doublespeak. It means I prioritize a woman's right over a fetus's. I recognize that you disagree, and I respect that. I also ask that you please reciprocate the favor by not forcing labels onto my that I strongly reject.

I remember there was a Fox (possibly CBC?) debate scheduled in Nevada early in the primary season that all candidates backed out of. Was there one scheduled in 08 that I'm forgetting about? What happened to it? I googled it quickly, and there's plenty of material that Fox and the CBC were in talks but seemingly nothing about an agreement being made, nor do I see what fate it met. The only other general election debate rumors I remember were that McCain and Obama had differing proposals on format and weren't able to reach an agreement. If you've got magic I don't and can somehow find a source on that I'd be grateful.

More to the point though, isn't there some level of hypocrisy in faulting the Dems for pulling out of Fox debates in the comment section of a story criticizing the RNC for allowing NBC to air a Republican one?

As for tough interviews, I'm not sure if that's true. He's avoided Fox more than other networks, sure, but let's not forget he did a one-on-one with Bill O'Reilly before the Super Bowl last year. And that in the campaign he did several rounds at the Sunday shows, one of them while Tim Russert was still alive and Meet the Press didn't suck.

Politifact and FactCheck are separate entities entirely, the former operated by the Tampa Bay Times, the latter by the nation's premier school of communications at Penn. To my understand FactCheck was the organization in question, and usually regarded as the more reliable of the two.

So you think he doesn't respect the military because someone else thinks he doesn't respect the military? Not to mention the flaw in Levin's logic is pointed out quite well in the very article you linked me to. Give me all you've got, especially if they're as invalid as that one.

Nobody's changing anything. English is, always has been, and always will be the de facto language of the United States. I agree that we should encourage people to learn English if they're going to live here, but there are ways to do that without barring government documents from being translated into people's native language.

He's not pro-abortion, he's pro-choice. Please recognize there is a difference. And I'm actually not sure if he is at all, personally I think he was pandering to the left in claiming to be pro-choice, rather than pandering to the right during this election. He's a flip-flopper, yes, but come on! It's politics. It's (unfortunately) expected.

As for him only recently making pro-capitalism noises? I don't know how you can make such a claim at the same time he's being attacked from within the GOP for being a "vulture capitalist" during his time at Bain. What kind of Marxist goes into business for 25 years and reaps the rewards of the free market?

Insurance mandates have for years been the CONSERVATIVE alternative to universal single-payer coverage. They don't constitute a government takeover of the private sector, as Marxism would advocate for.

There was a Clinton v. Obama debate in Pennsylvania toward the end of the 08 primary season in which Obama got pummeled not only by his opponent but by the moderators. Gibson and Stephanopoulos were hugely controversial figures in the aftermath because they didn't ask a legitimate policy-related question of Obama for at least the first half hour. He and Clinton were at each other's throats that entire primary season (Clinton's 3 am phone call ad certainly comes to mind), and the debates between McCain and Obama were reasonably well run, as I'd expect from moderators like Schieffer, Lehrer and Brokaw, each of whom I respect. To say Obama was unchallenged and not put through the "grind of adversity" is a revisionist history. Feel however you want to about him and the media, but don't pretend like the political red sea simply parted itself for him and allowed him to waltz into the White House.

You're right. I misread it, my mistake. I'll let Anonymous defend the wording of their own claim, but my guess is they're referring to either Santorum's "I don't want to make black people's lives better by giving them somebody else's money, I wanna give them the opportunity to go out and earn the money and provide for themselves and their families" or Gingrich's "I will go to the NAACP convention, and tell the African-American community why they should demand paychecks instead of food stamps." I'm guessing it's the former, as Santorum clarified later on that he had said "blah people" and Anonymous said "African-Americans (or “blah” people)"

Certainly neither explicitly says black people make up the majority of welfare, but that Santorum singled out black people (I'm sorry, I just don't believe his excuse) in the context of Iowa being fined if they don't sign up more people for Medicaid SUGGESTS he believes that to be the case. That may be the case with the Gingrich quote, I'm not sure - I don't know the context on that, and it would be unfair to jump to conclusions without knowing it.