To be fair, BO got the kid glove treatment in January and February. Unfortunately for him, what goes up also goes down. And down and down and down some more. The backlash against him on account of Wright, bitter-gate, etc. has been so extreme and so unfair, it's not off-base to call it, in Clarence Thomas's phrase, a high-tech lynching. And he's an inside-the-beltway "centrist." Imagine what they'd do to a real left-winger.

if hilliary STEALS the nomination from OBAMA....i'm going to write in a candidate....and it's going to be ...KEM PATRICK FOR PRESIDENT IN 2008......are you listening KEM PATRICK.......HE'S SHARP ON THE ISSUES...i still don't believe (kem patrick) is IN HIS 70'S

The media has a vested interest in keeping Clinton and Obama fighting it out. It's free programing for them. It provides them with lots of audiences to sell to advertisers. What a game.
Hoa binh

IMHO: What a hypocratical piece of crap this article is. Hypocritical because Mr. Solomon, a justifiable "hero" of progressive alternative journalism, seems totally blinded to the "fly on the wall" of his own colleagues who persist in "seeing no evil" with reference to Barack Obama. When have you EVER seen anything very critical about Obama in Common Dreams, Alter Net, Z Net, Truth Dig, Nation Magazine or the "releases" of Move On or Democracy for America? (to mention a few). A commenter posting on another Obama-fawning Common Dreams piece ("Atonement") complained about some of the Obama-complainers (like me) on that thread, saying he had thought that CD was a "haven" from all this. And you know what, he's right. Solomon complained about Obama as moving with MSM from "do no wrong" to "do no right." The alternative progressive press is consistent, being in the "do no wrong" camp from the beginning and courageously sticking by their guns. In so doing, they have given no credence or even criticism of allegations against Obama far more serious than the specious one about his relationship with Pastor Wright (though of course of lot of cyber-ink was expended on DEFENDING Obama on this non-issue, with the usual motif of casting Obama as a "victim.") The alternative media continue to give Obama a pass on his fawning relation (like that of Clinton) to AIPAC, and of course no one in the anti-war sector of this alternative community would ask Obama as well as Clinton whether they were going to vote against supplemental war fund. (Since this question wouldn't "embarass" Clinton any more than Obama, why ask it?) Another pass has been issued to Obama in allowing him to make his half-truth claims that his is a populist campaign that takes no money from lobbyists, a claim laid bare by Pam Martens, but published only in Black Agenda Report and Counter Punch, two online media that have been honorable exceptions to the "havening" of Obama by the others. Again, to get any extended discussion of the ominous scandal clouds growing around the investigation of Obama's connections to public housing rip-offs in Illinois, one would have to go to Evelyn Pringle's articles in Counter Currents, another website that, along with Dissident Voice, has stayed outside the haven thrown over Barack Obama. When these media decide a candidate is a "progressive" (not an early judgment by some of them), they all seem to turn into monkeys with all their sensory organs covered, to use another animal imagery.

Yeah, it's time for HRC to bow out. Time to face the facts. All she's doing is dividing.

Even if BO got the kid glove treatment before, he has now stared down both barrels, McCain and MSM, and even with HRC tilting the gun his way he's proven to be more upstanding. While she was joining forces with the devils on the right, he hasn't stooped to the same lame crap. He didn't get cheap and point out, while she was trying to set him Wright, that she and Bill saw the good reverend for counseling when there were marital woes. So we've seen what both are capable of, and BO has shown to stand far taller.

I admire him for how he's come through this.

And whenever there was a serious problem he dealt with it by articulating very clearly a reasonable and tempered response; not by getting cheap and trying to scandalize an opponent.

I just hope someone out there is willing to start talking about McCain now and ask how it was that he was getting medical treatment from "those despicable gooks" that he had days earlier been dropping bombs on, while his comrades were languishing next to him. Seems very questionable to me.

Norman's point none the less stands. The press invents all sorts of reasons why we should or shouldn't vote for whoever. If we knew how to do democracy we wouldn't be in this fix. If we knew how to do democracy our networks wouldn't dare dwell on drivel while the economy is gamed to death by well
connected speculators. They would have to cover substance. As it is, we have people criticizing Obama for not having Kucinich's positions, knowing full well if he had, he would no longer be in the race.

It's possible that Obama is doing this balancing act just right, or at least as well as it can be done. Or perhaps, as some progressives whine, he might be almost as disappointing as Clinton absolutely will be.

I don't think so. I think he will be great. And if I'm wrong? Then we will have the lesser of three evils. But if we stand aside and whine about how we aren't given as much choice as we would like, then we have to accept that we have no choice, in other words, take whoever they give us.

Don't forget; The greater two evils are considerably evil - Bomb, Bomb, Bomb,... Bomb Bomb Iran,. Or Obliterate Iran vs. Talk with Iran. Thats enough difference for me.

Time for the younger generation to take up the reins and get this chickenshit outfit heading in a direction that has some use for the people of our country. Damn sure us Boomers let it get away from us. What's that saying..."doing the same old thing in the same old way and expecting different results?" Something about insanity in there somewhere.

Veteran '66-68

Great to hear that American voters are using their brains instead of just voting for what the media 'instructs' them to vote for.
Whenever you get the chance to vote against the 'punditocracy', make use of that opportunity and just do so. It's the little bit of democracy that you are still granted.

This seems to sum it all up:

"From George McGovern to Gary Hart to Michael Dukakis to Al Gore to Howard Dean to John Kerry, a long line of Democratic contenders with a chance to become president have been whipsawed by cartoonish images or bogus "issues," incubated by the right wing and fully hatched by the mass media. The slightest progressive wrinkles of even the starchiest corporate Democrats have been ironed out by media steamrollers."

Thanks Norman, you're a hero...

Obama's wins point to the fact that the good people of this nation can indeed see beyond (to a better America), behind (clear channel and Rupert Murdoch)and around this false wall.

I just can't wait until the news of this national pride hits my local stations, then maybe we will get some real news and newspersons.

Do any of you Obama bashers ever venture out in to public? I am serious. Talk to friends and relatives and co-workers, people in line at the grocery store or bellied up at the bar, and let me know if they would vote for Nader or Kucinich. My liberal friends don't even know who Kucinich is other than a vegan who sees UFO's. Destroying every political candidate that can win in this election, 6 months from now, is not a plan to save America.

I am a member of the Green Party but I am supporting Obama because he is bringing new people in to the process. You guys can sit on the sidelines and pretend to be ideologically pure and let all these new voters become as disillusioned and as cynical as you, or worse just drop right back out of the process altogether but that is not a strategy to change America. That is a guarantee that things will get worse. If you haven't noticed, it takes a lot of votes to become a nominee and even more to get elected. I don't think you are going to have much success recruiting voters to your candidates by cutting down people, who perhaps are more thoughtful than yourselves, for being blinded by the mystic Obama. If you have a plan please let me in on it. Because I suspect your plan is to turn even more people away from the process that is in place in hopes that America completely crashes. I also suspect that most of you are older than me. I was born in 1971. This is the first dynamic leader in my lifetime that makes me feel that We the People can actually make lasting change. You had JFK, let my generation and all those after me, try to elect ours. And unlike the worst generation, the boomers, maybe we can actually continue the fight after he gets elected. Just my thoughts, because I am really getting tired of these cynics who are arguing against what they want to believe (that we are awe-struck and blinded by Obama and Obama-mania and all your other cute nicknames)and not what supporters like me are saying continuously. That I (we) am not voting because he will change the world but because he is the vehicle in the movement by us to change the world. In this regard Obama would be a spectator along for the ride. This is a new generation and a new world. With instant media and independent media we can actually create the change I assume we all want. So stop with the name calling and either join us or share your plan for changing this rotten system we have now.

Hillary indeed needs to drop out. The claim I'm reading now from both Hillary and the MSM is the states that have yet to hold their primaries are home to many older Americans and agricultural communities, and these demographics typically are favorable for Hillary.

Horse shit! How quickly everyone forgets. What the Hell do people think Iowa is? Let's see... primary industry is agriculture and the median age is way up there compared the rest of the country. Yet in Iowa, Barack pounded Hillary into the ground. Why would anyone think that Barack can't do well in the remaining states?

Well, I guess if the MSM says it, then Hillary will start repeating it, and then it must be true. I suspect an anchor job on a national news program awaits Hillary should her bid for the nomination fail.

Jerry D. Rose:
I would agree with your statements up to a point. First of all, the reason why the media doesn't bring up Obama 'dirt' because there really isn't any. The biggest issue they have had so far is that his former pastor sounds like alot of angry Black preachers I've heard most of my life.

Beyond the usual suspects of ultra-left outlets like the Black Agenda Counter Punch, there is no 'there' there. These outlets make it clear that they I don't think Obama is perfect, I support Kucinich and Edwards early on. My favorite site, realchange.org, has barely picked up anything on the guy and they've gone after stalwarts like Nader and Kuicinich. Biggest scandal may be shady land deal in Chi-town, which, if it had any real legs, the MSM would have made it Whitewater II.

And as for the AIPAC thing -- Obama isn't stupid, he knows better than to screw with AIPAC at this juncture. Look what they did to Cynthia McKinney. Even with the pander he IS doing, AIPAC is still accusing him of being an Al-Qaeda sleeper agent.

Let's be honest, Obama hasn't be the public eye long enough to muster any real dirt. We know everything about Clinton and McCain because they been around the game and up to their armpits in scandal for over 20 years. When Bill Clinton first got elected to the governorship of AK, Obama was in law school. And when McCain was in the 'Hanoi Hilton' Obama was still in junior high.

Honestly, I think that a lot of progressives have grown so cynical that we can't believe ANY viable Presidential candidate isn't a complete slime ball, or worse, we're waiting for a lefty Messiah to walk on water and save America from itself. We can't believe that a fairly decent person would actually want this job. Then there is the other percentage that thinks we can solve our problems through anarchy and street riots. But that's another story.

Thank you...Please can we discuss the issues. Media perpetuates these non-issues into real decision factors, and people are so stupid to buy into it. personally, i refuse to read anything about or listen to any thing about Reverand Wright... IT'S A NON-ISSUE. We need to care more about what we're going to do with our country, because if you look at the real issues, you'll see that we're not doing good right now...at all

realitychecker, May 7, 2008 2:02 PM: "And unlike the worst generation, the boomers...."

Yer paintin' with a pretty broad brush there, Pardner.

Glen Ford's comments on Obama are worth checking out.

Obama is better than HRC and better than Kerry, but dont keep blinders on.
His clean slate is his advantage.

Still say all they need is an attack on Iran and people will go to McCain no matter how crazy he is.

Reality Checker.... that was was beautifully stated. Thank you. I'm approximately the same age as you (1965), have been a member of the Green Party, voted for Nader in 2000, etc. Like Kucinich I am vegetarian and believe in some weird shit (not UFOs but other stuff).... I've finally realized, and Obama has helped me, that what I want is not a President who agrees with me on every issue, but a President who is intelligent, authentic, caring, bold and unifying.

Obama happens to line up with a LOT of my views, but I'd like to think I would support him even if we had more differences.

A few issues are deal-breakers however, because where a candidate stands on those issues are EMBLEMATIC of their general leadership qualities. Hillary lost me for good back when she said she would authorize torture under certain circumstances. Then she lost me forEVER with her idiotic, pandering gas-tax-holiday suggestion, and her claim that those legislators who opposed the idea were on the side of oil companies.

The Obama - Clinton affair is about as real as pro wrestling.
If you want to believe in 'your candidate' feel free to do so. Just know that you are being played like a dimestore fiddle.

JFK was a chimera, to the right of Nixon on a great many issues. Like Hitler and Stalin, he exorted people to serve the state: "Ask not what your country can do for you; ask what you can do for your country." Boomers and their parents were hypnotized by the "Age of Exuberence" that is now screeching to a halt amidst massive overshoot. Solomon's piece is a hit piece directed at the media; it is not even focused on Obama except in relation to how the media distorts and manipulates. The Obama quote Solomon chose bears repeating: "We've already seen it," ... "the same names and labels they always pin on everyone who doesn't agree with all their ideas, the same efforts to distract us from the issues that affect our lives, by pouncing on every gaffe and association and fake controversy, in the hopes that the media will play along." If that wasn't a Progresssive--Naderite--broadside, what is? I don't think his pastor could have put it better.

skeezyks- I know. Sometimes I get carried away but it seems fitting since they are the first American generation that will leave less to their children than their parents did. Also, their leaders (that are alive) leave a lot to be desired....

Read the Pam Martens article on Counterpunch. Obama is firmly endorsed by Wall Street. Since McCain is in line with the current government and Clinton seems to be spending her own money, what we are seeing here is a battle of interests between Wall Street and the military complex. That's what this election is about. And of course, McCain is an idiot and Obama is a filmstar.

Obama, a black man who readily trashes his black pastor? how's he going to treat the rest of black America when elected? Whites know they can play him like a prized fiddle, baiting him with the race card every time he does something remotely "black."

That's right--a black leader ashamed of being black in a racist country--what more could he power structure ask for?

have been whipsawed by cartoonish images or bogus "issues," incubated by the right wing and fully hatched by the mass media.

And did the people vote for the cartoons , bogus issues , incubations , hatching
É.

If Americans arenèt sufficiently discerning to figure that if MSM says it itès a lie they deserve the dictatorship coming down the pike . America will eventually learn as did the French , Russians... The price of freedom is ETERNAL vigilance

I'm with Glen Goodman on this - I think you hit it right. Point taken on "we have people criticizing Obama for not having Kucinich's positions, knowing full well if he had, he would no longer be in the race." You said it, Glen.

Beekeeper wrote: That's right–a black leader ashamed of being black in a racist country–what more could he power structure ask for?

-----

Worse, a so-called "black" leader who really isn't black, who turns on the black or white as it suits his purpose (to get elected), who appears to be embarrassed by black when the audience is mostly white, who appears to think that only blacks and half-blacks can discuss race and so he harshly criticizes a white who says he got where he is because of his color when he said the exact same thing about himself 2 or 3 years earlier ...

Norman Solomon takes pity on Obama, I wonder how he feels about Clinton, considering that the MSM treatment of her has been a billion times worse ...

I'm 72 ~JLover~, but please don't write that type of thing, I'd much rather be the King for a year.

Boy oh boy, we'd be out of Iraq in five days for starters and our Naval fleets and Air Force would be on their way back home. A copy of our Constitution would be hanging on the walls of every fast food outlet, coffee shop and Wal-Mart rest room in the country.

Bush and Cheney and their mob would be in a monistary in Baghdad, which would previously have been called the American embassy. And John Edwards, Kucinich, and Paul Newman would be my close advisors. Might even find a position for Monica. Lobbying would be a crime with a 99 year jail term for the first offense, death penalties would be abolished.

We'd be building thousands of clean energy plants and phasing out the coal fired and nucker jobs. There would be millions of good paying jobs and the national speed limit would be 58 mph and enforced. Then we'd work out a decent election process and insure our free press was truley free. Helen Thomas would be in charge of that job. That's for starters.

Then I'd go visit Fidel Castro and ask how we could assist his country if he needed any assistance. Then when a fair and honest election was in progress for an entirely new Congress and president, I'd retire and write blogs here at C/D.

Obama supporters are simply wrong. Prove your point by pointing to real policies, to leadership as a U.S. senator - it's sad and exasperating! Obamaniacs got their way and we all will go down. This is a say day for the world.

As long as the Left continues to form circular firing squads to shoot down middle-left candidates, the Right will continue to win. What is the real prize here, folks? The prize is keeping McCain out of the White House. The corporate media has a vested interest in putting McCain into the White House, and that's why we see so much "news" about the Obama/Clinton horse-race. Please let's remember that if we're talking about the lesser of two evils, that means that there is a GREATER of two evils, and that's Mccain. Let's keep McCain out of the White House, and then let's stay awake and make sure that we don't rely on either Obama or Clinton, whoever wins, to help us take back our Constitution. We have our work cut out for us no matter who wins in November; let's unite and get that work done!

It not a prerequisite for me that a candidate hold all my positions or even a majority or any of specificity for that matter. I question myself often and try to learn from others. I do try to listen to opposing opinions, even if they are not well reasoned as far as i can tell. And I've grudgingly come to respect the importance, and yes necessity of nuance because a diverse society requires it (and I do respect and celebrate diversity, I was just slow in making this connection). I've come to believe that if I can judge the nuance to be genuine, it is a potential leader saying "hey! you guys have to help me with this". This is the allure of Obama for me. But I draw the line at being lied to. If you don't know what I mean you haven't been paying attention. Follow the money.

The bitter pill is that there won't be any difference regardless of who is 'elected'.
A train only goes on the track laid in front of it. The Democrat train and Republican train are running on the same tracks. Obama, Clinton, McCain, are just the words painted on the side of the engine.

Beekeeper and atheist:

I agree with the perspective of your posts of "what could be worse" for blacks than a "black" leader ashamed of them and giving the "nigger get to the back of the bus" message that he gave to Pastor Wright or the "respect the verdict" admonition to the outraged relatives of police-massacred Sean Bell. When I read of the 80% or so of blacks in NC who voted for him, I have to think of Frank's "What's the Matter with Kansas?" and ask "What's the Matter with Black Americans?" It's the same story: Frank says rural people in Kansas vote against gays and abortion and get a Republican party that gives them corporate giveaway bankrupty "reform" acts or "Class Action Fairness" (limits suing the people that hurt you) Acts, both of which Obama voted for just like his Republican buddies. Blacks vote for one of "their own" and get a politician who really cares more about his Wall Street handlers and his AIPAC kiss-ups than he does black people. And in all of this you gotta feel for those voters who are so manipulated, whether Kansans or blacks, but especially blacks. They've waited how many generations to even get the vote, much less to vote a black into the Presidency, so how can you blame them for playing "identity politics" even if it interferes with their own political interests? (For that matter, how can you blame women for supporting Hillary Clinton for the same reason?)

So what do we need in 2008 America for President? How about a truly progressive person, not a DLC clone like Clinton or Obama? How about a woman? How about a black? How about a black woman? There are several black women that I would support: Barbara Lee and Cynthia McKinney come immediately to mind. But wait a minute, McKinney is a candidate for Green Party nomination isn't she? And that puts her out of bounds, doesn't it; since we must once again troop to the polls in November and vote for one of the two candidates of the Corporacratic Party, one with an R beside his name and one with a D beside his or her name. Why? Because that's the way we play the game of Presidential politics in the U.S.of A.; and it doesn't make a damn what "generation" we are; if you're young, well kid, you're just going to have to choose between the two sides that the old farts have bequeathed to you, so shut up and get to either the D or R side of the bus, because there aren't and will never be any other seats.

glen goodman: Don't forget; The greater two evils are considerably evil - Bomb, Bomb, Bomb,… Bomb Bomb Iran,. Or Obliterate Iran vs. Talk with Iran. Thats enough difference for me.

Couldn't have said it better. I'd like to add... Think about what McCain will do to the Supreme Court. I'm not crazy about Hillary, but I would vote for her if she were nominated on the basis of protecting the Supreme Court from the Republicans. I sure hope that those who are bad-mouthing Obama will think about what the effect of a non-vote or a vote for McCain could bring about. McCain's choices (more Roberts and Alito's) will have a devastating impact on the quality of life for generations to come. I know Obama is not as progressive as most of you would like, but he is probably going to be the nominee, and we must support him.

Boy, you Democrats really, really hate each other, don't you? When McCain wins by a landslide in November, you won't be blaming Nader and the Greens, will you? It'll be interesting to see you metaphorically running about the streets with the blood of other Democrats in your fingers and teeth. I wonder if you'll even be around to have a presidential candidate in 2012. I guess the Republicans will have their chance to unwittingly execute America for its crimes against the Native Americans and African slaves. I feel sorry for our children, but then children have never had a snowball's chance in hell, have they?

"They've waited how many generations to even get the vote, much less to vote a black into the Presidency, so how can you blame them for playing "identity politics" even if it interferes with their own political interests? (For that matter, how can you blame women for supporting Hillary Clinton for the same reason?)"

Exactly- it's the old divide-and-conquer routine, and it appears to be working exactly as intended.

Alice in Wonderland- I agree with you. First things first, rethugs OUT NOW and we will work on the fine tuning during the democratic administration that must come next!

Its interesting to see the "biased media is against us therefore we're good" thing playing out in the Dems., having been so long a staple of the GOP, isn't it?

As far as I'm concerned, until a candidate openly avows to foreswear and roll-back the unconstitutional powers accumulated by the Executive over the last 7, 27, 37 years and longer, they are running not for president but for King, not for the office of Chief Executive but for the Imperial Scepter- and so do not have my vote.

I can see all the reasons why this is unlikely to happen before an actual Convention Nomination makes someone the actual Candidate for the Democratic Party, but I just don't buy the idea that it couldn't happen After.

What would the Candidate have to worry about?

The threat of McCain? Don't buy it. You really think that the People are into the idea of Electing ANOTHER old white guy? One who's claim to fame is being shot down while bombing civilians in an unjust and nasty war, and yet supports indefinitely the bombing of civilians in another unjust and nasty war? A man so mad or desperate that though he was himself tortured by non-regular units of a nation's military, he actually Supports torture by the non-regular units of the U.S. military? A man who pledges to support every policy of a King who's reign may be the most unpopular and openly despised in the Nations's History? A King who came into Office 7 years ago with eggs pelting his limosine and will leave Office in less than one year having been a "lame-duck" for fully a Quarter of his time there?

C'mon, pull the other one.

Everyone knows that this thing is the Dems to lose.

The whole "the media is against us and they'll trick all the idiots into voting GOP" thing seems to be a sort of desperate attempt to find a way for a Dem loss to make any sense, but it ignores a few truths:

1)Everybody knows the TV is full of crap. That's right even the working class, small town people who vote GOP know this, they just think its a slightly different kind of crap.

2)Everbody knows the Parties and their Candidates are full of crap. Even in the fly-over states. That's why the turnout always hovers in the 50-60% range. Only a little over half of the People in any given year can talk themselves into voting for any of these millionaire politicos.

For the last 40 years or so, "none of the above" has won the Elections for "president" with a large plurality every four years. In other Nation-States, this is called "abstention" and seen as a problem with the Candidates, in the U.S. this is called "apathy" and seen as a problem with the Voters. A true Majority lies in appealing to this abstaining 50%.

3) "Media bias" can only have an effect if a Candidate and party are either, a) too small and divided like the Greens or b) too cooperative with the media bias. Meaning here not the B.S. "biases" of "liberal" and "conservative", but the true biases of the "medium" (i.e. the actual Television technology) for simplistic and vague language and ideas, and toward constant confrontion over them. These biases are inherent in the machine iteslf, in the same way that my car tends to drive on tires on roads and not fly with wings in the sky -it's not an airplane, it's a car.

If a candidate refuses to attend 27 "debates" hosted by TV idiots, refuses to speak in sound bytes and vagurey and instead publishes and promotes and publicly defends a series of concrete, realistic, and needed proposals the "media" would be forced to adjust. This would NOT mean BTW forfeiting an ability to get things out in the simplified short-hand TV ads and discussions force. One could easily reference "My 25 Proposals" or "Our New Way Forward" etc., and then allow citizens or journalists to look into the details.

If Barak Obama adjusts his campaign strategy in this way after he is the clear Candidate for the Dems then he may just have a chance to do more than simply take hold of the Crown and Scepter, he may be able to figurehead a greater Movement to breath new democratic (little d) vigor into the dusty halls of our Republic turned Empire.

Though if not, I surely won't be surprised.

As for Clinton, how can she be a symbol of new democratizing change if she can only win the nomination by out-dated back-room shenanigans? How can she be a symbol for democratizing change when her main claim of qualification is being the "First Lady" of a previous King?

Any nods from Clinton towards the wishes of the People will be transparent political tricks and calculations. Whether Obama is full of it or not, he certainly seems genuine and certainly doesn't have a big "LIAR" sign around his neck like Clinton does.

In 1932 the economic and social situation in the U.S. impelled the Dems and their old-money Establishment Candidate to turn politics and government into something that worked for the People. Sixty-six years later Roosevelt and his administation are still fondly and nostalgic-ly remembered by most everyone but Super-right Nazi Nutcases.

Once they get their silly squabbles settled the Dems of 2008 need to decide if they want to return to being the Popular Party of the Majority of the People, or remain the Second-Favorite Lapdog of the anti-democratic Corporatist Oligarchies.

-matti.

Cappadonna3030 writes:
"And as for the AIPAC thing — Obama isn't stupid, he knows better than to screw with AIPAC at this juncture. Look what they did to Cynthia McKinney."

Well, she's running for president, which comes in handy for people who'd like to vote for a black person WITH politics. Obama may not be stupid, but he's never actually won an election where there was ANOTHER side. And then there's that MOBSTER thing. And that Patriot Act thing. And that never mentioning POVERTY thing. And that horse puckey about Afghanistan.

Voting McKinney means never having to say you're sorry.

Corporations, their lobbyists and the US Media are running scared. They realize that Obama if elected can directly communicate with people without the interpretation or analysis by the media pundits or the toning down and softening by the lobbyists.

A leader who directly appeals to people instead of first checking with the lobbyists and then sending up trial balloons to be vetted by the media is unheard of in the US these days.

The last president who favored people over corporations was FDR.

Obama has the potential to do all that - this is truly scary for the inside crowd.

CD seems to tread Obama like he is a saint and Hillary is a villian. Counterpunch is a more balanced site. We need to get away from propaganda, whether it be from the 'left' or 'right.'

Beekeeper, if Obama is "ashamed of being black," why did he marry a black woman and father children with her?? Hmmmm?

No matter what he does, Obama haters will say he's either not black enough or not white enough, blah blah blah. I'd just ignore them if I were him. All he has to do is not favor one race over the other -- which is exactly what he is doing.

If you have trouble agreeing with Solomon on this one, regardless of which candidate you support, you have not been watching TV, reading a newspaper or listening to the radio.

In response to qbaldsmoove who wrote:
"I just hope someone out there is willing to start talking about McCain now and ask how it was that he was getting medical treatment from "those despicable gooks" that he had days earlier been dropping bombs on, while his comrades were languishing next to him. Seems very questionable to me."

I'm an Independent and don't care for any of the 3 candidates but let me enlighten you on McCain and Viet Nam. Read below what was taken from wikipedia.com-

"John McCain's capture and imprisonment began on October 26, 1967. He was flying his 23rd bombing mission over North Vietnam, when his A-4E Skyhawk was shot down by a missile over Hanoi.[36][37][38][39] McCain fractured both arms and a leg,[40] and then nearly drowned when he parachuted into Truc Bach Lake in Hanoi.[36] After he regained consciousness, a mob attacked him,[41] crushed his shoulder with a rifle butt, and bayoneted him; he was then transported to Hanoi's main Hoa Loa Prison, nicknamed the "Hanoi Hilton".[41][42]
Although McCain was badly wounded, his captors refused to treat his injuries, instead beating and interrogating him to get information.[41] Only when the North Vietnamese discovered that his father was a top admiral did they give him medical care[41] and announce his capture. His status as a prisoner of war (POW) made the front pages of The New York Times[43] and The Washington Post.[44]
McCain spent six weeks in the Hoa Loa hospital, receiving marginal care.[36] Now having lost 50 pounds (23 kg), in a chest cast, and with his hair turned white,[36] McCain was sent to a different camp on the outskirts of Hanoi[45] in December 1967, into a cell with two other Americans who did not expect him to live a week.[46] In March 1968, McCain was put into solitary confinement, where he would remain for two years.[41]
In July 1968, McCain's father was named commander of all U.S. forces in the Vietnam theater.[2] McCain was immediately offered early release.[36] The North Vietnamese wanted a worldwide propaganda coup by appearing merciful, and also wanted to show other POWs that elites like McCain were willing to be treated preferentially.[41] McCain turned down the offer of repatriation; he would only accept the offer if every man taken in before him was released as well.[47]"

Does this still seem "questionable" to you? As I said, I am not a John McCain fan for president but he definitely has served his country well, even though we shouldn't have been in Viet Nam.

Kem Patrick: Those are some lovely goals. All in favour of Kem being King for a Year say 'aye'.

Also, one thing that we need to remember when talking about the media is that the courts have ruled that the media has NO OBLIGATION to tell the truth. That's right, it's FULLY LEGAL for the media companies to broadcast FALSE information, and outright lies, under the guise of truth. That in itself really says something.

Everyone should read the comments ~TBALTIC~ posted at 4:04 pm. Then read it again and once again. Then digest it and insure you understand it.

That folks is how it is with __Obama__and ~Tbaltic~ could not have said it any better or more wisely.

Thanks for your comment, realitychecker!
I've been a big fan of Dennis Kucinich since I met him in June, 2003, and I was a precinct captain for him in Dubuque in January, 2004.
He is correct on every issue, and he's a great Congressman.
At this point there are three candidates for president, and I'm with you on Obama.

John Freeman,

Amen to that! At quite a few the events I attend, it's usually senior adults like us. Mostly white hair in the audience, at the rally or on the march. Too many of our young take everything for granted. Hard to get through to them.

Jerry Rose, what a brilliant post.

OK, maybe I will vote in November after all. I'm going to research Cynthia McKinney, and if I like what I see I will vote for her.

Matti: 5:11pm post: You explained your points very well.

I don't trust Dems anymore and will be voting for McKinney.
The two-party duopoly has got to be challenged.

Go listen to Cynthia McKinney in person. Go hear what she has to say.

She's constantly smeared in the corporate media. Don't believe a word they say. Go find out for yourself who she is.

I was lucky enough to have formerly lived in Atlanta, so I've had the pleasure of seeing her talk and working on her campaigns. And I've seen how you can pick up a corporate paper and read about her and think that you must be reading about some completely different person.

Go see her speak in person.

Here's one thing the corporate media won't tell you. In Atlanta, her campaigns felt like an extension of Martin Luther King's old movement. You'd volunteer, and you'd be meeting people in their seventies who'd marched with the good doctor. Her dad is Billy McKinney, who was a long time activist for equal rights in Atlanta stretching back to the early 60's. That's the background she comes from.

So, you can support the phony. You can support Obama who's speech coaches have tried to teach him the rythyms of a black preacher. And who's supporters try to draw phony comparision between him and Dr. King. Or you can support the real thing. You can support the lady who grew up in that movement.

Injun Trouble has been smoking something good!

That's a wonderful example of the fantasy candidate that we are supposed to pretend that Obama is. The problem is, he's not putting forward any proposals that would support this. And he's sucking up wall street and corporate campaign money with the world's largest vacuum cleaner.

To believe in your mythical, fantasy Obama, you have to believe that Wall St. is willing to put millions of dollars behind a candidate that is going to then turn around and oppose the corporations.

If you are that dumb, I've got a full-size replica of the Brooklyn Bridge that can be yours for only a couple of million dollars ... no, make that Euros (real money).

funny, the baby boomers came closer to pulling off a real revolution in this country than anyone since about 1776. The sixties got closer than anything else I've seen.

Too bad the damn kids that have followed ain't done crap.

--that's for you 'realitychecker'