So the Bill Ayers association was no big deal with the media, it was down played.
Jeremiah Wright association was down played by the media.
Van Jones association was down played by the media.
His voting present at the state level was down played by the media.
Joe the plumber got more vetting with the media than did Obama....and Palin being the #2 pick got a hell of a lot more vetting than did Obama.
Your a left wing partisan, I get it, but a little honesty goes a long way.
Ayers blew up into a big deal ...... his association w/ Wright was front page for weeks .... Van Jones as well .......... voting record all out there to be seen.
Like i said, just because it was not covered ENOUGH does not mean it was not covered at all or not enough for your liking. That is the honest part of the problem.
Comes across as sour grapes. It was out there and voters took it for whatever they wanted to take it as. None of it was ever sugar-coated and nothing was ever left open-ended. Maybe they thought it was overblown BS, while others had a list of 46 other things that had more of an impact in their view, but it was out there.
There lies the issue -- coverage vs. desired outcome.
Again, bullshit....it wasn't out there like you claim. More like buried on the 12th page of liberal newspapers, whereas Palin and McCain was frontpage news. I got the LA Times on a dailey basis....I did see what was going on. Questions weren't asked by the media, and I understand why. It's simple, the media today whether be it right, or left, has an agenda.
Ok, so your argument is now Bullshit. buried on what other newspapers? You only read the Times, so how do you know about what coverage it got where and for how long and whether it was via op-eds, columns or actual factual stories?
It was covered from the Huntsville Times to the Fresno Bee to the Arizona Republic to Delaware State News.
It was the first big hurdle that Obama had to deal with from his past followed closely by Reverend Wright and both got huge coverage based on race, ethical and moral issues brought up by both the left and the right.
Same theory applies - just because it did not get the saturation level of coverage that you thought it needed or deserved or the story did not have the desired negative effect does not mean that it was not covered by the media. A presidential candidate does not go through a campaign (Even one that was only known as a hopeful keynote speaker at a Democratic convention in the past) and not get examined by every microscope in the known universe.

