Obama opens 10 point lead.Follow

Backing this up just a tad...



Er? The focus of that story was on how foreigners view and/or support our political process, not the other way around. The story wasn't about Odinga at all. He was mentioned almost in passing while talking about Kenyan's support for Obama.

And let's be honest about this:



This kinda doesn't really tell the story at all, does it? Specifically it fails to mention that Obama campaigned for Odinga, nor that it was Odinga's "side" that conducted ethnic warfare when the vote didn't go their way. Not that I expected it to. The story isn't about him specifically.


What's glaring is that I'll go out on a limb and guess that this was the only mainstream media report you could find that even mentioned Odinga, right? And it's not like the Wall Street Journal is a common read either. That's the point though. No one in the mainstream press has apparently done *any* research into this.

Don't you find that the least bit odd? This isn't some guy running for dog catcher Joph. Obama is running for President of the United State of America. I think that most Americans just assume that the media will make sure that anything "bad" about a candidate seeking that office will be revealed to them long before an election. And normally, that's a valid assumption. But for some strange reason, it's not true in this case.


How long will the media keep covering all this stuff up? Can you honestly imagine that if any other candidate had been that closely involved in something like the Kenyan election just 2 years ago that this wouldn't have been front page news at some point? I can't. And I suspect that most voters can't either, which is exactly why the media is doing us all a horrible disservice. The people deserve the right to make an honest choice based on honest information about the candidates. Right now, they're being lied to about Obama. It's a lie of omission, but a lie nonetheless...

Ok Mr. Wizard. Care to calculate the percentage of the US population who regularly read the WSJ?

I suspect that outside of the CDC, you'd be hard pressed to ever find a use of the word "common" that would apply to that sort of percentage rate within a population.


It's irrelevant anyway. The WSJ didn't actually cover the story in question anyway. It's not like I'm arguing that if only more people read the WSJ they'd know all about this and Obama's history in this regard would be fully vetted. Far from it. The story hasn't been written, much less presented to the public for consumption. Not on any scale that would be seen as "informing the public".


Which brings us back to: "Why isn't the media covering this?". Do you have an answer to that Smash?

Ok Mr. Wizard. Care to calculate the percentage of the US population who regularly read the WSJ?

1 or 2 I'd imagine.

They're the second most read newspaper after USA Today, idiot.

It would almost be literally impossible to come up with a less obscure new source.

No, it was the first hit and was written about ten days ago.Yeah, it only has a circulation of over two million, not counting webviews. You know, as opposed to the awesome readership of the blogs you're citing. But those are somehow more reputable because they're exposing what the mainstream press hides from.Claiming that the Wall Street Journal isn't the mainstream media is a prime example of the No True Scotsman fallacy. Basically, you just want to say none of the mainstream media has reported on it so you'll be sure to find fault with any media reporting of it.That the "mainstream media" doesn't jump at the beck and call of your blogs and their conspiracy theories? Not really, no.

Just for giggles, I ran "Obama Odinga" through LexisNexus filtering only for major news wires & major US publications and received 502 hits from the last two years.

No, I don't feel like reading 502 articles to find the one that'll magically meet your test for a "mainstream article" about it. But if you ask me if I find it "strange" then, no. Not in the slightest.

You're assuming it "is" a story. Based mainly on your fanatical belief in conservative blogs. Next you'll be linking the Drudge Report to us daily -- our very own Varrus v2.0

No one's interested because no one knows the story Smash. If/when it breaks, I guarantee you, American voters *will* be interested and will demand answers.


It's the double standard that's amazing me. Please explain to me how the NY Times justified their hit piece on McCain (a complete non-story), yet fails to cover this story about Obama?

Yeah, you know, I can think of about 150 personal anecdotes about McCain that are more embarrassing than the "story" here. No one wants to read about them, either, or the rumors that he ***** everything in a skirt wearing a blond wig, that he's a fall down drunk most of the time, or what have you.

How many news stories were there about Schwarzenegger's Japanese ad campaigns when he ran? This is about as impactful.





You have to be totally drunk on the Obama Koolaid to not see this Smash...


I find it amazing how frequently you ending a post with my name indicates that the previous 200 words were *********

It's what we'd call, in my profession, a "tell".

Just saying.

Gbaji,

Can you explain to me why you view the WSJ, a conservative media outlet, as an uncommon read? Why are you bashing your print flagship?

Is this why you believe in the liberal media bias?

No. I'm not assuming that volume of readership has anything to do with the accuracy of the information. However, it *does* determine the degree to which the voting public is aware of something. The likelihood of significant numbers of people reading any given blog is extremely low. The likelihood of significant numbers of people reading any given story in the WSJ, while statistically higher, is *also* quite low.




Except that's not what I'm claiming Joph. Because the story you linked in the WSJ doesn't actually talk about Obama campaigning for Odinga, nor does it mention Odinga's past, nor does it mention the alleged agreement to establish Sharia law, nor does it mention that it was his followers who were out committing acts of ethnic violence.


The WSJ didn't tell the story Joph. So this entire line of argument is irrelevant.



[/quote]

That the mainstream media hasn't even looked into the story? Yes. That's odd. I'll again point to the NY Times story about McCain and the female lobbyist. This is the sort of story that mainstream news outlets commonly go after during an election cycle. Normally, they are almost rabid in their desire to find any story that reflects badly on a candidate. Yet they seem incredibly hesitant to do this when the target is Obama and *only* when the target is Obama.

So yeah. That's a bit strange. It's more then just a bit strange in fact.

I won't argue it because it is a retarded stance, highly rhetorical, and finally just plain stupid.


You could have pitted Obama against Mahatma Gandhi and found similarities. Instead you picked probably one the most controversial men in human history and then expect some sort of serious reply.


Get the fuck out and come back when you're less retarded.

MOTHER FUCKING BAM!!

Here's the photo uncropped. Funny how your ace source trimmed out the AIDS ribbon.

Edited, Apr 3rd 2008 7:05pm by Jophiel

So you mean the one where he's at an AIDS clinic, then.

God damn, you're a tool

Edited, Apr 3rd 2008 7:23pm by Jophiel

Red said



Dude! you SO need to come and hang out in NZ for a while one day!

I fucking despair at the inability of the average kiwi to roll a spliff with anything more than 1 rizla.

Camberwell carrots ftw!

Sorry for the momentary hijack....please carry on......