mans health news

mans health News, Video News

The struggle for an ailing man to stay close to his loved ones
Two superbugs turn expected five-day hospital admission into four-month health-care nightmare
2008-11-08 17:00:00
Stanford honors blood donors; Woodside man has given 580 times
Lots of folks volunteer at their kids' school or their church. It's not even unusual to donate blood as a way to give back to the community...
2008-11-08 15:37:31
Quinn: "Gay sex produces AIDS" "They should charge homosexuals more for their ... health insurance"
On the November 6 broadcast of ÏŽm>ÏŽm>The War Room with Quinn...
2008-11-08 06:37:32
Media Matters: All over but the lying
On Tuesday, Americans chose as their next president anAfrican-American named BarackObama who campaigned on a near-universal health-care plan, allowing the Bushtax cuts for the wealthy to expire, and a move away from the belligerentforeign policy of the past eight years. Republicans, and some journalists, hadspent months falsely saying Obama is the single most liberal member of the U.S. Senate -- and maybe even a socialist. The Americanpeople responded by electing him in a landslide.This, naturally, is very good news for the Republicans,according to many pundits. It proves once again that America remains aâ‹Žnter-right" nation.Right about now, you're probably scratching your head,wondering how the election of the "most liberal" member of theSenate, a man who campaigned on a promise of near-universal health care, couldpossibly be described as evidence of a conservative country.To be sure, it requires some creative thinking.NBC's Tom Brokaw, for example, looked atcounty-by-county election results and concluded that counties carried by JohnMcCain account for greater land mass than those carried by Barack Obama. Thiswould be meaningful, if only fields and streams and rocks and trees wereconservative voters. But they aren't: They are fields and streams androcks and trees. They are neither liberal nor conservative; they tell usnothing about the nation's political leanings. ÏŽm>People tell us something about the nation's leanings -- and more ÏŽm>people voted for Barack Obama.Then there's CNN's John King ÏŠ href="http://mediamatters.org/rdto=http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0811/05/acd.01.html">Wednesdaynight. Just try to follow his logic: Ï‹lockquote>KING: Without a doubt, the electorate voted for Barack Obama, but stillperceives him to be a liberal. And one thing you don't want to do when you win an election like this, a sweeping electionlike this, is ÏŠ name="ORIGHIT_6">ÏŠ name="HIT_6">county four years ago. You don't want to drive them away....So, Barack Obama is making inroadsin communities that not too long ago voted Republican. The last thing you want to do if you want to keep themfour years from now is to ÏŠ name="ORIGHIT_7">ÏŠ name="HIT_7">ÏŠ name="HIT_8">liberal agenda.That simply does not make any sense. John King says Barackwon a "sweeping election" even though the electorate"perceives him to be a liberal" -- so he better not pursue a "liberalagenda" or he will Èªlienate them."Got thatLater that same night, King ÏŠ href="http://mediamatters.org/rdto=http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0811/05/acd.02.html"ï¿½that Obama Èoes not get a mandate to be a liberal." Again, this ispure nonsense. John King says voters perceive Obama to be a liberal. John Kingsays Obama won a "sweeping victory." And yet John King says thatObama's sweeping victory among an electorate that considers him a liberaldoes not constitute a mandate to be a liberal. This is illogical,self-discrediting foolishness.<pÏªt least King was considerate enough to debunk his ownabsurd conclusions in near-real time. Conservatives making similar claims werenot so kind.Media Research Center president BrentBozell -- who does notget nearly the recognition he deserves for being one of the most clownishfigures in the conservative movement --took to Fox News to ÏŠ href="http://mediamatters.org/items/200811070010"Ïªnnouncethat Obama had won by campaigning as a "Reaganite" and aÈ¯iscal conservative."<pÏ¯irst, Bozell didn't explain what he meant byÈ¯iscal conservative," but its typical meaning -- supportive of restrained spending andbalanced budgets -- isso far removed from the actual governing performance of actual conservativesthat the phrase ought to be retired from use.Second, Bozell's claim that Obama won as a"Reaganite" is a little odd, given that it wasn't that longago that conservatives were saying Obama was campaigning on a"redistribution of wealth" that constituted"socialism." And when I say È¬onservatives," I meanBrent Bozell. And by "it wasn't that long ago," I mean lastweek.How much of a fraud is Bozell In 1998, Bozell claimed themedia weren't paying enough attention to Monica Lewinsky -- at a time when there were 500 news reports ÏŽmÏª day on the topic. Now he'salternately claiming Obama is a "socialist" and a"Reaganite." And in his column last week, he ÏŠ href="http://mediamatters.org/rdto=http://www.mediaresearch.org/BozellColumns/newscolumn/2008/col20081028.asp"Ï¬omplainedthat a recent Project for Excellence in Journalism study overstated the extentof negative coverage of Obama by including "talk-radiohosts from Rush Limbaugh to Randi Rhodes" who are supposed toÈ®xpress an opinion." But that complaint is completely false. Thestudy in question specifically ÏŽmÏ®xcludedtalk radio. It's right there in the study's ÏŠ href="http://mediamatters.org/rdto=http://journalism.org/node/13314">methodology: "Talkradio stories, which are part of PEJ's regular NCI, were not included inthis campaign study of tone." If Brent Bozell tells you the sun isshining, you better grab an umbrella.It isn't hard to figure out why Brent Bozell makesabsurd claims about Obama winning as a "Reaganite" -- he's an ideologuewith far greater commitment to his agenda than to the truth.Newsweek and countless other Beltwayjournalists and pundits continue to say things like Èªmerica remains a center-rightcountry" and insist that Barack Obama's clear victory does notconstitute a mandate for the progressive policy positions he ran onIt might have something to do with the long-held assumptionsof many journalists and pundits and more than a few progressives thatprogressives are inherently politically weak and conservatives are inherentlypolitically strong.Three of the most foolish pieces of punditry of the pastseveral years reflect such assumptions.ÏŽm>Newsweek's HowardFineman ÏŠ href="http://mediamatters.org/items/200509300010#3"Ïªnnouncedin late 2005 that Democrats were justifiably "gloomy" about theirelectoral prospects. It seemed preposterous, given that President Bush'sapproval ratings were in the tank, his mishandling of Hurricane Katrina hadenraged the nation, and Republicans in Congress were being fitted for orangejumpsuits by the dozen. Still, Fineman insisted, it was true: Democrats were introuble. One reason A "Lack of star power." Fineman explained:"it's incontestably true that the Democrats simply aren't blessedwith much charisma in the leadership ranks." The 200,000 people who stoodin Chicago'sGrant Park for Obama's victory speech would probably disagree. Yes,Fineman said "leadership ranks," and Obama wasn't in theparty "leadership" in 2005. But Fineman contrasted the Democrats'purported lack of È¬harisma" with Republicans who weren't,either, so that doesn't get him off the hook.Since Fineman argued that Democrats had good reason to begloomy, they've picked up more than 50 House seats, 12 in the Senate, andthe presidency. Republicans have won ... well, John Boehner has probablywon a few rounds of golf, but that's about it.Then there's NBC political director Chuck Todd.Shortly before the 2006 elections, Todd ÏŠ href="http://mediamatters.org/items/200707050011">predicted that ifDemocrats won control of Congress, President Bush's approval rating wouldbe above 50 percent by the following July. Democrats did win control ofCongress -- andBush's approval rating was at 30 percent the following July. And at thispoint, Bush wouldn't be above 50 if you added his approval ratings in thelast two CBS/ÏŽm>New York Times pollstogether.<pÏªnd finally, the dean of the Washington press corps, David Broder: InSeptember 2005, Broder ÏŠ href="http://mediamatters.org/rdto=http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/09/03/AR2005090301005.html" title="http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/09/03/AR2005090301005.html">predictedthat Bush's handling of Katrina would help him regain his standing withthe public. Things didn't work out that way, as Broder eventually acknowledged, but he continued topredict a Bush resurgence. In early 2007, Broder announced that "President Bush ispoised for a political comeback."It isn't just that these three predictions were wrong;people make incorrect forecasts all the time. Many of those incorrectpredictions are based on reasonable analysis that just turns out to be wrong. Butit has been pretty clear since mid-2005 that the Bush administration has been aspectacular failure, that the public has rejected the disastrous conservativepolicies President Bush had used to drive the nation into a ditch. Therehasn't been any reason to believe the Republicans would rebound, otherthan blind faith. And that isn't something that is clear only inhindsight: It has been ÏŠ href="http://mediamatters.org/items/200509300010f=s_search#3">obvious foryears. <pã»žmocrats have won the popular vote in four of the past fivepresidential elections. When the new Congress is sworn in, they will hold morethan 250 seats in the House and at least 57 in the Senate. Public polling shows-- and has shown forquite some time -- thatAmericans back progressive solutions to the nation's problems. Thecurrent progressive ascendancy won't last forever, of course. Butit's about time for the Beltway pundit crowd to let go of their tired oldassumptions about the relative strength of the parties and the ideologicalleanings of the country. Unless, of course, they ÏŽmÏ®njoy making fools of themselves.ÏŽm>Jamison Foser is Executive Vice President at Media Matters for America.
2008-11-08 06:40:32
Postelection poll results contradict media claims that U.S. is a â‹Žnter-right" country
Several in the media have claimed that President-electBarack Obama won the election becausehe ran as a conservative and that notwithstanding Obama's victory, the United Statesis a conservative country. In claiming that Obama ran as a conservative, thesemedia figures ignore the central components of his platform, including repealof tax cuts for the wealthy, near-universalhealth-care coverage,and redeployment of troops from Iraqto Afghanistan.Democracy Corps, a Democratic polling group, released a ÏŠ href="http://mediamatters.org/rdto=http://www.democracycorps.com/download.phpattachment=dcor110508fq1.pdf">poll on ÏŠ href="http://mediamatters.org/rdto=http://www.democracycorps.com/strategy/2008/11/post-election-survey-with-campaign-for-americas-future/">November7 that showed strong support for the positions that Obama has articulatedon these issues. The poll also included questions that provided a direct choicebetween the position taken by Obama on a given issue and that taken by Sen.John McCain without referring to Obama or McCain -- with the more progressive choice echoingObama's position and the more conservative echoingMcCain's. For mostquestions that juxtaposeda clear progressive viewwith a clear conservative view, the progressive positionwas more popular. A list of positions Obama took on major issues during the campaign makes it clear that he did not run as a conservative, and the Democracy Corps poll results rebut the claim thatObama ran as a conservative and that theUnited Statesis a conservative country.<pã»žmocracy CorpsÏŠ href="http://mediamatters.org/rdto=http://www.democracycorps.com/download.phpattachment=dcor110508fq1.pdf">polled 2,000 voters November 4-5 and posed several questions asdirect contrasts between a conservative approach and a progressive approach,some of which were directly drawn from the arguments made by Obama and McCain.The poll asked which statement È¬omes closer to your own view, even ifneither is exactly right."TradeThe poll asked respondents to choose betweenthese two statements-- "I'm more worried that we will do too little to require fairtrade and enforce worker and consumer protections" and "I'mmore worried that we will got too far burdening free trade accords withprotections for consumers and labor." Fifty-three percent of respondentssaid the first statement was closer to their point of view, compared with 34percent who chose the second statement. During the October 16 ÏŠ href="http://mediamatters.org/rdto=http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/10/16/politics/2008debates/main4525254.shtml">presidential debateat Hofstra University, Obama said: "I believein free trade. But I also believe that for far too long, certainly during thecourse of the Bush administration with the support of Senator McCain, theattitude has been that any trade agreement is a good trade agreement. And NAFTAdoesn't have -- did not have enforceable labor agreements and environmentalagreements." McCain, for his part, attacked Obama for "opposingthe Colombia Free Trade Agreement."Social SecurityThe DemocracyCorps survey asked respondents to choose between one statement onSocial Security, "We need to reform Social Security and protect it toensure that it's a safety net the American people can count on,"and a second, more conservative statement: "We need to reform SocialSecurity and establish personal savings accounts so individuals have moreoptions." The first statement, supported by 63 percent of respondents, issimilar to Obama's ÏŠ href="http://mediamatters.org/rdto=http://www.barackobama.com/issues/seniors/#protect-ss">proposal to "protect SocialSecurity" and È®nsure Social Security is solvent and viable forthe American people, now and in the future." The second statement, involving Social Security privateaccounts, was supported by 35 percent of respondents. As recently as July 8, ÏŠ href="http://mediamatters.org/items/200809290017f=s_search">McCain said onCNN's ÏŽmÏªmerican Morning thathe supports allowing workers to divert part of their payroll taxes into privateaccounts: "I want young workers to be able to, if they so choose, to takepart of their own money, which is their taxes, and put it into an account,which has their name on it. Now, that's a voluntary thing, it's for youngerpeople. It would not affect any -- any present-day retirees or the system asnecessary."Health careRegarding health care, the Democracy Corps survey offered arelatively progressive statement, which was supported by 58 percent ofrespondents: "Our health care system needs fundamental reform, we shouldregulate insurance companies and give everyone a choice between a public planor what they have right now." This statement is similar to Obama's ÏŠ href="http://mediamatters.org/rdto=http://www.barackobama.com/issues/healthcare/">proposal for health-care reform, which "requires insurance companies tocover pre-existing conditions" allows individuals to keep their current health-care coverage if they choose todo so; and establishes Èª National Health InsuranceExchange with a range of private insurance options as well as a new public planbased on benefits available to members of Congress that will allow individualsand small businesses to buy affordable health coverage." The other statement offeredby the survey --"Our health care system needs fundamental reform; we should give Americanfamilies more choice by givingindividuals a tax credit to choose their own coverage" -- was supported by 38 percent of respondents.That relatively conservative statement was similar to McCain's ÏŠ href="http://mediamatters.org/rdto=http://www.johnmccain.com/content/default.aspxguid=8475c713-a541-4b97-a2aa-800e35da37bb">proposal:"While still having the option of employer-based coverage, every familywill receive a direct refundable tax credit -- effectively cash -- of $2,500 for individuals and $5,000 forfamilies to offset the cost of insurance. Families will be able to choose theinsurance provider that suits them best and the money would be sent directly tothe insurance provider."PrioritiesThe DemocracyCorps surveyalso specifically tested many of the policies Obama has proposed, asking voterswhether each should be "the SINGLE highest priority, one of the TOP FEWpriorities, but not the highest, NEAR THE TOP of the list, in the MIDDLE OF THELIST, or TOWARD THE BOTTOM of the list of priorities for the newpresident." If a respondentactually disagreed with an item on the agenda, he or she would presumably placethe goal "toward the bottom of the list of priorities." The datademonstrate that the public appears to want action on many of the key pieces of Obama'sagenda.<pÏªmong the proposals the survey presented that a majority ofrespondents considered at least "near the top" of their priorities:"Repeal the Bush tax cuts for those makingover 250,000 dollars and cut taxes for middle class families and anyone makingunder 200,000 dollars." Sixtypercent said this was at least "near the top" of their priorities.Obama ÏŠ href="http://mediamatters.org/rdto=http://www.barackobama.com/pdf/taxes/Factsheet_Tax_Plan_FINAL.pdf">proposed È«road-based tax relief to middle class families" and raising taxeson individuals earning more than $200,000 per year and families earning morethan $250,000 per year."Make health insurance affordable andaccessible to all Americans." Seventy-two percent said this was at least "nearthe top" of their priorities. As noted above, Obama proposed ÈªNational Health Insurance Exchange ...that will allow individuals and small businesses to buy affordable healthcoverage."È®nd the war in Iraqresponsibly and redeploy our troops from Iraqto Afghanistan."Seventy-six percentsaid this was at least "near the top" of their priorities. Obama ÏŠ href="http://mediamatters.org/rdto=http://www.barackobama.com/issues/iraq/#phased-withdrawal">proposedwithdrawing troops from Iraqin a way that is "responsible and phased, directed by military commanderson the ground and done in consultation with the Iraqi government." Obamahas also ÏŠ href="http://mediamatters.org/rdto=http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/14/opinion/14obama.html_r=1&ref=politics&oref=slogin">proposed"providing at least two additional combat brigades to support our effortin Afghanistan.""Repeal tax breaks that benefit companiesthat move jobs overseas." Fifty-nine percent said this was at least"near the top" of their priorities. Obama has ÏŠ href="http://mediamatters.org/rdto=http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/10/16/politics/2008debates/main4525254.shtml">said, "Iwant to end the tax breaks for companies that are shipping jobs overseas andprovide a tax credit for every company that's creating a job right here inAmerica."È®nd dependence on foreign oil by 2025 byrequiring one quarter of U.S.electric power to come from alternative energy where new investments willcreate new jobs." Eighty-onepercent said this was at least "near the top" of their priorities.Obama's ÏŠ href="http://mediamatters.org/rdto=http://www.barackobama.com/pdf/factsheet_energy_speech_080308.pdf"Ï®nergy planproposes that âˆ percent of our electricity comes from renewable sourcesby 2012, and 25 percent by 2025.""Make job-creating investments in America'saging roads and transportation systems and stimulate new economicactivity." Fifty-nine percent said this was at least "near thetop" of their priorities. Obama's energy plan calls forâ‹žvoting substantial resources to repairing our roads andbridges."<pÏ¯urther undermining media claims that Obama ran as aconservative in an effort to appeal to a conservative country are statements byMedia Research Center president L. Brent Bozell III and Heritage Foundationpresident Ed Feulner before the election attacking Obama for embracing"socialism" or espousing views that were contrary to conservatism.As ÏŽm>Media Matters ÏŠ href="http://mediamatters.org/items/200811070010f=h_latest">noted, after the election, Bozellclaimed that Obama ran as a conservative -- a sharp departure from his accusationbefore the election that Obama was espousing "socialism" throughoutthe È®ntirety of the campaign." Similarly, in a November 7 ÏŽm>Washington Times ÏŠ href="http://mediamatters.org/rdto=http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2008/nov/07/conservatism-vital-signs/" title="http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2008/nov/07/conservatism-vital-signs/"Ï¬olumn, Feulnerclaimed that Obama â‹Šmpaigned on conservative themes throughout thefall" and that Obama "took some conservative positions on issueslike taxes promising to cut them." Yet prior to the election, in anAugust 10 ÏŠ href="https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2008/aug/10/stall-that-slide-to-the-70s/" title="https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2008/aug/10/stall-that-slide-to-the-70s/"Ï¬olumn, Feulnerhad claimed that by "unveiling an economic plan that revolves aroundraising taxes on the wealthy,"Obama indicated that he "wants to go back to the policies of the1970s" under former President Jimmy Carter. Feulner also asserted in theAugust column that "Mr. Obama promises to 'soak the rich.' "The following are examples of media figures claiming the United Statesis a conservative or â‹Žnter-right"country, some of whom also claimed that Obama ran as a conservative. The blog Think Progress hashighlighted ÏŠ href="http://mediamatters.org/rdto=http://thinkprogress.org/2008/11/05/center-right-2/" title=È«locked::http://thinkprogress.org/2008/11/05/center-right-2/"Ïª ÏŠ href="http://mediamatters.org/rdto=http://thinkprogress.org/2008/11/06/meacham-conservative-nation/" title=È«locked::http://thinkprogress.org/2008/11/06/meacham-conservative-nation/">number of theseexamples. <pÏuring the ÏŠ href="http://mediamatters.org/rdto=http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0811/06/cnr.03.html" title=È«locked::http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0811/06/cnr.03.html"ã¸‘ a.m.hour ofÏŽmÏ¬NN Newsroom on November 6, Republican strategist BayBuchanan said, "No question this country is center-right": Ï‹lockquote>TONY HARRIS anchor: The election is behind us. We cantalk about the future and moving forward and getting some things done. Youknow, I wanted to have you on to ask some pretty straightforward questions.HARRIS: How will we --"we," big "we" -- make this work I'm talking Republicans,Democrats, independents,Libertarians. Republicans --do Republicans want to work with a President-elect Obama <pÏ«UCHANAN: Well, it all depends onwhich direction the country -- Obama wants to take the country. If he is reallygoing to govern from the center and recognizes that the nation is center toright, then we're gonnawork with him, just as we worked with Bill Clinton to get welfare reform.<pÏ«ut when Bill Clinton wanted tonationalize health care, we fought him tooth and nail. And we won, because the American peoplewere on our side at the time. So,that's what I think is going to be the formula for the next couple of years.HARRIS: Hey, Bay, you mentioned center-right. You still believe the country iscenter-right I'mlooking at Indiana. I'm looking at how closethings were in Missouri. I'm looking at Virginia. I'm look -- do you still believe it'scenter-right Couldn'tit just be center, whatever that is, just center HARRIS: OK.<pÏ«UCHANAN: There's no question thatthis vote was absolutely against Republicans and George Bush, a repudiation ofthe direction we took the nation. Ninety percent of the country thinks we were going -- think we are on the wrongdirection. So, that'sRepublicans --HARRIS: So, did you take it too far right <pÏ«UCHANAN: No, we didn't take it too -- we did not govern using theprinciples of the party. We abandoned those principles, and we got -- now look at what Obama ran on.One of the key issues was tax cuts.Those two words are basically a conservative message and always have been. Andhe grabbed them, and I don't believe his tax policy is something I wouldsupport, but he sold it as if it were.No question this country is center-right. And we'll be with him as long as hestays moving the country in the direction we believe is in our best interest. , Fox News contributor Karl Rovesaid, âŠºrackObama understands this is a center-right country, and he smartly and wisely ran a campaignthat emphasized that":Ï‹lockquote><pÏ«ILL HEMMER anchor: You know, I've thought fora long time that the country was center-right. Maybe that's 51 percent, butstill center-right. Didthese results make us,or force us, to rethinkthat ROVE: No, no,not at all. In fact, look, remember, wehave a Democrat candidate for president. Our president-elect ran on the basis of a tax cut for 95percent of Americans. He ran television ads in the battleground states thatcalled government-runhealth care extreme. He attacked his Republican opponent for favoring a tax cuton -- a tax increase onhealth benefits. I mean, we, we -- Barack Obama balanced hiscomments about Iraq withtough language on Afghanistan,even threatening to invade an ally. No, Barack Obama understands this is acenter-right country,and he smartly and wisely ran a campaign that emphasized that. We're notred states, blue states, we're the United States, and he talked about conservative values suchas hard work, patriotism, service to community, and sacrifice for community. <pÏuring a November 5 interview on PBS' ÏŽmÏ¬harlieRose, ÏŽm>ÏŽm>Newsweekeditor Jon Meacham said,"It's justthis side of possible that Obama will be able to govern, what I believe, is largely a center-right country." AsThink Progress noted, Meacham wrote in a ÏŠ href="http://mediamatters.org/rdto=http://www.newsweek.com/id/164656/output/print" title=È«locked::http://www.newsweek.com/id/164656/output/print"Ï¬over story for theOctober 27 edition of ÏŽm>Newsweekthat "shouldObama win, he will have to govern a nation that is more instinctivelyconservative than it is liberal --a perennial reality that past Democratic presidents have ignored at theirperil." From Meacham's interview with host Charlie Rose: Ï‹lockquote>ROSE: Fresh, new, different. Wherehave we transformed politics in this raceMEACHAM: Well, here's one thing about Obama. You know, hedid opt out of public financing. He just spent more money than anybody inhistory. This is not, Ithink -- I think progressives should be very careful feeling the millennium is aboutto come and, you know, disease will be gone by Saturday and poverty by Monday.This is a very practical man. And I think that he's a lot like Ronald Reagan, in that it's quite possible his core believershave such faith in him that they'llforgive him his compromises, that -- you know, Reagan could raise taxes. Reagancould sign liberal abortion bills. Hecould do --ROSE: Reagan could talk to theSoviets.MEACHAM: Right, the Soviets. Reagan could end the Cold -- could do allthat. Reagan could grow government by 6or 7 percent and stillbe this, this figure.It's just thisside of possible that Obama will be able to govern, what I believe, is largely a center-right country. WashingtonTimes ÏŠ href="http://mediamatters.org/rdto=http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2008/nov/06/patriotic-grace/" title=È«locked::http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2008/nov/06/patriotic-grace/"ã»itorial stated:â‹žmocrats may argue, why should Obama play fair He's earned the office,Democrats rule now and Republicans be damned. But we would remind them and Mr.Obama that this is still a center-right country." From the ÏŽm>Times editorial: Ï‹lockquote>Mr. ÏŠ name="ORIGHIT_4">ÏŠ name="HIT_4">Obama is movingquickly. He has reportedly named "hyper-partisan" Illinois Rep. RahmEmanuel as his chief of staff. This contrasts with his acceptance remarks onelection night, when Mr. ÏŠ name="ORIGHIT_5">ÏŠ name="HIT_5">Obama spoke on a theme of bipartisanship:Èªnd to those Americans whose support I have yet to earn -- I may not have won your vote, but I hearyour voices, I need your help, and I will be your president too."ÏŠ name="HIT_6">Obama play fair He's earned the office, Democrats rule now andRepublicans be damned. But we would remind them and Mr. ÏŠ name="ORIGHIT_7">ÏŠ name="HIT_7">Obama that this is still a ÏŠ name="ORIGHIT_8">ÏŠ name="HIT_8">country. Mr. ÏŠ name="ORIGHIT_9">ÏŠ name="HIT_9">Obama, despite his liberal record, nowrepresents all Americans --including the independents, Republicans and Democrats who voted against him. Morning Joe, Tom Brokaw said, Èªndthis country, even with the election of Barack Obama last night, remains a verycentered country, or maybe even center-right in a lot of places." Helater added, "We still remain a centered country or a center-rightcountry when you look at the geographic distribution": Ï‹lockquote><pÏ«ROKAW: And this country, even withthe election of Barack Obama last night, remains a very centered country, ormaybe even center-right in a lot of places. There were a lot of people who werecenter-right who crossed over and voted for Barack Obama because they feelbetrayed by what has happened in the last eight years with the theology thatwas preached and then not put into practice by the people who were in office,frankly --JOE SCARBOROUGH co-host: Amen onthat.<pÏ«ROKAW: -- on so many levels. Thewisdom of the American people is always the most heartening thing to me. Youknow, they figured out -- we sit here for two -- almost two years now talkingabout this every day and micromanaging what may happen next. They're taking it in,they're making decisions about what's in the best interest of theirfamily and community and their country, and they made a big investment in thisyoung man. As Peter Hart said, they voted for hope over fear. Because he isstill an untested politician who's coming into one of the worst openingacts I could imagine a president could possibly have....MIKA BRZEZINSKI co-host: TomBrokaw has been fixated on this presidential vote map county-by-county, whichshows the colors even more doppled sic across the country. If you can hold itup.<pÏ«ROKAW: We can show that. I mean --and that's what I was talking about earlier.<pÏ«ROKAW: We still remain a centered countryor a center-right country when you look at the geographic distribution. This iscounty by county. And I think really that what will happen here is that theAmerican people will have to decide whether their statement last night comeswith a compact that they have to make -- with themselves and with thepresidency -- that it's not just a fleeting moment.Just don't give Barack Obamathe job, stand back and say, "OK, pal, what are you going to do forus" Because in this case, it is everybody on deck, all hands on theoars.
2008-11-08 06:44:32
Lockerbie bomber seeks release on bail due to cancer
The Libyan man convicted of the 1988 Lockerbie bombing should be released on health grounds because he has terminal prostate cancer...
2008-11-07 14:31:21
Lockerbie bomber seeks release on bail due to cancer AFP
AFP - The Libyan man convicted of the 1988 Lockerbie bombing should be released on health grounds because he has terminal prostate cancer, his lawyer told a court on Thursday.
2008-11-06 08:34:38
Conman's French missionary claim
A man claiming to be a French missionary and in poor health cons another man out of hundreds of pounds, police say.
2008-11-06 07:28:18
âœˆ SHOCK: Drudge still smearing, distorting quotes, and touting fake allegations
In the past few weeks, ÏŠ href="http://mediamatters.org/columns/200810210005">mediacritics havepostulated that Matt Drudge'sinfluence in setting the media's agenda -- which the ÏŽm>Politico's John F. Harris and ÏŽm>Time's Mark Halperin argue in ÏŠ href="http://mediamatters.org/rdhttp://www.randomhouse.com/catalog/display.pperlisbn=9781400064472">ÏŽm>The Way to Win:Taking the White House in 2008 hasbeen great --has waned this election cycle. In his continuingefforts to drive media coverage, this election season, Drudge has posted along series of items that were false on their face, misrepresented reports helinked to, or were subsequently exposed as false. As reporter and blogger GregSargent wrote in an October 31 ÏŠ href="http://mediamatters.org/rdto=http://tpmelectioncentral.talkingpointsmemo.com/2008/10/media_figures_admitting_that_d.php" title="http://tpmelectioncentral.talkingpointsmemo.com/2008/10/media_figures_admitting_that_d.php">post at TalkingPoints Memo, "Multipletimes this cycle, Drudge has pushed stories that have gone belly-up." Whether or not Drudge's influence isin fact waning, these items, examples of which ÏŽm>MediaMatters for America has compiled below, make a strong case that itshould be. ÏŠ href="http://mediamatters.org/rdto=http://www.drudgereportarchives.com/data/2008/10/29/20081029_153437.htm" title="http://www.drudgereportarchives.com/data/2008/10/29/20081029_153437.htm">October 29 --World SeriesÏŠ href="http://mediamatters.org/static/images/item/drudge_001.jpg">suggestion that Sen. Barack Obamawas â‹žlaying the World Series" with his purchase of 30 minutes ofnetwork airtime on October 29. In fact, as ÏŽm>MediaMatters ÏŠ href="http://mediamatters.org/items/200810290008" title="http://mediamatters.org/items/200810290008"Ïocumented, ÏŽm>The New York Timesreported in an October 28 ÏŠ href="http://mediamatters.org/rdto=http://www.nytimes.com/2008/10/29/us/politics/29obama.html"Ïªrticle thatÈ¯ox executives have said that they, and not the Obama campaign, hadinitially asked Major League Baseball to move the start of Wednesday's game to8:35 p.m. from 8:20, to make way for his infomercial. But as it turns out, sucha delay was not necessary anyway; none of the World Series games has startedbefore 8:30, and two started after 8:35." ÏŽm>Politico's Ben Smith also ÏŠ href="http://mediamatters.org/rdto=http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/1008/Fox_exec_Obama_didnt_delay_baseball.htmlshowall">quoted a Fox broadcasting executivewho reportedly "negotiated the ad buy" as saying: È«y nomeans did they the Obama campaign push to get us to accommodate them withGame Six of the World Series. ... We'rejust missing the pregame, which isn't a big deal for us. It was a businessdecision."ÏŠ href="http://mediamatters.org/rdto=http://www.drudgereportarchives.com/data/2008/10/27/20081027_062345.htm" title="http://www.drudgereportarchives.com/data/2008/10/27/20081027_062345.htm">October 27 --Supreme Court "tragedy"Drudge featured the following false ÏŠ href="http://mediamatters.org/rdto=http://www.drudgereportarchives.com/data/2008/10/27/20081027_134124.htm" title="http://mediamatters.org/rdto=http://www.drudgereportarchives.com/data/2008/10/27/20081027_134124.htm">headline:ï¿½ OBAMA: TRAGEDY THAT 'REDISTRIBUTION OF WEALTH' NOT PURSUED BYSUPREME COURT":ÏŠ href="http://mediamatters.org/static/images/item/drudge_002.jpg">Ï‹r />In fact, as the YouTube ÏŠ href="http://mediamatters.org/rdto=http://www.youtube.com/watchv=iivL4c_3pck" title="http://mediamatters.org/rdto=http://www.youtube.com/watchv=iivL4c_3pck"Ïªudio that Drudgelinked to demonstrates, during a 2001 ÏŠ href="http://mediamatters.org/rdto=http://www.chicagopublicradio.org/audio_library/od_rajan01.asp" title="http://mediamatters.org/rdto=http://www.chicagopublicradio.org/audio_library/od_rajan01.asp">interview onChicago Public Radio station WBEZ, Obama did not say it is a"tragedy" that the Supreme Court has not pursued wealthredistribution. The "tragedy" Obama identified was that the civilrights movement ï¿½me so court-focused" in trying to effectpolitical and economic justice. Obama stated: Èªnd one of the -- I thinkthe tragedies of the civil rights movement was, because the civil rightsmovements became so court-focused, I think that there was a tendency to losetrack of the political and community organizing, and activities on the groundthat are able to put together the actual coalitions of power through which youbring about redistributive change."ÏŠ href="http://mediamatters.org/items/200810270008f=s_search" title="http://mediamatters.org/items/200810270008f=s_search">Numerous ÏŠ href="http://mediamatters.org/items/200810300018f=s_search" title="http://mediamatters.org/items/200810300018f=s_search">media ÏŠ href="http://mediamatters.org/items/200810290005f=s_search" title="http://mediamatters.org/items/200810290005f=s_search"Ï¯igures ÏŠ href="http://mediamatters.org/items/200810280018f=s_search" title="http://mediamatters.org/items/200810280018f=s_search"ã»¬hoedDrudge's false headline about Obama's 2001 remarks.ÏŠ href="http://mediamatters.org/rdto=http://www.drudgereportarchives.com/data/2008/10/23/20081023_202828.htm" title="http://www.drudgereportarchives.com/data/2008/10/23/20081023_202828.htm">October ÏŠ href="http://mediamatters.org/rdto=http://www.drudgereportarchives.com/data/2008/10/23/20081023_195410.htm" title="http://www.drudgereportarchives.com/data/2008/10/23/20081023_195410.htm"ã¸£ -- PittsburghÈªttack"<pÏuring the afternoon of October 23, Drudge seized on McCaincampaign volunteer Ashley Todd's allegations that a black man mugged herand, after seeing a McCain bumper sticker on her car, carved a È«"into her cheek. At 2:54 p.m. ET, Drudge reported Todd's allegationsas fact, posting on his website: "SHOCK: MCCAIN CAMPAIGN VOLUNTEERATTACKED AND MUTILATED IN PITTSBURGH,"along with another headline reading: " É»' CARVED INTO20-YEAR OLD WOMAN'S FACE... DEVELOPING..."Drudge did not initially link to a news report for thisclaim. From the Drudge Report at ÏŠ href="http://mediamatters.org/rdto=http://www.drudgereportarchives.com/data/2008/10/23/20081023_195410.htm" title="http://www.drudgereportarchives.com/data/2008/10/23/20081023_195410.htm"Ï¢:54 p.m. ET onOctober 23: ÏŠ href="http://mediamatters.org/static/images/item/drudge_003.jpg"> by WTAE-TV in Pittsburgh about the alleged attack. From theDrudge Report on October 23 at ÏŠ href="http://mediamatters.org/rdto=http://www.drudgereportarchives.com/data/2008/10/23/20081023_202828.htm" title="http://www.drudgereportarchives.com/data/2008/10/23/20081023_202828.htm"Ï£:28 p.m. ET:ÏŠ href="http://mediamatters.org/static/images/item/drudge_004.jpg">He later ÏŠ href="http://mediamatters.org/rdto=http://www.drudgereportarchives.com/data/2008/10/23/20081023_234003.htm" title="http://www.drudgereportarchives.com/data/2008/10/23/20081023_234003.htm">posted a pictureof Todd with her purportedinjuries. From the Drudge Report on October 23 at ÏŠ href="http://mediamatters.org/rdto=http://www.drudgereportarchives.com/data/2008/10/23/20081023_234003.htm" title="http://www.drudgereportarchives.com/data/2008/10/23/20081023_234003.htm"Ï¦:40 p.m. ET:ÏŠ href="http://mediamatters.org/static/images/item/drudge_005.jpg">Todd's claims were proven to be false on ÏŠ href="http://mediamatters.org/rdto=http://tpmelectioncentral.talkingpointsmemo.com/2008/10/report_mccain_volunteer_who_cl.php" title="http://tpmelectioncentral.talkingpointsmemo.com/2008/10/report_mccain_volunteer_who_cl.php">October 24, whenTodd reportedly told police she made up her story. The ÏŽm>Pittsburgh Post-Gazette ÏŠ href="http://mediamatters.org/rdto=http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/08299/922849-53.stm" title="http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/08299/922849-53.stm">reported on October 25 that"almost from the start, Pittsburgh police were skeptical about a youngwoman's claim that she had been mugged and a É»' carved into hercheek by an attacker who was provoked by the sight of a John McCain bumpersticker on her car."TheÏŽm> Post-Gazetteadded that Todd's story "quickly became political fodder on theInternet and spread around the world, fueled by the presidential campaign andMs. Todd's political connections as a field representative for the CollegeRepublican National Committee and McCain volunteer. But in less than a day, theinternational story of a McCain volunteer being attacked, traumatized anddisfigured for her political beliefs deflated into a sad tale of a troubledwoman with a history of mental problems." The ÏŽm>Post-Gazette wrote of Drudge: Ï‹lockquote>Todd's friend Dan Garcia took the widely published picture ofMs. Todd with her injuries. He said he took several photographs with a digitalcamera to document what had happened. He said he only gave copies of the photosto police and Ms. Todd's employer, the College Republicans. One photo appearedon The Drudge Report on Thursday, setting off a storm of media attention.TheÏŽm> Post-Gazettewrote in an October 30 ÏŠ href="http://mediamatters.org/rdto=http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/08304/923935-192.stm" title="http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/08304/923935-192.stm"ã»itorial that the ÈrudgeReport made 20-year-old Ashley Todd an object of political fascination aroundthe country." ÏŽmÏ¯inancial Timesassociate editor John Gapper wrote in an October 29 ÏŠ href="http://mediamatters.org/rdto=http://us.ft.com/ftgateway/superpage.ftnews_id=fto102920081546279076&page=1" title="http://us.ft.com/ftgateway/superpage.ftnews_id=fto102920081546279076Éªmp;page=1"Ïªrticle: "Itwas a shocker in the tradition of Mr Drudge's scare stories and hyped-up triviaabout Democratic candidates in USpresidential campaigns, to go with past items about former Sen. John Edwards'$400 haircut and Sen. John Kerry's windsurfing. This time, however, it wasnot merely tendentious but false." Gapper ÏŠ href="http://mediamatters.org/rdto=http://us.ft.com/ftgateway/superpage.ftnews_id=fto102920081546279076&page=2"ï¿½:"The Ashley Todd affair was the latest in a series of failures by MrDrudge to recapture the magic of the past, when the Drudge Report had anunrivalled grip on the media agenda." ÏŠ href="http://mediamatters.org/items/200810170015" title="http://mediamatters.org/items/200810170015">October 16 -- Gallup shockDrudge displayed the following lead ÏŠ href="http://mediamatters.org/rdto=http://www.drudgereportarchives.com/data/2008/10/16/20081016_205808.htm">headline:"GALLUP SHOCK: 49 OBAMA, 47 MCCAIN WITH LIKELY VOTERS":ÏŠ href="http://mediamatters.org/static/images/item/drudge_006.jpg">However, as ÏŽm>Media MattersÏŠ href="http://mediamatters.org/items/200810170015" title="http://mediamatters.org/items/200810170015">noted, Drudge selectively cited onlyone of three findings from an October 13-15 Gallup daily tracking ÏŠ href="http://mediamatters.org/rdto=http://www.gallup.com/poll/111211/Gallup-Daily-Obama-49-McCain-43.aspx" title="http://mediamatters.org/rdto=http://www.gallup.com/poll/111211/Gallup-Daily-Obama-49-McCain-43.aspx">poll of thepresidential race -- the result that showed Obama holding his smallest leadover McCain. MSNBC's ÏŽm>Morning Joeechoed Drudge by displaying the on-screen text "Gallup shock." ÏŽm>New Republic contributorand statistician Nate Silver noted in an October 16 blog ÏŠ href="http://mediamatters.org/rdto=http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/2008/10/todays-polls-1016.html" title="http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/2008/10/todays-polls-1016.html">post that Drudgehad È¬herry-picked" polling results: Ï‹lockquote>With seven different daily trackingpolls to work with -- one of which releases three separate versions of itsmodel each day -- there is a lot to choose from for those who might seek tocherry-pick results.Slow news day, Matt If this is atwo-point race right now, I'll eat Drudge's fedora. None of the ÏŠ href="http://mediamatters.org/rdto=http://www.pollster.com/polls/us/08-us-pres-ge-mvo.php" title="http://www.pollster.com/polls/us/08-us-pres-ge-mvo.php"Ïozen or so other pollsthat were in the field this week shows a race that close. Nor do either of the ÏŠ href="http://mediamatters.org/rdto=http://www.gallup.com/poll/111211/Gallup-Daily-Obama-49-McCain-43.aspx" title="http://www.gallup.com/poll/111211/Gallup-Daily-Obama-49-McCain-43.aspx"Ïªlternate versions of Gallup's model,including the so-called Likely Voters II model that I find most credible.Drudge, of course, had no interest in featuring the ÏŠ href="http://mediamatters.org/rdto=http://www.zogby.com/" title="http://www.zogby.com/">Zogby poll, as he had for the pastseveral of days on his site, but which today showed Obama gaining ground.September 9-10 -- Lipstick on a pig<pÏrudge falselysuggested in lead headlines from September 9 through September 10 that Obamawas referring to Gov. Sarah Palin when he said: "You can put lipstick on apig; it's still a pig." As ÏŽm>Media MattersÏŠ href="http://mediamatters.org/items/200809090026f=s_search">noted, onSeptember 9, Drudge ÏŠ href="http://mediamatters.org/rdto=http://www.drudgereportarchives.com/data/2008/09/10/20080910_010122.htm" title="http://www.drudgereportarchives.com/data/2008/09/10/20080910_010122.htm">placed the words"OBAMA: 'LIPSTICK ON A PIG, STILL A PIG' " under a picture of Palin.Then, on September 10, Drudge ÏŠ href="http://mediamatters.org/rdto=http://www.drudgereportarchives.com/data/2008/09/10/20080910_140342.htm" title="http://www.drudgereportarchives.com/data/2008/09/10/20080910_140342.htm">posted the leadheadline, "HOLY SOW!" under a picture of Palin:ÏŠ href="http://mediamatters.org/static/images/item/drudge_007.jpg">ÏŠ href="http://mediamatters.org/static/images/item/drudge_008.jpg"><pÏ¬ontrary to Drudge's suggestion, Obama did not mentionPalin in at least the 65 words preceding his "lipstick on a pig"comment, as ÏŽm>Media Matters ÏŠ href="http://mediamatters.org/items/200809090026f=s_search" title="http://mediamatters.org/items/200809090026f=s_search">noted. Indeed, Obama'spreceding comments consisted of what he described as a "list" ofMcCain's policies that Obama said were no different from President Bush's.Moreover, the expression "lipstick on a pig" is ÏŠ href="http://mediamatters.org/items/200809100035" title="http://mediamatters.org/items/200809100035"Ï¬ommonpolitical rhetoric -- Obama hadreportedly used the expression in the past, and McCain himself used it in 2007in reference to Sen. Hillary Clinton's health-care proposal. of CNN's ÏŽm>Reliable Sources, host Howard Kurtz said:"I seriously thought about passing up entirely this ridiculous,trumped-up, phony lipstick controversy. No one really seriously believes thatBarack Obama was talking about Sarah Palin when he used the well-worn barnyardphrase. Just about everyone knows it was essentially pushed along and made upby Drudge, Sean Hannity, and the ÏŽm>New YorkPost, which endorsed McCain, by the way, in a front-pageeditorial." Kurtz, CNN special correspondent Frank Sesno, and ÏŽm>Houston Chronicle White Housecorrespondent Julie Mason then ÏŠ href="http://mediamatters.org/items/200809140003" title="http://mediamatters.org/items/200809140003">went on to criticize the media for their reporting on the"lipstick" remarks. ÏŠ href="http://mediamatters.org/rdto=http://www.drudgereportarchives.com/data/2008/07/24/20080724_235353.htm" title="http://www.drudgereportarchives.com/data/2008/07/24/20080724_235353.htm">July 24-ÏŠ href="http://mediamatters.org/rdto=http://www.drudgereportarchives.com/data/2008/07/26/20080726_235636.htm">July 26"Obama scraps visit to wounded troops"Drudge furthered the myth that Obama did not visit woundedtroops on his trip to the Middle East and Europein July. A Drudge headline stated "Obama scraps visit to wounded troops..." and linked to a July24 Associated Press ÏŠ href="http://mediamatters.org/rdto=http://www.breitbart.com/article.phpid=D924E4KO0&show_article=1" title="http://www.breitbart.com/article.phpid=D924E4KO0Éªmp;show_article=1"Ïªrticle that reported "Obamascrapped plans to visit wounded members of the armed forces in Germany as partof his overseas trip, a decision his spokesman said was made because theDemocratic presidential candidate thought it would be inappropriate on acampaign-funded journey." From the Drudge Report on July 24 at ÏŠ href="http://mediamatters.org/rdto=http://www.drudgereportarchives.com/data/2008/07/24/20080724_235353.htm"Ï¦:53 p.m. ET:<pð¾«itionally, a July 26 Drudge Report headline read"McCain camp: Obama shortchanged injured troops..." and linked to a July 26 AP ÏŠ href="http://mediamatters.org/rdto=http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2008/07/26/mccain_camp_obama_shortchanged_injured_troops/"Ïªrticle that reported "McCain'scampaign on Saturday sharply criticized Democratic rival Barack Obama forcanceling a visit to wounded troops in Germany. ...A new McCain ad that began airing Saturday in selected markets also chidesObama as disrespectful for making 'time to go to the gym' duringhis European visit while at the same time canceling the visit with woundedtroops." From the Drudge Report on July 26 at ÏŠ href="http://mediamatters.org/rdto=http://www.drudgereportarchives.com/data/2008/07/26/20080726_235636.htm"Ï¦:56 p.m. ET:However, as ÏŽm>Media MattersÏŠ href="http://mediamatters.org/items/200807280003" title="http://mediamatters.org/items/200807280003"Ïocumented, while Obama did not goto Landstuhl RegionalMedical Centerin Germany,Obama did visit wounded troops earlier in his trip overseas. Indeed, the July26 AP article Drudge linked to reported that the Obama campaign "notedthat the Illinois senator had visited troopsin Iraq and Afghanistan last week and had made numeroustrips to Washington's Walter Reed Army Medical Center." Obama also reportedly made phone calls to wounded soldiersat Landstuhl.ÏŠ href="http://mediamatters.org/rdto=http://www.drudgereportarchives.com/data/2008/06/30/20080630_185545.htm" title="http://www.drudgereportarchives.com/data/2008/06/30/20080630_185545.htm">June 30 -- Obama, MoveOn.orgAs ÏŽm>Media MattersÏŠ href="http://mediamatters.org/items/200807010003" title="http://mediamatters.org/items/200807010003"Ïocumented,Drudge ÏŠ href="http://mediamatters.org/items/200804090007f=s_search" title="http://mediamatters.org/items/200804090007f=s_searchblocked::http://mediamatters.org/items/200804090007f=s_search">revivedthe ÏŠ href="http://mediamatters.org/items/200709270007f=s_search" title="http://mediamatters.org/items/200709270007f=s_searchblocked::http://mediamatters.org/items/200709270007f=s_search"ã»ºlsehoodthat Obama did not condemn MoveOn.org's "General Betray Us" ad about Gen. David Petraeus. Drudge ran the followingstring of headlines -- "Obama: I will never question others'patriotism..." È¬riticizes MoveOn.org for 'General Betray Us'Ad..." "ÏŽm>ÏŽmÏ«UTDIDN'T VOTE TO CONDEMN AD..." From the DrudgeReport at ÏŠ href="http://mediamatters.org/rdto=http://www.drudgereportarchives.com/data/2008/06/30/20080630_185545.htm"Ï¡:55 p.m.ET on June 30:ÏŠ href="http://mediamatters.org/static/images/item/drudge_011.jpg">The "ÏŽm>ÏŽmÏ«UT DIDN'T VOTE TO CONDEMN AD..." headlinelinked to a September 20, 2007, ÏŠ href="http://mediamatters.org/rdto=http://blogs.usatoday.com/onpolitics/2007/09/clinton-dodd-vo.html" title="http://mediamatters.org/rdto=http://blogs.usatoday.com/onpolitics/2007/09/clinton-dodd-vo.html">post on ÏŽm>ÏŽm>USA Today'sOn Politics blog, which noted that Obama Èid not vote on" an ÏŠ href="http://mediamatters.org/rdhttp://cornyn.senate.gov/public/index.cfmFuseAction=Files.ViewÉªmp;FileStore_id=14e59d63-b0af-4842-b741-2055d5a15fea" title="http://mediamatters.org/rdhttp://cornyn.senate.gov/public/index.cfmFuseAction=Files.ViewÉªmp;FileStore_id=14e59d63-b0af-4842-b741-2055d5a15feahttp://cornyn.senate.gov/public/index.cfmFuseAction=Files.ViewÉªmp;FileStore_id=14e59d63-b0af-4842-b741-2055d5a15fea"Ïªmendment by Sen.John Cornyn R-TX that, in the words of the amendment, "repudiates theunwarranted personal attack on General Petraeus by the liberal activist groupMoveon.org." However, while Obama ÏŠ href="http://mediamatters.org/rdto=http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfmcongress=110&session=1&vote=00344" title="http://mediamatters.org/rdto=http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfmcongress=110&session=1&vote=00344"Ïid not vote on Cornyn'samendment, which passed, the ÏŽm>ÏŽm>USA Today blog post also reported: "The APsaid Obama did not vote on the resolution even though he had voted 'minutesearlier' for an alternative that condemned the MoveOn ad as an 'unwarrantedpersonal attack,' but also condemned attack ads that questioned the patriotismof Sen. John Kerry, D-Mass., and former Sen. Max Cleland, D-Ga., both Vietnamveterans." Indeed, Obama ÏŽm>ÏŽmÏid ÏŠ href="http://mediamatters.org/rdto=http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfmcongress=110&session=1&vote=00343" title="http://mediamatters.org/rdto=http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfmcongress=110&session=1&vote=00343">vote for an amendment offered by Sen.Barbara Boxer D-CA that condemned the ad, as well as other attacks on pastand present members of the armed forces.ÏŠ href="http://mediamatters.org/rdto=http://www.drudgereportarchives.com/data/2008/03/03/20080303_204901.htm" title="http://www.drudgereportarchives.com/data/2008/03/03/20080303_204901.htm">March 3 --Èªs far as I know"Drudge ÏŠ href="http://mediamatters.org/rdto=http://www.drudgereportarchives.com/data/2008/03/03/20080303_142136.htm" title="http://mediamatters.org/rdto=http://www.drudgereportarchives.com/data/2008/03/03/20080303_142136.htm">linked to onlinenews portal Breitbart.tv video ÏŠ href="http://mediamatters.org/rdto=http://www.breitbart.tv/p=55904" title="http://mediamatters.org/rdto=http://www.breitbart.tv/p=55904"Ï¯ootage from theMarch 2 edition of CBS' ÏŽm>ÏŽmã¹ Minutes withthe headline "Hillary: Obama Not Muslim ÏŽm>ÏŽm>Éºs Far As I Know' ... ":ÏŠ href="http://mediamatters.org/static/images/item/drudge_012.jpg"><pÏ«ut contrary toDrudge's suggestion that Sen. Hillary Clinton characterized the issue ofObama's religion as unresolved, Clintondid the opposite, as ÏŽm>Media Matters ÏŠ href="http://mediamatters.org/items/200803030004f=s_search"Ïocumented. Correspondent SteveKroft first asked Clinton,"You don't believe that Senator Obama is a Muslim" Clinton replied, "Of course not. I mean,that's -- you know, there is no basis for that. You know, I take him on thebasis of what he says. And, you know, there isn't any reason to doubtthat." Kroft then asked, Èªnd you said youÉ½ take Senator Obama athis word that he's not a Muslim."Clintonreplied, "Right. Right." Only after Kroft went on to ask, "Youdon't believe that he's a Muslim or implying, right," did Clinton respond, "No.No. Why would I No, ÏŽm>there is nothing tobase that on, as far as I know" emphasis added.<pÏ¯ollowing Clinton's responseto Kroft's third query on the subject, Kroft said, "It's just scurrilous--" to which Clintonresponded, "Look, I have been the target of so many ridiculous rumors. Ihave a great deal of sympathy for anybody who gets, you know, smeared with thekind of rumors that go on all the time."ÏŠ href="http://mediamatters.org/rdto=http://www.drudgereportarchives.com/data/2008/01/22/20080122_220024.htm" title="http://mediamatters.org/rdto=http://www.drudgereportarchives.com/data/2008/01/22/20080122_220024.htm">January 22 -- NiagaraFallsDrudge ÏŠ href="http://mediamatters.org/items/200801220010"ãººselessly suggestedin a headline that the children's psychiatric unit at Niagara Falls Memorial Medical Centerclosed because Clinton was "neglecting" New York:In fact, ÏŽm>The Buffalo News article that the headlinelinked to contained no mention of Clinton; rather, it reported that hospitalofficials attributed the closure to problems surrounding the way Medicaid isadministered by Niagara County.ÏŠ href="http://mediamatters.org/rdto=http://www.drudgereportarchives.com/data/2007/10/16/20071016_132906.htm" title="http://www.drudgereportarchives.com/data/2007/10/16/20071016_132906.htm">November 16, 2007 -- Clinton"spied"<pÏrudge advanced the anonymously sourced allegation that Clinton "spied on political rivals" -- anallegation the Clintoncampaign has said is "ÏŠ href="http://mediamatters.org/items/200710170002" title="http://mediamatters.org/items/200710170002"ã»Štegoricallyuntrue." From the Drudge Report at 9:29 a.m. ET on November 16:ÏŠ href="http://mediamatters.org/static/images/item/drudge_015.jpg">Media MattersÏŠ href="http://mediamatters.org/items/200710180006#200710262" title="http://mediamatters.org/items/200710180006#200710262">noted, in the book ÏŽm>ÏŠ href="http://mediamatters.org/rdto=http://www.hachettebookgroup.com/books_9780316017428.htm" target="_blank" title="http://mediamatters.org/rdhttp://www.hachettebookgroupusa.com/books/51/0316017426/index.html">Her Way: The Hopes and Ambitions ofHillary Rodham Clinton, co-authors Jeff Gerth andDon Van Natta Jr. cited a single unnamed source describing events thatallegedly occurred 14 years earlier to claim that during the 1992 presidential campaign, Clinton"listened to a secretly recorded audiotape of a phone conversation ofClinton critics plotting their next attack." Despite the book's releasein June, Drudge revived the anonymously sourced allegation months later.ÏŠ href="http://mediamatters.org/rdto=http://www.drudgereportarchives.com/data/2007/11/13/20071113_185015.htm" title="http://www.drudgereportarchives.com/data/2007/11/13/20071113_185015.htm">November 13, 2007 -- Wolf Blitzer"warned"As ÏŽm>Media MattersÏŠ href="http://mediamatters.org/items/200711140002f=h_latest" title="http://mediamatters.org/items/200711140002f=h_latest"Ïocumented, Drudge ran ananonymously sourced itemthat claimed CNN hostWolf Blitzer "has been warned not to focus Thursday's Dem debate on"Clinton and quoted an anonymous "top Clinton insider" saying,"This campaign is about issues, not on who we can bring down and destroy.... Blitzer should not go down to the levels of character attack." Drudgealso ran the lead headline: "WOLF WARNED: NO GANGING UP ON HILLARY INVEGAS!":ÏŠ href="http://mediamatters.org/static/images/item/drudge_016.jpg">However, Blitzer statedthat Drudge's claims were "not true" during the November 13,2007, ÏŠ href="http://mediamatters.org/rdto=http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0711/13/sitroom.01.html" title="http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0711/13/sitroom.01.html"ã»ition of CNN's ÏŽm>The Situation Room. During the broadcast,CNN commentator Jack Cafferty said to Blitzer: "I was clicking on'The Drudge Report,' and there you are, big as life, in the middleof the Drudge Reportthis afternoon, with a headline suggesting that the Hillary Clinton campaign istrying to intimidate you before you moderate this big debate in Las Vegas.What's up with that" Blitzer replied: Ï‹lockquote><pÏ«LITZER: Not true. No one haspressured me. No one has threatened me. Noone is trying to intimidate me.... No one has evencalled me to try to pressure me or anything like that. ...I have no idea where it's coming from. I have no idea who generated this story, but I can tell you I have not felt anypressure whatsoever. <pï¿½rty then said to Blitzer: "What about Drudge justrushing this thing onto the websitewithout knowing if it's true or not" Blitzer replied: "Well,that's another story."ÏŠ href="http://mediamatters.org/rdto=http://www.drudgereportarchives.com/data/2007/09/18/20070918_201653.htm" title="http://www.drudgereportarchives.com/data/2007/09/18/20070918_201653.htm">September 18, 2007-- "Health insurance proof"<pÏrudge featured the lead headline "HEALTH INSURANCEPROOF REQUIRED FOR WORK" under a picture of Clinton:However, Drudge's headline was false, as ÏŽm>Media Matters ÏŠ href="http://mediamatters.org/items/200709180016" title="http://mediamatters.org/items/200709180016"Ïocumented. The Associated Pressarticle to which the headline linked did not report that Clinton's proposed health-care ÏŠ href="http://mediamatters.org/rdhttp://www.hillaryclinton.com/news/speech/view/id=3329" title="http://mediamatters.org/rdhttp://www.hillaryclinton.com/news/speech/view/id=3329http://www.hillaryclinton.com/news/speech/view/id=3329">plan would requirepeople to show proof of health insurance È¯or work." Rather, itreported that in an interview with the AP, Clinton said: Èªt this point, we don'thave anything punitive that we have proposed" for people who do notpurchase health insurance as required by her plan. According to the article, Clinton also said,"We're providing incentives and tax credits which we think will be veryattractive to the vast majority of Americans." The AP article also statedthat Clinton "said she could envision a day when 'you have to show proofto your employer that you're insured as a part of the job interview -- likewhen your kid goes to school and has to show proof of vaccination,' but saidsuch details would be worked out through negotiations with Congress."In a September 18, 2007, post on ÏŽm>Time's Swampland blog -- headlined, "ÏŠ href="http://mediamatters.org/rdto=http://swampland.blogs.time.com/2007/09/18/why_drudge_is_a_disgrace/" title="Permanent Link to Why Drudge is a Disgrace">Why Drudge is a Disgrace"-- politicalcolumnist Joe Klein wrote: Ï‹lockquote>I knowthis is old news, but this guy is shameless. The headline, with a photo of athree-quarters crazed Hillary, is HEALTH INSURANCE PROOF REQUIRED FOR WORK butthe linked story says this: Ï‹lockquote><pÏªt thispoint, we don't have anything punitive that we have proposed," thepresidential candidate said in an interview with The Associated Press."We're providing incentives and tax credits which we think will be veryattractive to the vast majority of Americans."Shesaid she could envision a day when "you have to show proof to youremployer that you're insured as a part of the job interview - like whenyour kid goes to school and has to show proof of vaccination," but saidsuch details would be worked out through negotiations with Congress.Howstupid does he think we are Answer: Extremely dumbolic. ÏŠ href="http://mediamatters.org/rdto=http://www.drudgereportarchives.com/data/2007/08/28/20070828_125417.htm" title="http://www.drudgereportarchives.com/data/2007/08/28/20070828_125417.htm"Ïªugust 28, 2007 --Clinton"supports national smoking ban"A Drudge headline falsely claimed that "HILLARYSUPPORTS NATIONAL SMOKING BAN... ":ÏŠ href="http://mediamatters.org/static/images/item/drudge_018.jpg">New York Post ÏŠ href="http://mediamatters.org/rdhttp://www.nypost.com/seven/08282007/news/nationalnews/hill_eyes_national_cig_curb.htm" title="http://mediamatters.org/rdhttp://www.nypost.com/seven/08282007/news/nationalnews/hill_eyes_national_cig_curb.htm"Ïªrticle with the headline,"Hill Eyes National Cig Curb." However, as ÏŽm>Media Matters ÏŠ href="http://mediamatters.org/items/200708280014f=s_search" title="http://mediamatters.org/items/200708280014f=s_search"Ïocumented, thearticle did not say Clintonsupported a "national smoking ban." The ÏŽm>Post actually reported: Èªsked whether the feds shouldimpose a nationwide ban, Clintondeferred to local governments."ÏŠ href="http://mediamatters.org/rdto=http://www.drudgereportarchives.com/data/2007/08/21/20070821_151712.htm" title="http://www.drudgereportarchives.com/data/2007/08/21/20070821_151712.htm"Ïªugust 21, 2007 --"Obama wife slams Hillary"<pÏrudge's lead headline stated "OBAMA WIFE SLAMSHILLARY":ÏŠ href="http://mediamatters.org/static/images/item/drudge_019.jpg">The Drudge headline linked to an August 21, 2007, ÏŠ href="http://mediamatters.org/rdhttp://www.suntimes.com/news/hunter/518408,CST-NWS-hunter21.article" title="http://mediamatters.org/rdhttp://www.suntimes.com/news/hunter/518408,CST-NWS-hunter21.articlehttp://mediamatters.org/rdhttp://www.suntimes.com/news/hunter/518408,CST-NWS-hunter21.articlehttp://www.suntimes.com/news/hunter/518408,CST-NWS-hunter21.arti"Ï¬olumn by the ÏŽmÏ¬hicago Sun-Times' Jennifer Hunter aboutMichelle Obama's remarks that "if you can't run your own house, youcertainly can't run the White House." Hunter asserted of MichelleObama's comment: "She didn't elaborate, but it could be interpretedas a swipe at the Clintons."However, as ÏŽm>Media Matters ÏŠ href="http://mediamatters.org/items/200708220002f=h_latest" title="http://mediamatters.org/items/200708220002f=h_latest">noted, Hunterselectively cited Michelle Obama's remarks in claiming that they could be aboutthe Clintons.As Talking Point Memo's Greg Sargent ÏŠ href="http://mediamatters.org/rdto=http://tpmelectioncentral.talkingpointsmemo.com/2007/08/obama_spokesman_denies_michell.php" title="http://mediamatters.org/rdhttp://electioncentral.tpmcafe.com/blog/electioncentral/2007/aug/21/obama_campaign_denies_michelles_speech_was_attack_on_hillaryhttp://electioncentral.tpmcafe.com/blog/electioncentral/2007/aug/21/obama_campaign_denies_michelles">noted, Obama immediately went on to discuss measuresher family was taking to keep their children "grounded" while she andBarack Obama were campaigning, indicating that her comments were not areference to rival candidates but rather a statement about the efforts theywere making to ensure that their children will continue to È¬omefirst." <pãº¯ter stating, "Our view is that if you can't run yourown house, you certainly can't run the White House," Michelle Obamacontinued: "So we've adjusted our schedules to make sure that our girlsare first, so while he's Barack Obama traveling around, I do day trips"in order to be "home before bedtime." ÏŽmÏªtlantic associate editor Marc Ambinder ÏŠ href="http://mediamatters.org/rdhttp://marcambinder.theatlantic.com/archives/2007/08/michelle_obamas_swipe.php" title="http://mediamatters.org/rdhttp://marcambinder.theatlantic.com/archives/2007/08/michelle_obamas_swipe.phphttp://marcambinder.theatlantic.com/archives/2007/08/michelle_obamas_swipe.php">wrote that one"recurring theme of her stump speech" is "the hard choices sheand Sen. Obama have had to make about their work/family balance."Sargent wrote of suggestions that Obama was taking a swipeat Clinton:"The Obama campaign says this wasn't an attack on Hillary at all."Sargent added that Obama campaign spokesman Bill Burton sent him a statementsaying: "The only family Mrs. Obama was referring to was the Obamafamily." Ambinder further ÏŠ href="http://mediamatters.org/rdhttp://marcambinder.theatlantic.com/archives/2007/08/michelle_obamas_swipe.php" title="http://mediamatters.org/rdhttp://marcambinder.theatlantic.com/archives/2007/08/michelle_obamas_swipe.phphttp://marcambinder.theatlantic.com/archives/2007/08/michelle_obamas_swipe.php">noted that inhighlighting Hunter's column, "Matt Drudge has other designs, and you canbet that the cable news networks will follow." NBC political director Chuck Todd, deputy political directorMark Murray, and reporter Andrew Merten wrote in an August 21, 2007, blog ÏŠ href="http://mediamatters.org/rdto=http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2007/08/21/325945.aspx" title="http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2007/08/21/325945.aspx">post onMSNBC.com's First Read that Drudge's headline was a"manufactured controversy" and Èªppears to be a Drudge straw man": Ï‹lockquote>On his site now, ÏŠ href="http://mediamatters.org/rdto=http://www.drudgereport.com/" target="_blank" title="http://www.drudgereport.com/"Ïrudgehas this provocative headline: "Obama Wife Slams Hillary" It's takenfrom this ÏŠ href="http://mediamatters.org/rdto=http://www.suntimes.com/news/hunter/518408,CST-NWS-hunter21.article" target="_blank" title="http://www.suntimes.com/news/hunter/518408,CST-NWS-hunter21.article"Ï¬hicago Sun-Times storytoday. ...There's just one problem: This allseems to be a manufactured controversy. For one thing, what Michelle Obama saidisn't anything new; in fact, it appears to be her stump speech. She said thison August 13, per the ÏŠ href="http://mediamatters.org/rdto=http://www.breitbart.com/article.phpid=D8R07N3O0&show_article=1" target="_blank" title="http://www.breitbart.com/article.phpid=D8R07N3O0Éªmp;show_article=1"ÏªP. And also onAugust 16, per the ÏŠ href="http://mediamatters.org/rdto=http://www.nytimes.com/2007/08/17/us/politics/17obama.htmlref=politics" target="_blank" title="http://www.nytimes.com/2007/08/17/us/politics/17obama.htmlref=politics">New York Times. Inboth instances, it appears she's talking about her own family and its values....In short, this appears to be a Drudgestraw man; the challenge for news divisions including our own is whether theyactually bite. ÏŠ href="http://mediamatters.org/rdto=http://www.drudgereportarchives.com/data/2007/08/01/20070801_124159.htm" title="http://www.drudgereportarchives.com/data/2007/08/01/20070801_124159.htm"Ïªugust 1, 2007 -- PakistanA Drudge lead headline claimed "WAR: COMMANDER OBAMAWOULD SEND TROOPS INTO PAKISTAN":ÏŠ href="http://mediamatters.org/static/images/item/drudge_020.jpg">The headline linked to an August 1, 2007, Associated Press ÏŠ href="http://mediamatters.org/rdto=http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/20070536" title="http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/20070536">report about a foreign policy ÏŠ href="http://mediamatters.org/rdhttp://www.barackobama.com/2007/08/01/remarks_of_senator_obama_the_w_1.php" title="http://mediamatters.org/rdhttp://www.barackobama.com/2007/08/01/remarks_of_senator_obama_the_w_1.phphttp://www.barackobama.com/2007/08/01/remarks_of_senator_obama_the_w_1.php">speech that day byObama. However, Drudge's headline is a distortion of Obama'sremarks. Obama did not say he "would send troops into Pakistan"he said that "if we have actionable intelligence about high-valueterrorist targets and then-PakistaniPresident Pervez Musharrafwon't act, we will," without elaborating on how he would act. Furthermore,Obama ÏŠ href="http://mediamatters.org/items/200708080009" title="http://mediamatters.org/items/200708080009">never said he would declare"war" on Pakistan,as Drudge suggested.ÏŠ href="http://mediamatters.org/rdto=http://www.drudgereportarchives.com/data/2007/05/25/20070525_183152.htm" title="http://www.drudgereportarchives.com/data/2007/05/25/20070525_183152.htm">May 25, 2007 --È¯lak Jacket"A Drudge headline read "McCain mocks Obama for notknowing how to spell É¿lak jacket' ..." and linked to a May 25, 2007, ÏŽm>Hill ÏŠ href="http://mediamatters.org/rdto=http://thehill.com/campaign-2008/memorial-day-showdown-between-presidential-camps-2007-05-25.html" title="http://thehill.com/campaign-2008/memorial-day-showdown-between-presidential-camps-2007-05-25.html"Ïªrticle that reported McCain"took a shot at Obama for making a mistake in" a statement that dayin which Obama wrote È¯lack jacket":ÏŠ href="http://mediamatters.org/static/images/item/drudge_021.jpg">However, as ÏŽm>Media MattersÏŠ href="http://mediamatters.org/items/200705260002f=h_latest" title="http://mediamatters.org/items/200705260002f=h_latest"Ïocumented,È¯lack" is an alternatespelling of È¯lak." Indeed, the phraseÈ¯lack jacket" with a È¬" appears on dozens of militarywebsites.ÏŠ href="http://mediamatters.org/rdto=http://www.drudgereportarchives.com/data/2007/03/11/20070311_132611.htm" title="http://www.drudgereportarchives.com/data/2007/03/11/20070311_132611.htm">March 11, 2007 --JFK of 2008A Drudge headline read "HILLARY: I'M THE JFK OF2008... ":The Drudge headline linked to a March 11, 2007, ÏŽm>NewYork Post ÏŠ href="http://mediamatters.org/rdhttp://www.nypost.com/php/pfriendly/print.phpurl=http://www.nypost.com/seven/03112007/news/nationalnews/hill__im_the_jfk_of_2008_nationalnews_maggie_haberman_post_correspondent.htm" title="http://mediamatters.org/rdhttp://www.nypost.com/php/pfriendly/print.phpurl=http://www.nypost.com/seven/03112007/news/nationalnews/hill__im_the_jfk_of_2008_nationalnews_maggie_haberman_post_correspondent.htmblocked::http://www.nypost.com/php/pfriendly/p"Ïªrticle with theheadline "Hill: I'm the JFK of 2008." However, as ÏŽm>Media Matters ÏŠ href="http://mediamatters.org/items/200703140001f=s_search" title="http://mediamatters.org/items/200703140001f=s_search">noted, Clinton did not say shewas the John F. Kennedy of 2008. Instead, Clintonwas comparing the possibility of her becoming the first woman president toKennedy having become the first Catholic president. Following is the portion ofClinton's March10, 2007, speech duringwhich she addressed Kennedy: Ï‹lockquote>A lot of people back then duringformer President Kennedy's 1960 campaign said, "Well, you know Americawill never elect a Catholic as president," but those who gathered herealmost half a century ago knew better. ... So when people tell me, or when oneof the pundits says that "I don't think a woman can be electedpresident," I say, "We'll never know unless we try."
2008-11-06 03:14:36
US media see Obama's landslide win best chance to improve America's image
New York, Nov 5 ANI: The US media have pinned hopes from the new President Barack Obama, saying he won the poll simply because he was the better of the two candidates, which was proved by his life full of struggle and perseverance.The papers talked about issues which the present incumbent George Bush couldn't resolve or neglected altogether.In an editorial penned minutes after the results were declared, The Los Angeles Times said that Obama should be able to "repair the damage inflicted by the so-called war on terror, which has alienated the United States from many friends"."Obama will serve as president not of a race or a region but of a nation. He has demonstrated admirable gifts for leadership in his young life and in this long campaign. And as he assumes the office that the electorate has granted him, he has the opportunity to be the leader that our current president, too often, has not been. He must surmount the partisanship of the campaign, bridging the divides of party, as George W. Bush pledged to do but did not. He must repair the United States' international relations and renew our ties to the multilateral organizations that President Bush neglected. He must repair the damage inflicted by the so-called war on terror, which has alienated the United States from many friends. Closing the detention facility at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, would be a welcome and symbolic start," said the LA Times editorial.The Washington Times said that Obama now had a chance to improve America's standing in the world. An editorial in the paper said: "Mr. Obama cannot erase Mr. Bush's legacy, but he has a chance to improve America's standing in the world, ending such noxious practices as torture and indefinite detention with minimal review that have diminished this country in the eyes of its allies. He has the opportunity finally to set the country on a path to help reduce global warming. He has far-reaching plans on energy, health care and education, but also a realistic understanding that the state of the economy will delimit his ambitions.""When we endorsed Mr. Obama for president, we did not mention race, for the simple reason that race played no role in our decision; Mr. Obama was just the better of two good nominees," added the paper.The New York Times talked about the problems Obama would have to attend to during his innings at the White House. "The paper said: "Mr. Obama also will have to rally sensible people to come up with immigration reform consistent with the values of a nation built by immigrants and refugees. There are many other urgent problems that must be addressed. Tens of millions of Americans lack health insurance, including some of the country's most vulnerable citizens - children of the working poor. Other Americans can barely pay for their insurance or are in danger of losing it along with their jobs. They must be protected.""Mr. Obama will now need the support of all Americans. Mr. McCain made an elegant concession speech Tuesday night in which he called on his followers not just to honor the vote, but to stand behind Mr. Obama. After a nasty, dispiriting campaign, he seemed on that stage to be the senator we long respected for his service to this country and his willingness to compromise. That is a start. The nation's many challenges are beyond the reach of any one man, or any one political party," added an editorial in the paper. ANI
2008-11-05 03:00:00