There are at least there Obama issues that the media should be asking and reporting on 1) his present votes

Just did a search for “obama present votes” and the first page shows reports about this from MSNBC, Chi Sun Times, NY Times, ABC, and Chi Trib blog, in addition to other blogs. A few pages in shows this from Media Matters, which shows that a WaPoo article, which was similar to many of the above ones, was distorting some of Obama’s past record:

http://mediamatters.org/items/200712140004

Not only that, the second page has a HuffPo story where the Illinois, not the national, Planned Parenthood folks came out to defend Obama’s present votes in Illinois as part of a strategy they came up with together, and the PP folks said it worked tremendously: (Clinton has been specifically bringing up this Illinois stuff)

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/…..sent-votes

Now Hillary has missed 103 votes this year while Obama has missed 166, and this bothers me. I heard him talk about this recently but can’t remember exactly what he said.

2) his senate subcommittee chairmanship

Yea, that’s not cool. He can’t use the Prez Race excuse here, since Clinton has had meetings for her Subcommittee

http://www.salon.com/opinion/c…..ma_europe/

3) whether his NH chairperson is a lobbyist (the whole state vs federal lobby is absurd).

This guy is one of four in one small state. I wonder how many people have official titles within a campaign that large. Plus, Hillary was trying say he was violating his own rule, which he was not. Whatever the case, it’s certainly not a pattern for Obama:

Of the leading Democratic candidates, Barack Obama is the least entangled with K Street. His campaign has no lobbyists on the payroll or serving as key advisers.

Obama is followed by John Edwards. Nick Baldick, a senior Edwards adviser, is not a registered lobbyist, but he is the founder of Hilltop Public Solutions. Hilltop “manages its national network of state affiliates to build support for our clients’ public policy goals,” boasting of victories for “the nation’s largest financial services firm, one of the nation’s largest airlines, a major fast food retailer, the world’s largest healthcare provider, and numerous additional industry leaders.”

The Edwards campaign political director, David Medina, was a lobbyist for the AFL-CIO from 1998 to 2003.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/…..53456.html

Of course Hillary is off the charts with lobbyists on staff, but claims that’s fine since she thinks lobbyists are cool. I don’t.

As far as the media being pro-Any Democrat, I think that’s silly. When searching for Present votes for Hillary, it took quite a while to weed through all the articles with Hillary’s attacks on Obama’s votes before I could find anything about Hillary’s present votes. How many people understand the difference between Kyl-LieberME! and the vote Obama supported along with Chris Dodd and Ed Kennedy about Iran?

How about Hillary’s views on torture?
http://www.alarmingnews.com/archives/005264.html

There was a big vote this last year where where Hillary voted with the Repubes when only a few Dems voted with them. Can’t remember off-hand what it was, but FDL did a story about about, and everyone was shocked. Didn’t hear that in the BigMedia at all.

This could go on and on, but since you asked for just one example, I’ll stop here since I gotta run.

This is precisely the type of “debate” that has been pissing me off for years now. Starting after Iowa, the Clintons THEMSELVES, not just surrogates, have been extremely condescending toward Obama as a person. This is Warshington politics as we know it, and it’s the only game the Clintons know. I feel it doesn’t have to be this way, and I’m happy Obama is at least talking about this and seems to be making an effort to do things differently.

I did reread the supposed Obama memo, which was never actually released and written by a self-proclaimed “South Carolina Press Secretary,” and stand by what I said earlier. After two minutes of searches, I could find several links to support what I was saying, and then realized I would much rather prefer to look for policy differences instead.

By the way, when you were looking to see how many times Shaheen said “cocaine,” and what exactly Edwards adviser Trippi said about that, did you happen to find time look at Obama’s Technology Plan to make government more transparent than ever before, and if Clinton has any similar proposals? If so, I’d like to know more about that.

Trippi states that Shaheen said “cocaine” repeatedly, which is not true. He said it once.

And here’s the full “fairy tale” quote (in context, which shows it was directed at Obama’s Iraq record):
http://www.swamppolitics.com/n…..s_the.html

They made no mention of race at all, and was just direct responses to Clinton insults, which were quoted with context

Clearly you have not checked the memo. They specifically discuss how race has been politicized and include distortions, most blatantly the “fairy tale” comment being taken out of context (Yes, repeating Brazille’s assertions that the comment was directed at his candidacy does just that).

In the memo, the Obama campaign says Cuomo was referring to the Illinois senator. Again, my previous post provides a link that shows that’s not true.

On Shaheen: the memo includes Trippi’s remarks that Shaheen said “cocaine” (which is now racist, apparently) repeatedly, which just isn’t true. The man said it once (Check out Media Matters for a transcript).

And the press is anti-Clinton or, at the very least, pro-Obama, which has been proven time and time again with the double standard (Obama is God!) and most recently with regard to his own damn staff and supporter making baseless racially charged comments (Again, it has been stated in my previous comment and this original FDL post). This was not the first time (D-Punjab). If Clinton’s staff and a surrogate did what Clinton did you’d be up in arms about it, but when Obama does it people rationalize it.

Have some doers with a plan and work ethic. Not another George Bush like person trying to pad their resume.

Or more simply you could get Edwards onto the ticket (a doer with plans).

If it was about policy and moving forward they would do well to put at least nominal checks on their ego. If only they had this much zest for policy discussion or telling the country where (or even how) they planned to lead.

The press wants to see a repub. president because of all the corporate consolidation and hey repubs like big business.

To ensure that a repub is president, the media knows that the democrats have to have a weak candidate. That is why I believe Obama is getting very favorable and soft treatment from the media and Clinton is getting unfavorable and harsh treatment-strike that- Clinton is getting the kind of treatment every candidate shoud get by the media. Clinton treatment should be the gold standard in presidential vetting.

There are at least there Obama issues that the media should be asking and reporting on 1) his present votes, 2) his senate subcommittee chairmanship , and 3) whether his NH chairperson is a lobbyist (the whole state vs federal lobby is absurd). The reason why these issues need to be explored is 1) in the general the repubs will 2) they all speak to his whole campaign platform.

Now, I challenge anyone to name one Hillary issue that has not been fully vetted/explored the media.

cue crickets