Current Issue
Back Issues
 Subscribe to BartBlog Feed
How to Read
Members ( need password)
Subscribe to BartCop!
Contact Us
Advertise With Us
Link to Us
Why Donate?
The Forum  -
The Reader
Poster Downloads
Shirts & Shots
BartCop Hotties
More Links
BFEE Scorecard
Perkel's Blog
Power of Nightmares
Clinton Fox Interview
Part 1, Part 2
Money Talks
Cost of Bush's greed
White Rose Society
Project 60
Chinaco Anejo


Search Now:
In Association with

Link Roll
American Politics Journal
Barry Crimmins
Betty Bowers
Consortium News 
Daily Howler
Daily Kos
Democatic Underground 
Disinfotainment Today 
Evil GOP Bastards
Faux News Channel 
Greg Palast
The Hollywood Liberal 
Internet Weekly
Jesus General
Joe Conason 
Josh Marshall
Liberal Oasis
Make Them Accountable 
Mark Morford 
Mike Malloy 
Political Humor -
Political Wire
Randi Rhodes
Rude Pundit 
Smirking Chimp
Take Back the Media
More Links


Locations of visitors to this page

 The Bigger Picture

 It's my opinion that America's whore press, who we've all hated for at least a decade
 have slanted their coverage towards Obama and against Hillary - severely slanted.

 For months we've heard the cry from the Obama camp:
"But his name wasn't even on the ballot in Michigan!
  How can you call that a fair election without our man's name on the ballot?"

 Sounds like a fair argument, right?
 But I submit it only sounds fair because, once again, the whore media has covered up
 the truth because the truth would hurt their candidate, Obama.

 The Democratic Rules Handjob Committee met Saturday, I caught parts of it.
 Harold Ickes said that nobody asked Obama to take his name off the Michigan ballot.
 He says it wasn't a rule, wasn't a requirement, wasn't a suggestion - so why did Obama do that?

 Ickes suggested Obama did that to curry favor with Iowa votes, and that rings true.

 Hillary "allowing" Michigan to vote early? Hillary "helping" Michigan
 to steal the well-deserved thunder from you fine, fine Iowa folks?

 One could argue that Obama won Iowa because he told them he loved them more,
 while that two-timing Hillary has a Michigan suitor on the side.  The nerve of some people!

 One could also argue that Obama put Iowa in his pocket with that pandering stunt,
 but that Hillary won Michigan because she saw the bigger picture and acted on it.

Why would a candidate take his name off the ballot?

 The only answer I can come up with is Obama chose to gamble.

 Telling Iowa, "You're the one for me," helped him there, but to get that date
 he had to snub more-than-twice-as-big Michigan and now he wants a do-over?
 Yes, Obama chose to gamble, and now that he's lost, he wants a do-over.

 But my main complaint is with our pro-Obama press - why can't they just tell the truth?
 Why didn't they tell us that Obama, by pandering to Iowa voters, stupidly perhaps,
 screwed up big-time?  He might've lost Michigan because his gamble didn't work.

 Michigan has 17 electoral votes - Iowa has 7.
 If Obama wanted 7 more than he wanted 17, why shouldn't he get his wish?

 Seems like the Obama campaign wants it both ways but the pro-Obama press has painted
 Obama out to be "another victim of that awful Hillary's scheming manipulations."

 Maybe Hillary's refusal to pander to Iowa was a smart move.

 Maybe Hillary's just a better poker player than Obama.

 Send e-mail to Bart  |  Discuss it on The BartCop ForumComment on it at the BartBlog

One other thing...

 We both know Hillary was not threatening Obama's life with her RFK comments.
 We also know that she was not signaling some kook to shoot him so she could win.
 The pro-Obama press made that up - why?

 As the calls for a "unity ticket" grew louder, it's my guess that the whore media
 trumped up this RFK horseshit to give Obama what he needed to kill the idea of
 the unity ticket by giving him the excuse, "How can I trust her to be my VP
 when she openly and publicly and repeatedly has called for my assassination?

 How do you not see that?

 You're being played by the pro-Obama press.
 This is the same whore media that screwed Gore, Dean and Kerry - now you trust them?

 Note that I'm not calling you stupid, out of touch, delusional or any of the other
 hundreds of names that Obama people call the majority of Democratic 
 voters in the United States..

 The worst thing I'll say about Obama voters is that it's been a generation since anyone on TV 
 or radio has said something good about a Democrat so I can see where hearing Matthews and 
 Russert and Dowd and FOX News etc cheer your candidate undoubtably has a great emotional appeal.

 But you know deep in your heart that CNN and MSGOP and the big networks etc have been 
 100% pro-Obama and 100% anti-Hillary  and you're being hustled by 
 the same team of whores that threw gasoline on the Clinton impeachment fire which brought us 
 8 years of the illegal, Fascist Bush bastards and who are now working for McCain.

 When the whore press joins a campaign to spin things for their favorite (temp) candidate,
 that should make you angry.  The same bastards who lied Bush into office are,
 for the moment, pro-Obama but those lying bastards just can't be trusted.

 Why can't you see what they are doing to the 2008 elections?

 Scott McClellan said the 'liberal' media neglected their watchdog role in the run-up to Iraq,
 calling reporters "complicit enablers" of the Bush's push for war.  Katie Couric said she
 felt pressure from corporate executives to cast the war in a positive light.

 Even when they confess, you still don't see it?

 Right now, the whore media is neglecting their watchdog role in this election and reporters
 are "complicit enablers" to Obama's camp.  And those sellout bastards some call "journalists"
 are feeling pressure from corporate executives to cast Obama in a positive light while they
 sharpen their Obama knives for the general election so the "straight-talking war hero" can win..

 It's    right there    in front of you.

 They want McCain, his wars, his tax cuts and his "hands off" policies towards gas prices.
 The Republican party and the whore press (one and the same) want four more years.

 How can you not see what they're doing?

 If you disagree, I'd like to hear from you.
 But if all you have are personal insults, expect the Monkey Mail graphic.

 Remember, you're not supposed to feel strongly about a subject unless you
 can explain yourself - and "Bartcop is delusional" is not an explanation.

  Back to

Send e-mail to Bart  |  Discuss it on The BartCop ForumComment on it at the BartBlog

Privacy Policy
. .