Do you think if Barack Obama had left his seriously ill wife after having had multiple affairs, had been a member of the "Keating Five," had had a relationship with a much younger lobbyist that his staff felt the need to try and block, had intervened on behalf of the client of said young lobbyist with a federal agency, had denounced then embraced Jerry Falwell, had denounced then embraced the Bush tax cuts, had confused Shiite with Sunni, had confused Al Qaeda in Iraq with the Mahdi Army, had actively sought the endorsement and appeared on stage with a man who denounced the Catholic Church as a whore, and stated that he knew next to nothing about economics -- do you think it's possible that Obama would have been treated differently by the media than John McCain has been? Possible?
And -- this is fun to contemplate -- if Michelle Obama had been an adulteress, drug addict thief with a penchant for plagiarism -- do you think that she would be subject to slightly different treatment from the media than Cindypills McCain has been? Anyone?
Sir Charles:
Do you mind if I borrow heavily from this post for a letter to the editor? I had jotted down notes on this subject, specifically what a dirt ball McCain is, but had not sent it in. I didn't want to use your post without permission.
Posted by: bdub | April 16, 2008 at 04:15 PM
By all means. I would be flattered.
Posted by: Sir Charles | April 16, 2008 at 04:43 PM
For real! This has been ridiculous coverage!
Posted by: John | April 16, 2008 at 05:38 PM
thanks.
here i go: spreading the word, one unread letter to the editor at a time.
Posted by: bdub | April 16, 2008 at 05:53 PM
Superb summary, counselor.
And to answer your question, of course Obama would be treated differently, and so would Michelle Obama, had she behaved as Cindy McCain had.
IOKIYAR, remember? And also, the press hearts McCain. *headdesk*
Posted by: litbrit | April 16, 2008 at 07:47 PM
Comment I left at Ezra's blog about stones and glass houses.
had left his seriously ill wife after having had multiple affairs
So this should have been mentioned about John Kerry?
had been a member of the "Keating Five
Same with Tony Rezko?
But don't worry Obama will have some hack journalists pour through Mccain's divorce records like he did with Jack Ryan.
Posted by: Paul L. | April 16, 2008 at 08:08 PM
Piece of advice, Paul L.: Usually when you throw up a link, it's one that backs up your point, not one that digs you in deeper. Try again...
Posted by: Tom | April 16, 2008 at 09:33 PM
Paul L., Rezko is equivalent to the Keating Five? Seriously?
(Also, I think you meant pore over the records, not pour through. Or perhaps you meant paw through?)
Posted by: litbrit | April 16, 2008 at 10:05 PM
Also, consider the evidence of Senator McCain's weakness in the areas of national security and foreign policy. TPM and Acropolis Review provide more for debunking the media-sustained myth of his strength in these vital areas:
http://acropolisreview.com/2008/03/john-mccains-iraq-war-five-year.html
http://talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/184135.php
Posted by: Tina | April 16, 2008 at 10:11 PM
Paul L.,
We try and reserve the comment space here for the linear and the lucid. Go play amongst your friends at Protein Wisdom -- Jesus, talk about comments that appear to have been written by 10,000 chimps with 10,000 typewriters.
Tina,
Too true -- in my abbreviated fashion I was trying to make this point regarding McCain confusing the major players involved in Iraq -- he shows so little knowledge, so little nuance that his policy more or less comes down to "let's kick some raghead ass." And any ass will do seemingly.
Posted by: Sir Charles | April 16, 2008 at 10:34 PM
You really don't need to go past the first clause.
If Barack Obama had left a sick Michelle Obama after having several affairs, for a younger, richer woman, Michelle Obama would have killed him.
Game over.
Posted by: KathyF | April 17, 2008 at 08:47 AM
Well played Kathy.
Posted by: Sir Charles | April 17, 2008 at 03:03 PM
Oh you are talking about McCain for some reason it sounded like you were talking about any of the Kennedy's.
Posted by: Kelli Davenport | April 17, 2008 at 09:17 PM
Wow Kelly -- you're like the Oscar Fucking Wilde of trolls. That must have taken hours to come up with. Or 10,000 chimps . . .
Posted by: Sir Charles | April 17, 2008 at 09:31 PM
There's a Kennedy running for President this year? Who? Since when?
Posted by: litbrit | April 17, 2008 at 09:32 PM
I apologize -- it's Kelli with an "i".
Posted by: Sir Charles | April 17, 2008 at 09:34 PM
I think these are very fair and balanced questions that should be asked of John McCain at the first general election debate. Oh, and of course we all want to know who loves America more, him or Rev. Wright? Or John Wayne? Or Superman?
Posted by: SMN | April 17, 2008 at 10:32 PM
Isn't John McCain a combination of John Wayne and Superman? And a straight talkin' maverick, yesiree. With donuts. Mmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm donuts.
Posted by: Sir Charles | April 17, 2008 at 11:05 PM
John Wayne and Superman?
Give me a Break.
John Wayne: (in the Shootist )
"I won't be wronged, I won't be insulted, and I won't be laid a hand on. I don't do these things to other people, and I require the same from them."
Superman: "For Truth, Justice and the American Way!"
Truth? John McCain? GMAFB
Justice? John McCain? Give me a break!
American Way? John McCain.. oh sure, he Waves the Flag, but does he support the constitution and the Bill of Rights?
'Bomb, Bomb, Bomb, Bomb, Bomb Iran' ?
Support of the Presidents warrentless wiretaps.
etc..
Posted by: chuck | April 18, 2008 at 09:35 AM
Chuck,
You do know I was kidding, right? (I thought the donuts were a sure give away.)
Posted by: Sir Charles | April 18, 2008 at 09:42 AM
dude I cut and pasted your entry in the NY daily news discussions. gave credit where credit was due. You rock!
Posted by: albert ross | April 18, 2008 at 10:11 AM
You're very kind.
I wish I could write like Roy Edroso at Alicublog. He, in fact, rocks.
Posted by: Sir Charles | April 18, 2008 at 10:16 AM
Sir Charles...
New to the blog, but needed to remark on your bio.
"the owner of a lovable but neurotic cat" No one "owns" a cat - the cat OWNS its owners!! :)
Just one cat lover to another!
1oldlady
And to the question of the day...Trust is weighted on our actions, both McCain and the media fall in to this pit.
Posted by: 1oldlady | April 18, 2008 at 10:22 AM
Thank you,thank you, thank you! Your ruminations on Mc Cain are like manna from heaven.I've been running around with my hair on fire ,kicking the dog, and ranting about why isn't anybody saying these things besides me? If I may, one issue,not mentioned here, that has gotten my attention is McCain's role in the Abramoff Bureau of Indian Affairs hearings.McCain't was the Chairman.May I suggest everyone check out SamStein's story over at HuffPo on this-March'08,about McCain's hidden Abramoff e-mails. This directly relates to the flap about Rove,Alabama Governor Don Siegelman,and McCain's deletion from the final report on Bureau of Indian Affairs looby money!
Posted by: Schaden Freude | April 18, 2008 at 10:47 AM
Sorry,that should have read lobby money in the last sentence.
Posted by: Schaden Freude | April 18, 2008 at 10:49 AM
you can't talk about repuglitards deserting their sick wives in the hospital to marry younger women
we aint got time to discuss newt gingrich and all the other repuglitard scumbags who have deserted their wives in hospitals
we wouldn't have any time to discuss flag pins and Vietnam if we spent all our time talking about how unfaithful and hypocritical repuglitards are
thats what repuglitards do
they abandon their wives and children to upgrade in the wife department
newt did it, rudi did it, mcsame did it
the only repuglitards who HAVEN'T discarded their wives for an upgrade are the closet homosexuals like larry craig and that preacher named hazard
why discuss something that every repuglitard does ???
Posted by: free patriot | April 18, 2008 at 10:51 AM
1oldlady,
It would have been far more accurate to say that the cat owns me.
S.F.
Don't kick the dog -- kick a journalist. Really, they are so seriously in the tank for this clown that it is amazing.
f.p.
Switch to decaf.
Posted by: Sir Charles | April 18, 2008 at 11:17 AM
John McCain was a war hero, and thus gets a free ride.
Posted by: TATER | April 18, 2008 at 02:22 PM
Thank you, thank you. Your questions cut to the bone and show with crystal clarity what was so wrong about the ABC debate. These questions need to be broadcast far and wide. John McCain is not a straight shooter, just another Republican bottom feeder selling out our country. He may have served his country in the Vietnam war, but he's been screwing his country ever since. He's a traitor to America, and should be removed from office.
Posted by: Corin Royal Drummond | April 18, 2008 at 02:35 PM
I hate McCain too...I'm a conservative, and I am seriously considering voting democrat. However with that said, there is an old saying about throwing stones and glass houses. Obama has had his fair share of corruption while working in Chicago. He has a mentor who is blatantly racist and who dislikes America...as does his wife "this is the first time I've been proud of this country". Mentioning his wife and how horrible the country she lives in is, no one mentions that she got into college based on nothing more than affirmative action. Go back and check her grades, she never would have made it to Princeton without it.
Posted by: shaun | April 18, 2008 at 03:04 PM
Shaun,
Go get your white robes cleaned buddy.
I don't think I'd segue from the "blatantly racist" comment to how Michelle Obama is unqualified to have gone to Princeton.
And don't feel proud about voting "democrat" -- I am sure if you are doing so it is for all of the wrong reasons.
Alas, no comment about Cindypills. Let me put it bluntly, had Cindypills been the same color as Michelle Obama she'd have gone to jail.
Posted by: Sir Charles | April 18, 2008 at 03:19 PM
Sir Charles,
Read your post, and, while interesting, in my opinion, the short answer is: no. Obama (and his wife) would probably not have gotten much more media flak from such actions than McCain has. Why? Well, for one, while we can agree that we have different political views and will thus see things from different angles, I think it should be pretty clear to anyone that the media (with some exceptions such as FoxNews and talk show radio) has a primarily liberal leaning, predominantly identified with Democrats. The biggest reason why what negative has come into the media about Democratic candidates has done so is because enough noise was raised by blogs and radio that to ignore it would look bad. From there, it comes down to spin. But based on how the media leans, I would say that Obama would probably not have received much worse of a reaction, unless of course, he accomplished all of that in a much shorter time (let's remember for a moment the objection many have brought up: McCain is just plain old).
So whether you agree about media or not, consider this: no one will ever be perfect, and while we would prefer a morally upright man or woman in the White House (another Lewinsky affair would not be good for this nation's image right now), the voting matters should come down to politics.
Posted by: duncan | April 18, 2008 at 04:51 PM
duncan,
I absolutely and utterly reject the notion that the media is liberal and think the treatment that Obama has gotten recently contrasted with that afforded St. John is Exhibit A for that proposition.
I would just like to see a Republican candidate given the same level of scrutiny for once. Not likely though. Right wingers have done an incredibly good job of intimidating these gutless wonders over the years.
Posted by: Sir Charles | April 18, 2008 at 05:56 PM
Sir Charles -
Great post. When you put it that way (state the facts), it's really jaw-dropping and laughable thinking of how the press would handle this with a Democrat.
Speaking of laughable....duncan! C'mon...Liberal media - ummm, have you been paying ANY attention? Here's a hint - who do you think OWNS the media?
Lewinsky? The Republican administration has taken the mighty U.S.A. and raped it, destroyed our standing and led us into complete incompetence and you mention the possibility of another Lewinsky harming our nation's image.......? That would be hilarious if it weren't so incredibly, pathetically sad.
Posted by: Jill Bryant | April 19, 2008 at 02:03 AM
Jill B.
Thank you -- and I'm glad you read Duncan's comment more carefully than I did (Friday night -- margaritas -- old story).
Anyway, after eight years of a disastrous war, two recessions, a government that can no longer carry out basic functions, the gutting of the Constitution and the embrace of torture and war crimes by this administration, Duncan is worried about . . . . blowjobs. Sweet Jesus -- what is wrong with these people? This may be worthy of a post because it is so demented -- we cannot afford another Lewinsky affiar. Holy shit!
Posted by: Sir Charles | April 19, 2008 at 12:06 PM
Obama is a fag... and he likes boys! He is nothing more than an American Hating, racist coke-head. Michelle Obama is a Marxist, racist, slut of a bitch. She is also a coke-head... but she gets hers free offering her body as payment.
The Obama children are crack-babies, sluts, and nasty.
I cannot wait for the golden boy to peel and all the turd to squirt out of the core!
Posted by: Neal | April 21, 2008 at 02:09 PM
Neal,
Get help.
You're a sad little man.
Posted by: Sir Charles | April 21, 2008 at 06:03 PM