For the love of all that is holy, can we PLEASE stop with the flip-flop crap?! I thought we ran that well dry the LAST presidential election. Plus, I'm just sick of hearing the term flip-flop. Sheesh.

Yes, the weirdest (not the worst) part of Black's statements were that somehow John McCain was better fit to get us through Bhutto's assassination?!?! It's so non-sensical and ridiculous it's difficult to respond to other than repeating: These guys are just idiots.

Not to mention that if there were a terrorist attack before the elections, wouldn't that mean it had taken place on Bush's watch?

Nice, score: Obama 114, McCain 0

The talk about whether or not a terrorist attack helps the Republican candidate reminds me of this quote from McCain back in March:

Senator John McCain said on Friday that he feared that terrorists might step up their attacks in Iraq this fall in an attempt to tip the November election against him.

“I worry about it because I know they pay attention, because of the intercepts we have of their communications,’’ Mr. McCain, the presumptive Republican nominee for president, told a friendly crowd at a town hall-style meeting at the Springfield Country Club in suburban Philadelphia. “I worry about it, because the hardest thing in warfare to counter is someone, or a group of individuals, who are willing to take their own lives in order to take others.’’

He added, “I also believe that they may be able to carry out some spectacular suicide attacks, but we do have them on the run.’’ Nonetheless, he concluded, “Yes, I’m very worried.’’

Mr. McCain was responding to a question from a member of the audience about whether he was concerned that Al Qaeda in Iraq or any other terrorist organization might ratchet up its activities in September or October to increase American casualties and to try to tilt the election against him — but in favor of a candidate more willing to withdraw American troops.

http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/03/14/mccain-says-he-is-worried-about-pre-election-iraq-attack/

What's it going to take for the media to quit propping up McLame? Is it hopeless - will they just keep on doing it?

Senator John McCain said on Friday that he feared that terrorists might step up their attacks in Iraq this fall in an attempt to tip the November election against him.

Shades of Commander CooCoo Bananas. I think Bush took what remained of McLame's brain out in '04 and has it in a glass jar somewhere. He's just a Bush sock puppet now.

I think the media props up McCain for two reasons. One being they want a close election in November because it will be a boon for ratings and the second reason being that he cosies up to the media like no other whereas Obama's Campaign is really restricting access to their candidate. Media denied access to Obama gets angry and it effects their coverage - I mean he is negatively affecting their livelihood because they can't get access and possibly juicy stories.

It's utterly shameful that McCain's constant contradictions get no MSM play and this whole deal with Black was covered less than the faux Presidential seal issue.

It's not news it's infotainment, and in a 24 hour news cycle, a stronger election battle means better ratings and thus more ad money for the networks.

I'd love to see polling done that would seperate internet users from non-internet users.

Middlenames, catfood and Donna G -

All excellent comments. The media follows the money - but I've never been able to understand the love affair with McMavericky, except that he was always a walking story - given his history.

...and protecting abortion rights in cases of rape and incest

Jonze - I agree with you but that doesn't address this love affair that has gone on for years between McLame and the media. This isn't something that came up just this election. I agree this contest is great for their business - so was the primary. That's one reason it kept going and seemed to close to open warfare - the press were living off the story for as long as they could keep it going.

The media has been loving them some McMavericky for years. And there's very little there there with McLame- he's not very bright, really, at all.

The thing that bothers me the very most about the last 8 years, and McLame is up to his eyebrows in it, is the matter of war crimes: torture. What upsets me is that so few Americans seem to care.

I find that shocking. I can't believe more hasn't been made out of his vote on the torture bill. I really can't.

Why aren't people outraged about what we did? It has devastated me, emotionally, morally, and intellectually, that we are now that kind of nation.

It's difficult to address the issue of media bias because it's safe to say many in the media are enamored with Obama, too. It does seem like Obama's gaffes are overreported and McCain's are underreported, though...but maybe that's a function of the public's reaction/interest? Are gaffes taken more seriously when they come from the "unknown" candidate?

CNN has video of McCain's comments in September. They were made following the assassination of Benazir Bhutto. CNN's Dana Bash was with McCain at the time and asked him point blank if he thought a terror attack would help him and he said "yes."

Dana reported this verbally in the morning. But the time the Situtation Room aired, they had dug up the video!

This is typical Reppub strategy: the interests of the party and getting elected ALWAYS trumps the national interest.
I'm not a "grassy-knoll" or "black helicopter" type, but there is no question in my mind that the Repubs secretly contacted Iran during the 1980 election to not release the hostages, and thus helped sabotage Jimmy Carter's re-election efforts.

For goodness sake, cannot the VA find McSame a room in their old folks home? He is not flip-flopping, he is simply being a Republican living in an alternate reality not unlike HRC for the past 6 months.

And lest anyone forget, many Americans, but no one on here surely, that McCain was against torture before he was 'for' it. As in, voting 'for' it in cases involving CIA interrogations. Never mind that he could've voted 'no' and it still would've passed. he voted for it because it was political, pure and simple. the McCain of 2000 would've voted no and that wouldve been the end of it. he wouldve been consistent and no one wouldve dared call him on it. but this version isn't 'strong' enough to have done that. he has shown himself for the ego that he has, the one that has overwhelmed his integrity and he's taken every position under the political sun. anything to get him into the WH. sorry, sir, but you don't get it that way. you are not a 'straight talker'. good nite.