I’m hoping the debate turns into a Town Hall meeting hosted by Lehrer. Free advertising for Obama! I wonder if McCain will show up or not – it sounds like they’re close to a deal so then he’ll no longer have an excuse.
Oh I’m sure he’ll show up. The NYT reported this AM that McCain hadn’t planned alot of prep for this debate and cut short the little he was planning to do.
Excellent ad by Obama. Keep saying this over and over.
Factcheck.org clearly isn’t impartial either, since their “fact checking” of the NRA’s claims against Obama basically amounted to “But, But Obama says he’s not anti-gun!”
That was seriously the saddest case of “fact checking” I have ever seen. It was flat out laughable.
[The NRA, however, simply dismisses Obama’s stated position as “rhetoric” and substitutes its own interpretation of his record as a secret “plan.” Said an NRA spokesman: “We believe our facts.”]
Bolded for idiocy.
Yeah, those billionaire Annenbergs are in the tank for Obama!
Factcheck’s piece literally consisted of using Obama’s current campaign rhetoric to explain away his previous statements and voting record on the issue.
It’s a shame really, because they’d be a great resource if they were actually impartial and well…….factual.
As far as Annenberg – Obama served as chairman from 95-99 and was on the board till 2001. This doesn’t lend credence to Annenberg Political Factcheck’s claim that they’re unbiased.
LOVE IT!!!
Clear and to the point!
I’m hoping the debate turns into a Town Hall meeting hosted by Lehrer. Free advertising for Obama! I wonder if McCain will show up or not – it sounds like they’re close to a deal so then he’ll no longer have an excuse.
Oh I’m sure he’ll show up. The NYT reported this AM that McCain hadn’t planned alot of prep for this debate and cut short the little he was planning to do.
Excellent ad by Obama. Keep saying this over and over.
“Free advertising for Obama”
He already has that. It’s called the news media.
Factcheck.org clearly isn’t impartial either, since their “fact checking” of the NRA’s claims against Obama basically amounted to “But, But Obama says he’s not anti-gun!”
That was seriously the saddest case of “fact checking” I have ever seen. It was flat out laughable.
http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/nra_targets_obama.html
Of course Factcheck is connected with Annenburg, so it’s no surprise they’re biased.
[The NRA, however, simply dismisses Obama’s stated position as “rhetoric” and substitutes its own interpretation of his record as a secret “plan.” Said an NRA spokesman: “We believe our facts.”]
Bolded for idiocy.
Yeah, those billionaire Annenbergs are in the tank for Obama!
You slay me, Mike, with your wishful thinking.
Von – That was the NRA saying “we believe our facts.” Not the Annenburg connected folks at factcheck.
Their so called “Fact Checking” has been thoroughly debunked by many, including Dave Kopel.
http://volokh.com/archives/archive_2008_09_21-2008_09_27.shtml#1222201928
Factcheck’s piece literally consisted of using Obama’s current campaign rhetoric to explain away his previous statements and voting record on the issue.
It’s a shame really, because they’d be a great resource if they were actually impartial and well…….factual.
As far as Annenberg – Obama served as chairman from 95-99 and was on the board till 2001. This doesn’t lend credence to Annenberg Political Factcheck’s claim that they’re unbiased.
Huh? The quote makes reference that it’s the NRA’s.
btw – he was chairman of the Chicago Annenberg Challenge (for education), which has no affiliation with the Annenberg branch that runs FactCheck.org.
I think he shoulda said: (sic)’the pain bubbled, gushed, or burst up’ but not ‘trickled’ up.