Originally posted by loam
I'm a little confused by the logic that because McCain is getting away with his "associations", Obama should as well.

No problem, Ill help clear it up for you because you still are missing the point.
The article I posted is addressing a media bias in coverage regarding one of Obama's close friends controversial statements that have nothing to do
with Obamas personal feelings anymore than Hagee's do McCain as both have stated. It points out a double standard with the politicians that may or
may not relate to race. It asks the relevant question why are the ties of the other candidates not being placed under the same microscope and played,
discussed, and condemned in the mainstream media as those of Obama.
I think that is also a legitimate question to ask considering that all three are guilty of similar situations yet only ONE is having theirs blown out
of proportion.
This has helped to draw forth anger and resentment of the candidate being focused on, while the same resentment is not felt for the others
specifically because of what the media has chosen to do. Is this part of an agenda? I'm starting to believe it is.
Are other Americans as outraged at McCain for Hagee's hateful comments or Robertson 9-11 condemnation of America?
I doubt it.

The unevenness of the standard as applied by the MSM is certainly a problem, but is not one that justifies the argument that Obama's
affiliations should remain unquestioned.

Agreed.
Whose argument is that again?
It isn't that of the author of the article or myself as I have said now for the third or fourth time the questioning is not the issue its the double
standard and possible agenda of a biased media. I'm talking about the unevenness you mentioned.
Please point out where I said Obama should get the free-pass McCain and Hillary (who also knows Wright) are getting?
Thanks,
- Lee
[edit on 5-5-2008 by lee anoma]