Comments on: For The Record: Barack Obama

A Closer Look At The Candidate's Background - From Local Church To State Senate To Capitol Hill

[Josiah_Rowe]

"The Publish button will be enabled shortly. We have temporarily disabled it so everyone has an opportunity to comment."

What does that mean? Did my earlier comment go through, or will I have to try again later? And how does disabling the "publish" button allow everyone to comment? I''m confused!

[Josiah_Rowe]

"The Publish button will be enabled shortly. We have temporarily disabled it so everyone has an opportunity to comment."

What does that mean? Did my earlier comment go through, or will I have to try again later? And how does disabling the "publish" button allow everyone to comment? I''m confused!

[Josiah_Rowe]

"The Publish button will be enabled shortly. We have temporarily disabled it so everyone has an opportunity to comment."

What does that mean? Did my earlier comment go through, or will I have to try again later? And how does disabling the "publish" button allow everyone to comment? I''m confused!

[Josiah_Rowe]

Wow. Every actual misstep and anti-Obama smear gathered together in one article. It''s like it came straight from the Clinton campaign''s email.

This article is a strange mixture of legitimate stories (Rezko, the Exelon business) and ridiculous innuendo (the "present" votes, the Farrakhan guilt-by-association). The inclusion of the latter weakens the coverage of the former, which do deserve more scrutiny.

For the record, the "present" votes are extremely common in the Illinois senate, and are often used to give *another* legislator cover for a politically unpopular vote. That nuance has been explained in other news stories, but not this one.

Similarly, the idea that Obama can be blamed for not being swift enough to "reject and denounce" Lewis Farrakhan (who, incidentally, did not endorse Obama) is ridiculous %u2014 unless you''re going to hold John McCain to the same standard for actually seeking the endorsement of John Hagee, who regularly spouts anti-Catholic rhetoric as vicious as anything Farrakhan has said against Jews.

And why mention the flag lapel/hand on heart/Muslim stories without actually explaining that they''re not true? (Details are at http://www.snopes.com/politics/obama/obama.asp).

OK, so the balance of the media coverage of Obama to date has been rather laudatory and uncritical. But you can''t redress that sort of imbalance by publishing a smear piece.

[Josiah_Rowe]

Wow. Every actual misstep and anti-Obama smear gathered together in one article. It''s like it came straight from the Clinton campaign''s email.

This article is a strange mixture of legitimate stories (Rezko, the Exelon business) and ridiculous innuendo (the "present" votes, the Farrakhan guilt-by-association). The inclusion of the latter weakens the coverage of the former, which do deserve more scrutiny.

For the record, the "present" votes are extremely common in the Illinois senate, and are often used to give *another* legislator cover for a politically unpopular vote. That nuance has been explained in other news stories, but not this one.

Similarly, the idea that Obama can be blamed for not being swift enough to "reject and denounce" Lewis Farrakhan (who, incidentally, did not endorse Obama) is ridiculous %u2014 unless you''re going to hold John McCain to the same standard for actually seeking the endorsement of John Hagee, who regularly spouts anti-Catholic rhetoric as vicious as anything Farrakhan has said against Jews.

And why mention the flag lapel/hand on heart/Muslim stories without actually explaining that they''re not true? (Details are at http://www.snopes.com/politics/obama/obama.asp).

OK, so the balance of the media coverage of Obama to date has been rather laudatory and uncritical. But you can''t redress that sort of imbalance by publishing a smear piece.

[Josiah_Rowe]

Wow. Every actual misstep and anti-Obama smear gathered together in one article. It''s like it came straight from the Clinton campaign''s email.

This article is a strange mixture of legitimate stories (Rezko, the Exelon business) and ridiculous innuendo (the "present" votes, the Farrakhan guilt-by-association). The inclusion of the latter weakens the coverage of the former, which do deserve more scrutiny.

For the record, the "present" votes are extremely common in the Illinois senate, and are often used to give *another* legislator cover for a politically unpopular vote. That nuance has been explained in other news stories, but not this one.

Similarly, the idea that Obama can be blamed for not being swift enough to "reject and denounce" Lewis Farrakhan (who, incidentally, did not endorse Obama) is ridiculous %u2014 unless you''re going to hold John McCain to the same standard for actually seeking the endorsement of John Hagee, who regularly spouts anti-Catholic rhetoric as vicious as anything Farrakhan has said against Jews.

And why mention the flag lapel/hand on heart/Muslim stories without actually explaining that they''re not true? (Details are at http://www.snopes.com/politics/obama/obama.asp).

OK, so the balance of the media coverage of Obama to date has been rather laudatory and uncritical. But you can''t redress that sort of imbalance by publishing a smear piece.

[Josiah_Rowe]

Wow. Every actual misstep and anti-Obama smear gathered together in one article. It''s like it came straight from the Clinton campaign''s email.

This article is a strange mixture of legitimate stories (Rezko, the Exelon business) and ridiculous innuendo (the "present" votes, the Farrakhan guilt-by-association). The inclusion of the latter weakens the coverage of the former, which do deserve more scrutiny.

For the record, the "present" votes are extremely common in the Illinois senate, and are often used to give *another* legislator cover for a politically unpopular vote. That nuance has been explained in other news stories, but not this one.

Similarly, the idea that Obama can be blamed for not being swift enough to "reject and denounce" Lewis Farrakhan (who, incidentally, did not endorse Obama) is ridiculous %u2014 unless you''re going to hold John McCain to the same standard for actually seeking the endorsement of John Hagee, who regularly spouts anti-Catholic rhetoric as vicious as anything Farrakhan has said against Jews.

And why mention the flag lapel/hand on heart/Muslim stories without actually explaining that they''re not true? (Details are at http://www.snopes.com/politics/obama/obama.asp).

OK, so the balance of the media coverage of Obama to date has been rather laudatory and uncritical. But you can''t redress that sort of imbalance by publishing a smear piece.

[Josiah_Rowe]

Wow. Every actual misstep and anti-Obama smear gathered together in one article. It''s like it came straight from the Clinton campaign''s email.

This article is a strange mixture of legitimate stories (Rezko, the Exelon business) and ridiculous innuendo (the "present" votes, the Farrakhan guilt-by-association). The inclusion of the latter weakens the coverage of the former, which do deserve more scrutiny.

For the record, the "present" votes are extremely common in the Illinois senate, and are often used to give *another* legislator cover for a politically unpopular vote. That nuance has been explained in other news stories, but not this one.

Similarly, the idea that Obama can be blamed for not being swift enough to "reject and denounce" Lewis Farrakhan (who, incidentally, did not endorse Obama) is ridiculous %u2014 unless you''re going to hold John McCain to the same standard for actually seeking the endorsement of John Hagee, who regularly spouts anti-Catholic rhetoric as vicious as anything Farrakhan has said against Jews.

And why mention the flag lapel/hand on heart/Muslim stories without actually explaining that they''re not true? (Details are at http://www.snopes.com/politics/obama/obama.asp).

OK, so the balance of the media coverage of Obama to date has been rather laudatory and uncritical. But you can''t redress that sort of imbalance by publishing a smear piece.

[Josiah_Rowe]

Wow. Every actual misstep and anti-Obama smear gathered together in one article. It''s like it came straight from the Clinton campaign''s email.

This article is a strange mixture of legitimate stories (Rezko, the Exelon business) and ridiculous innuendo (the "present" votes, the Farrakhan guilt-by-association). The inclusion of the latter weakens the coverage of the former, which do deserve more scrutiny.

For the record, the "present" votes are extremely common in the Illinois senate, and are often used to give *another* legislator cover for a politically unpopular vote. That nuance has been explained in other news stories, but not this one.

Similarly, the idea that Obama can be blamed for not being swift enough to "reject and denounce" Lewis Farrakhan (who, incidentally, did not endorse Obama) is ridiculous %u2014 unless you''re going to hold John McCain to the same standard for actually seeking the endorsement of John Hagee, who regularly spouts anti-Catholic rhetoric as vicious as anything Farrakhan has said against Jews.

And why mention the flag lapel/hand on heart/Muslim stories without actually explaining that they''re not true? (Details are at http://www.snopes.com/politics/obama/obama.asp).

OK, so the balance of the media coverage of Obama to date has been rather laudatory and uncritical. But you can''t redress that sort of imbalance by publishing a smear piece.

[pilgrimsway-2009]

Obamas little picture looks like He is making a decision for Christ!