What if 'SNL' mocked Michelle Obama?

perhaps woiyo in the future you could consider cut and paste of Pat Buchanan under the tag " humour"

hehe

done

Even better, how about using such articles to line Fred the Parott's cage? I can see it now, Fred shitting on Pat Buchanan.

BBB

Go wipe your chest!

Obviously, McCain would win the election in a landslide.

Ohhh Rico, you've got too much suaveh for me.

actually dear I was referring to both of them....

so mean

and yet so true....tough love.

I would love to see it, but it will never happen.

Maybe SNL could do a Halloween skit showing the Obama couple stopping trick or treaters and taking their candy from them.

The candy would later spread around to those that did not go out and trick or treat for themselves.

The responses that point out that Michelle Obama is not running for office are certainly legitimate.

The responses that address the rest of your post are less so.

The MSM camped out in front of Joe The Plumber's house but have made no attempts to interview William Ayers.

Arguments rationalizing the media attention on Joe tend to stress the number of times McCain referenced him during the campaign. OK, but McCain has referenced Ayers as many or more times than Joe, and one would think it would be of some interest to the public to hear Ayers characterize his relationship with Obama, and get some "deep background" on him, like has he paid his taxes, does he regret having resorted to terrorism during the 60's, what are his academic credentials and what political strings were pulled to bring him into the Chicago Democratic Machine?

In any case, it really does little good beyond venting anger and frustration to point out the bias, and even advocacy of the MSM. They cover the news and when the news is about them, how do you think they will cover it?

It will be interesting to see how they perform if and when Obama is elected.

Of course there will, at least, be a honeymoon period. Even Republican presidents get those.

Obama's honeymoon will probably last at least a year. Having advocated his campaign, it will take a while for the MSM to feel that any criticism is a negative reflection upon them. Maybe two years.

No matter how bad the economy gets, Obama will have inherited it from Bush. This despite the fact that the MSM sneered and snarled whenever Bush officials indicated that the recession in his first year of office was inherited from Clinton. This despite the Democrat's share of culpability for our present economic mess.

But hey, if Joe Biden is correct, there will be a major international crisis by the end of June 2009 and people are not going to like Obama's response to it; he'll suffer in the polls.

What did Joe mean?

Consider that he was addressing a group of staunch supporters. What sort of response to an international crisis might they not like? Have Barrack and Joe already established tentative plans for military action agains the sort of international bad actors who might test young Obama? And what of his spine of steel comment that BBB finds so pivotal to Joe's self-aggrandizing and politically idiotic vomitus?

It doesn't take a steel spine to talk, and it doesn't take a steel spine to capitulate. It does, however, take a steel spine to respond to provocation militarily. Is that what Joe was warning his anti-war audience about?

And if Barrack of The Steel Spine throws down on whatever enemy of our country that might decide to test him, will the MSM go along for the ride?

Probably. They didn't seem to have much of a problem with Clinton's bombing of Serbia, even when an errant "smart-bomb" hit the Chinese embassy.

Will A2K Doves?

Should Barrack and Joe win it will be interesting to see to what extent the MSM and our independent liberal thinkers on A2K follow their policies and actions in lock-step.

I'll say.

http://www.editorandpublisher.com/eandp/news/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1003877229

Perhaps if the argument was made that the MSM has had a liberal bias since 1940, your selective link might be cogent.

Now actually have accessed your link, I find that your argument is even more specious than originally assumed.

Do you really mean to suggest that this is, in anyway, a valid argument that the Main Stream Media (the largest and most powerful news sources) are not liberally biased?

Do you?

I suppose what I could suggest, finn, is that where someone (like you) holds something to be self-evidently true (and holds it tightly out of some emotional or 'philosophical' necessity, like you do) then any evidence to the contrary can only be held as false or as another instance of that which is self-evidently 'true'.

please ignogore Bernie, he's notn like you, he has a politcal agenda/bias.

the things he thinks is horble
he's emnently ignorble

Dys, dys, Dys.... you so bad.