Obama '08?

The difference between my sources and your sources are that at least my sources admit their political viewpoint. Liberal sources often want to deny any bias, most notably the main stream press, which is hugely biased but continue to deny that they are.

Limbaugh, Hannity, and a whole bunch of conservative talk show political analysts all admit they are conservative and they readily admit their political views when they analyze what is happening in current events. In contrast, many liberals want to paint themselves as centrists.

I have found Media Matters to be very slanted, and even Factcheck.org, I have found to be biased. I don't remember the case a while back, but it struck me as leaving some pertinent information out, or slanting the analysis.

Face it, nobody is perfectly unbiased, we all approach any issue with a built in belief system with which we correlate everything to. Everything can be argued with evidence or backup information, but we all choose which evidence we wish to weight more highly than others, and I doubt that anyone has all the evidence for any issue, so you and I are both guilty of choosing the evidence that we tend to believe, and which supports what we think is probably the case - based upon everything we have absorbed about the issue and the personalities involved.

okie accuses Media Matters and Factcheck.org to be biased, but doesn't show how it's biased - or slanted as a liberal resource. He just doesn't understand that his opinion is based on nothing more than - his opinion, without any basis of fact or evidence. Tiresome.

As I said above, Media Matters links to documentation for it's claims. Many right-wing sites, such as the ones you claim as authoritative, don't bother to do that.

I find the opinions of right-wingers about Clinton and terrorism to be uninteresting, for they invariably devolve, just as yours do, to "I believe it because I believe it!, and all your sources are Liberal Lies!"

Cycloptichorn

This is hilarious.

I am not entirely sure of the whole point of this video

Role for Barack Obama's volunteer network still in flux
Talks upcoming on how to mobilize movement; volunteer base 'hungry' for work on issues

By Peter Wallsten
Washington Bureau

December 5, 2008

WASHINGTON " James Dillon, a onetime Republican activist who grew disgusted with politics, was so inspired by Barack Obama's candidacy that he joined the campaign's massive volunteer army, hosting house parties and recruiting supporters.

But beyond influencing the November election, Dillon thought he was joining a new political movement that would be mobilized for big goals"to end poverty or help distressed homeowners, or maybe end U.S. reliance on oil.

So Dillon, a Florida real estate developer, was discouraged by the suggestion that arrived by e-mail last week from Obama's campaign manager: "Excited about the much anticipated First Dog?" it read, referring to the Obama daughters' quest for a new puppy. "Support your local animal shelter to give animals in your area a chance."

Amid Obama's transition to power, a spirited and often secretive debate has broken out among top campaign staff members over how to refashion the broad network of motivated volunteers into a force that can help Obama govern.

With 13 million e-mail addresses, hundreds of trained field organizers and tens of thousands of neighborhood coordinators and phone bank volunteers, the network is now one of the most valuable assets in politics. Obama's team may choose to deploy it to elect other Democratic officials, or to lobby Congress for his toughest legislative goals, or even to apply pressure on local and state policymakers across the country.

This weekend, hundreds of field staffers and some key volunteers are planning a marathon closed-door summit in a Chicago hotel to begin negotiating details of what the network might look like when Obama takes office in January. A group of field organizers from battleground states has been enlisted to draw up a plan.

But while aides sort out the details, the Obama team's early hints about how the network should be used"as well as its tight-lipped planning process"have struck some supporters as missteps.

Among the critics is Marshall Ganz, a legendary figure in the field of community organizing who from his post at Harvard University helped train Obama's campaign organizers and volunteers.

Ganz has publicly questioned the campaign for not conducting a more open deliberation over how to sustain the network.

"Is this really what 'building on the movement to elect Barack Obama' is going to look like?" Ganz asked. "I can't believe this was put out by the same people who trained organizers in how to do house meetings in the campaign over the past two years." Of the reference to the "First Dog," Ganz concluded: "Give me a break."

The campaign has taken some steps to open the process. It distributed surveys asking supporters for guidance on the next steps. It has used the network to call for donations to help victims of California wildfires. And, at campaign manager David Plouffe's urging, some 1,500 volunteers will hold house parties this month at which volunteers will be asked to help plan for the future.

Ben LaBolt, an Obama spokesman, said the deliberations have been inclusive. He said the campaign has received about 500,000 responses to the e-mail survey while holding "hundreds of conference calls, individual one-on-one calls, online surveys, and conversations with field organizers, allied groups and volunteer supporters."

The campaign's "host guide" for the upcoming house parties contained the suggestion that volunteers begin revving up the new Obama movement with community service projects such as helping the Humane Society. The guide suggested that volunteers try other forms of community engagement, as well, such as helping with holiday food or toy drives, or helping the Red Cross or the Salvation Army.

Some volunteers were hoping for bigger goals. "I'm not trying to discourage anyone from helping animals, but there are a lot of people hurting right now," said Dillon. "If this movement is going to sustain itself, it has to have as grand a mission as electing Barack Obama."

Temo Figueroa, a former top Obama field organizer, said the volunteer base is "hungry" to be engaged on the most important issues.

"I don't think e-mails or YouTube videos from the president-elect are going to be enough," Figueroa said. "These people want to continue to be a part of whatever agenda comes out of the White House, and they want to be active participants in this government that they feel they have ownership of."

Among the questions to be sorted out by Obama's aides: Who will lead the network, will it become part of the Democratic Party infrastructure, and should it focus on local service projects or more lofty national goals.

Some Democratic officials believe that Obama should make his network available to other Democratic candidates and house it at the Democratic National Committee. Plouffe has used the campaign e-mail list for at least one partisan purpose: raising money to help retire the DNC's debt.

But Dillon, a GOP anti-tax organizer in New York before moving to St. Petersburg, Fla., said he hoped the grass-roots network would be separated from the party.

"The notion that we are going to have to sanitize this thing because, God forbid, we step on a local Democratic Party official's toes or step onto his turf is going to turn people like me off," he said.

okie accuses Media Matters and Factcheck.org to be biased, but doesn't show how it's biased - or slanted as a liberal resource.

volunteer base "hungry" for work on issues.

By Alec MacGillis
Washington Post Staff Writer
Sunday, December 7, 2008; Page A01

Barack Obama's chief economic adviser was one of the youngest people to be tenured at Harvard and later became its president. His budget director went to Princeton and the London School of Economics, his choice for ambassador to the United Nations was a Rhodes scholar, and his White House counsel hit the trifecta: Harvard, Cambridge and Yale Law.

All told, of Obama's top 35 appointments so far, 22 have degrees from an Ivy League school, MIT, Stanford, the University of Chicago or one of the top British universities. For the other slots, the president-elect made do with graduates of Georgetown and the Universities of Michigan, Virginia and North Carolina.

While Obama's picks have been lauded for their ethnic and ideological mix, they lack diversity in one regard: They are almost exclusively products of the nation's elite institutions and generally share a more intellectual outlook than is often the norm in government

Well tell us then ci. What do they mean? You seem to know a lot about it. Clue us in.

media matters is biased, it is a progressive site; however, their articles are always backed up with supporting links which makes it different than just people spouting opinions off. For instance in the link I left yesterday wherein they quote Ashcroft; they left a link to the transcripts.

Fact check is unbiased.

Rather than offering yet more opinions why don't you do something novel for a change and pin point the inaccuracies and why they are inaccurate with credible sources.