Well, that’s McCain getting called on it, but noticeably not by the media.

Compare the Farrakhan thing to every sexual infraction that the right is accused of. The media goes wild. Craig got way more heat then he deserved for his “infraction”.

When you set youself up as the champion of the poor, or of the family, or of whatever, the media is going to be there to chop down anyone who even seems to go against that ideal. The MSM is to point out scandal and create dissension where there is none. They dropped any other goal long ago.

It is almost as though the media has accepted that bigoted behavior is OEM with republicans, but Democrats must be ever vigilant to weed out and publicly shun all of their bad actors.

*rimshot*

That’s a really interesting point. However, it has come up just recently with the whole McCain/Cunningham thing.

I wonder how that situation would have presented if McCain had anyone to debate.

The Big Kids are in a pretty bad position to moderate these debates. It shows them up as ratings-addicted, not really news-addicted. Some of the better debates I have heard were moderated by radio people (NPR with local reporters) where the need for fireworks was not necessary.

I am still disturbed by Russert’s question re: Farrakan. Farrakan is not worthy of defending (and is way less influential or attention-getting as he used to be, but is a useful symbol as Soul Brother No 1 for black antisemitism) but I really want these folks who want black folks to specifically denounce bad behavior by other black people, then I want to hear questions of white candidates asking them to denounce the bad behavior of specific white people.

The problem is that now Clinton can easily blame the bad moderation on her poor performance.