Continued from page 1

The conservative site Get Drunk and Vote for McCain was a favorite during the campaign, keeping abreast of Republican presidential candidate Sen. John McCain’s actions and words and judging them according to how much liquid courage would need to be summoned to back the frequently heterodox “maverick.”

Because that title obviously is pointless now, the site has a new title, appropriate for coping with an Obama presidency: Get Drunk and Hope for the Best.

Water is wet

Mark Halperin of Time magazine acknowledges that the mainstream media was in the tank for candidate Barack Obama.

According to a Politico account of a conference it co-sponsored last week (www.politico.com/), Mr. Halperin called the coverage “the most disgusting failure of people in our business since the Iraq war” and a case of “extreme bias, extreme pro-Obama coverage.”

Mr. Halperin, who maintains Time’s political site the Page, singled out two New York Times articles on the respective first-lady hopefuls: “The story about Cindy McCain was vicious. It looked for every negative thing they could find about her and it cast her in an extraordinarily negative light. It didn’t talk about her work, for instance, as a mother for her children, and they cherry-picked every negative thing that’s ever been written about her.” The Michelle Obama profile, in contrast, was “like a front-page endorsement of what a great person Michelle Obama is.”

Conservative blogger Ace of Spades was underwhelmed — “easier to beg for forgiveness than to receive permission” — and took particular umbrage at some of the reasons given by other panelists at the Politico conference for the coverage other than liberal ideological bias.

“The standard press apologetics are that 1) if you’re winning you get better coverage, so the bias was ‘neutral’ in the sense that McCain would have had the same bias if only he’d been winning and 2) Obama got better coverage only on the (again) ‘neutral’ grounds he was ‘new,’ and of course McCain could have had the same biased coverage if only he’d been new.

“Two words rebut both of these points utterly: Sarah Palin. McCain was winning, quite nicely, for two weeks after he announced Palin as his VP. Who was, you know, new. The press did not respond by giving McCain and Palin positive press, but by indulging in a nasty feeding frenzy of dumpster-diving smear-peddling the likes of which we haven’t before witnessed in the modern era.”

Contact Victor Morton at vmorton@washingtontimes.com