One commenter speculated that John McCain was using the strategy Clinton allegedly used, that is, working the refs in order to gain sympathy. Besides the fact that Clinton did not put a gun to SNL's staff's heads to mock pro-Obama/anti-Clinton coverage, I have this to say:
First of all, Barack Obama received immensely better coverage than Hillary Clinton, just as he is receiving immensely better coverage than John McCain this time around.
Second, John McCain declined to comment when asked whether he thought the media was going a bit too far in its coverage of Barack Obama's trip.
If you want to continue the primary fighting-mode, bring it on. I will gladly debunk your BS, my cultist friends. If you act as if the primaries are over and stop picking on Hillary, I will give you a pass on your fabrications against McCain. In the meantime, allow me to debunk your falsehood:
Howard Kurtz, AP's TV critic David Brauder, and the director of the Project for Excellence in Journalism, among others, and not John McCain, have been complaining about the fawning coverage received by Obama in recent weeks:
See "Kurtz: Media "Covering Obama As If He Were Already President" (July 21, 2008):
See, "Is media playing fair in campaign coverage?" (July 20, 2008), where Bauer observes:
The news media have devoted significantly more attention to the Democrat since Hillary Rodham Clinton suspended her campaign and left a two-person contest for the presidency between Obama and Republican John McCain, according to research conducted by the Project for Excellence in Journalism.http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080720/ap_e
See Tom Rosenstiel, director of the independent Project for Excellence in Journalism, saying,
"No matter how understandable it is given the newness of the candidate and the historical nature of Obama's candidacy, in the end it's probably not fair to McCain,"