Also depends on who you call a left-wing candidate.   During the 2008 campaign, a flyer was sent out with the cover something along the lines of "Sympathy for Terrorists!"   And a big picture of Obama on the inside. Then there are the chants of "Barack Hussein Obama" and emphasis on the second name by various people at pro-McCain/Palin rallies.

I suppose this is just fine with Mr. Rig.

But any other observer would easily see this is at least as slimy as what has happened to good old Sarah.

Unless of course they are blissfully ignorant of how propaganda works.

And what about Sarah's insistence in various speeches that her opposition were not "real Americans"? Also just fine with Mr. Rig?


That comes under the heading of slime, I'd say. And typical Bushite smears.


But anybody who says "all" Murdoch's organs are totally unreliable is also dead wrong.   Officially Murdoch "owns" the WSJ. But so far there has been no change in the reporting. I challenge anybody to find an unreliable article--NB:   the reporting, not the troglodyte editorial page.   For my money the WSJ still has the best reporting of any newspaper in the world--or at least is the equal of the best newspapers in accuracy of reporting. If anybody thinks there is a better one, let's have the name, please.