Sometimes this blogging stuff is too easy. Almost as easy as transcribing official lies. Today, for example, Salon had the following two stories in a headlined box together:
Watch this greatest hits compilation of the network's rah-rah fronting for the Bush economy and "losers" like Bear Stearns, Lehman and AIG
By Joan Walsh
Now, of course, Stewart's piece taking down CNBC is hysterically, wickedly on the money about how utterly clueless they are--and thus utterly useless as a source of financial information--their supposed reason for being:
But it also--accidentally, really--completely undermines the attempt to blame Obama for Wall Street's financial collapse. The attempt is absurd on its face: too many folks remember George W. Bush was President until just a few weeks ago. And so the right is trying to trace the fall of Wall Street back to Obama's clinching the nomination, or even, perhaps, his birth in 1961. But Stewart's bit also shows how--if that's the case--CNBC never even remotely noticed the evil badness for bidness back then, when Obama first started destroying all of Wall Street's hard-earned wealth.
As an anti-spam measure, there is a 24-hour waiting period after registering before new users can comment. blog advertising is good for you
blog advertising is good for you