Limbaugh has had enough, and calls out Obama on it.

The malignant aspect of this is that Mr. Obama and his advisers know exactly what they are doing. They had to listen to both monologues or read the transcripts. They then had to pick the particular excerpts they used in order to create a commercial of distortions. Their hoped-for result is to inflame racial tensions. In doing this, Mr. Obama and his advisers have demonstrated a pernicious contempt for American society.

I’m sickened by the self righteousness and hypocrisy of the so-called compassionate left.

How long will it take for the rest of the country to see what a fraud this notion of Jerome Wright’s most famous long-time parishioner being a “post-racial” candidate is?

Jim Albrecht is tired of having his home state slandered.

Jim Treacher: We are the vermin we’ve been waiting for.

As far as I know, the only precedent in presidential politics is the buffoonish antics of Lyndon LaRouche followers. And I don’t think even he ever put out a “LaRouche Action Wire.” Probably because he didn’t think of it first. Not to mention that he’s never had a chance in hell of winning.

Where is the outrage?

…damned lies, and campaign hyperbole:

…we’ve all heard the self-serving myth that pits helpless, meek, high-minded, issue-oriented Democrats against mendacious and mean Republicans, who not only detest America — especially children and small vulnerable creatures — but will lie and cheat to keep all oppressed.

The facts betray a more equitable story. And it starts with Sarah Palin’s assertion that she said “thanks, but no thanks” to the infamous “Bridge to Nowhere” and opposed earmarks. This is an elastic political truth.

Technically, she did stop the project after initially supporting it. She has taken earmarks — even lobbied for them while mayor of Wasilla. As governor, though, Palin also vetoed over 300 wasteful projects and made an attempt to reform the process. Her record on earmarks is mixed, but by any measure, it’s far superior to either Democratic candidate.

Moreover, if this Palin claim can be classified as an untruth, Obama can be called a “liar” just as easily.

Take, if you will, the foundational assertion of Obama’s entire campaign that he is the candidate of post-partisan change. Obama, meanwhile, voted with fellow Democrats 96 percent of the time in Washington. And the bipartisan achievement he most often cites, an ethics reform bill, was passed by unanimous consent in the Senate.

Unanimous: “. . . being in complete harmony or accord.”

So, then, “Unity” should be referred to as a poetic truth.

And when much of the media acts as if it is personally offended by a questionable McCain ad accusing Obama of voting for a bill that would have provided sex education to kindergartners, you feel the pain. It was, indeed, a massive stretch.

It reminds me of the Obama ad that accuses McCain of having “voted to cut education funding” and “proposed” the abolishment of the Department of Education despite neither being true. Not much anger at that one. Just a lot of talk about the media’s responsibility to keep candidates honest. And absolutely, journalists have a responsibility to put every single candidate through the wringer.

Every candidate.

Something for the latest desperate anonymous moron that continues to drive by in comments with its pathetic shrieks of “Liar, liar!” to keep in mind.

The press refuses to cover Biden’s potential gaffes:

…as Air Joe flew from Wilmington to Charlotte Sunday, the only reporters onboard were off-air reporters from the five television networks and correspondents from NBC and Politico. There was only one camera crew. The back of the plane, reserved for press, sat totally deserted.

Heh. As Geraghty notes, the McCain campaign should complain.

Glenn has some good advice for presidential candidates:

Take your own camera to every interview, and post the raw video online. The news folks won’t like that, but, really, what principled basis is there for objection?

I think that a “principled” basis would be too much to expect from them. It would be amusing to see what their response is.

Mark Steyn comments:

Howie [Kurtz] feels the press is being “manipulated” by the McCain campaign.

Maybe it is. A conventional launch strategy for a little-known vice-presidential nominee might have involved “manipulating” the media into running umpteen front-pagers on Sarah Palin’s amazing primary challenge of a sitting governor and getting the sob-sisters to slough off a ton of heartwarming stories about her son shipping out to Iraq.

But, if you were really savvy, you’d “manipulate” the media into a stampede of lurid drivel deriding her as a Stepford wife and a dominatrix, comparing her to Islamic fundamentalists, Pontius Pilate and porn stars, and dismissing her as a dysfunctional brood mare who can’t possibly be the biological mother of the kid she was too dumb to abort. Who knows? It’s a long shot, but if you could pull it off, a really cunning media manipulator might succeed in manipulating Howie’s buddies into spending the month after Labor Day outbidding each other in some insane Who Wants To Be An Effete Condescending Media Snob? death-match. You’d not only make the press look like bozos, but that in turn might tarnish just a little the fellow these geniuses have chosen to anoint.

I suspect that it’s just going to get worse for them, particularly when they see the generic poll for Congress.

[Update a few minutes later]

John Hinderaker has more on Howie’s anger:

I’m not sure what Obama had in mind, but I find it odd that in pages of outrage devoted to the supposed excesses of the McCain campaign, Kurtz finds no room to mention the fact that prominent Democrats (not anonymous emailers, who are much worse) have said that Governor Palin is Pontius Pilate and that her primary qualification seems to be that she hasn’t had an abortion.

The truth is that Sarah Palin has been the object of the most vicious and concerted smear campaign in modern American history. But that fact doesn’t cause the media (or Howard Kurtz) to get mad.

It’s not too hard to diagnose why, as Kurtz correctly says, “the media are getting mad.” They’re getting mad because their candidate is losing. They’ve spent years building him up and covering for his mistakes and shortcomings, and he is such a stiff that he can’t coast across the finish line. I’d be mad too, I guess, but I think I’d have the decency not to take it out on Sarah Palin.

Not just the decency. Also the intelligence, given how badly it continues to backfire on them.