It would be interesting to know how much of the bias in media reporting this cycle is because the reporters are not cognitively equipped to hear Obama say his own words.

(1) Cognitive dissonance: since the reporter and/or editor were sure they knew what they candidate meant to say, that is what they heard.

(2) Editorial judgment: what the candidate said doesn’t fit the narrative, so rephrase it to fit.

(3) Editorial judgment (2): what the candidate actually said doesn’t really matter; it’s a non-story.

(4) Editorial judgment (3): What the candidate said wasn’t particularly funny (unlike some of the things from Quayle and Bush), so it won’t sell papers, so ignore it.

(5) Conspiracy: Maintain the candidate’s image long enough to get him elected. Don’t confuse people with facts.

In reality, these probably overlap. If I stick to what I think is the most charitable explanation–that the reporter literally didn’t hear it–I can’t help but wonder what else isn’t being heard. If it a conscious decision, what other things are being excluded?

I don’t understand your comment. It begins with a cryptic statement, and ends with Obama’s current position (the opposite of his previously stated position). It is as if you had posted.

One hand claps slowly.

Obama is no longer a member of Trinity UCC.

AMMAN, Jordan, July 22 (UPI) — U.S. Sen. Barack Obama, D-Ill., Tuesday said there will be no change in Washington’s commitment to Israel no matter who wins the presidency.

Obama, the presumptive Democratic Party presidential nominee, flanked by his traveling companions Sens. Charles Hagel, R-Neb., and Jack Reed, D-R.I., told a news conference in Amman, Jordan, both he and his likely November opponent, Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., are “strong” friends of Israel.