THE CHRISTIAN WORLDVIEW - Posted by David Wheaton - October 26, 2008
No, I don't think Barack Obama is the Antichrist, as one commenter on a previous post asked.  But as you read this excellent column by Mark Levin entitled "The Obama Temptation", it's pretty clear that the meteoric rise and widespread support, even worship, of the Democrat presidential candidate has given us a foreshadowing of the "strong delusion" that will overtake the whole world when the real Antichrist appears (Revelation 13 and 17).

Here's what 2 Thessalonians 2:9 says about that "strong delusion":  "The coming of the lawless one is according to the working of Satan, with all power, signs, and lying wonders, and with all unrighteous deception among those who perish, because they did not receive the love of the truth, that they might be saved. And for this reason God will send them strong delusion, that they should believe the lie, that they all may be condemned who did not believe the truth but had pleasure in unrighteousness."

The "lawless one" might seem a stretch for big-smiling Barack - and it is - but as for the those who support and follow him being deluded and deceived?  Well, I'll let Mark Levin describe the extent of the delusion taking place before our eyes:


Levin's assessment of the "Obama delusion" that is taking place in our country is one of the best I've read.  Having followed this closely myself, it doesn't seem far-fetched in the least that the people of the world will willingly follow a future political leader that they "feel" will bring peace, security, and justice yet will actually bring just the opposite - war, enslavement, and corruption.

And so it is with the widespread prostration to Obama - a good feeling about placing hope in a super-man among us to "fix the country" that has no basis in fact or history but actually further paves the way for the real lawless one to come.
Read Full Report

* Emphasis Added

 

I've never seen anything like this. . . . This is the New Testament. - MSNBC anchor Chris Matthews
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

KOENIG'S INTERNATIONAL NEWS - By Bill Wilson, KIN Senior Analyst - October 28, 2008
A recent poll of voters indicated that Christians were about evenly split between supporting Republican John McCain or Democrat Barack Hussein Obama for President. It seems that McCain has convinced most Christians that he is a Christian, but not necessarily a strong enough Christian. Obama has convinced many that he is a Christian, however, his commitment to his faith by his actions is sorely lacking. Hence, its about 50/50 among Christians, who essentially determined the last two presidencies by their strong vote en masse for George W. Bush.

McCain tried to solidify the conservative Christian base by choosing Sarah Palin as his vice presidential running mate. While this solidified some of the most conservative Christians, it appears McCain still has not closed the deal. Meanwhile, there are many Christians who are voting for change no matter what. Obama represents that change. But Christians are warned in Philippians 2:12-13 to "work out your own salvation with fear and trembling. For it is God which works in you both to will and to do of His good pleasure." If Christians are to do of God's good pleasure, then they had better be forewarned of the ramifications of voting for Obama.

First off, Obama is not a Christian. Obama explained his Christianity in a March 27, 2004 interview with Cathleen Falsani, author of "The God Factor: Inside the Spiritual Lives of Public People." Obama told Falsani, "I am rooted in the Christian tradition. I believe that there are many paths to the same place, and that is a belief that there is a higher power, a belief that we are a connected people." Then he used a more traditional Muslim description of Jesus, saying he was a "historical figure," a "bridge between God and man," and "a wonderful teacher." Christians believe the words of Jesus when he says in John 14:6, "I am the way, the truth and the life: no man comes unto the Father, but by me."

So if Obama is not a Christian, what is he? He was once a Muslim and his campaign has declared that he is not a practicing Muslim. But more recently, it has been revealed that in 2001 Obama said that the US Constitution was flawed and that the Founding Fathers were wrong by not writing into it a means for wealth redistribution. This is consistent with his October 13th declaration to Joe the Plumber, "I think when you spread the wealth around, it's good for everybody." This is Marxism. Obama was mentored by Communist Party USA leader Frank Marshall Davis and was a member of the socialist New Party in Chicago dedicated to electing socialists as Democrats. Marxism is the replacement of God with government.
Original Report

ONE NEWS NOW [American Family News Network] - By Jim Brown - October 30, 2008
Despite Barack Obama's approval of abortion and homosexual activism, new polling by a prestigious Christian research group indicates that the Democratic presidential nominee is making significant inroads among voters who are classified as "born-again" Christians.

The Barna Group for research says Obama is statistically tied (43 percent to 45 percent) with Republican John McCain among born-again Christian voters. "Born-again Christians" are defined by Barna as people who say they have made a personal commitment to Jesus and believe they will go to heaven because they have confessed their sins and accepted Jesus Christ as their savior. Based on that definition, 48 percent of all voters in this election will be "born-again" Christians.

Meantime, Barna says 63 percent of "evangelicals" are supporting McCain, while 23 percent are supporting Obama. "Evangelicals" meet the "born-again" criteria, plus seven other conditions, including the belief that salvation is only possible through grace, not works.
 
According to Dave Kinnaman, president of The Barna Group, born-again Christians voting for Obama say they are backing the Illinois senator because they believe he will do a better job restoring America's reputation and handling the economy and agree with his stance on the Iraq War. - - - -
Read Full Report

 
McCain and Obama in `dead heat' among born-again voters
The Barna Group says Obama has a commanding lead and is making "significant inroads" among Christian voters
THE DALLAS MORNING NEWS [A. H. Belo Corporation/Belo Group] - By Sam Hodges - October 23, 2008
Ventura, California -- Unless a dramatic shake-up of the electorate occurs in the next two weeks, Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama is poised to win the November 4th election by a comfortable margin. A new survey from The Barna Group, exploring the voting preferences of registered voters who are likely to vote in the upcoming election found that Sen. Obama has a 13-point lead against Republican John McCain (50% to 37%).
One of the surprising insights of the research is the significant inroads Sen. Obama has made among the Christian community, particularly compared to 2004. In fact, among born again voters there is a statistical dead-heat: 45% plan to vote for Sen. McCain, while 43% expect to cast a ballot for Sen. Obama. Even if Sen. McCain were to sweep the 10% who are undecided born again voters, he would fail to reach the 62% who rallied for President Bush in 2004.
Full Report Posted on the Be Alert! Blog

"You are the instruments that God is going to use to bring about universal change, and that is why Barack has captured the youth. And he has involved young people in a political process that they didn't care anything about. That's a sign. When the Messiah speaks, the youth will hear, and the Messiah is absolutely speaking."

What it does not tell you is that one of the "friends" was Jeff Zucker, President & CEO of NBC Universal. The official website that did say he was involved has been pulled.
See the video here with the subtitle added, Cute or Creepy?

Instead of Stonehedge, Near Scranton, it's...Barackhenge
PHILADELPHIA INQUIRER [Knight Ridder] - October 24, 2008
Artist Jim Lennox, his wife Hillary Ross, and 13 other artists really, really like Barack Obama. They painted a 100-foot poster in a field near Shickshinny, Pa. Hope the paint was biodegradable.
See Picture Here

Video: Dear Mr. Obama: Who Are You?
Ed Note: The intention here is not to endorse any particular candidate but to raise the serious questions that must be raised concerning Barack Obama
See here

Says Arab world campaign contributions 'may enable him to win U.S. presidency'
WORLDNETDAILY - By Aaron Klein - October 17, 2008
JERUSALEM - Sen. Barack Obama is a Muslim of Kenyan origins who studied in Islamic schools and whose campaign may have been financed by people in the Islamic and African worlds, Libyan leader Muammar Gadhafi said during a recent televised national rally.

"There are elections in America now. Along came a black citizen of Kenyan African origins, a Muslim, who had studied in an Islamic school in Indonesia. His name is Obama," said Gadhafi in little-noticed remarks he made at a rally marking the anniversary of the 1986 U.S. air raid on his country.

The remarks, translated by the Middle East Media Research Institute, MEMRI, were aired on Al Jazeera in June.

The video also has been posted on YouTube and can be seen here.

"All the people in the Arab and Islamic world and in Africa applauded this man," continued Gadhafi. "They welcomed him and prayed for him and for his success, and they may have even been involved in legitimate contribution campaigns to enable him to win the American presidency.

"We are hoping that this black man will take pride in his African and Islamic identity, and in his faith, and that [he will know] that he has rights in America, and that he will change America from evil to good, and that America will establish relations that will serve it well with other peoples, especially the Arabs," Gadhafi said. - - - -
Read Full Report

 

 

Obama caught on tape arguing against giving medical attention to aborted babies
By Jill Stanek - August 21, 2008
The IL General Assembly destroys audiotapes of its floor debates after transcripts have been written. That is why there is precious little audio, if any, of Barack Obama as state senator making any speeches.
But a pro-life sleuth has found a short audio clip on the Chicago Tribune website of Obama arguing on the IL Senate floor on April 4, 2002, against Senate Bill B1663, a companion bill to the Born Alive Infants Protection Act that would have required an abortionist to call a second physician to assess a baby aborted alive. - - - -
Read Full Report - Audio Here

 

View Here 

 

Obama spells 'persecution,' warns Focus on the Family
Analysts see same-sex marriage, Fairness Doctrine on horizon
WORLDNETDAILY - October 22, 2008
What would America look like after four years of a Barack Obama administration?
"Hardship," "persecution" and "suffering" are among the prospects in a hypothetical letter from a "Christian from 2012" released today by evangelical leader James Dobson's political activist group Focus on the Family Action. - - - -
Read Full Report

Read Full Report

How Obama friend tried to give nation to Muslim minority
Read 3-page agreement that promised to Islamize Kenya, protect terrorists
WORLDNETDAILY - October 19, 2008
Reproduced here is a copy of the agreement between Kenyan opposition candidate Raila Odinga and leaders of his nation's Muslim minority. The Islamic leaders promised to strong-arm the country's Muslims into voting for Odinga in return for his transforming place regions of the mostly Christian nation under the strict Islamic Shariah legal system.
During WND senior reporter Jerome Corsi's recent trip to Kenya, the document below was authenticated by Christian former members of Odinga's Orange Democratic Movement who fled the party when they discovered Odinga's plan to impose Islam on their country:
See the document here

Obama-backed ally forged pact with radical Muslims
Report Here

 

Why Islamists Cheer For Obama
AMERICAN THINKER - By Vasko Kohlmayer - September 19, 2008
One of the most striking aspects of this presidential campaign is the enthusiasm the candidacy of Barack Obama has engendered among Muslims both at home and abroad. - - - -
Read Full Report 

 

PHILADELPHIA - A federal judge has dismissed a lawsuit challenging Barack Obama's qualifications to be president.
U.S. District Judge R. Barclay Surrick on Friday night rejected the suit by attorney Philip J. Berg, who alleged that Obama was not a U.S. citizen and therefore ineligible for the presidency. Berg claimed that Obama is either a citizen of his father's native Kenya or became a citizen of Indonesia after he moved there as a boy.
Obama was born in Hawaii to an American mother and a Kenyan father. His parents divorced and his mother married an Indonesian man.
Internet-fueled conspiracy theories question whether Obama is a "natural-born citizen" as required by the Constitution for a presidential candidate and whether he lost his citizenship while living abroad. - - - -
Read Full Report

Supremes asked to halt Tuesday's vote
Constitutional crisis feared over Obama's 'qualifications'
WORLDNETDAILY - October 30, 2008
The U.S. Supreme Court is being asked to help the nation avoid a constitutional crisis by halting Tuesday's election until Democratic presidential nominee Barack Obama documents his eligibility to run for the top office in the nation. - - - -
Read Full Report

Obama's birth certificate sealed by Hawaii governor
Says Democratic senator must make request to obtain original document
WORLDNETDAILY - By Jerome R. Corsi - October 26, 2008
HONOLULU, Hawaii - Although the legitimacy of Sen. Barack Obama's birth certificate has become a focus of intense speculation - and even several lawsuits - WND has learned that Hawaii's Gov. Linda Lingle has placed the candidate's birth certificate under seal and instructed the state's Department of Health to make sure no one in the press obtains access to the original document under any circumstances. - - - -
Read Full Report

Document forensics expert: Obama "birth certificate" a "horrible forgery"
ISRAEL INSIDER [Koret Communications Ltd.] - By Israel Insider staff  - July 20, 2008
Barack Obama may be on a world tour surrounded by a fawning media, but Sunday an expert in electronic document forensics released a detailed report on the purported birth certificate -- actually a "Certification of Live Birth" or COLB -- claimed as genuine by his campaign. The expert concludes with 100% certainty that it is a crudely forged fake: "a horribly forgery," according to the analysis published on the popular right-wing Atlas Shrugs blog. - - - -
Read Full Report

Blogger manipulates birth certificate image, undermining Obama claims
ISRAEL INSIDER [Koret Communications Ltd.] - By Israel Insider staff - July 3, 2008
... The evidence of manipulation of images of official documents, triggered by Israel Insider's revelation of the collection of Hawaii birth certificate images on the Photobucket site and the diligent detective work of independent investigative journalists in the three weeks since the publication of the images, implicate The Daily Kos, a "progressive" blog site, and the Obama campaign's "Fight the Smears" website, in misleading the public with official-looking but manipulated document images of doubtful provenance. Moreover, the blog and the campaign have been negligent in allowing the promotion of obviously fake official documents together with the purported image of Obama's birth certificate. - - - -
Read Full Report

Columnist Michael Malone Looks at Slanted Election Coverage and the Reasons Why
ABC NEWS [American Broadcasting Companies, Inc./The Walt Disney Company] - Column By Michael S. Malone - October 24, 2008
The traditional media are playing a very, very dangerous game -- with their readers, with the Constitution and with their own fates.

The sheer bias in the print and television coverage of this election campaign is not just bewildering, but appalling. And over the last few months I've found myself slowly moving from shaking my head at the obvious one-sided reporting, to actually shouting at the screen of my television and my laptop computer.

But worst of all, for the last couple weeks, I've begun -- for the first time in my adult life -- to be embarrassed to admit what I do for a living. A few days ago, when asked by a new acquaintance what I did for a living, I replied that I was "a writer," because I couldn't bring myself to admit to a stranger that I'm a journalist.

You need to understand how painful this is for me. I am one of those people who truly bleeds ink when I'm cut. I am a fourth-generation newspaperman. As family history tells it, my great-grandfather was a newspaper editor in Abilene, Kan., during the last of the cowboy days, then moved to Oregon to help start the Oregon Journal (now the Oregonian).

My hard-living -- and when I knew her, scary -- grandmother was one of the first women reporters for the Los Angeles Times. And my father, though profoundly dyslexic, followed a long career in intelligence to finish his life (thanks to word processors and spellcheckers) as a very successful freelance writer. I've spent 30 years in every part of journalism, from beat reporter to magazine editor. And my oldest son, following in the family business, so to speak, earned his first national byline before he earned his drivers license.

So, when I say I'm deeply ashamed right now to be called a "journalist," you can imagine just how deep that cuts into my soul.

Now, of course, there's always been bias in the media. Human beings are biased, so the work they do, including reporting, is inevitably colored. Hell, I can show you 10 different ways to color variations of the word "said" -- muttered, shouted, announced, reluctantly replied, responded, etc. -- to influence the way a reader will apprehend exactly the same quote. We all learn that in Reporting 101, or at least in the first few weeks working in a newsroom.

But what we are also supposed to learn during that same apprenticeship is to recognize the dangerous power of that technique, and many others, and develop built-in alarms against them.

But even more important, we are also supposed to be taught that even though there is no such thing as pure, Platonic objectivity in reporting, we are to spend our careers struggling to approach that ideal as closely as possible.

That means constantly challenging our own prejudices, systematically presenting opposing views and never, ever burying stories that contradict our own world views or challenge people or institutions we admire. If we can't achieve Olympian detachment, than at least we can recognize human frailty -- especially in ourselves.

Reporting Bias
For many years, spotting bias in reporting was a little parlor game of mine, watching TV news or reading a newspaper article and spotting how the reporter had inserted, often unconsciously, his or her own preconceptions. But I always wrote it off as bad judgment and lack of professionalism, rather than bad faith and conscious advocacy.

Sure, being a child of the '60s I saw a lot of subjective "New" Journalism, and did a fair amount of it myself, but that kind of writing, like columns and editorials, was supposed to be segregated from "real" reporting, and, at least in mainstream media, usually was. The same was true for the emerging blogosphere, which by its very nature was opinionated and biased.

But my complacent faith in my peers first began to be shaken when some of the most admired journalists in the country were exposed as plagiarists, or worse, accused of making up stories from whole cloth.

I'd spent my entire professional career scrupulously pounding out endless dreary footnotes and double-checking sources to make sure that I never got accused of lying or stealing someone else's work -- not out of any native honesty, but out of fear: I'd always been told to fake or steal a story was a firing offense & indeed, it meant being blackballed out of the profession.

And yet, few of those worthies ever seemed to get fired for their crimes -- and if they did they were soon rehired into even more prestigious jobs. It seemed as if there were two sets of rules: one for us workaday journalists toiling out in the sticks, and another for folks who'd managed, through talent or deceit, to make it to the national level.

Meanwhile, I watched with disbelief as the nation's leading newspapers, many of whom I'd written for in the past, slowly let opinion pieces creep into the news section, and from there onto the front page. Personal opinions and comments that, had they appeared in my stories in 1979, would have gotten my butt kicked by the nearest copy editor, were now standard operating procedure at the New York Times, the Washington Post, and soon after in almost every small town paper in the U.S.

But what really shattered my faith -- and I know the day and place where it happened -- was the war in Lebanon three summers ago. The hotel I was staying at in Windhoek, Namibia, only carried CNN, a network I'd already learned to approach with skepticism. But this was CNN International, which is even worse.

I sat there, first with my jaw hanging down, then actually shouting at the TV, as one field reporter after another reported the carnage of the Israeli attacks on Beirut, with almost no corresponding coverage of the Hezbollah missiles raining down on northern Israel. The reporting was so utterly and shamelessly biased that I sat there for hours watching, assuming that eventually CNNi would get around to telling the rest of the story & but it never happened.

The Presidential Campaign
But nothing, nothing I've seen has matched the media bias on display in the current presidential campaign.

Republicans are justifiably foaming at the mouth over the sheer one-sidedness of the press coverage of the two candidates and their running mates. But in the last few days, even Democrats, who have been gloating over the pass -- no, make that shameless support -- they've gotten from the press, are starting to get uncomfortable as they realize that no one wins in the long run when we don't have a free and fair press.

I was one of the first people in the traditional media to call for the firing of Dan Rather -- not because of his phony story, but because he refused to admit his mistake -- but, bless him, even Gunga Dan thinks the media is one-sided in this election.

Now, don't get me wrong. I'm not one of those people who think the media has been too hard on, say, Republican vice presidential nominee Gov. Sarah Palin, by rushing reportorial SWAT teams to her home state of Alaska to rifle through her garbage. This is the big leagues, and if she wants to suit up and take the field, then Gov. Palin better be ready to play.

The few instances where I think the press has gone too far -- such as the Times reporter talking to prospective first lady Cindy McCain's daughter's MySpace friends -- can easily be solved with a few newsroom smackdowns and temporary repostings to the Omaha bureau.

No, what I object to (and I think most other Americans do as well) is the lack of equivalent hardball coverage of the other side -- or worse, actively serving as attack dogs for the presidential ticket of Sens. Barack Obama, D-Ill., and Joe Biden, D-Del.

If the current polls are correct, we are about to elect as president of the United States a man who is essentially a cipher, who has left almost no paper trail, seems to have few friends (that at least will talk) and has entire years missing out of his biography.

That isn't Sen. Obama's fault: His job is to put his best face forward. No, it is the traditional media's fault, for it alone (unlike the alternative media) has had the resources to cover this story properly, and has systematically refused to do so.

Why, for example to quote the lawyer for Republican presidential nominee Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., haven't we seen an interview with Sen. Obama's grad school drug dealer -- when we know all about Mrs. McCain's addiction? Are Bill Ayers and Tony Rezko that hard to interview? All those phony voter registrations that hard to scrutinize? And why are Sen. Biden's endless gaffes almost always covered up, or rationalized, by the traditional media?

Joe the Plumber
The absolute nadir (though I hate to commit to that, as we still have two weeks before the election) came with Joe the Plumber.

Middle America, even when they didn't agree with Joe, looked on in horror as the press took apart the private life of an average person who had the temerity to ask a tough question of a presidential candidate. So much for the standing up for the little man. So much for speaking truth to power. So much for comforting the afflicted and afflicting the comfortable, and all of those other catchphrases we journalists used to believe we lived by.

I learned a long time ago that when people or institutions begin to behave in a matter that seems to be entirely against their own interests, it's because we don't understand what their motives really are. It would seem that by so exposing their biases and betting everything on one candidate over another, the traditional media is trying to commit suicide -- especially when, given our currently volatile world and economy, the chances of a successful Obama presidency, indeed any presidency, is probably less than 50/50.

Furthermore, I also happen to believe that most reporters, whatever their political bias, are human torpedoes ... and, had they been unleashed, would have raced in and roughed up the Obama campaign as much as they did McCain's. That's what reporters do. I was proud to have been one, and I'm still drawn to a good story, any good story, like a shark to blood in the water.

So why weren't those legions of hungry reporters set loose on the Obama campaign? Who are the real villains in this story of mainstream media betrayal?

The editors. The men and women you don't see; the people who not only decide what goes in the paper, but what doesn't; the managers who give the reporters their assignments and lay out the editorial pages. They are the real culprits.

Bad Editors
Why? I think I know, because had my life taken a different path, I could have been one: Picture yourself in your 50s in a job where you've spent 30 years working your way to the top, to the cockpit of power ... only to discover that you're presiding over a dying industry. The Internet and alternative media are stealing your readers, your advertisers and your top young talent. Many of your peers shrewdly took golden parachutes and disappeared. Your job doesn't have anywhere near the power and influence it did when your started your climb. The Newspaper Guild is too weak to protect you any more, and there is a very good chance you'll lose your job before you cross that finish line, 10 years hence, of retirement and a pension.

In other words, you are facing career catastrophe -- and desperate times call for desperate measures. Even if you have to risk everything on a single Hail Mary play. Even if you have to compromise the principles that got you here. After all, newspapers and network news are doomed anyway -- all that counts is keeping them on life support until you can retire.

And then the opportunity presents itself -- an attractive young candidate whose politics likely matches yours, but more important, he offers the prospect of a transformed Washington with the power to fix everything that has gone wrong in your career.

With luck, this monolithic, single-party government will crush the alternative media via a revived fairness doctrine, re-invigorate unions by getting rid of secret votes, and just maybe be beholden to people like you in the traditional media for getting it there.

And besides, you tell yourself, it's all for the good of the country ...

This is the opinion of the columnist and in no way reflects the opinion of ABC News.

Michael S. Malone is one of the nation's best-known technology writers. He has covered Silicon Valley and high-tech for more than 25 years, beginning with the San Jose Mercury News as the nation's first daily high-tech reporter. His articles and editorials have appeared in such publications as The Wall Street Journal, the Economist and Fortune, and for two years he was a columnist for The New York Times. He was editor of Forbes ASAP, the world's largest-circulation business-tech magazine, at the height of the dot-com boom. Malone is the author or co-author of a dozen books, notably the best-selling "Virtual Corporation." Malone has also hosted three public television interview series, and most recently co-produced the celebrated PBS miniseries on social entrepreneurs, "The New Heroes." He has been the ABCNews.com "Silicon Insider" columnist since 2000.
Original Report

• The big media openly worship Barack Obama. MSNBC's Chris Matthews, upon listening to Obama speak, says almost mystically, "I felt this thrill going up my leg." Rolling Stone magazine rhapsodizes, "There is a sense of dignity, even majesty, about him ...
• For its October cover, The Atlantic magazine hires a photographer who intentionally photographs John McCain to look ugly and threatening. ("I left his eyes red and his skin looking bad," she later admits, adding, "maybe it was somewhat irresponsible for [the Atlantic] to hire me."
• The New York Times publishes Barack Obama's op-ed on Iraq policy, but refuses to run McCain's op-ed. At the same time, all three network's news anchors tag along with Obama like groupies on his overseas stump tour, while McCain receives scant media coverage.
• The pregnancy of Sarah Palin's teen daughter is national news, as is the presence in the Alaska governor's mansion of a tanning bed (which Palin paid for herself). But Obama being mentored and nurtured for years by terrorists (William Ayers), communists (Frank Marshall Davis) and America-hating racists (Rev. Jeremiah Wright), which helped shape him into the most left-wing, America-blaming, radically pro-abortion and tyrant-appeasing presidential candidate in U.S. history, is not news.

Yes, the media have long been biased to the left. But this year it's different. This year, the mask has come off and the real face of the mainstream media - or MSM as they're popularly called - has been revealed for all to see. And it ain't pretty. - - - -
Read Full Report

Also:

Study: McCain coverage mostly negative
THE POLITICO [Allbritton Communications Co] - By Michael Calderone - October 22, 2008
The good news for John McCain? He's now receiving as much attention from the national media as his Democratic rival. The bad news? It's overwhelmingly negative.
Just 14 percent of the stories about John McCain, from the conventions through the final presidential debate, were positive in tone, according to a study released today, while nearly 60 percent were negative - the least favorable coverage of any of the four candidates on the two tickets.
The study, by The Pew Research Center's Project for Excellence in Journalism, a nonpartisan journalism watchdog organization, examined 2,412 stories from 43 newspapers and cable news shows in the six-week period beginning just after the conventions and ending with the final presidential debate. - - - -
Read Full Report

WWJ reporter fired for wearing Obama T-shirt
THE DETROIT FREE PRESS [Knight Ridder] - By Tammy Stables Battaglia - October 2, 2008
Read Full Report

 

McCain campaign accuses L.A. Times of 'suppressing' Obama video
LOS ANGELES TIMES [Tribune Company] - October 29, 2008
John McCain's presidential campaign Tuesday accused the Los Angeles Times of "intentionally suppressing" a videotape it obtained of a 2003 banquet where then-state Sen. Barack Obama spoke of his friendship with Rashid Khalidi, a leading Palestinian scholar and activist. - - - -
Read Full Report

 
Also:

Sources: Like Orlando, Biden Bans Philadelphia Station After Tough Interview
See Video

'Boston Legal' Uses Obama Election Pitch During Robbery Scene to Dramatic Effect
Also endorses carrying handguns?
See Video

Big Surprise: New York Times endorses Obama for president
REUTERS [Thomson-Reuters] - October 24 2008
NEW YORK - The New York Times endorsed Democrat Barack Obama for U.S. president on Thursday, saying he had "met challenge after challenge, growing as a leader and putting real flesh on his early promises of hope and change." . . .
According to Editor & Publisher magazine, Obama is outpacing McCain in newspaper endorsements by about three to one, even winning the nod of the Chicago Tribune, the first time it has endorsed a Democrat for president. - - - -
Read Full Report

"Please, God, let him win,"
THE WASHINGTON POST [Wash Post Group/Graham] - By Colum Lynch - October 26, 2008
UNITED NATIONS -- There are no "Obama 2008" buttons, banners or T-shirts visible here at U.N. headquarters, but it might be difficult to find a sliver of territory in the United States more enthusiastic over the prospect of the Illinois senator winning the White House.

An informal survey of more than two dozen U.N. staff members and foreign delegates showed that the overwhelming majority would prefer that Sen. Barack Obama win the presidency, saying they think that the Democrat would usher in a new agenda of multilateralism after an era marked by Republican disdain for the world body.

Obama supporters hail from Russia, Canada, France, Britain, Germany, the Netherlands, Sierra Leone, South Africa, Indonesia and elsewhere. One American employee here seemed puzzled that he was being asked whether Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) was even a consideration. "Obama was and is unstoppable," the official said. "Please, God, let him win," he added. - - - -
Read Full Report

Also:

Just 1 percent of French want McCain to win vote: poll
REUTERS [Thomson-Reuters] - By Francois Murphy - October 28, 2008
... When asked which man they wanted to see elected, 78 percent of respondents in France backed Obama, compared with just one percent for McCain and five percent who said they wanted neither to win, the poll for television news channel France 24 found.The rest were undecided.
In Germany, where Obama held his rally, five percent of people supported McCain while 72 percent backed Obama."The five largest European countries are unanimous in their desire to see Barack Obama elected whilst John McCain's rating is extremely low," the pollsters said in a note summarizing their survey of 6,276 adults in Spain, Italy, Britain, France and Germany, as well as the United States. - - - -
Read Full Report

ARUTZ SHEVA (Israeli National News) - By Gil Ronen - October 24, 2008
Jewish voters in the U.S. have increased their support for Senator Barack Obama (D-IL) for president since he won the Democratic nomination in June. They now favor Obama over Senator John McCain (R-AZ) by more than 3 to 1, 74 percent to 22 percent.

The pattern of support for Obama among Jews is different from that in the general population. Support for the Democratic candidate was fairly stable from June through September, but rose sharply in October, in an apparent reaction to the U.S. economic crisis. By contrast, support for Obama among Jewish voters expanded more gradually, from just over 60 percent in June and July to 66 percent in August, 69 percent in September.

Support identical to 2004
According to Gallup, the current level of support among U.S. Jews for Obama is identical to the support John Kerry and John Edwards received from the Jews in the 2004 presidential election. It is only six percentage points lower than what Al Gore and Joe Lieberman received in 2000, which was the first time that a Jew appeared on the presidential ticket of a major party. . . .

About 56 percent of Jews are Democrats, 29 percent are independent, and only about 15 percent are Republicans.

Record holder: Reagan
Except for Jimmy Carter in 1980, no Democratic presidential candidate has failed to win  a majority of American Jews since in the last 80 years. The all-time Republican record holder for Jewish support was Ronald Reagan, who earned 39 percent of the Jewish vote that year. - - - -
Read Full Report