NYT and the MSM in the tank for Obama

Investors Business Daily opines:

If you doubt the media are in the tank for Obama, doubt no more. The refusal of the New York Times to print McCain's op-ed on Obama after an Obama piece was published has nothing to do with editorial judgment and everything to do with protecting the media's heartthrob.

More:

The "newspaper of record" doesn't want John McCain's views on Iraq to go on the record, at least not while Barack Obama is on his magical media tour. The truth about Obama is unfit to print?

What Mr. McCain said (correctly) is that Obama has admitted he would not have done what it took to win the war, even with the benefit of hindsight. Hmm.

Read McCain's entire editorial piece here (Matt Drudge posted it in its entirety -- and he likely has more readers now than the NYT...).

And now WaPo editorializes about Mr. O's "eccentric strategic vision" on Iraq and a troop withdrawal, and suggests that his "antiwar stance" has "blinded him" to reality.

The bloom is off the rose. Like his current World Tour itself, all that's left is evanescence.

But The Candidate has an explanation:

This is a comedy classic:

Couric: Two more questions. You said not too long ago that Jerusalem should remain undivided. And then you backtracked on that statement. Does that play into the argument that some believe that someone more experienced would not have made that kind of mistake?

Obama: Well … if you look at what happened, there was no shift in policy or backtracking in policy. We just had phrased it poorly in the speech. That has happened and will happen to every politician. You're not always gonna hit your mark in terms of how you phrase your policies.

(Emphasis added) As Tom McGuire explains, Obama's policy hadn't changed. We just have to learn to ignore the words coming out of his mouth.

Our next President!