Sarah Palin changed her mind about a bridge. Barack Obama changed his mind about campaign finance.
When Palin accepted the money for that infamous bridge she was doing what was right for her state—stimulating local jobs. It was Pork yes, but is Palin to be the only governor who rejects pork? Barack Obama’s stimulus pork is building bridges to nowhere across America now—NBC evening news featured just such a bridge recently. The newscast devoted several minutes to telling viewers that no matter the lack of need for this particular bridge, waitresses and local businesses would benefit from the trickle down of employed construction workers in the area. (Obama and Biden both voted in favor of Palin's Bridge, btw!)
Both Palin’s and Obama’s bridges are temporary fixes to local economy. News media cast Palin was a dumb lying bimbo for saying she was against the Alaskan bridge, when in fact she’d been for it originally. Obama’s U.S. Senate pork requests for his state came in at
over a million dollars a day, totaling $932 million in pork/earmark requests.
The moment Obama decided to run for office he had a sudden change of heart—he renounced pork, asking for no earmark requests. Starting to get the picture. What is good for the Male Obama Goose is not good for the Female Palin Gander.

The media pretty much ignored Obama’s pork requests and his 180 degree turn around of pork, fixating instead on Palin’s bridge to nowhere turn around.

Ah the Beauty of the Media’s bias against women Candidates.
(Lest you think this Double Standard only applies to Palin, FemiSex has plenty of documentation Hillary being subjected to the same sorts of political Double Standards.)

Barack Obama pledged his troth to public financing for the general election.

He made this abundantly clear. He also promised to clean up the mess that is campaign financing and to forcefully back campaign finance reform. Of course, when Obama lies, it is not a Bridge to Nowhere, it is a Nowhere story.

Mainstream Media mentions Obama’s lies only in passing. Pundits did not fixate on Obama lies in the manner they piled on Palin for her bridge or Hillary for her sniper fire. The Times showcased in bright RED letters Palin’s failings. They only dare to mention Obama’s now that he is safely in the White House and then… only buried in stories or in a softball op/ed. (see Promise to Keep link below.)

Can anyone imaging a Front Page NYTimes story chronicling all of Obama’s broken pledges or outright lies…. or a Front Page story on his very very shady campaign finance lapses, such as accepting illegal overseas donations? Trust me, if Palin or Hillary, or any woman running for potus, dismantled the credit card donation safeguards in the fashion Obama did or allowed illegal foreign money to flow into their campaigns…you can put one million big fat bucks on a Front Page story on this in the Times.

Palin’s bridge change of heart was small potatoes. Obama told us that campaign finance reform was paramount to his agenda and he would accept public financing. Instead, Obama became the first president ever to reject such funds.
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=91703936

Obama told us his donor base was made up of small donors, but in 2004 Bush had as many small donors as Obama in 2008. (The nyTimes only reported this fact in Dec. of 08.) *LA times link on this in comments.

Palin’s turn around on her bridge was small potatoes to this country. Obama’s lie and manipulation of the campaign finance system has pretty much broken campaign finance in this country and flushed reform efforts down the toilet. On the trail Obama said,
“the public financing of presidential elections as it exists today is broken.”

Obama has no intention of fixing it. He has no intention to force the FEC into anything with enough teeth to crack down on illegal internet donations that pour into our country for all over the globe. Obama’s people currently call Obama a “global brand, “ and they have NO interest in limiting donations to US presidential elections to actual US citizens.

In a recent NYTimes Op-Ed titled, “Promises to Keep,” the editors write:

“When candidate Barack Obama broke his promise to use public financing as a brake on lavish presidential campaign spending, he left another promise in its wake: to overhaul election financing and the federal commission that regularly undermines rather than enforces campaign law. President Obama has yet to deliver.
Having done his damage to a severely damaged system, Mr. Obama now has a clear responsibility to fix it.”

The editors go on to define fixing as appointing FEC bureaucrats “truly committed to enforcement.” But what fixing campaign finance really requires is rewriting small donor rules that were penned in the 1970s, well before the Internet allowed offshore giving as hidden in origin as a Swiss bank account once was.

Obama has no intention of doing a damn thing to bring campaign finance laws in line with our times. He is too busy perverting the old laws of the 70s to his advantage. Until such fixes are made, Americans can be sure of one thing. The global community is electing our presidents now, as surly as one can say that Obama spent more money than any candidate in history to get himself elected.

And never say that Obama is not a quid pro quo sort of fellow.

Counties that supported Obama last year have reaped twice as much money per person from the administration's $787 billion economic stimulus package as those that voted for his Republican rival, Sen. John McCain, a USA TODAY analysis of government disclosure and accounting records shows. That money includes aid to repair military bases, improve public housing and help students pay for college.
http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2009-07-08-redblue_N.htm

So on one hand we have an Alaskan bridge that the media talked about 24/7, and on the other hand we have a thoroughly gutted campaign finance system that Barack Obama lied about accepting, lied about fixing and now uses as a preferential, quid pro quo means of building bridges to nowhere.

I ask you: Which is the MORE important LIE?
Which ought the media cover more forcefully?

ONLY the most partisan person who has shut off all of her of his gray cells would say a small bridge in Alaska is more worthy of non-stop coverage. Only a person who doesn’t have American’s long-term interest at heart would find the bridge a more substantive issue. Only someone determined to see women held in check would find the bridge worthy of such coverage.
Palin said no to a bridge she once said yes to. Obama said no to campaign finance rules he once said yes to. The media made a bonfire out of one retraction—a retrace that has no lasting negative consequences. The media ignores another retraction that literally threatens our democracy, not least of which occurs by funneling millions of illegal campaign donations into our country from non-US citizens.

Sexism comes in many forms but overt name calling (e.g., the New York Times joking that Hillary is nothing but a “White Bitch) is only one arm of the uphill battle women face.

The Times sent hordes of reporters up to Alaska last fall to talk to Palin’s hairdresser and garbage collector, but couldn’t write investigative stories on Obama’s devious side-runs around campaign finance law, and cannot now investigate why the FEC is more than useless in preventing such malfunctions of our election financing system. Such a story would cast Mr. Obama and ONLY Mr. Obama in very bad light. McCain and Hillary were not accepting oversea money hand over foot. No president, aside from Obama, has such stains on his fund-raising hauls.

It is time for Fourth Wave feminists to find a way to force the media to end the double standard of selective reporting. Women are held to the MUST-be -Perfect standard and Men are held to the AS- LONG- AS -They’re- Male standard.
Not only must Fourth wave feminists weed out sexist talk, we MUST force OUT unfair double standards in reporting. We must demand that male failures be covered as fully as female failures. We must ensure that media hear our voices.
If they relentlessly cover sniper fire lies by Hillary we must ensure they relentlessly cover sniper fire lies by Biden. If they relentlessly cover Palin’s bridge, then we must ensure they relentlessly cover Obama’s campaign finance lies. How? That is the beauty of the sinking MSM. They can’t be counted on to do this, but we can. We have our blogs and voice. WE can spend our days outside the Times with placards and bullhorns. We can demand that Males be covered to the same standards females are covered. For every story or sly reference to Palin’s bridge we must ensure the same amount of reference to Obama campaign finance lies. For every bridge cartoon we must ensure a campaign finance cartoon.

It cracks me up when a man tells me feminist work is about getting special treatment for women. HA Special treatment.
HA, we already get Special Treatment—in the bend- over format. What we want is LESS special treatment. Just EQUAL treatment would be JUST fine.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2009-07-08-redblue_N.htm