How the media hijacked 175,000 people

Wow.  Just wow.

"DC Rally shows support of struggling Democrats".

A bit of a delayed reaction this one, but that's because the headline made me so angry I kept throwing computers out the window.

Let me start off by saying the One Nation rally was by NO MEANS A RALLY IN SUPPORT OF THE DEMOCRATS.  You couldn't swing a protest sign without hitting someone from some socialist/communist/gay rights/etc group.  A lot of them were holding signs asking Obama for the change he promised.  Others handed out literature saying how both parties were flawed.

Hell, even the Associated Press had to give them something:

"Organizers insist the rally is not partisan. They say the message is about job creation, quality education and justice. However, the largest organizations, such as the AFL-CIO and the Service Employees International Union, tend to back Democratic candidates."

This is a cool journalism tactic.  Rather than report on what what the people actually responsible say, make up your own story that follows your paper's narrative.  For example, if you happen to be a reporter with a hard-on for the president working at a paper with a hard-on for any government it's reporting on, you might be inclined to interpret pretty much everything as a rousing cry of support to the sources of your hard-ons.

But maybe not.  The author, Phillip Wilson, found it necessary to put "struggling" in front of the name of the party that is anything but.  From my obsessive checking of the mid-term election polls on wikipedia, it really doesn't seem like the Dems are up to lose that many spots.  The media seems to be under the impression that just because the Democrats aren't going to have their super-majority, they are somehow in decline.  I wonder what they'd have to gain from misinforming the public.

Either way.  The rally was amazing, regardless of what the associated shills say.