This has pretty much been the McCain campaign's modus operandi. Focus on non-issues in order to divert attention. They are starting to get a bit desperate. The gamble they took by selecting Palin stirred up some buzz but it has not lasted and she isn't really panning out that well. The gamble they took with the campaign cancelation has all but flopped. The whole lipstick on a pig fiasco didn't last and didn't hurt Obama either. It just seems that they are grasping at straws and anyone who is paying attention will see this as a desperate attempt to undermine the results of the VP debate.
"When one gets in bed with government, one must expect the diseases it spreads." - Ron Paul
If Gwen wants to throw the McCain camp for a loop (assuming she is, of course, in the tank for Obama), she should offer to the McCain camp to step down if they ask her to. That way, if they say yes then whoever they put in will be viewed as extremely impartial and Palin will have to defend herself on her own merits. If they tell her not to step aside, then the McCain camp would have made something a non-story that they (presumably) made a story.
it doesn't really matter who the heck the moderator is - it could be donald duck and sarah palin could not answer a single question on the debate and yet there will always be 45+% of the population that will vote for that ticket guaranteed (and vice-versa) ...
it'll come down to the last week or so in the swing states and that's how the presidency will be decided ... most likely due to some smear campaign ad ...
This is a joke. It's hard to believe she's going to be a "good" debate moderator.
Why because she's *gulp* Black?
Her book isn't about Obama, and its been in the works for quite some time. i guess since Palin is a white woman, the only way to have a truly objective debate is to have it moderated by a mexican hermaphrodite.
sheesh.
"When all your friends and sedatives mean well but make it worse... better find yourself a place to level out."
Why because she's *gulp* Black?
Her book isn't about Obama, and its been in the works for quite some time. i guess since Palin is a white woman, the only way to have a truly objective debate is to have it moderated by a mexican hermaphrodite.
sheesh.
wow..i really hope that not all Obama supporters think like you because then that explains alot about him and his supporters
it has nothing to do with the fact she is black...have you read the book yourself? the whole book isnt about Obama but he is a good portion of it amongst 3 other mayors/senators who she references who are paving the way for african americans in politics
its funny no one other than Obama and his supporters have used the race issue
the more i read what you supporters write just on this message board makes me despise Obama and his supporters more
wow..i really hope that not all Obama supporters think like you because then that explains alot about him and his supporters
it has nothing to do with the fact she is black...have you read the book yourself? the whole book isnt about Obama but he is a good portion of it amongst 3 other mayors/senators who she references who are paving the way for african americans in politics
its funny no one other than Obama and his supporters have used the race issue
the more i read what you supporters write just on this message board makes me despise Obama and his supporters more
Come on. Obama and his supporters are the only ones that bring up his race? Bullshit. Has obama brought up his race at all? Has he said anything along the lines of "If I lose, it's because everyone is racist", or has people who support him say that? By the way, people who support Mccain, and refer to Obama as a "nigger" bring up race. Everyone who doesn't really like mccain but will never vote for a "nigger" are bringing up the race issue. Anyone that refuses to vote for Obama or will solely vote for Obama because of his skin color are bringing up race. And they fall on both sides of the god damn line.
wow..i really hope that not all Obama supporters think like you because then that explains alot about him and his supporters
it has nothing to do with the fact she is black...have you read the book yourself? the whole book isnt about Obama but he is a good portion of it amongst 3 other mayors/senators who she references who are paving the way for african americans in politics
its funny no one other than Obama and his supporters have used the race issue
the more i read what you supporters write just on this message board makes me despise Obama and his supporters more
have read the book? you know, the one that is due to be released on 1/20/09....
and the race issue is being used by both sides...
it's funny, you're easily swayed into despising Obama based on message board posts....you can't be that simple...can you...?
Why because she's *gulp* Black?
Her book isn't about Obama, and its been in the works for quite some time. i guess since Palin is a white woman, the only way to have a truly objective debate is to have it moderated by a mexican hermaphrodite.
sheesh.
Come on man. Did I once say a word about her race? You brought it up. If anyone is using race as an issue here, it is YOU.
I brought up her ties to Obama (via a book she's writing). I also brought up the fact that the book is going to be released on inauguration day and that there are clear financial benefits (since she's selling the book) for her if Obama (and his TICKET) win the election. This can not be debated... it just is what it is.
If this ends up negatively impacting the McCain campaign, then he deserves it. They could get out of this. They want it as much as Obama does. Built in excuse. Even lower expectations. And, perhaps more importantly, adding to the semi-enfranchised's belief that there is some liberal conspiracy to (do whatever) afoot. In the long run, this has much more potential to help McCain than Obama. Most likely though, this VP debate will be forgotten about by November.
I cannot come up with a new sig till I get this egg off my face.
the more i read what you supporters write just on this message board makes me despise Obama and his supporters more
'The last few weeks i've noticed words like 'hate', 'despise', and 'disgust' so easily thrown around here when certain people are discussing their policitcal preferences.
Pretty strong words. I support obama. But i don't hate any of the other candidates. Struggle to find common ground with most of the others but ''hate''. Wow.
wow..i really hope that not all Obama supporters think like you because then that explains alot about him and his supporters
it has nothing to do with the fact she is black...have you read the book yourself? the whole book isnt about Obama but he is a good portion of it amongst 3 other mayors/senators who she references who are paving the way for african americans in politics
its funny no one other than Obama and his supporters have used the race issue
the more i read what you supporters write just on this message board makes me despise Obama and his supporters more
Have you read the book yourself?
Oh yeah and the repubs used the sexism issue. Maybe you forgot?
If you think redneck voters are more likely to vote for a black man for President as opposed to a white woman for VP running with an old white man, you're dillusional. Race is definitely an issue.
'The last few weeks i've noticed words like 'hate', 'despise', and 'disgust' so easily thrown around here when certain people are discussing their policitcal preferences.
Pretty strong words. I support obama. But i don't hate any of the other candidates. Struggle to find common ground with most of the others but ''hate''. Wow.
"Hate" is become a popular theme... as well as this phony persecution complex that right wing radio is running with about Sarah Palin... "the left hates her", "the media is out to get her"... gimme a break. Sure there are some extreme people who actually hate her for some irrational reason, but there are probably more who hate Obama.
My whole life
was like a picture
of a sunny day
“We can complain because rose bushes have thorns, or rejoice because thorn bushes have roses.”
― Abraham Lincoln
"Hate" is become a popular theme... as well as this phony persecution complex that right wing radio is running with about Sarah Palin... "the left hates her", "the media is out to get her"... gimme a break. Sure there are some extreme people who actually hate her for some irrational reason, but there are probably more who hate Obama.
if more people hate Obama...doesn't that mean McCain wins?
Progress is not made by everyone joining some new fad,
and reveling in it's loyalty. It's made by forming coalitions
over specific principles, goals, and policies.
You don't think the media has up-played her mistakes and downplayed Bidens? Or maybe "upplyed and downplayed" aren't the right terms. "Covered in much greater detail" might be better. That's certainly a form of bias.
Look at cnn.com for proof. They have a bunch of what they consider Palin "mis-steps" every single day. Yet, they rarely even mention the plethora of Biden gaffes, which one could certainly factually argue occur on the same frequency. It's this inconsistency that gives some support to the "media is out to get her" quote. That and the fact that 90% of the media vote Democrat.
One form of this IMHO was during the 1st debate, when McCain said he had a bracelet and then explained a story. Obama replied like a little school boy that "he had a bracelet too" then went into his bracelete story, but needed to look down to remember the person's name. If that was Bush making the "I have a bracelet too" comment the media would have bashed him relentlessly.... and rightfully so. But, Obama gets a free pass and this part of the debate gets brushed under the rug on cnn after the debate. It was a terrible time to bring that up and made Obama look defensive IMHO, but yet it's not even mentioned.
Come on man. Did I once say a word about her race? You brought it up. If anyone is using race as an issue here, it is YOU.
I brought up her ties to Obama (via a book she's writing). I also brought up the fact that the book is going to be released on inauguration day and that there are clear financial benefits (since she's selling the book) for her if Obama (and his TICKET) win the election. This can not be debated... it just is what it is.
C'mon, now. From what i understand the book isn't even about Obama, per se. Its more about the current batch of Black political leadership. In this category, it just so happens that Obama carries the biggest stick, hence the title of the book. She's been working on the book for quite some time. i'm not using race as an issue. i'm just pointing out that i honestly believe that you (as well as others complaining about this woman moderating the debate) are perhaps subconsciously making race an issue. The book has little to do with it. She's Black so she MUST have an Obama bias. Please.
"When all your friends and sedatives mean well but make it worse... better find yourself a place to level out."
You don't think the media has up-played her mistakes and downplayed Bidens? Or maybe "upplyed and downplayed" aren't the right terms. "Covered in much greater detail" might be better. That's certainly a form of bias.
Look at cnn.com for proof. They have a bunch of what they consider Palin "mis-steps" every single day. Yet, they rarely even mention the plethora of Biden gaffes, which one could certainly factually argue occur on the same frequency. It's this inconsistency that gives some support to the "media is out to get her" quote. That and the fact that 90% of the media vote Democrat.
One form of this IMHO was during the 1st debate, when McCain said he had a bracelet and then explained a story. Obama replied like a little school boy that "he had a bracelet too" then went into his bracelete story. If that was Bush making the "I have a bracelet too" comment the media would have bashed him relentlessly.... and rightfully so. But, Obama gets a free pass and this part of the debate gets brushed under the rug on cnn after the debate. It was a terrible time to bring that up and made Obama look defensive IMHO, but yet it's not even mentioned.
I don't think that the media is out to get her, but I agree that they do cover her more. Biden is old news, and there is nothing really new to discover about him. Palin is still for the most part an unknown... Should we just take the McCain campaign's version of her life story as fact and the media not "vet" her? And like I said in another thread, most of Biden's gaffs are off the cuff comments or anecdotal stories. Palin's gaffs are not being able to actually answer a question.
And the bracelet thing? Gimme a break. McCain using a bracelet and a soldier's story to make his point, and Obama more less called him on it. I would expect McCain to do the exact same thing if Obama brought up his bracelet story first.
My whole life
was like a picture
of a sunny day
“We can complain because rose bushes have thorns, or rejoice because thorn bushes have roses.”
― Abraham Lincoln
You don't think the media has up-played her mistakes and downplayed Bidens? Or maybe "upplyed and downplayed" aren't the right terms. "Covered in much greater detail" might be better. That's certainly a form of bias.
Look at cnn.com for proof. They have a bunch of what they consider Palin "mis-steps" every single day. Yet, they rarely even mention the plethora of Biden gaffes, which one could certainly factually argue occur on the same frequency. It's this inconsistency that gives some support to the "media is out to get her" quote. That and the fact that 90% of the media vote Democrat.
One form of this IMHO was during the 1st debate, when McCain said he had a bracelet and then explained a story. Obama replied like a little school boy that "he had a bracelet too" then went into his bracelete story, but needed to look down to remember the person's name. If that was Bush making the "I have a bracelet too" comment the media would have bashed him relentlessly.... and rightfully so. But, Obama gets a free pass and this part of the debate gets brushed under the rug on cnn after the debate. It was a terrible time to bring that up and made Obama look defensive IMHO, but yet it's not even mentioned.
I thought Obama was just showing how incredibly pandering that was. And I saw plenty of coverage about how ridiculous that part of the debate was. Maybe, just maybe, Obama was wearing it in honor of the actual fucking person, and not just to show everyone "look, I got a bracelet!" to get votes. (Yeah, I know he's probably pandering too, but this idea that McCain isn't is ridiculous). I will agree it was "defensive" though. But that's what it takes these days, you have to stoop to the other guy's level.
When McCain tries to do the whole "soldiers agree with me more" bullshit, I wish Obama would bring up the fact soldiers give about twice as much to his campaign as McCain's.
I don't think that the media is out to get her, but I agree that they do cover her more. Biden is old news, and there is nothing really new to discover about him. Palin is still for the most part an unknown... Should we just take the McCain campaign's version of her life story as fact and the media not "vet" her? And like I said in another thread, most of Biden's gaffs are off the cuff comments or anecdotal stories. Palin's gaffs are not being able to actually answer a question.
And the bracelet thing? Gimme a break. McCain using a bracelet and a soldier's story to make his point, and Obama more less called him on it. I would expect McCain to do the exact same thing if Obama brought up his bracelet story first.
They should "vet" Biden (AND OBAMA) too. I don't see that happening here in reality land. Binden is running for VP and is a heartbeat away, just like Palin. Yes, he's been in Washington, but who cares? He's running for a new much much more prominent position than Senator from Delaware (one of the smallest states in the U.S.)... he should be vetted just as hard by the media. There should be no free passes. And as I've said before, Biden is much more gaffe-prone than Palin.... his gaffes are just not covered on nightly news programs. Put simply, they just don't care about him or what he says. They care about Palin.
Obama couldn't even remember the name on the bracelet. To you, he obviously can do no wrong.
They should "vet" Biden (AND OBAMA) too. I don't see that happening here in reality land. Binden is running for VP and is a heartbeat away, just like Palin. Yes, he's been in Washington, but who cares? He's running for a new much much more prominent position than Senator from Delaware (one of the smallest states in the U.S.)... he should be vetted just as hard by the media. There should be no free passes. And as I've said before, Biden is much more gaffe-prone than Palin.... his gaffes are just not covered on nightly news programs. Put simply, they just don't care about him or what he says. They care about Palin.
Obama couldn't even remember the name on the bracelet. To you, he obviously can do no wrong.
at least the dude is doing press interviews instead of just doing photo shoots
I thought Obama was just showing how incredibly pandering that was. And I saw plenty of coverage about how ridiculous that part of the debate was. Maybe, just maybe, Obama was wearing it in honor of the actual fucking person, and not just to show everyone "look, I got a bracelet!" to get votes. (Yeah, I know he's probably pandering too, but this idea that McCain isn't is ridiculous). I will agree it was "defensive" though. But that's what it takes these days, you have to stoop to the other guy's level.
When McCain tries to do the whole "soldiers agree with me more" bullshit, I wish Obama would bring up the fact soldiers give about twice as much to his campaign as McCain's.
Come on man, here it is again.... Obama can do no wrong... and even when he does something somewhat negative, it's the other guys fault. lol
McCain will win the military vote. Republicans always win the military vote. Remember Kerry/Rendell trying to suppress the military vote from abroad in 04?
I think it's very interesting to see Republicans every election cycle put themselves into the position of battered victim through the use of the media. We're seeing it now with Governor Palin, and how she is maligned unfairly while Biden skates by unscathed (the reason for this of course being that when it comes to policy Biden obviously knows what he's talking about and Palin has shown little ability to grasp any issue thus far, but I digress). My point is, I find it really hard to view the G.O.P. as being 'under siege' by the media elites and the liberal East and West coasts. Republicans have been in the White House for the last eight years. Republicans have been in control of Congress for sixteen of the last eighteen years. No matter how hard you try, you're not going to be able to frame this as "you're fighting the Man!" Nobody's going to believe that.
They should "vet" Biden (AND OBAMA) too. I don't see that happening here in reality land. Binden is running for VP and is a heartbeat away, just like Palin. Yes, he's been in Washington, but who cares? He's running for a new much much more prominent position than Senator from Delaware (one of the smallest states in the U.S.)... he should be vetted just as hard by the media. There should be no free passes. And as I've said before, Biden is much more gaffe-prone than Palin.... his gaffes are just not covered on nightly news programs. Put simply, they just don't care about him or what he says. They care about Palin.
Obama couldn't even remember the name on the bracelet. To you, he obviously can do no wrong.
They haven't vetted Obama? Where were you 6-12 months ago? Every story was about reverend wright, him changing positions, michelle obama's "proud" comment, etc., etc., etc....
And Biden has run for president before, and has been on the national stage. He isn't hidden from the press. Maybe if Palin would answer some questions once in a while, the media wouldn't be having this circle jerk on the couple dozen questions that she's been asked since being nominated for the second highest ranking position in our government.
The whole thing is sort of in reverse of where the media was 6 months ago... Obama's press availability was being strictly controlled by his campaign and the media ran a bunch of crap stories about him. Meanwhile, McCain was making a bunch of gaffs, but his "straight talk" campaign had give the press pretty much total access to McCain. Now things are turned the other way.
And Obama can do (and has done) wrong on numerous things... I just can't imagine a 10 second story about a bracelet or any of the countless other diversionary non-issue crap that is out there as being worth worrying about.
My whole life
was like a picture
of a sunny day
“We can complain because rose bushes have thorns, or rejoice because thorn bushes have roses.”
― Abraham Lincoln
I think it's very interesting to see Republicans every election cycle put themselves into the position of battered victim through the use of the media. We're seeing it now with Governor Palin, and how she is maligned unfairly while Biden skates by unscathed (the reason for this of course being that when it comes to policy Biden obviously knows what he's talking about and Palin has shown little ability to grasp any issue thus far, but I digress). My point is, I find it really hard to view the G.O.P. as being 'under siege' by the media elites and the liberal East and West coasts. Republicans have been in the White House for the last eight years. Republicans have been in control of Congress for sixteen of the last eighteen years. No matter how hard you try, you're not going to be able to frame this as "you're fighting the Man!" Nobody's going to believe that.
90% of those in the news business vote Democrat. I think people believe that. If you sincerely believe that Palin is being treated equally to Biden,.... fine. We simply disagree.
Getting back to the thread at hand.... how would you all feel if O'Reilly was moderating? Would it matter to you? I'm sensing it would.
90% of those in the news business vote Democrat. I think people believe that. If you sincerely believe that Palin is being treated equally to Biden,.... fine. We simply disagree.
Getting back to the thread at hand.... how would you all feel if O'Reilly was moderating? Would it matter to you? I'm sensing it would.
o'reilly has shown he is not objective in his interviews ... can't do the job ... you're stretching ...
90% of those in the news business vote Democrat. I think people believe that. If you sincerely believe that Palin is being treated equally to Biden,.... fine. We simply disagree.
Getting back to the thread at hand.... how would you all feel if O'Reilly was moderating? Would it matter to you? I'm sensing it would.
I don't see what your first point has to do with my point, but fair enough. I was saying running against the Big Bad Liberal Media has been a Republican strategy for about thirty years. I'm telling you that no one is going to believe that the Republican ticket this year is going to be fighting the "elites" of Washington. The Republicans ARE the elites of Washington. They've been in total power for most of the past eight years. It's a bad strategy this year; all it will do is get some of the base riled up.
Getting to your second point, Ifill has shown she is capable of being extremely fair and balanced; she moderated the 2004 VP debate, in which many people believe Cheney won and of course Bush/Cheney won in November. But I don't think she should be moderator, because it opens the process up to unneeded criticism and makes the moderator an issue.
Now, that being said, McCain's camp and surrogates got outraged yesterday, saying how unfair it was and how they hadn't known that this was the case. Does anyone really believe that? As I said before, this book has been sold on Amazon for at least a few weeks and she has mentioned it in interviews for a few months. I found all this out yesterday morning in a forty-five second Google search. You're telling me that the Republican campaign to elect McCain as President, with thousands of employees and volunteers, didn't commit 45 seconds to researching the moderator of the most anticipated VP debate in recent memory? How stupid do they think we are? They're obviously working the refs, but at least come out and say you were working the refs.
With your example of Bill O'Reilly, he never would have been moderator because concerns would have been raised that he had biases and they would have had to find a more nuanced moderator. If this was such a problem for McCain's camp and the conservative blogs, why wasn't this issue raised a week ago? Ifill has been preparing questions for weeks, so why wasn't the issue raised in time to get an unbiased moderator in there? Obviously, they didn't want an unbiased moderator; now, if Palin falls flat on her face, it's the moderator's fault and not hers.
Tell me, saveuplife, if this was truly such a problem, why wasn't it raised when something could have been done about it?
Come on man, here it is again.... Obama can do no wrong... and even when he does something somewhat negative, it's the other guys fault. lol
McCain will win the military vote. Republicans always win the military vote. Remember Kerry/Rendell trying to suppress the military vote from abroad in 04?
Where the hell did I say Obama can do no wrong? While I'm leaning towards Obama at this point, I don't exactly have Obama fever. I just think this particular point you tried to make was stupid. The point is, I don't think he did something "somewhat negative," but I did hate McCain's pandering bracelet speech. So in this case, Obama's the "other guy" and no, I don't think it's his fault that McCain did something I found "somewhat negative."
If you brought up, say, Obama saying he would take public funding and then not once he realized he could make a shitload of cash by not doing it, then you have a point I can agree with. This bracelet nonsense, however, as well as this Ifill nonsense, is stupid and has nothing to do with who will be the better President/VP.
And can we please have a moratoriam (sp?) on this LOL shit? Did you really "laugh out loud"? Really?
o'reilly has shown he is not objective in his interviews ... can't do the job ... you're stretching ...
Personal perceptions of someone else's objectivity can be subjective. So, one could say the same about a number of current moderators.
It's just that you prefer that side of the aisle. I understand that... and I kinda agree that O'Reilly isn't the right person for the job... but I was trying to point out that if roles were reversed the Obama-supporters would be outraged.
Comments
it'll come down to the last week or so in the swing states and that's how the presidency will be decided ... most likely due to some smear campaign ad ...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VZGtblX5OlY
Why because she's *gulp* Black?
Her book isn't about Obama, and its been in the works for quite some time. i guess since Palin is a white woman, the only way to have a truly objective debate is to have it moderated by a mexican hermaphrodite.
sheesh.
wow..i really hope that not all Obama supporters think like you because then that explains alot about him and his supporters
it has nothing to do with the fact she is black...have you read the book yourself? the whole book isnt about Obama but he is a good portion of it amongst 3 other mayors/senators who she references who are paving the way for african americans in politics
its funny no one other than Obama and his supporters have used the race issue
the more i read what you supporters write just on this message board makes me despise Obama and his supporters more
Come on. Obama and his supporters are the only ones that bring up his race? Bullshit. Has obama brought up his race at all? Has he said anything along the lines of "If I lose, it's because everyone is racist", or has people who support him say that? By the way, people who support Mccain, and refer to Obama as a "nigger" bring up race. Everyone who doesn't really like mccain but will never vote for a "nigger" are bringing up the race issue. Anyone that refuses to vote for Obama or will solely vote for Obama because of his skin color are bringing up race. And they fall on both sides of the god damn line.
have read the book? you know, the one that is due to be released on 1/20/09....
and the race issue is being used by both sides...
it's funny, you're easily swayed into despising Obama based on message board posts....you can't be that simple...can you...?
Come on man. Did I once say a word about her race? You brought it up. If anyone is using race as an issue here, it is YOU.
I brought up her ties to Obama (via a book she's writing). I also brought up the fact that the book is going to be released on inauguration day and that there are clear financial benefits (since she's selling the book) for her if Obama (and his TICKET) win the election. This can not be debated... it just is what it is.
Pretty strong words. I support obama. But i don't hate any of the other candidates. Struggle to find common ground with most of the others but ''hate''. Wow.
Have you read the book yourself?
Oh yeah and the repubs used the sexism issue. Maybe you forgot?
If you think redneck voters are more likely to vote for a black man for President as opposed to a white woman for VP running with an old white man, you're dillusional. Race is definitely an issue.
"Hate" is become a popular theme... as well as this phony persecution complex that right wing radio is running with about Sarah Palin... "the left hates her", "the media is out to get her"... gimme a break. Sure there are some extreme people who actually hate her for some irrational reason, but there are probably more who hate Obama.
was like a picture
of a sunny day
“We can complain because rose bushes have thorns, or rejoice because thorn bushes have roses.”
― Abraham Lincoln
if more people hate Obama...doesn't that mean McCain wins?
and reveling in it's loyalty. It's made by forming coalitions
over specific principles, goals, and policies.
http://i36.tinypic.com/66j31x.jpg
(\__/)
( o.O)
(")_(")
You don't think the media has up-played her mistakes and downplayed Bidens? Or maybe "upplyed and downplayed" aren't the right terms. "Covered in much greater detail" might be better. That's certainly a form of bias.
Look at cnn.com for proof. They have a bunch of what they consider Palin "mis-steps" every single day. Yet, they rarely even mention the plethora of Biden gaffes, which one could certainly factually argue occur on the same frequency. It's this inconsistency that gives some support to the "media is out to get her" quote. That and the fact that 90% of the media vote Democrat.
One form of this IMHO was during the 1st debate, when McCain said he had a bracelet and then explained a story. Obama replied like a little school boy that "he had a bracelet too" then went into his bracelete story, but needed to look down to remember the person's name. If that was Bush making the "I have a bracelet too" comment the media would have bashed him relentlessly.... and rightfully so. But, Obama gets a free pass and this part of the debate gets brushed under the rug on cnn after the debate. It was a terrible time to bring that up and made Obama look defensive IMHO, but yet it's not even mentioned.
C'mon, now. From what i understand the book isn't even about Obama, per se. Its more about the current batch of Black political leadership. In this category, it just so happens that Obama carries the biggest stick, hence the title of the book. She's been working on the book for quite some time. i'm not using race as an issue. i'm just pointing out that i honestly believe that you (as well as others complaining about this woman moderating the debate) are perhaps subconsciously making race an issue. The book has little to do with it. She's Black so she MUST have an Obama bias. Please.
I don't think that the media is out to get her, but I agree that they do cover her more. Biden is old news, and there is nothing really new to discover about him. Palin is still for the most part an unknown... Should we just take the McCain campaign's version of her life story as fact and the media not "vet" her? And like I said in another thread, most of Biden's gaffs are off the cuff comments or anecdotal stories. Palin's gaffs are not being able to actually answer a question.
And the bracelet thing? Gimme a break. McCain using a bracelet and a soldier's story to make his point, and Obama more less called him on it. I would expect McCain to do the exact same thing if Obama brought up his bracelet story first.
was like a picture
of a sunny day
“We can complain because rose bushes have thorns, or rejoice because thorn bushes have roses.”
― Abraham Lincoln
I thought Obama was just showing how incredibly pandering that was. And I saw plenty of coverage about how ridiculous that part of the debate was. Maybe, just maybe, Obama was wearing it in honor of the actual fucking person, and not just to show everyone "look, I got a bracelet!" to get votes. (Yeah, I know he's probably pandering too, but this idea that McCain isn't is ridiculous). I will agree it was "defensive" though. But that's what it takes these days, you have to stoop to the other guy's level.
When McCain tries to do the whole "soldiers agree with me more" bullshit, I wish Obama would bring up the fact soldiers give about twice as much to his campaign as McCain's.
They should "vet" Biden (AND OBAMA) too. I don't see that happening here in reality land. Binden is running for VP and is a heartbeat away, just like Palin. Yes, he's been in Washington, but who cares? He's running for a new much much more prominent position than Senator from Delaware (one of the smallest states in the U.S.)... he should be vetted just as hard by the media. There should be no free passes. And as I've said before, Biden is much more gaffe-prone than Palin.... his gaffes are just not covered on nightly news programs. Put simply, they just don't care about him or what he says. They care about Palin.
Obama couldn't even remember the name on the bracelet. To you, he obviously can do no wrong.
at least the dude is doing press interviews instead of just doing photo shoots
Come on man, here it is again.... Obama can do no wrong... and even when he does something somewhat negative, it's the other guys fault. lol
McCain will win the military vote. Republicans always win the military vote. Remember Kerry/Rendell trying to suppress the military vote from abroad in 04?
They haven't vetted Obama? Where were you 6-12 months ago? Every story was about reverend wright, him changing positions, michelle obama's "proud" comment, etc., etc., etc....
And Biden has run for president before, and has been on the national stage. He isn't hidden from the press. Maybe if Palin would answer some questions once in a while, the media wouldn't be having this circle jerk on the couple dozen questions that she's been asked since being nominated for the second highest ranking position in our government.
The whole thing is sort of in reverse of where the media was 6 months ago... Obama's press availability was being strictly controlled by his campaign and the media ran a bunch of crap stories about him. Meanwhile, McCain was making a bunch of gaffs, but his "straight talk" campaign had give the press pretty much total access to McCain. Now things are turned the other way.
And Obama can do (and has done) wrong on numerous things... I just can't imagine a 10 second story about a bracelet or any of the countless other diversionary non-issue crap that is out there as being worth worrying about.
was like a picture
of a sunny day
“We can complain because rose bushes have thorns, or rejoice because thorn bushes have roses.”
― Abraham Lincoln
90% of those in the news business vote Democrat. I think people believe that. If you sincerely believe that Palin is being treated equally to Biden,.... fine. We simply disagree.
Getting back to the thread at hand.... how would you all feel if O'Reilly was moderating? Would it matter to you? I'm sensing it would.
o'reilly has shown he is not objective in his interviews ... can't do the job ... you're stretching ...
I don't see what your first point has to do with my point, but fair enough. I was saying running against the Big Bad Liberal Media has been a Republican strategy for about thirty years. I'm telling you that no one is going to believe that the Republican ticket this year is going to be fighting the "elites" of Washington. The Republicans ARE the elites of Washington. They've been in total power for most of the past eight years. It's a bad strategy this year; all it will do is get some of the base riled up.
Getting to your second point, Ifill has shown she is capable of being extremely fair and balanced; she moderated the 2004 VP debate, in which many people believe Cheney won and of course Bush/Cheney won in November. But I don't think she should be moderator, because it opens the process up to unneeded criticism and makes the moderator an issue.
Now, that being said, McCain's camp and surrogates got outraged yesterday, saying how unfair it was and how they hadn't known that this was the case. Does anyone really believe that? As I said before, this book has been sold on Amazon for at least a few weeks and she has mentioned it in interviews for a few months. I found all this out yesterday morning in a forty-five second Google search. You're telling me that the Republican campaign to elect McCain as President, with thousands of employees and volunteers, didn't commit 45 seconds to researching the moderator of the most anticipated VP debate in recent memory? How stupid do they think we are? They're obviously working the refs, but at least come out and say you were working the refs.
With your example of Bill O'Reilly, he never would have been moderator because concerns would have been raised that he had biases and they would have had to find a more nuanced moderator. If this was such a problem for McCain's camp and the conservative blogs, why wasn't this issue raised a week ago? Ifill has been preparing questions for weeks, so why wasn't the issue raised in time to get an unbiased moderator in there? Obviously, they didn't want an unbiased moderator; now, if Palin falls flat on her face, it's the moderator's fault and not hers.
Tell me, saveuplife, if this was truly such a problem, why wasn't it raised when something could have been done about it?
If you brought up, say, Obama saying he would take public funding and then not once he realized he could make a shitload of cash by not doing it, then you have a point I can agree with. This bracelet nonsense, however, as well as this Ifill nonsense, is stupid and has nothing to do with who will be the better President/VP.
And can we please have a moratoriam (sp?) on this LOL shit? Did you really "laugh out loud"? Really?
Personal perceptions of someone else's objectivity can be subjective. So, one could say the same about a number of current moderators.
It's just that you prefer that side of the aisle. I understand that... and I kinda agree that O'Reilly isn't the right person for the job... but I was trying to point out that if roles were reversed the Obama-supporters would be outraged.
74% of all statistics are made up.
Think about that.