I don't think so. If she had already run for President, or like Joe Biden had been in the Senate since before the bicentennial, she wouldn't be receiving the same level of scrutiny as she has been these last few weeks. We'd already know more than six weeks worth of information about her before the Presidential election and wouldn't be digging for any story to tell us more.
Just out of curiosity, and on a semi-unrelated note, we've been talking quite a bit about how shitty the American media is. What news sources do you frequent?
cnn is my personal favorite. However, I do that because I hope to achieve some level of middle ground there. Fox is too right, msn too left.
I like drudge because I believe he brings things to light that all of the above will brush under the rug.
3. You are right McCain took one our state's governors and "thrust" her into the spotlight. See, I agree that she was relatively unknown to the general public. However, I don't agree that she didn't already have a prominent role in politics... arguably even more prominent than the role of Senator. But, that's not the point. I think going over her record is one thing, but to say she's unqualified is just naive. She was a f'ing Governor of a state and a mayor. Come on. It's not like she's been picked out of no where. That's the type of BS, that IMHO shows me the "leftist journalists" were out to hit her. The arguement is slanted at best. Obama was elected into office in late 2004. And I do not see an equal questioning of his "qualifications" to lead a country. The executive branch is not equal to the legislative branch. And I'm not saying a Senator can't or shouldn't be President... I'm simply saying a guy who's held a politcal seat for less than 4 years and is running for PRESIDENT should be receiving atleast as much scrutinizing over his record as a woman whos's held a poltically elected seat for over 10 years (yes, mayor is kinda weak, but it's true) and a govenorship for 2 years and who is running for VP is receiving ONE MONTH BEFORE AN ELECTION. It's really ridiculous.
The bottom line is Obama has no record. But, the media should be highlighting this.... they just are not.
There's several things I disagree with in this; one of them is indisputable. You say Obama was first elected to office in 2004. That's not true; he was first elected to office eight years before that, in 1996, and started working as a State Senator in Illinois in Jan. 97. So I don't know where that's coming from.
Here's my problem with your stance on this, and at first it will seem contradictory to something I said before. You say that "the bottom line is that Obama has no record." Many people would state that is ridiculous, and I think it's impossible to have an opinion that does not hold up to facts. I could point you to legislation Obama has sponsored, co-sponsored and/or voted for in the U.S. Senate that includes reducing worldwide nuclear arms, aiding Hurricane Katrina victims, ethics reform, advancement of alternative energy sources, etc. And that's just in the U.S. Senate; we could go into the State Senate as well. Now, maybe you think that legislative record is lightweight; maybe you think it shows he has no spine. Maybe you don't agree with his positions. Those are all legitimate critiques of his legislative record, and they're great topics for discussion. But the "bottom line" you posted is not a bottom line at all. It's your subjective, conservative leaning analysis of what the bottom line is, just like I have an analysis coming from my point of view as an Obama supporter. There are significant, legitimate and important disagreements and debates to be had there but you can't claim absolute certitude on an issue where the facts dispute such certitude, and then criticize the media for not telling the truth about such a non-existent "bottom line." It doesn't seem to me that you're unhappy that some media outlets aren't reporting "the facts." You're unhappy that they are not reporting your subjective analysis of the facts.
P.S. Is it just me, or am I the only one who have heard these mainstream media outlets, including the liberal rags like MSNBC and Newsweek, bring up the argument in political circles about whether Obama has enough experience to be President? I mean, we've only gone through a Democratic primary campaign and a General Election campaign where it was a primary issue.
I think Palin is getting too much coverage in the press AND the stories running about her are overstated, and typically negative.
To address these points...
1. She is pertinent to the election. That said, so is Biden. This story attached should be getting coverage in most press outlets.
2. Obama is running for President. She is running for VP. There is and always will be a difference. If you are going to scrutinize her record (which is pretty good btw atleast according to Newsweek--a liberal mag--in late-07, before her selection) then they should be scrutinizing Obama's more so. Biden, McCain, Obama and Palin should all have their records scrutinized. When something that comes up, and it's newsworthy, it should receive press. This, the attached, is an example that this is just not happening. But, you know it would be if it was Palin.
3. You are right McCain took one our state's governors and "thrust" her into the spotlight. See, I agree that she was relatively unknown to the general public. However, I don't agree that she didn't already have a prominent role in politics... arguably even more prominent than the role of Senator. But, that's not the point. I think going over her record is one thing, but to say she's unqualified is just naive. She was a f'ing Governor of a state and a mayor. Come on. It's not like she's been picked out of no where. That's the type of BS, that IMHO shows me the "leftist journalists" were out to hit her. The arguement is slanted at best. Obama was elected into office in late 2004. And I do not see an equal questioning of his "qualifications" to lead a country. The executive branch is not equal to the legislative branch. And I'm not saying a Senator can't or shouldn't be President... I'm simply saying a guy who's held a politcal seat for less than 4 years and is running for PRESIDENT should be receiving atleast as much scrutinizing over his record as a woman whos's held a poltically elected seat for over 10 years (yes, mayor is kinda weak, but it's true) and a govenorship for 2 years and who is running for VP is receiving ONE MONTH BEFORE AN ELECTION. It's really ridiculous.
The bottom line is Obama has no record. But, the media should be highlighting this.... they just are not.
1.) Yes, it should be reported more widespread. This isn't a shocking revelation of any kind, and I wouldn't expect to see it plastered on every headline, but it should be somewhere in some capacity. Seems like we agree here.
2.) I think Obama's record has been scrutinized more so. In fact, Palin's record hasn't really been debated at all. Instead, we've been debating how crappy she does in interviews and doesn't know what newspapers she reads. Or we've talked about pictures of her shooting things from a helicopter, her pregnant daughter, how much she looks like Tina Fey, her secessionist husband, etc. "Troopergate"--god, i hate how the add 'gate' to the end of everything now--is that closest the media really has come to discussing her record as a politician.
3.) Again, I think Obama's experience has been discussed at great length. It came up nearly twenty months ago when this campaign started, it continued through the DNC debates and his run against Hilary Clinton, and it has been discussed throughout the debates and every time McCain brings it up. That said, I don't think he's particularly qualified. I also don't think experience is a relative thing. "Well, she's more experienced than Obama," still doesn't make her qualified either. She was Mayor, great. Wasilla had 5,500 people when she was in charge. There are school districts with more students. She was Governor for two years. That's a step in the right direction. Alaska, if it were a city, would be like 15th in the United States by population. Yes, the duties are different, but it still doesn't make her anywhere near a well-qualified candidate. And even if we argue that it's still more qualification than being a Senator is, it didn't give her any exposure on a national level--my hypothesis as to why she's getting so much media coverage.
I think we actually agree on more than we disagree here premise wise--we're just taking it to different conclusions.
As for media sources, yeah, msnbc and foxnews are way to biased. CNN isn't bad. I find BBC's website, not the American one, kind of interesting too.
There's several things I disagree with in this; one of them is indisputable. You say Obama was first elected to office in 2004. That's not true; he was first elected to office eight years before that, in 1996, and started working as a State Senator in Illinois in Jan. 97. So I don't know where that's coming from.
Here's my problem with your stance on this, and at first it will seem contradictory to something I said before. You say that "the bottom line is that Obama has no record." Many people would state that is ridiculous, and I think it's impossible to have an opinion that does not hold up to facts. I could point you to legislation Obama has sponsored, co-sponsored and/or voted for in the U.S. Senate that includes reducing worldwide nuclear arms, aiding Hurricane Katrina victims, ethics reform, advancement of alternative energy sources, etc. And that's just in the U.S. Senate; we could go into the State Senate as well. Now, maybe you think that legislative record is lightweight; maybe you think it shows he has no spine. Maybe you don't agree with his positions. Those are all legitimate critiques of his legislative record, and they're great topics for discussion. But the "bottom line" you posted is not a bottom line at all. It's your subjective, conservative leaning analysis of what the bottom line is, just like I have an analysis coming from my point of view as an Obama supporter. There are significant, legitimate and important disagreements and debates to be had there but you can't claim absolute certitude on an issue where the facts dispute such certitude, and then criticize the media for not telling the truth about such a non-existent "bottom line." It doesn't seem to me that you're unhappy that some media outlets aren't reporting "the facts." You're unhappy that they are not reporting your subjective analysis of the facts.
P.S. Is it just me, or am I the only one who have heard these mainstream media outlets, including the liberal rags like MSNBC and Newsweek, bring up the argument in political circles about whether Obama has enough experience to be President? I mean, we've only gone through a Democratic primary campaign and a General Election campaign where it was a primary issue.
Actually, you are right to point out he was in state senate since 1997. But, you are avoiding my central point.... Palin is running for VP. She's held an executive level position since 96. Obama is running for President. He's held a legislative level position since 97. Palin is receiving more criticism in the weeks before the election. That's the point.
Your reason, is basically we hashed that out already with Obama in the primary. That's 100% BS. It's not been hashed out in front of the largest audience and right before the election so all can see. It needs to be. He is running for PRESIDENT.
As for his record, he voted "Present" as you know quite a few times in his State Senate role. IMHO State Senate is roughly the equivalent of small town mayor when running for President.... you certainly don't have federal records for either. So, let's throw that out for a second. As for his current job as U.S. Senator, he's voted roughly 1/2 the time. He's been running for President since he got the job. He most likely avoided any vote he was nervous about (WHICH ALL CANDIDATES DO, so I'm not singling him out). As you can see, as far as federal issues go, he has very little record to inspect... hence my point. Maybe an over simplification saying "no record". Maybe it's better to say "limited record".
Which brings it back to the central tenant of the thread. Why is Palin running for VP getting more scrutinty than Obama running for Pres now, closing in on two months after her selection and less than a few weeks away from the Presidential election.
I know you are voting Obama, not trying to change that.... just trying to get you to admit, it is a bit slighted.
Actually, you are right to point out he was in state senate since 1997. But, you are avoiding my central point.... Palin is running for VP. She's held an executive level position since 96. Obama is running for President. He's held a legislative level position since 97. Palin is receiving more criticism in the weeks before the election. That's the point.
Your reason, is basically we hashed that out already with Obama in the primary. That's 100% BS. It's not been hashed out in front of the largest audience and right before the election so all can see. It needs to be. He is running for PRESIDENT.
As for his record, he voted "Present" as you know quite a few times in his State Senate role. IMHO State Senate is roughly the equivalent of small town mayor when running for President.... you certainly don't have federal records for either. So, let's throw that out for a second. As for his current job as U.S. Senator, he's voted roughly 1/2 the time. He's been running for President since he got the job. He most likely avoided any vote he was nervous about (WHICH ALL CANDIDATES DO, so I'm not singling him out). As you can see, as far as federal issues go, he has very little record to inspect... hence my point. Maybe an over simplification saying "no record". Maybe it's better to say "limited record".
Which brings it back to the central tenant of the thread. Why is Palin running for VP getting more scrutinty than Obama running for Pres now, closing in on two months after her selection and less than a few weeks away from the Presidential election.
I know you are voting Obama, not trying to change that.... just trying to get you to admit, it is a bit slighted.
I'll go through this one by one, but I should say that we seem to agree on far more than we disagree upon. I think that any reasonable person, no matter what ideology they hold dear, can and should realize that it is vital for any reporter to report the truth. I think you didn't address the point I made that the problem is not liberalism, but gutlessness and an emphasis on sales (which I'll touch on again soon). However, I thought it was important to point out that since you were making such an important point about how she served over TEN YEARS in elected office (which was not actually ten years; she only served as the mayor of Wasilla until 2002, and didn't enter the governor's office until 2007) whereas Obama only served four years. I thought it was important to point out that those statistics are not, in fact, true. In fact, Obama has served far more time in office than Palin.
That being said, I'm not here to debate Palin's government experience. Luckily for us, the Presidency or Vice Presidency is not limited to those with decades of governmental experience, or else we would have a limited selection of candidates. Besides considering that George W. Bush had more government experience than either Sarah Palin or Barack Obama I don't think government experience is necessarily the best way to judge a potential candidate. My feelings on her inadequacy for higher office stem from her seeming inability to grasp the complex issues facing our nation, not her government experience, or lack thereof.
Once again, you don't address my primary criticism of your argument, is that you're not arguing for Obama's record itself to be scrutinized in the past few months before we vote, but your subjective analysis of that record. But I'll come back to that. I agree with you that the news organizations have not gone, vote by vote, through Obama's legislative record, or (according to you) lack thereof. They have not done that for McCain, either. Or Biden. Or Palin. I'd note that the critique of her legislative record in the mainstream media of Palin has pretty much been limited to her Bridge to Nowhere stance, which has been a central part of her campaign. Typically, networks don't seem to get big ratings when they comb through candidates' legislative records, and that is a significant criticism of them; they go for what sells (lipstick on pigs, etc.) as opposed to what's important. If that's the point you're making, I'm in complete agreement.
However, it should be said that if they did commit to such an exhaustive legislative analysis of both candidates, they'd learn a few interesting things about McCain. For example, he has never voted in favor of tax credits for alternative energy innovators, and he voted against Iraq war funding just as Obama did. So, I agree with you that the candidates' records have not been exhaustively analyzed, but let's not pretend that it would be automatically detrimential to Obama.
So let's get to the second half of your argument, about the critcisms of Obama. In regards to the 'present' votes, I wonder where you heard such information. Personally, I heard it from the mainstream media that you are saying are failing to cover Obama exhaustively. Additionally, I've heard that extensively as a 'talking point' so I wonder if you're using it as such. If you don't take Obama's word for it (that many of those were political votes in that he agreed with the core legislation but not pork legislation that was added) then that is your right and personal opinion. You're right; he has voted often (although, it should be said that the most absent senator in Congress currently is John McCain, and this has been consistent for at least the past ten years). I took issue with you regarding the 'bottom line' being that him having no record because it is not an 'over-simpflipication' of his record, but it is completely inaccurate. He does have a record. It's certainly nowhere near as exhaustive as McCain's, and if you think that having an exhaustive national record is a prerequisite to being President, then you should vote against the candidate who does not have an extensive national record (although, I should note you'd be voting against many Republican candidates of the past who had paltry or non-existent national legislative records, so you'd be repudiating their experience as well).
I guess if you think Obama has not been vetted by the media for the past two years, I don't know how to change your mind. I've heard about his limited legislative record; I've heard about his "present" votes. I've heard about Wright, about Ayers, and about ACORN. I've heard about his abortion record, about his indecision regarding whether he personally would speak to Iran's president or not; I should say, I've heard about his 'flip-flopping' on the subject. Despite all this, you say he hasn't been vetted, you say he hasn't been analyzed. He's been running for two years, and his legislative history is public record; it has been analyzed. If you believe otherwise, I can't convince you. I just don't know how you could believe it when the facts state otherwise.
That being said, this has probably been our most respectful debate thus far. I'm enjoying it.
Comments
cnn is my personal favorite. However, I do that because I hope to achieve some level of middle ground there. Fox is too right, msn too left.
I like drudge because I believe he brings things to light that all of the above will brush under the rug.
There's several things I disagree with in this; one of them is indisputable. You say Obama was first elected to office in 2004. That's not true; he was first elected to office eight years before that, in 1996, and started working as a State Senator in Illinois in Jan. 97. So I don't know where that's coming from.
Here's my problem with your stance on this, and at first it will seem contradictory to something I said before. You say that "the bottom line is that Obama has no record." Many people would state that is ridiculous, and I think it's impossible to have an opinion that does not hold up to facts. I could point you to legislation Obama has sponsored, co-sponsored and/or voted for in the U.S. Senate that includes reducing worldwide nuclear arms, aiding Hurricane Katrina victims, ethics reform, advancement of alternative energy sources, etc. And that's just in the U.S. Senate; we could go into the State Senate as well. Now, maybe you think that legislative record is lightweight; maybe you think it shows he has no spine. Maybe you don't agree with his positions. Those are all legitimate critiques of his legislative record, and they're great topics for discussion. But the "bottom line" you posted is not a bottom line at all. It's your subjective, conservative leaning analysis of what the bottom line is, just like I have an analysis coming from my point of view as an Obama supporter. There are significant, legitimate and important disagreements and debates to be had there but you can't claim absolute certitude on an issue where the facts dispute such certitude, and then criticize the media for not telling the truth about such a non-existent "bottom line." It doesn't seem to me that you're unhappy that some media outlets aren't reporting "the facts." You're unhappy that they are not reporting your subjective analysis of the facts.
P.S. Is it just me, or am I the only one who have heard these mainstream media outlets, including the liberal rags like MSNBC and Newsweek, bring up the argument in political circles about whether Obama has enough experience to be President? I mean, we've only gone through a Democratic primary campaign and a General Election campaign where it was a primary issue.
1.) Yes, it should be reported more widespread. This isn't a shocking revelation of any kind, and I wouldn't expect to see it plastered on every headline, but it should be somewhere in some capacity. Seems like we agree here.
2.) I think Obama's record has been scrutinized more so. In fact, Palin's record hasn't really been debated at all. Instead, we've been debating how crappy she does in interviews and doesn't know what newspapers she reads. Or we've talked about pictures of her shooting things from a helicopter, her pregnant daughter, how much she looks like Tina Fey, her secessionist husband, etc. "Troopergate"--god, i hate how the add 'gate' to the end of everything now--is that closest the media really has come to discussing her record as a politician.
3.) Again, I think Obama's experience has been discussed at great length. It came up nearly twenty months ago when this campaign started, it continued through the DNC debates and his run against Hilary Clinton, and it has been discussed throughout the debates and every time McCain brings it up. That said, I don't think he's particularly qualified. I also don't think experience is a relative thing. "Well, she's more experienced than Obama," still doesn't make her qualified either. She was Mayor, great. Wasilla had 5,500 people when she was in charge. There are school districts with more students. She was Governor for two years. That's a step in the right direction. Alaska, if it were a city, would be like 15th in the United States by population. Yes, the duties are different, but it still doesn't make her anywhere near a well-qualified candidate. And even if we argue that it's still more qualification than being a Senator is, it didn't give her any exposure on a national level--my hypothesis as to why she's getting so much media coverage.
I think we actually agree on more than we disagree here premise wise--we're just taking it to different conclusions.
As for media sources, yeah, msnbc and foxnews are way to biased. CNN isn't bad. I find BBC's website, not the American one, kind of interesting too.
Actually, you are right to point out he was in state senate since 1997. But, you are avoiding my central point.... Palin is running for VP. She's held an executive level position since 96. Obama is running for President. He's held a legislative level position since 97. Palin is receiving more criticism in the weeks before the election. That's the point.
Your reason, is basically we hashed that out already with Obama in the primary. That's 100% BS. It's not been hashed out in front of the largest audience and right before the election so all can see. It needs to be. He is running for PRESIDENT.
As for his record, he voted "Present" as you know quite a few times in his State Senate role. IMHO State Senate is roughly the equivalent of small town mayor when running for President.... you certainly don't have federal records for either. So, let's throw that out for a second. As for his current job as U.S. Senator, he's voted roughly 1/2 the time. He's been running for President since he got the job. He most likely avoided any vote he was nervous about (WHICH ALL CANDIDATES DO, so I'm not singling him out). As you can see, as far as federal issues go, he has very little record to inspect... hence my point. Maybe an over simplification saying "no record". Maybe it's better to say "limited record".
Which brings it back to the central tenant of the thread. Why is Palin running for VP getting more scrutinty than Obama running for Pres now, closing in on two months after her selection and less than a few weeks away from the Presidential election.
I know you are voting Obama, not trying to change that.... just trying to get you to admit, it is a bit slighted.
I'll go through this one by one, but I should say that we seem to agree on far more than we disagree upon. I think that any reasonable person, no matter what ideology they hold dear, can and should realize that it is vital for any reporter to report the truth. I think you didn't address the point I made that the problem is not liberalism, but gutlessness and an emphasis on sales (which I'll touch on again soon). However, I thought it was important to point out that since you were making such an important point about how she served over TEN YEARS in elected office (which was not actually ten years; she only served as the mayor of Wasilla until 2002, and didn't enter the governor's office until 2007) whereas Obama only served four years. I thought it was important to point out that those statistics are not, in fact, true. In fact, Obama has served far more time in office than Palin.
That being said, I'm not here to debate Palin's government experience. Luckily for us, the Presidency or Vice Presidency is not limited to those with decades of governmental experience, or else we would have a limited selection of candidates. Besides considering that George W. Bush had more government experience than either Sarah Palin or Barack Obama I don't think government experience is necessarily the best way to judge a potential candidate. My feelings on her inadequacy for higher office stem from her seeming inability to grasp the complex issues facing our nation, not her government experience, or lack thereof.
Once again, you don't address my primary criticism of your argument, is that you're not arguing for Obama's record itself to be scrutinized in the past few months before we vote, but your subjective analysis of that record. But I'll come back to that. I agree with you that the news organizations have not gone, vote by vote, through Obama's legislative record, or (according to you) lack thereof. They have not done that for McCain, either. Or Biden. Or Palin. I'd note that the critique of her legislative record in the mainstream media of Palin has pretty much been limited to her Bridge to Nowhere stance, which has been a central part of her campaign. Typically, networks don't seem to get big ratings when they comb through candidates' legislative records, and that is a significant criticism of them; they go for what sells (lipstick on pigs, etc.) as opposed to what's important. If that's the point you're making, I'm in complete agreement.
However, it should be said that if they did commit to such an exhaustive legislative analysis of both candidates, they'd learn a few interesting things about McCain. For example, he has never voted in favor of tax credits for alternative energy innovators, and he voted against Iraq war funding just as Obama did. So, I agree with you that the candidates' records have not been exhaustively analyzed, but let's not pretend that it would be automatically detrimential to Obama.
So let's get to the second half of your argument, about the critcisms of Obama. In regards to the 'present' votes, I wonder where you heard such information. Personally, I heard it from the mainstream media that you are saying are failing to cover Obama exhaustively. Additionally, I've heard that extensively as a 'talking point' so I wonder if you're using it as such. If you don't take Obama's word for it (that many of those were political votes in that he agreed with the core legislation but not pork legislation that was added) then that is your right and personal opinion. You're right; he has voted often (although, it should be said that the most absent senator in Congress currently is John McCain, and this has been consistent for at least the past ten years). I took issue with you regarding the 'bottom line' being that him having no record because it is not an 'over-simpflipication' of his record, but it is completely inaccurate. He does have a record. It's certainly nowhere near as exhaustive as McCain's, and if you think that having an exhaustive national record is a prerequisite to being President, then you should vote against the candidate who does not have an extensive national record (although, I should note you'd be voting against many Republican candidates of the past who had paltry or non-existent national legislative records, so you'd be repudiating their experience as well).
I guess if you think Obama has not been vetted by the media for the past two years, I don't know how to change your mind. I've heard about his limited legislative record; I've heard about his "present" votes. I've heard about Wright, about Ayers, and about ACORN. I've heard about his abortion record, about his indecision regarding whether he personally would speak to Iran's president or not; I should say, I've heard about his 'flip-flopping' on the subject. Despite all this, you say he hasn't been vetted, you say he hasn't been analyzed. He's been running for two years, and his legislative history is public record; it has been analyzed. If you believe otherwise, I can't convince you. I just don't know how you could believe it when the facts state otherwise.
That being said, this has probably been our most respectful debate thus far. I'm enjoying it.