October 28, 2008

"Why McCain is getting hosed in the press."

According to Politico, it's not that journalists simply want Obama to win. Politico says journalists are actually pretty good at adhering to "professional obligations," they aren't big ideologues, and they don't even like Obama personally. (They "find him a distant and undefined figure.") They used to love McCain, because of "his accessibility and iconoclasm and supposed commitment to clean politics," but they've fallen out of love, not because they want him to lose, but because he's not accessible anymore:
McCain’s decision to limit media access and align himself with the GOP conservative base was an entirely routine, strategic move for a presidential candidate. But much of the coverage has portrayed this as though it were an unconscionable sellout....
Meanwhile, Obama has benefited from the "[j]ournalists’ hair-trigger racial sensitivity," "his ability to minimize internal drama and maximize secrecy," and the sheer fact of his "momentum":
A candidate who is perceived to be doing well tends to get even more positive coverage (about his or her big crowds or the latest favorable polls or whatever). And a candidate who is perceived to be doing poorly tends to have all events viewed through this prism.

Not coincidentally, this is a bias shared by most of our sources. This is why the bulk of negative stories about McCain are not about his ideology or policy plans — they are about intrigue and turmoil. Think back to the past week of coverage on Politico and elsewhere: Coverage has been dominated by Sarah Palin’s $150,000 handbags and glad rags, by finger-pointing in the McCain camp, and by apparent tensions between the candidate and his running mate.

These stories are driven by the flood of Republicans inside and out of the campaign eager to make themselves look good or others look bad. This always happens when a campaign starts to tank.
Shorter version: It's McCain's fault he's getting hosed.

INT THE COMMENTS: Bissage says:
Politico’s explanation makes sense to me. An illustration should help. Have you ever seen a blind man cross the road trying to make the other side or a young girl growing old trying to make herself a bride?

That, of course, takes us to the real question: What becomes of Sen. McCain when they finally strip him of the handbags and the gladrags that the Grand Old Party had to sweat to buy?

ADDED: Drudge says:
POLITICO: DON'T BLAME US FOR THE BIAS, MCCAIN CAMPAIGN SUCKS...

97 comments:

Henry said...

Obama's "ability to minimize internal drama and maximize secrecy," sounds a lot like Bush in 2000.

If McCain is getting hosed in the press because he's not accessible enough, why is the secretive Obama given a free pass? Politico's thesis is self-refuting.

mccullough said...

The press aren't ideologues? Bullshit.

Why didn't they go after Obama in the primaries with the same tenacity they did Hillary?

Occam's razor: the press are lazy and liberal.

Roost on the Moon said...

Getting ready for a pity party. Guess I'll turn on the music, hmmm, I'm thinking downtempo Garth. Now I'll walk around looking for things to tidy up.

Ah, the first guests have arrived. How thoughtful! You brought whine.

Henry said...

And you brought spam. Should be great meal.

Roost on the Moon said...

Occam's razor: the press are lazy and liberal.

That's actually a refreshingly good explanation. Just liberal on social issues, though. The press is lazy and corporate.

mccullough said...

RotM: Reporters and line-level editors aren't really corporate types, though the higher up editors and certainly the C-level cats are.

If reporters were smart they'd be selling their companies' stock short. I've been doing that to the NYTimes Co. the past year and have been making some good $$$.

holdfast said...

It is all McCain's fault, he's:

-to old,
-too male,
-too white,
-too Republican,
-too not a young, black, dynamic smooth talker,
-too experienced,
-too well known, and
-too decisive.

See, he's the opposite of everything the media is looking for in a candidate, whereas, just by pure happenstance, Obama is EXACTLY what they are looking for - why, it's almost as if the media had a hand in creating Obama. They all loves McCain as long as he was beating up Republicans on the issues where he is a Maverick, but now that he has to win an actual election, they hate him for being a Republican. Or maybe they still like him, they're just pretending to dislike him for the good of the country (ie to elect Obama).

SteveR said...

On the bullshit meter, Politco is pegged out. Doesn't even require much of an explanation.

Marcia said...

"A candidate who is perceived to be doing well tends to get even more positive coverage (about his or her big crowds or the latest favorable polls or whatever)."

That explains why the media treatment of Sarah Palin was so favorable the first few weeks of September. She brought excitement to the campaign. Huge convention numbers. She has outstanding approval ratings in Alaska. The media couldn't imagine raining on that parade.

Oh, wait a minute ...

Simon said...

"Responsible editors would be foolish not to ask themselves the bias question, especially in the closing days of an election."

Don't believe it. Why would they do so?

"[F]or most journalists, professional obligations trump personal preferences. Most political reporters (investigative journalists tend to have a different psychological makeup) are temperamentally inclined to see multiple sides of a story, and being detached from their own opinions comes relatively easy."

Don't believe it. And neither do Harris & Vandehei - they content themselves with arguing that there are other factors driving the bias than political preference. The issue, however, isn't why the press is biased: it's the fact that it is.

Moreover, their theory fails the most basic test: it can't account for the vicious campaign the media has waged against Palin. If your theory can't account for that, your theory's wrong.

Bissage said...

Politico’s explanation makes sense to me. An illustration should help. Have you ever seen a blind man cross the road trying to make the other side or a young girl growing old trying to make herself a bride?

That, of course, takes us to the real question: What becomes of Sen. McCain when they finally strip him of the handbags and the gladrags that the Grand Old Party had to sweat to buy?

LonewackoDotCom said...

There's no legitimate explanation for the media's handling of the election. They want BHO to win, and they've been quite explicit about it. See any of the posts at Swampland, see how several of the WaPo's reporters have lied or misled and served as the original source for smears that were then promoted by the HuffPost and at Digg, etc. etc. etc.

Anyway, if anyone wants to do something about this, send this link to major MSM reporters.

slattern23 said...

McCain's running a crappy campaign. His first serious decision, choice of running mate, was ill-conceived and reckless. How is that the fault of the media? Are the press supposed to lie and put a glossy filter on a disaster? It seems to me that's what the anti-MSM whiners are saying.

TMink said...

Chris Wrenn wrote: "His first serious decision, choice of running mate, was ill-conceived and reckless."

Doofus, ill-conceived choices in a running mate HURT you in the polls. You are either so slight of intellect that you cannot bother to check the facts or so addled that the facts are irrelevant.

Either way, why should anyone who thinks bother to read a post like that?

Trey

dbp said...

That is a load of self-serving BS.

The press loved McCain when he could be relied upon to criticize Republicans. Now they hate him since he stands in the way of "The One".

Henry said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Henry said...

Ann wrote: Shorter version: It's McCain's fault he's getting hosed.

My shorter version: We in the media are biased, but that's because we're shallow.

Here's a pair of lines from the article that stood out to me (and I believe to be true). The first --"for most journalists...being detached from their own opinions comes relatively easy" -- is closely followed by the second --"Reporters obsess about personalities".

The kicker is that Obama is probably the most reporter-like political personality around. He is educated, urbane, urban ... and famously detached.

Why wouldn't reporters gravitate to him? He's their prom king.

mccullough said...

Slattern,

I've no problem with the press being tough on Palin and McCain.

They should be tough on all candidates and they haven't been.

Does anyone seriously think Joe Biden is qualified to be President?

The guy has made stupid statements throughout his career, including throughout this campaign. When people repeatedly do this, we say they aren't smart or don't know what they are talking about.

Obama (and Biden) have taught law school but I've yet to see any stories interviewing former students. The national media hasn't dug into Obama's very questionable connections to Tony Rezko, much less asked Obama why he didn't refer his Rezko-backed house purchase to the Senate Ethics committee. (Rezko's cooperating with federal prosecutors now and could well have something to say about Obama in addition to Gov. Blagojevich).

Anyone seen any stories about how blue-collar Joe racked up as many draft deferments as Cheney? Anyone compared Joe's draft deferments to those of the other blue-collar kids from Scranton?

There are any number of stories the press could do on Obama-Biden, but they aren't doing too many.

laura said...

The press loved McCain when he could be relied upon to criticize Republicans.

If he'd of stayed on that actual mavericky track, things would look a whole lot different today.

laura said...

Her 'outstanding approval ratings in Alaska," comes from her signing the checks sent to the great citizens of Alaska. I don't think she'll be doing that down here.

Darcy said...

Oh, please. They've exposed themselves, and now they're trying to spin their bias.

Not buying it. How about just reporting the facts? Hmm?

That is apparently too tough to do.
Better their own fantastic narrative for the ignorant masses.

The ones that buy it, anyway...

Trooper York said...

The press are just lying sacks of shit that make things up. They should be mocked and ridiculed at every turn. They have been partisan players for a long time and have become emboldened by desperation as they are going bankrupt and out of business. When the Republicans pushed back a little, they demoted Matthews and Olberman for a little while. But now they think everything is fine because their guy is going to win.

I think Palin is a different kettle of fish. She recognizes the press for the filthy vermin that they have been for oh so many years. After their behavior in trashing her family, she should take no prisoners. Take it to them. The best defense is a good offense. If they insist on getting in the game as players, they will be blocked and tackled. Do you know what a "crack back" block is? I hope Sarah Palin becomes the Conrad Dobler of the Republican Party.

The only thing worse than a journalist is a lawyer.

Anthony said...

The press loved McCain when he could be relied upon to criticize Republicans.

This is it exactly, and I think has been McCain's major problem with this campaign: he's simply not used to dealing with an openly hostile press. He's used to getting the basic treatment the press accords Democrats.

We have yet to see how Obama deals with a non-sycophant press, though the recent dustup with Biden does not bode well.

mccullough said...

Obama can't take criticism. If the press ever does their job, we'll see what a first-class temperament he has.

Trooper York said...

The Republican campaign should insist that every interview be live and unedited and a tape be available on the internet. Otherwise the narrative will be shaped and distorted. Journalists lie and fabricate. As the old saw goes:

You how you can tell a journalist is lying, his lips are moving.

The only thing worse than a journalist is a lawyer.

slattern23 said...

Sorry guys, I'm not buying it for a second. What level of fair play would you prefer the media gave to McCain? The kind that Drudge and Pajamas Media give to Obama? Please. Your candidate's campaign sucks, period, and you're just looking for scapegoats.

MadisonMan said...

Nothing succeeds like success. Nothing fails like failure.

The Press is lazy and is reporting on the above axiom.

Trooper York said...

It's not a matter of scapegoats. The press is not the reason they will lose if they lose. But they are infectious pus contaminating the body politic. Luckily they soon will all go out of business and be replaced by Us Weekly and Entertainment Tonight. Just don't help them survive in any way shape or form. They are on their last legs. If the shareholders don't revolt, the New York Times will soon be out of business.

The only thing worse than a journalist is a lawyer.

mccullough said...

Slattern,

I'm not blaming the media if McCain loses. I'm blaming the media for not doing their job.

Biden has been in the Senate for 36 years and has at least as much dirt as Palin.

While Obama is young, there's enough to look into. For instance, he was the head of a foundation that pissed away $100 million on education with no results. His idea as President is to increase funding for Head Start ($6.4 billion a year already) that doesn't work. Maybe someone could pin him down about why he supports throwing money at problems when the statistics show it doesn't work and he has first-hand experience that it doesn't work.

It probably also isn't too unfair to ask him why he sends his kids to private school if he is such a big believer in public schools.

That's the education issue. Now wash, rinse, repeat for the dozens of other issues.

Pastor_Jeff said...

McCain’s decision to limit media access and align himself with the GOP conservative base was an entirely routine, strategic move for a presidential candidate. But much of the coverage has portrayed this as though it were an unconscionable sellout....

So this is McCain's fault, how?

LarsPorsena said...

Laura Said:
"Her 'outstanding approval ratings in Alaska," comes from her signing the checks sent to the great citizens of Alaska. I don't think she'll be doing that down here."

Obama has promised me one. What's the difference?

ricpic said...

It doesn't wash that reporters turned on McCain because he limited their access to him. If that were the case why didn't they turn violently against Obama, who banned some of their colleagues from any further access to him after they dared to question his pronouncements?

Anthony said...

You know, this actually reminds me of the old Windows-OS/2 wars of the early-mid '90s. That was when I first discovered that the press wasn't this fair-minded reporting group, but really a herd of like-minded partisans. In that case, they had already decided that Windows was going to "win" the desktop (at least for PCs) and their coverage was not only dominantly Windows-centric by volume, but they would not even do basic research on any competition in order to even portray an opposing project fairly. Any problem with a competing technology was the first thing mentioned in a story, while any problems with Windows, or Microsoft products generally, were pooh-poohed away by quoting a M$ spokesman.

Interestingly, they also stole an election, so to speak. InfoWorld used to have a Best Product user-vote every year, and the operating system prize went to OS/2 for like 4 straight years. Finally one year they just gave up, made a bunch of unsupported allegations of vote stuffing, scrapped the results and did their own "survey" which, not surprisingly, resulted in a stunning victory for Windows NT.

I never considered it as a "conspiracy" with editors and Microsoft execs sitting in a room plotting their next PR move. It was basic journalistic laziness and a desire to be on the winning side and, no coincidentally, only have to write about one thing they already knew something about.

Hairy said...

I've read countless times that McCain once has the support of the MSM, even reading it described as a love affair. That relationship has certainly changed. Almost no one seems to remember that at the time of the alleged love affair, McCain was a political opponent to Bush. McCain was operating as the candidate outside of the Republican base.

Now that McCain has a Democratic political opponent, his support among the MSM has waned. Could this be the correlation?

It's a thesis I can hardly prove, but I suspect had John McCain defeated Bush, the press would have turned against him as soon as McCain began campaigning against Al Gore.

Spread Eagle said...

I'm trying to remember a republican presidential candidate the MSM didn't hate. Eisenhower?

Mark said...

Roost: "The press is lazy and corporate."

Except when it comes to the sport of Alaskan Dumpster Diving. Then they're triathletes.

BJM said...

Oh please, Politico's been totally in the Obama tank since they knifed Hillary. They've become little more than a Dem echo chamber.

The whackjobs at Huffpo have more credibility than Politico as they had the balls to publish the Edwards story when it mattered.

Original George said...

The crucial moment came when McCain said he was suspending his campaign to fly to Washington to help deal with the crisis.

All around the country, people thought, "Ah, at last, an adult will take charge."

But, then...pfft...

Maybe it was because the Democrats wouldn't go along. Maybe it was because McCain didn't know what the solution was.

Really, no one knows what the solution is. They're pulling all the levers in D.C. as fast as they can, and we're still losing altitude

Obama has benefited because he stayed aloof.

Even better, he's promising pie.

Original George said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Bruce Hayden said...

What is humorous about this is that the Republican ticket is providing much greater access to their candidates right now than the Democrats are - probably by an order of magnitude.

But it is rarely mentioned that Obama has a smelly plane, and he almost never meets with reporters. Instead, they are kept locked down most of the time. Biden is locked down as much as the Obama campaign can, simply because he is almost assured of committing gaffes if talking unscripted.

McCain has opened up again, and, more interestingly, so has Palin. She apparently is now routinely touring the press section of her plane to charm the reporters.

But, of course, we are still hearing the meme about how the bias is because of lack of access by the Republicans.

rdkraus said...

Trooper

What's the deal with the lawyers?

You do know that your host is ...lawyer?

My guess: Your ex-wife had a better lawyer.

TMink said...

"These stories are driven by the flood of Republicans inside and out of the campaign eager to make themselves look good or others look bad."

Hogwash. Republicans are Republicans, they don't do things like that. Democrats are the same way, they are loyal to their party. I am a conservative, so my loyalty lies to those principles and ideals.

These people are lifers in the political system, their loyalty is to themselves.

Trey

Maxine Weiss said...

Why haven't the anti-Prop 8 forces hitched themselves, at all, to McCain/Palin ???

There is no way to win, on the ballot in California, without some Republican support. Republicans on the California legislature are the ones who made it legal in California !

Anti-Prop 8 proponents are assuming everyone in their base is Pro-Obama.

Seeing a Palin noose hanging from a home in West Hollywood, isn't a very good way to further their strategy.

Chip Ahoy said...

* looks up gladrags *

Duscany said...

Of course the media are against McCain (and have wet panties every time Obama gives a speech). But the truth is that McCain also doesn't look very good anymore. His answers are canned. He doesn't think on his feet. He tends to cycle his stump speech no matter what the question.

Moreover he does strange things, like stumble over words, flash bizarre and appropriate smiles, display an unnerving inability to think in complete sentences (unless it's a sentence we've heard 1,000 times before).

He's trying too hard to control his famous temper which causes him to suppress his normal likability and ability to speak without constantly stumbling.

I would never vote for either McCain or Obama so I have no dog in this fight. But Obama looks like he can think and McCain looks like he's dead set against such an inefficient use of brain power.

The media ruthlessly attacked NcCain's poor judgment for picking Sarah Palin. I haven't seen any ruthless media attacks on Obama for hanging out with Bill Ayers, which indicates to me equally bad judgment. Instead the media defends Obama, claiming the McCain camp is engaging in guilt by association.

It's the wrong argument. The right argument is that Obama is showing bad judgment by association with an unrepentant terrorist. And that's what McCain is trying to say, without ever quite getting it right.

Chip Ahoy said...

If I were throwing a pity party and sought to create a depressing atmosphere, my musical choice would be Neil Young. An hour of that and you're ready to off yourself.

Trevor Jackson said...

"And that's what McCain is trying to say, without ever quite getting it right."

Oh, I think he's been pretty clear, it's just that serving on a board funded by a Republican ambassador with nearly a dozen other prominent members of the community doesn't equal the kind of "bad judgment" McCain hopes we'll ascribe to Obama.

blake said...

Her 'outstanding approval ratings in Alaska," comes from her signing the checks sent to the great citizens of Alaska.

Really? So, since Alaska's been cutting checks to its citizens for over 30 years, we can assume all of Alaska's governors for that time have such an astounding popularity rating?

Even the one that Palin ousted two years ago?

Trooper York said...

"What's the deal with the lawyers?

You do know that your host is ...lawyer?"

Haven't you ever dealt with a lawyer? Plus Althouse isn't a "real
lawyer." She gave that all up to train future parasites. If she were a "real lawyer" she would be out chasing ambulances and cheating widows and orphans out of their inheritance like a good lawyer would. It's like when a football player becomes an announcer. He might teach you about the game, but he ain't a real player, ya know what I mean. You have to be in the trenches blocking and tackling to be in the game.

blake said...

Anthony,

I remember the Windows-OS/2 wars and, yes, the press bias was astounding and, yes, they were just as offended at the notion that they were biased.

And the upshot of their efforts was to kill a perfectly competitor--the only serious competitor Microsoft had--and basically retard technology for about 5 years.

And when they'd killed it, then it was okay to talk about its good points, and all the problems in Windows.

Anyone wanna bet we'll see that if Obama wins? It'll be okay to like McCain again and we'll be permitted to see some of Obama's flaws.

William said...

The press is no more in the tank for Obama than they were for Kerry. What is different in this election is not press bias but the stock market collapse. The Republicans are the party of capitalists. The Democrats are the party of state interventionists. Try selling the joys of capitalism or the wisdom of privatizing social security accounts in this market.....Obama won his Senate seat because his opponent went to sex clubs. He will win the Presidency because the market is in crisis....I don't know as the Republicans are to blame for the mess. Robert Rubin when he worked at Citi did not have any great insights into the coming meltdown. But it happened on their watch and the Republicans, therefore, will lose the election.....Obama will be the luckiest and least experienced President of all time. Let's hope luck is another term for destiny, and the gods favor us as much as they do Obama.

AJ Lynch said...

Trevor:

I think you misundertand Annenberg;s role in this thing.

Walter Annenberg was a bigtime super-rich heir to a publishing company. Walter and his wife (Lenore?) gave millions or billions to the Annenberg Foundation which then funded stuff like The Chicago Annenberg Challenge and UPenn's Annenberg School of Communications [which owns & operates factcheck.org, etc]

By the late 1990's when Obama began to get his hands dirty alongside the terrorist Ayers, I think it is safe to say Walter was almost senile. So Walter's dealings with all these non-profits that bear his name was superficial and tangential at best.

To portray the Obama's money-laundering Anneberg Challenge as something blessed by a staunch Republican is a fantasy.

Do you understand what I am saying?

blake said...

All right, so now it's reported that the Los Angeles Times has a video of Obama praising Rashid Khalidi as Bill Ayers watches on and applauds.

The LAT has admitted they have this tape and has no intention to release it.

How does sitting on a huge scoop--one that's in your lap right now--translate to mere "laziness"? And how does the NYT hit piece on McCain/Iseman, with all its contortions to make a non-point, constitute "laziness"?

No, this doesn't hold up to the slightest scrutnity, and what's more, the only ones who will be fooled are those who wish to be.

Duscany said...

"Oh, I think he's been pretty clear, it's just that serving on a board funded by a Republican ambassador with nearly a dozen other prominent members of the community doesn't equal the kind of "bad judgment" McCain hopes we'll ascribe to Obama."

The question is, why does someone who wants to be president feel comfortable hanging out with a former terrorist? Do you think he'd ever hang out with a former Nazi? So why did he hang out with Ayers? Probably because in the world of leftists in which Obama was living, Ayer's bombings were no big deal. Yeah, he went a little too far. He set off bombs when he should have been applying for community action grants. But that was in another country and besides the bitch is dead.

AJ Lynch said...

Blake:

News embargoes are the newest newsroom rage.

New NYT/LAT Tagline:

"All the news, dear reader, that is fit for you to have."

elHombre said...

I got raped by a gang of reporters last night and it was my fault. I was dressed all wrong and my shoes didn't match my bag. So I was asking for it! Right?

Media bias and censorship - don't forget the self-imposed censorship - is all McCain's and Palin's fault. Right?

That kind of stupidity fits right in for people who think we can get out of a recession by raising corporate and capital gains taxes and that an exalted Chicago ward heeler is the Messiah.

Chip Ahoy said...

Lonewacko, the link you provided to 24ahead.com contains a woefully wrongly unforeshortened photo of Obama and Biden, resulting Biden with a tiny hand. See the corrected and slightly animated version here.

AntonK said...

But, having asked it, our sincere answer is that of the factors driving coverage of this election — and making it less enjoyable for McCain to read his daily clip file than for Obama — ideological favoritism ranks virtually nil.

The main reason is that for most journalists, professional obligations trump personal preferences. Most political reporters (investigative journalists tend to have a different psychological makeup) are temperamentally inclined to see multiple sides of a story, and being detached from their own opinions comes relatively easy.


So there you have it. Stop complaining about bias, and accept the opinions of your betters, America.

AJ Lynch said...

Duscany:

Didn't you get the memo? According to Tom Brokaw on Meet The Press, Ayers is an education professor. Please refrain from calling Ayers a former terrorist.

Just think if someone murdered Tom Brokaw, went to jail for 20 years, was paroled, somehow got a job as college professor, would NBC call that person a professor or a former murderer?

blake said...

And while we're at it, let's talk about this "journalists are corporate shills and therefore not leftist" nonsense.

This is based on a couple of false notions. For example, if a division is profitable, the company isn't necessarily going to care about its politics. (Seth MacFarlane, creator of the very left-wing "American Dad" and the increasingly left-wing "Family Guy" has stated many times that the supposedly right-wing Fox Network has given him no trouble.)

Second, it's a complete fallacy that big corporations are against the sorts of oppressive regulation that leftists love to enact. That stuff just makes it harder for the upstarts, and BigHuge Co. often gets a say in writing the rules, and can afford the staff to actually comply.

For example, I'd get into writing medical software, but I can't do a thing without a doctor and a lawyer.

Imagine if the banking industry were less regulated and people had their money in tends or hundreds of thousands of institutions instead of just a handful. Would the current meltdown have required intervention?

AJ Lynch said...

Blake I agree. That "corporate media" whine goes hand in hand with the whiner who is generally an anti-capitalist as well as far far left. They may as well come out and say what they mean "eew profit is so evil."

ron st.amant said...

At this point in the campaign with all the issues discussed a multitude of times, all the negative ads poured over, the personalities defined, all that is left is the process story.

Therefore 'internal dramas' are what feed the beast, and McCain's campaign has been a buffet.

mccullough said...

"But that was in another country and besides the bitch is dead."

Duscany, nice combination of Christopher Marlowe and James Bond.

Pogo said...

" McCain's campaign has been a buffet."

Mainly because the press refuses to tell what it knows about Obama's campaign, which is all sweetness and light, and everywhere it's spring, and rainbows fill the sky.

AlphaLiberal said...

Ha ha. The reason McCain is getting bad press is because people like watching a train wreck more than a smooth running locomotive.

McCain's campaign has been a fount of interesting story fodder:
* A financial crisis hits at the end of the campaign and McCain proves to be a very shaky hand at the wheel.
* McCain 2008 vs McCain 2000. Who would show up Jan 20?
* The oldest candidate in the history of the country. Worth talking about.
* In a time of historic national crises, war and financial collapse, McCain picks an ill-prepared, shallow and unqualified Sarah Palin.
* The infighting. Please, give us more on the infighting.
* McCain's gaffes, moments of bewilderment.

It's a hell of a list and goes on....

McCain is getting fair treatment from the press, though the right wing demands the media just report on his herotude and repeat the day's talking points.

That's why Orland anchor West was so loved by wingers. She premised her questions on the most bizarre claims by the McCain camp. Including calling Obama a socialist for supporting middle class tax cuts.

mccullough said...

Pogo,

It's about Hope and Change. The guy at the top has zero experience so there's not much to report on that campaign.

McCain and Palin are more interesting characters so that's where the action is.

Pogo said...

Including calling Obama a socialist for supporting a socialist agenda..

Yes, how bizarre!

Doyle said...

Hey have you guys seen the Pew poll that has the lead expanding even further? It's got McCain at 36 or something.

If only Americans hadn't been so deceived by the librul media, I'm sure McCain would be getting at least 40 or 42% support!

Suck it, wingnuts.

mccullough said...

AL,

Ronald Reagan was almost 74 when he was re-elected POTUS. So McCain's not the oldest.

If Sarah Palin is so shallow, etc. why are there way more stories about her than Obama? Maybe there's just not much to write about Obama. It's not like he's accomplished anything:

President of Harvard Law Review but never published an article.

Community organizer who didn't accomplish anything.

Civil rights lawyer who didn't accomplish anything.

State Senator who didn't accomplish anything.

United States Senator who hasn't accomplished anything.

Anything else I'm missing?

Doyle said...

If Sarah Palin is so shallow, etc. why are there way more stories about her than Obama?

Because it's rare for someone so stupid to be on a presidential ticket. She's a laughingstock. Is it that hard to comprehend?

mccullough said...

Doyle,

Did you see the Gallup poll that has the race at 47-45%?

AlphaLiberal said...

Ronald Reagan was almost 74 when he was re-elected POTUS. So McCain's not the oldest.

Uh-huh. And younger than McCain when he first ran. McCain would be 76 if we were to give him a chance to run again. Older than Reagan.

So, I should have said:

McCain is the eldest major party candidate to run for a first-term for President.

Doyle said...


Did you see the Gallup poll that has the race at 47-45%?


LOL. That's right. Keep Hope Alive, right?

I think that was a likely voter sample that was 45% evangelical. If the electorate on Nov 4 is also 45% evangelical, I'll stipulate that it'll be close, but obviously it won't be.

mccullough said...

Doyle,

If Obama is so smart, please tell me his I.Q., his SAT and his LSAT scores?


Also, Doyle, if you're so smart, please enlighten us why when Clinton and W. lowered the capital gains tax rate, tax revenue from capital gains went up?

Obama doesn't seem to know. I guess he didn't learn that taking all the civil rights law courses. Just like he didn't learn that Arabic isn't the language of Afghanistan.

Maybe you can tell us. You're a liberal. You must be smart.

mccullough said...

Doyle,

If Obama is so smart, please tell me his I.Q., his SAT and his LSAT scores?


Also, Doyle, if you're so smart, please enlighten us why when Clinton and W. lowered the capital gains tax rate, tax revenue from capital gains went up?

Obama doesn't seem to know. I guess he didn't learn that taking all the civil rights law courses. Just like he didn't learn that Arabic isn't the language of Afghanistan.

Maybe you can tell us. You're a liberal. You must be smart.

AlphaLiberal said...

The Republicans can still steal this one.

They need a wake up, a stunning defeat, to bring them back to reality.

Pogo said...

"They need a wake up, a stunning defeat, to bring them back to reality."

What kind of advice is that, coming from a far-left liberal?

It makes no goddamned sense at all. Obama is running a campaign for a socialist-style governemnt, and McCain is running for lite socialism.

What 'reality' are you talking about, pray tell?

Doyle said...

If Obama is so smart, please tell me his I.Q., his SAT and his LSAT scores?

Actual smart people, and I'm sure you've met a few, don't actually identify each other on the basis of standardized test scores (unless they work in college admissions).

It's not even entirely dependent on resume, although it is somehow comforting to know that Obama was educated at Harvard, instead of say, Idaho State (where Sarah Palin finished her tour of regional colleges).

It's just something that's obvious (to us) in listening to the guy. And it's not the sound of his voice or "oratory", it's argument, and he's really good at it in a way that Sarah Palin never will be.

mccullough said...

So Doyle,

Since Obama has a degree from Harvard, like W., that makes him smart. Big into credentials, are you?

The guy seems smart to me, but he doesn't seem any smarter than most politicians.

And Palin doesn't seem dumber to me than most politicians.

But it would be easier if Obama and Palin released their SAT scores. Obama went to a really good private high school so he should have very high scores.

Just like his LSAT score should be high because he graduated from Columbia.

So why hasn't he disclosed them? Inquiring minds want to know.

Also, neither you nor Obama have explained why revenues from capital gains taxes went up when Clinton and W. cut the capital gains rates.

Doyle, you seem like a smart guy, so I'm sure you wouldn't raise the capital gains rates without knowing why when they were lowered the revenues went up. So why does Obama want to raise them?

Pogo said...

In any event, who gives a shit?

The media blew their wad on Obama, and now exist only as a Ministry of Propaganda for the Democrats.

Even Democrats don't believe what they say anymore. They too know it's pure bullshit. Just another PR firm.

"The NYTimes says..." now carries no more meaning than "His defense lawyer stated..."
I mean, no shit, what else would they say?

The MSM delivers a positive report on Obama. Who gives a damn? It's not like it's actually reporting anymore. So why bother discussing it? It's like listening to some soccer mom describe her kid helping to score a goal, over and over and over again.
____________________________

"argument, and he's really good at it "
It's bloviating. Obfuscation. Masturbatory gummint lingo. Bullshittery.
Flattery. Pleasant thoughts mixed with empty aphorisms.
But it ain't argument, Doyle.

"obvious (to us)"
Lefties always love good BS.

Marcia said...

"* looks up gladrags *"

me too, Chip. Turns out it all seemed familiar because it was theme music from The Office (BBC).

blake said...

Right, the Obama-Biden campaign is like a smooth engine, purring along to victory.

That's why the two are hiding, desperately hoping to run out the clock.

And why, every time he opens his mouth, Biden makes a good case for the moose hunter. I'm sure that resulted in NO tension at OB headquarters.

As I said, the only ones who will be fooled are those who wish to be fooled.

former law student said...

""Why McCain is getting hosed in the press.""

McCain is no longer the happy fun guy he was on the Straight Talk Express, eight years ago. He's had to contort himself to appeal to the GOP base, which preferred W. to him two-to-one the first time he ran. Even so, the base sees him only as the lesser of two evils, despite his bringing the delicious Palin to their attention. Now the media sees him as the "Hey, you kids! Get offa my lawn!" guy.

the Los Angeles Times has a video of Obama praising Rashid Khalidi

Khalidi must be a high-powered dude for Columbia to hire him away from the University of Chicago, and thus worthy of praise.

Hazy Dave said...

"* looks up gladrags *"

I'm familiar with the song from Rod Stewart's fine first solo album (recorded when John McCain was a guest of the North Vietnamese government and Barack Obama was living with his mom and step-father in Indonesia).

former law student said...

But it would be easier if Obama and Palin released their SAT scores. Obama went to a really good private high school so he should have very high scores.

I'd like to see McCain's SAT scores too. McCain's private high school was even more expensive than Obama's, so McCain's scores should be even higher.

Baron Zemo said...

The press could have a tape of Obama cutting off the head of a journalist with some of his friends and contributors and it would never see the light of day. You see some things are best left unseen.

Until it is too late.

walter neff said...

I remember when I was a kid the big rumor about Rod Stewart was that he had to have his stomach pumped because he had swallowed a gallon of semen while being gang banged on tour.

Pogo said...

I remember that story!

Oooog.
Maybe that's why I can't stand his voice.

mccullough said...

FLS,

McCain's IQ scores are 133 based on his military records.

McCain didn't take the SAT because the Naval Academy didn't require it at the time.

Christopher said...

"You do know that your host is ...lawyer?"

You wouldn't know this by reading her posts. For example, after a British judge gave a man a life sentence for a brutal murder, Ann asked what someone has to do to get a life sentence in Britain.

But wouldn't it just be outrageous for her to eat a sandwich in front of her class?

Bruce Hayden said...

Actual smart people, and I'm sure you've met a few, don't actually identify each other on the basis of standardized test scores (unless they work in college admissions).

There is apparently a secret handshake though, and that is how Doyle knows that Obama is so smart. McCain and Palin don't know the secret handshake, and so aren't in the secret society of smart people. Biden says he knows the handshake, but Doyle hasn't seen him use it or any of their other secret gestures so cannot verify that Biden is also really smart.

Pogo said...

I think the secret handshake actually involves Doyle's lips applied to Obama's kiester.

That's how he can tell how smart BHO is.

Diamondhead said...

alphaliberal, Bob Dole was 73.

mccullough said...

It seems like U.S. Presidents live a long time.

H.W. Bush and Carter are 84. Ike almost made it to 80. Nixon, Hoover, and Truman made it into their 80s. Ford and Reagan made it into their 90s.

Big Mike said...

The US weathered the Carter years, it will weather the Obama years as well. Today's enthusiastic young Obama voters have no recollection of gas lines, parents in real estate going broke because no one could buy a house at 16% interest, car dealerships closing their doors because no one could afford to buy a car. We're headed that way again, and a new generation will learn that not everything they learned in college is true. That's actually a good thing.

Yes the press are biased. I'm biased, you're biased, Ann is biased (I didn't realize how badly so until she dropped her pose of "cruel neutrality"), everyone is biased in various ways at various levels of intensity. What is important is that we face our biases honestly and make an effort to deal with them. The English language has a word for people who think solely in sterotypes, who deal only with other people who share their same biases, and who cannot be made to see that they are biased and that their biases are huge problems. That word is "bigot," and I think it is good characterization of the 21st century press (not to mention most members of the college faculty). The only difference I can see between today's press and yesteryear's Southerner is who they display their bigotry towards. Well, they do have a larger vocabulary.

jdeeripper said...

mccullough said...FLS,

McCain's IQ scores are 133 based on his military records.

McCain didn't take the SAT because the Naval Academy didn't require it at the time.


Sarah Palin's a Brainiac .

Big Mike said...That word is "bigot," and I think it is good characterization of the 21st century press (not to mention most members of the college faculty). The only difference I can see between today's press and yesteryear's Southerner is who they display their bigotry towards.

The Europeans have their bigotries as well.

"When the Americans really put their foot in it was reelecting George Bush.

I mean the rest of the world was flabbergasted.

And I think it can be almost fixed like that (finger snap) by electing Obama because it really indicates this is not fundamentally a backwoods, redneck racist society.

fav.or.it said...

Actually, I remember a time when Sarah _was_ getting rave reviews. Every article and/or radio show was talking about the "Palin Effect" -- in general the press was in awe of her. But there was some backlash against McCain for picking her, because it was perceived that he was using her (for female votes, conservative base, etc.) Then she did that Couric interview... and it began to disintegrate.

sent from: fav.or.it