April 26, 2010

Silly WaPo headline: "Obama and Democrats appeal to new voters in midterms."

By "appeal," of course, they don't mean that voters find them appealing. I know that without reading the article. Is anyone clueless enough to think otherwise?

First paragraph:
President Obama is declaring his stake in the November midterm elections, as his Democratic Party prepares to announce an ambitious strategy to appeal to independent voters in its quest to maintain control of Congress.
Declare! Ambitious! Strategy! Appeal! Independent! Quest! Control!

Could you please settle down and become a newspaper?
Obama plans to issue a call-to-action video message to his supporters on Monday. Democratic officials called the video the first in a series of personal efforts designed to rekindle the grass-roots momentum that propelled Obama to the presidency -- this time, in a way that will benefit his party's congressional and gubernatorial candidates.
Let me try to understand. The Washington Post, which aspires to prestige in journalism, is front-paging the news that the President of the United States is going to release a campaign video and that he wants his party to win in the November elections? And it presents this non-news in cheesy PR language? Do the editors have no shame?

And what the hell does "designed to rekindle the grass-roots momentum" even mean? A presidential video is the opposite of grass roots.

Also, it's a mixed metaphor. Kindle... grass. Are we growing grass or burning things? Or did you mean to make me think of a prairie fire? Remember "Prairie Fire: The Politics of Revolutionary Anti-Imperialism" (1974) by Bill Ayers, et al.? ("We are a guerrilla organization. We are communist women and men, underground in the United States for more than four years.")

That's not the image WaPo wanted, I'm sure. "The name came from a quote by Mao Zedong, 'a single spark can set a prairie fire.'"

Ambitious! Strategy! Quest! Control!

78 comments:

AllenS said...

WaPo sucks.

AlphaLiberal said...

That's funny. The left wing thinks they are way too biased for the right.

Of course, we have facts on our side.

AllenS said...

Did you read the article, Alpha? Does it sound like it came from the right wing?

EDH said...

Well, Mao Zedong was a "favorite philosopher" in this administration.

Original Mike said...

"Obama plans to issue a call-to-action video message to his supporters on Monday."

Like he did in Virginia? New Jersey? Massachusetts?

Bring it on.

AlphaLiberal said...

Well, Allen, I lack the right wing paranoia you and Althouse possess which would clearly demonstrate all the hidden nuance that outrages you.

I read an article about new political moves by the incumbent President. And when a President makes a move, launches a new campaign, sounds a new theme - that's news.

And, "appeal" is a verb. Welcome to the English language where words have multiple meanings.

Althouse's reaction is typical knee jerk anti-Obamaism. Unless the article trashes the President, she will conclude it's biased.

Hagar said...

I hate it when the MSM tells us what X is going to tell us tomorrow!

Quayle said...

More than biased, Alpha, Ann concluded that it's "dog bites man."

AlphaLiberal said...

In the rare event a conservative wants to know how libs see the WashPo, here is a collection of Media Matters reports on biased and slanted WashPo reporting.

Then we also have their salon series in DC, which are very heavily slanted to the right.

YoungHegelian said...

The one thing you can say about press release journalism is that it sure beats working for a living!

Is anyone still surprised to discover a major media outlet performing an unnatural act for the Obama administration? The WaPo is Fox News compared to NPR, or, heavens to betsy, MSNBC.

Alex said...

AlphaLiberal is trying to tell us that liberals are a bunch of Harry Trumans - "we just tell the truth and they think it's hell". Right?

Alex said...

AL... as if Media Matters is an unbiased source!

Mark O said...

There's nothing like the paranoia of analyzing the words of a news paper article. How would that work?

For some Obama adherents, it is a religion. Facts are irrelevant. Questions are treason or madness (as it calling anyone who wonders why we know more about George Washington than Obama a "birther"). Disagreements with policies (such as the reach of the federal government or Iran's coming bomb) are race based.

It will be more difficult now to push Obama as a post-racial, moderate, unifying force.

PatCA said...

Another video message?? I can't wait!

Dave said...

The Post features dozens of stories on its homepage. It is obviously not the same as putting a story on the front page of a physical newspaper, where there are tighter limits.

But as to whether or not the story is newsworthy, of course it is. The story is not about whether Obama and the DNC want to perform well in the mid-terms, as you imply. It is a story about how they intend to do well in the mid-terms. So, yes, that is a newsworthy story.

Salamandyr said...

These "inside baseball" articles always come across as kind of silly. But on the other hand, the newspapers (unwittingly?) unveil the cynical calculation behind it all, which is a valuable service to provide.

wv: Tabishea...Tiamat's less popular sorority sister.

Lincolntf said...

Watching Obama beg for votes over the next few months should be entertaining. Now that he's lost the American Idol/People magazine bloc of voters, he's got no where to turn for more support. Even the perennial "you're a racist if you don't vote Dem" angle is worn out.
Good luck, Barry, you're gonna need it.

wv: reedies

Breakfast of Champions in Tokyo?

knox said...

That's funny. The left wing thinks they are way too biased for the right.

But OF COURSE you do.

Slow Joe said...

I love how Alpha liberal is freaking out about some really minor point Althouse is making, that the WaPo is being a cheerleader, while Alphaliberal also claims it's his sworn enemy, the vast right wing conspiracy, that is paranoid.

Hilarious. Sure, the right has nutjobs like Alphaliberal. World Net Daily counts on their patronage. Alphaliberal is just the other side's idiot.

I'm sure he's convinced Bush stole his elections and planned 9/11 and who knows how he'll explain the election in November.

Alex said...

AL a moby? Think about it.

Slow Joe said...

"The story is not about whether Obama and the DNC want to perform well in the mid-terms, as you imply. It is a story about how they intend to do well in the mid-terms. So, yes, that is a newsworthy story."

How? What about this are you so stupid you didn't already know last year?

And the tone: this is far more over the top than even Glenn Beck. You just don't realize it for some reason. And where's the story with this kind of language about the GOP's strategies or the Tea Party's strategies? Instead, it's about whether or not we're violent.

You guys are ambitious crusaders, and we're slimy murderers.

You're so defensive about this... that's what the blogpost was probably aimed at proving. Pretty newsworthy too.

Slow Joe said...

"Alex said...

AL a moby? Think about it."

That's a plausible explanation. I know many liberals, and none of them are that stupid. It's hard to imagine there are people like that.

But we all know there are people like that. There were people crying their eyes out when Kerry lost (and when Mccain lost). There are people who need their partisanship because it's their religion.

Chase said...

Question #1:
- Why is it grass-roots when the White House and Democrats are involved but not in the tea partys?

Question #2:
- Why do liberals insist on perpetuating the lie that Main Stream Media Stalwarts such as the Washington Post do not lean left?

Answers:
#1: It never is - Most Americans have absolutely no "from the ground-up" interest in Democrats or the President's agenda today. Which is why the White House, Democrats, and their lapdog media have to "make it up" (read "lie").

#2: Read answer #1.
And please: Media Matters? The #1 dishonest Far Left Site? George Soros' site?

Please. Liberals will always jump to dishonesty and disingenuousness because their very worldview doesn't require truth.

Palladian said...

I like when disingenuous trolls like Alex accuse other commenters of being disingenuous trolls.

Très amusant!




Verification word: chumspit

Alex said...

Palladian - I admit defeat. Now I shall go pinch a loaf.

Original Mike said...

Media Matters' David Brock. Snort.

The guy's an admitted liar. He either lied when he said he wasn't paid off by Richard Mellon Scaife to be a right-wing hack or he lied when he said he was. Take your pick, but the guy's a liar.

Chase said...

Media Matters David Brock. He's either getting paid by Right-Wing Richard Melon Sciafe (at leat he claimed it) or by Far-Left George Soros, who pays for Brock on Media Matters.

So basically David Brock is a values whore.

Slow Joe said...

Palladian insists that Alpha Liberal cannot even be accused of being a disingenuous troll.

Now that's a pathetic position to attempt to defend.

I don't know if Alex is a bad boy too, but it's pretty reasonable to ask if AL is really serious.

former law student said...

Could you please settle down and become a newspaper?

Like the Nevada Appeal and the Memphis Commercial Appeal? What about the Santa Rosa Press Democrat?

And what the hell does "designed to rekindle the grass-roots momentum" even mean? A presidential video is the opposite of grass roots.

The grass roots loved Obama and worked their asses off for his election. Remember David Plouffe? "Organizing for America"? Obama's organizing the community again.

The professor's serving up some very weak sauce lately. I fear that conservatism does indeed require inflexibility of mind.

Palladian said...

AlphaLiberal, for all his thick-headed, cut-and-paste, off-topic partisanship, is just someone annoyingly expressing his opinion (or perhaps more correctly, the opinions of whatever lefty rag he's reading today). That's different than cynically pretending to be something you're not in order to get a rise out of people and ruin any attempt at genuine conversation. That's trolling. There's a difference between trolling and simply being an annoying hack for the opposition.

Alex is the only one that actually fits the "moby" profile, at least till NewHam shows up.

Slow Joe said...

". There's a difference between trolling and simply being an annoying hack for the opposition."

I think there might be some disagreement as to what a troll is. I think most trolls don't even realize they are trolls.

If you're a jackass and screwing up threads with obnoxious and stupid points, I don't think it matters if you are meaning to disrupt. I also don't think it matters if you're sincere or faking it.

Alpha Liberal might really believe what he's saying. It seems kinda hard to believe, though I know there are nutjobs like that out there. Most liberals I know would find him to be a parody. I know this because I can read minds.

Either way, he's quite amusing for freaking out about someone else's mildly bemused discussion of Wapo's bias.

Comrade X said...

I think Alex is pretty good at putting himself in character for his mobying. Most mobys adopt a charicature instead.

Paul Zrimsek said...

Here's how Obama defined independent voters: "It will be up to each of you to make sure that young people, African Americans, Latinos and women who powered our victory in 2008 stand together once again."

Brian said...

The professor's serving up some very weak sauce lately. I fear that conservatism does indeed require inflexibility of mind.

The article in WaPo at the end boils down the challenge. Get independents and 1st-time voters excited about turning out for Dems again, though Obama's on the ballot, and his personal popularity doesn't seem to translate over to "Dem X."

The economy is turning around finally, but unemployment remains high, and will remain high for quite a while. While our involvement in Iraq is finally ending, we're still at war in Afghanistan and will likely remain there for years.

And gas prices are still nearly $3 a gallon. Wasn't that supposed to end when Bush & Cheney left office?

Brian said...

AAgh. I meant "Obama's NOT on the ballot."

former law student said...

Troubled that Althouse would cite an unsupported assertion from Wikipedia, of all places, I looked to see where "prairie fire" came from. It seems to be an old Chinese proverb, quoted approvingly by Chinese-speaking capitalists as well as the 1930's version of Mao:

As a Chinese proverb goes 星星之火可以燎原 (xing xing zhi huo ke yi liao yuan), or “a single spark can start a prairie fire”. No contribution is too small for the courageous entrepreneurs who have taken the bold leap of confidence. -- Boon Swan Foo, Executive Chairman of Exploit Technologies, Singapore

Too bad Mao didn't use the "mustard seed" analogy, making thousands of Christian preachers suspect to the conservative mind.

knox said...

It seems kinda hard to believe, though I know there are nutjobs like that out there.

I've known a lot of liberals who believe the media is biased ... tilting to the right.

For example, a social worker friend of mine feels that all the various issues that affect his clients should be front page news, all the time. For him, the news media is a forum for advocacy, not news. And he cannot distinguish the difference. If an issue is "Important" to him, it should be covered. And if it's not, it's because the Right is covering it up.

His view is not that unusual, from liberals I've known. Perhaps the ones I've known all just happen to be on the extreme side?

Brian said...

Too bad Mao didn't use the "mustard seed" analogy, making thousands of Christian preachers suspect to the conservative mind.

Acts 2 44-45:
"All the believers were together and had everything in common. Selling their possessions and goods, they gave to anyone as he had need."

From the Bible, you could make an argument that Christians should embrace communism. Some sects did, living in communes, from where we get the name "communism." We don't embrace it any more, for the obvious reason it's been tried on a massive scale.

Also, there was that official atheism doctrine.

Slow Joe said...

"His view is not that unusual, from liberals I've known. Perhaps the ones I've known all just happen to be on the extreme side?"

I should have been more clear... that was a body of work analysis.

former law student said...

In fact, I see the "prairie fire" metaphor has been used by Christian ministers. Does that take the curse off the metaphor, or does it indict the ministers, and/or Christianity, instead?

As I look back into my 25 years of music ministry, there are lots of things to thank God for. Amongst all, perhaps the most relevant to you now is the work of The Hong Kong Christian Chinese Orchestra, the HKCCO; and today, I would like to share with you what God has taught me through serving in the orchestra...

Pray that we can be that spark[le] in the prairie, or that little stone thrown to a pond that creates the ripples.


-- FRANCIS FONG'S TESTIMONY (
O What Is Man that You Are Mindful of Him );
Date: 22.8.04 (during the visit of The Hong Kong Christian Chinese Orchestra); Time: 8.45am
Venue: Perth Chinese Christian Church (Main Church), Western Australia (PCCC)
Service Language: English

kcom said...

I think the point is that this article is a cheerleading effort and not a news report or analysis. You would be hard pressed to find a similar article from earlier this decade where the subject was President Bush and the Republicans. Actually, you'd be hard pressed to find a similar article from any decade where the subject was the Republicans.

President Bush is declaring his stake in the November midterm elections, as his Republican Party prepares to announce an ambitious strategy to appeal to independent voters in its quest to maintain control of Congress.

Bush plans to issue a call-to-action video message to his supporters on Monday. Republican officials called the video the first in a series of personal efforts designed to rekindle the grass-roots momentum that propelled Bush to the presidency -- this time, in a way that will benefit his party's congressional and gubernatorial candidates.

Newspapers like the WaPo just don't use language like that when Republicans are in power. Instead, it's all about how they are losing this support here and that support there and just how hard it will be for them to get a single vote. As Ann implies, words like 'ambitious' and 'call-to-arms' aren't seen in articles like that. That's because, when Republicans are the subject, reporters remember they are reporters (and Democrats). When Democrats are the subject, reporters seem to forget they are reporters (but never forget they are Democrats).

edutcher said...

The Zero is going to stump for The Demos in the fall?

Is the word "verklempt" copyrighted?

The party should just concede now and get it over with.

AlphaLiberal said...

In the rare event a conservative wants to know how libs see the WashPo, here is a collection of Media Matters reports on biased and slanted WashPo reporting.

Well, there's an unimpeachable source.

former law student said...

Could you please settle down and become a newspaper?

Like the Nevada Appeal and the Memphis Commercial Appeal? What about the Santa Rosa Press Democrat?

And what the hell does "designed to rekindle the grass-roots momentum" even mean? A presidential video is the opposite of grass roots.


The grass roots loved Obama and worked their asses off for his election. Remember David Plouffe? "Organizing for America"? Obama's organizing the community again.


I do believe those roots have withered substantially.

Lincolntf said...

The WaPo is a political pamphlet masquerading as a "news"paper. Just like the vast majority of papers across the country.
The Associated Press admitted just a couple years ago that it was actively allowing, even encouraging, editorializing within the body of news articles. It was the quietest "announcement" ever, but they did come clean.
The fact that papers everywhere don't point that out to their readers is the reason we have so many well-intentioned but utterly ignorant people in this country. They want to read the news but instead they get a press release from the DNC in "news" form.
It's a deceptive racket, but it's one that the Left couldn't survive without, so it ain't going anywhere anytime soon.

Brian said...

There's only one way for Dems to get the independents and 1st-time voters from 2008 to come out and vote in 2010 midterms, in significant numbers. And that is to scare them with stories that they'll lose their health insurance, or their job, or we'll invade other countries, if Republicans are elected.

Or that Republicans are so racist and dumb that they'll end de-segregation and deport you if you have a Mexican-sounding name, even if you're a citizen.

Or, Dem voters show up in vast numbers out of pride and gratitude. This is likely to happen where:
(1) You're in the SEIU.
(2) You're getting a federal bailout.
(3) You are a soldier returning home from Iraq, and didn't want to go in the first place. And you're not getting shipped off to Afghanistan.
(4) You think Justice Sotomayor is really groovy.

Or Republicans nationally muff it really bad.

Dems really better hope for that last one.

Alex said...

I think Alex is pretty good at putting himself in character for his mobying. Most mobys adopt a charicature instead.

Thank you Comrade X, I'm flattered. I do try my best!

Slow Joe said...

"In fact, I see the "prairie fire" metaphor has been used by Christian ministers. Does that take the curse off the metaphor, or does it indict the ministers, and/or Christianity, instead?"

lol. Anything to get some attention, 'eh? I'm pretty sure it was a joke. Sorta like how Rush will point out something that would be used by the left to 'prove' hatred (like Remember November). You guys obviously can't live up to the rules you want us to live by. That's the entire point of the rules for radicals.

Of course they didn't really mean to evoke Mao murdering tens of millions of innocent people in the complete expression of progressiveness. That's why it's humorous.

AllenS said...

How many of those first time voters for Obama, who are now unemployed will show up for more of his hope and change? The amount of foreclosures and abandoned houses where I live is downright terrifying. Things are getting worse, not better.

kcom said...

WaPo headline from March 29, 2002:

On Road, Bush Adopts Partisan Tone; President Takes Digs at Democrats in Fundraisers for Midterm Races

Excerpt: The president's heavy travel schedule and increasingly partisan rhetoric reflect a White House that puts a high priority on politics.

You know when they say "high priority on politics" here they don't mean it in a good way.

- - -

Here's another, from August 11, 2002:

For Bush, a New Vulnerability; Democrats View Domestic Issues as Key to Midterm Elections

It's always written from a Democrat's point of view and how successful they will (or want) to be.

Excerpt: That has put a different cast on this fall's elections and emboldened Democrats to confront Bush.

Remember, that's the election where the Republicans picked up two Senate seats and eight House seats. That was the story. That doesn't generally happen in midterm elections for the party in power.

The WaPo's repsonse?

This opening line on the article reporting the election results:

For Democrats, it was a day of disappointments and missed opportunities.

To be fair, the headline did say this:

GOP Expands Its Majority; Midterm Gains Defy History

They don't exactly sound happy about it, though.

Compare that to this (from November 2006):

Democrats romped this year

It's hard for me to imagine the WaPo ever using the word "romped" to describe a Republican victory. Defy history, yes. Romp, no.

former law student said...

You would be hard pressed to find a similar article from earlier this decade where the subject was President Bush and the Republicans.

But how could the WaPo run such an article, when President Bush turned his back on the grassroots, according to one Robert Stacy McClain:

A political party that is disloyal and disrespectful toward its core constituents, as the GOP was during the Bush/Mehlman era, will not attract new adherents. Who wants to sign up to be treated like a doormat?

The Bush-era GOP believed that its base would be satisfied with superficial gestures (e.g., the Terri Schiavo drama) and ignore the party leadership's pursuit of policies (e.g., McCain-Feingold, No Child Left Behind, Medicare Part D) which were directly at odds with the party's fundamental principles.

This perverse conception of one-way loyalty -- where the underlings are expected to show a loyalty toward the elite that the elite is never required to reciprocate -- is characteristic of any dysfunctional organization. "The beatings will continue until morale improves!"



http://rsmccain.blogspot.com/2009/05/rino-ism-and-demographics-of-defeat.html

If you want the papers to run articles about how you're appealing to the grassroots -- maybe you should first try appealing to the grassroots.

Dust Bunny Queen said...

I'm not all that worried. Most first time Obama voters have short attention spans and get easily distracted. Not generally real deep thinkers.

The main reason there were so many 'first' time voters was because it was the first time that a black man was on the ballot for President. Since, as already pointed out, we don't have Teh Won on the ballot, the turn out will be more from those people who are issue oriented and who take the awesome responsibility of voting seriously, instead of treating it like a vote for American Idol or to kick someone off of the island in Survivor.

Plus the blatant attempt to appeal to people along race and ethnic lines, the transparent attempt to create divisiveness using race and ethnicity isn't really going to go down too well with the Independent voters.

E.M. Davis said...

Those Democrats. Such appealsers.

WV: beworses. HA!

AJ Lynch said...

There is no way to fix the liberal news slant. They won't fix themselves so we have to wait til the Joe Kleins and Chris Mathews of the world croak.

Until then , don't give any of your money to the NYT or Wapo or the other lib papers.

BJM said...

Ambitious! Strategy! Quest! Control! Horsefeathers!

AlphaLiberal said...

Well, I don't even know what a "moby" is but am certain I was not "freaking out." Slow Joe needs a chill pill.

Libs have been complaining about the Wash Post going hard right for years now. So I think it's funny that the right wing picks up on a story about an incumbent President launching a mid-term campaign push and feels victimized over it.

Yeah, I know Media Matters has a point of view. Thing is, they use actual footage and quotes and facts to demonstrate the bias.

Chip Ahoy said...

Speaking of sauces, last week I had the best sauce ever at the Buckhorn Exchange. This will not leave my memory. I asked about it. What IS this? The answer was sheepish and uncertain, "mornaise." Which didn't make immediate sense. There's béarnaise, and there's mornay and you can find recipes for mornaise but they're mostly started off with a roux. No, this was exceedingly rich, thick, dark, and deep. It was not the slightest bit unctuous nor overly acidic nor too sweet. It had no egg and no flour. It was a deep reduction, a brown demi-glace of something very different, most likely a combination of elk and buffalo probably, if I were to guess which I am. It also had orange. I drove myself crazy trying to analyze it, to put my finder on its elements, what it is and what it isn't. I passed it around. Everyone agreed it is mind-blowingly good. I could have it all by itself. Drink it. Dip the tips of bread pieces in it. Call it a meal. (Their bread is also very good and that's a critical issue for me) And now I want to go back there, order it again, and talk to the cook about his sauce if they'll let me.

former law student said...

"unsourced" assertion, I should have said.

dbp said...

AL said: "Libs have been complaining about the Wash Post going hard right for years now."

I think you would like this fact to tell us that really the Washington Post is not left wing at all. What it really tells us is that some liberals are even more divorced from reality than we originally thought.

Chip Ahoy said...

finder=finger

Roger J. said...

I, for one, look forward to Mr Obama campaigning for the democrats in the fall mid terms--I mean he has done so well in NJ, MA, and VA--PLEASE Mr president--share your message of hope and change with the electorate. And while you are at it talk about your campaign promises and how you have done in implementing them. Thats a winner, for sure.

Roger J. said...

And more to the point, Mr Obama--talk about health care and immigration reform--that will get everyone on board.

Nora said...

From WaPo "He [Obama] warns that if Republicans regain control of Congress, they could "undo all that we have accomplished."

Haha, with popularity rate of WH/ Obama/Congress and all of the Obama's "accomplishments" (what exactly he thinks his accoplishments are except mammoth debt, failed stimulus and Universal Hellcare sham? )that will only make voters vote for Republicans.

knox said...

Libs have been complaining about the Wash Post going hard right for years now.

OF COURSE they are.

Alex said...

I'm sure libs don't complain about the Huffington Post.

Trooper York said...

Much to my chagrin I turned on the History channel's new series and had to listen to another appearance by the President in the introduction of "America; The Story of Us."

Not to say that it is not appropriate that he introduces this series, I guess it is understandable. I wouldn't have done that but it is of course the producer’s right to do so.

But this guy is just never out of your face. Non-stop, twenty four seven.

I look forward to him replacing the Hoff as one of the judges on "America's Got Talent!"

Trooper York said...

Sometimes, less is more!

Capice?

Nora said...

AL 'That's funny. The left wing thinks they [WaPo] are way too biased for the right."

Yep, and the Palestinians complain that BBC is pro Israel.

Both get their tactics from the subversion textbooks cortesy of the Lumumba University in conjunction with Marxism-Leninism University in Moscow. All the lefties, anti-capitalists, and the rest of useful idiots always use the same tactics, slogans and phraseology. Read Lenin (all his works are translated and are on the net), he was arrogant enough to write openly about subversion tactics and necessity of braiwashing; or "re-education", if brainwashing does not work, (i.e labor camps, that were first created by Lenin during his lifetime, to re-educate Russian liberals, whose usefulness for communist expired). All the written after him from Trotzky to Alinsky is just extention of the same.

former law student said...

I mean [Obama] has done so well in NJ, MA, and VA

Unfortunately, Obama was not the candidate in any of those races. I'm trying to remember the joke with the punchline, "And God said, give me something to work with here."

Remember Corzine, the former Goldman Sachs head? Can't imagine why he would be unpopular. Perhaps it was the state government shutdown the year he took office. Or the plan to increase road tolls by 600%? That was the one that triggered his recall campaign. How about the $6 million he paid his ex-girlfriend, the union leader he had been cheating on his wife with? I can't understand why a man too arrogant to wear a seatbelt when his official SUV goes 90 mph to meet Don Imus and the "NPHs" would not find favor with the electorate.

And Martha Coakley, the woman who didn't think it necessary to campaign over the Christmas holidays? The woman who mocked Boston sports fans for gathering at Fenway in the cold?

As far as Creigh Deeds goes, I can't imagine why a pro-choice, pro-gun control candidate would not be popular in Virginia. Must have been Obama's fault.

On the other hand, Obama's done great in New York (twice) and Florida thus far. Hopefully the GOP will learn that purging RINOs is not good for their numbers.

Peter V. Bella said...

"They left out "I'm Barack Obama and I approved this message."

WaPO, like most dead tree press, is having hard times. Some Democratic slush fund cash for a advertorial helps the bottom line. There really is no such thing as journalistic ethics, except in musty dusty books in libraries.

Original Mike said...

"Unfortunately, Obama was not the candidate in any of those races."

Nor will he be the candidate in the midterms.

raul said...

The Queen didn't understand the headline?

Duh.

raul said...

AllenS said..."WaPo sucks."

As if this Cretin ever actually read the Washington Post...or any newspaper for that matter.

raul said...

Peter V. Bella said..."They left out "I'm Barack Obama and I approved this message."

If you'd ever taken an English course you'd know that the headline is perfectly understandable and grammatically correct.

But of course, you haven't so it's also understandable why you and others appear to be oblivious to what the headline actually means.

Matt said...

This is the exact kind of headline you would have seen in the past.

Obama and Democrats appeal to new voters in midterms

Bush and Republicans appeal to new voters in midterms

Clinton and Democrats appeal to new voters in midterms

Reagan and Republican appeal to new voters in midterms

The headline is nothing more than a headline showing the intent of a particular party.

avwh said...

From WaPo "He [Obama] warns that if Republicans regain control of Congress, they could "undo all that we have accomplished."

Was that supposed to be a threat?
The Repubs should steal it and use it as a promise: undo trillions of debt, repeal the half-assed Obamacare disaster, treat our friends as friends again, actually focus on the economy so the private sector can create jobs, etc.

AJ Lynch said...

Hey Allens- looks like the libs hate you so much they promoted you to their rank of "Cretin" with a capital "c". Heh.

Slow Joe said...

Matt, you're wrong.

There were no such headlines for Republicans. And the story is really the heart of the bias. This is cheerleading for democrats, and you know it.

kcom proves it as well as it can be proven to all but the hardened zealots.

AllenS said...

AJ

It's called respect.

Bruce Hayden said...

I think that this will be quite interesting to see how it unfolds. Right now, my bet is that this gambit by the White House has cost them more votes than they will pick up, by again pointing out that they aren't the post-racial, post-sexual, and post-violence people that they have portrayed themselves to be, but rather, the worst sort of race, sex, and violence baiters out there. And, as some have pointed out, Obama is not on the ballot, and he is asking them to get excited about voting for the sort of old-politics pols that the young voted against last time.

We shall see.