ABC News Edited Palins Interview!

[recon]

Gee what a surprise! They must really be afraid of this women! :mad:

http://newsbusters.org/blogs/p-j-gladnick/2008/09/13/abc-news-edited-out-key-parts-sarah-palin-interview

[nickdrak]

While my wife and I were watching it, the edits were so obvious and abrupt. Charlie Gibson made a point to look like a condescending snotty little prick. His line of questions about the "Bush doctrine" was ridiculous.

[K.L. Davis]

They must really be afraid of this women! :mad:
You almost have to wonder... I mean, can someone be that stupid? Or think that the American public is that stupid? It is almost like the ulterior motive is to help her into the White House.


Hey guys... remember how we got caught last election with the bogus news and false documents and stuff... ya'know that really ended up helping GW and like maybe if we make up some really low life, dipshit stuff again, you know? Wadda'ya guys think?

[KintlaLake]

As Johnny Carson used to tell his long-winded guests, "It's an hour show." That was "live" (or contiguous) TV. In recorded media, however, something's gonna get cut.

Speaking as a media-relations pro who's spent the last 25 years training executives and public officials, managing (and granting) thousands of press interviews, IMPO (and judging by a partial transcript) ABC News did a fair edit of Gov. Palin's interview. Charitable, even.

I've never worked for anyone who was realistic about this sort of thing, but it's the way the business works. And for crissakes, it's got nothing to do with a big, bad, liberal bias... :rolleyes:

Gov. Palin desperately needs more training and a lot more experience. I can't accelerate the latter, but I'm available for the former. ;)

[nickdrak]

When they edit out someones commentary to make her look as if she is war-mongering with Russia instead of what was actually said, which was anything but war-mongering, that is far from being fair and charitable. Charlie Gibson's posturing & tone was so blatantly condescending, even my wife who doesnt care to watch politics much at all, was quick to say that it was obvious that Gibson has it out for Palin. The "Bush Doctrine" line of questioning from Gibson was one of the most ridiculous I have seen in years.

I would venture to say that 90% of the major media outlets are in love with Obama, and the spark that Palin has brought to the other side of the ticket is causing them to lose their minds a bit.

[KintlaLake]

...they edit out someones commentary to make her look as if...

I understand that perception, but (respectfully) I believe it attributes intent with a certainty that isn't necessarily justified -- at least not without the preconception that the media are diabolically liberal and out to get Gov. Palin.

Also, I understand the perception about Mr. Gibson being "condescending." I thought he was being generous.

Different points-of-view. :cool:

Just in terms of media-savvy, Gov. Palin made a common error: Mistaking an interview for a conversation. Someone needs to cure her of that, and right quick, before her handlers turn her loose again.

[Gutshot John]

I understand that perception, but (respectfully) I believe it attributes intent with a certainty that isn't necessarily justified -- at least not without the preconception that the media are diabolically liberal and out to get Gov. Palin.

Well it depends certainly on the double-standard applied to a female VP candidate who happens to be a Republican, that isn't applied to a Black PRESIDENTIAL candidate who happens to be a liberal Dem.

Funny that foreign policy experience is suddenly all the rage amongst the media...even though they buried those questions for months during the primaries. I don't think you have to be a partisan to recognize the inconsistency in the treatment of the two candidates.

Out to get Palin? Maybe, maybe not. In the tank for Obama? Clearly.


Also, I understand the perception about Mr. Gibson being "condescending." I thought he was being generous.

I prefer the adjective the New York TIMES said about Mr. Gibson's tone.

"Supercilious" indeed.

Different points-of-view. :cool:


Just in terms of media-savvy, Gov. Palin made a common error: Mistaking an interview for a conversation. Someone needs to cure her of that, and right quick, before her handlers turn her loose again.

I think Americans are a bit fed-up with the slick, polished media-saavy handler. Part of Palin's popularity is that she doesn't come across as part of the freakshow.

Media types complain about a lack of spontaneity in newsmakers...yet they beat it out of them.

The media, as evidenced by Charlie Gibson, has done as much to make our politics dysfunctional as anything the candidates could possibly imagine.

When they try to manipulate public opinion...of course they're going to be the target of manipulation.

If ABC wants to be the news source that introduces Palin to America through formal questions, they should at least have the responsibility to offer the unedited version. Over several nights if necessary. Anything short of that is going to open them to charges of bias. Legitimate or otherwise.

[Palmguy]

As Johnny Carson used to tell his long-winded guests, "It's an hour show." That was "live" (or contiguous) TV. In recorded media, however, something's gonna get cut.

Speaking as a media-relations pro who's spent the last 25 years training executives and public officials, managing (and granting) thousands of press interviews, IMPO (and judging by a partial transcript) ABC News did a fair edit of Gov. Palin's interview. Charitable, even.

I've never worked for anyone who was realistic about this sort of thing, but it's the way the business works. And for crissakes, it's got nothing to do with a big, bad, liberal bias... :rolleyes:

Gov. Palin desperately needs more training and a lot more experience. I can't accelerate the latter, but I'm available for the former. ;)

No bias at all...https://www.m4carbine.net/showthread.php?t=19110

[ZDL]

Well it depends certainly on the double-standard applied to a female VP candidate who happens to be a Republican, that isn't applied to a Black PRESIDENTIAL candidate who happens to be a liberal Dem.

Funny that foreign policy experience is suddenly all the rage amongst the media...even though they buried those questions for months during the primaries. I don't think you have to be a partisan to recognize the inconsistency in the treatment of the two candidates.

Out to get Palin? Maybe, maybe not. In the tank for Obama? Clearly.



I prefer the adjective the New York TIMES said about Mr. Gibson's tone.

"Supercilious" indeed.

Different points-of-view. :cool:



I think Americans are a bit fed-up with the slick, polished media-saavy handler. Part of Palin's popularity is that she doesn't come across as part of the freakshow.

Media types complain about a lack of spontaneity in newsmakers...yet they beat it out of them.

The media, as evidenced by Charlie Gibson, has done as much to make our politics dysfunctional as anything the candidates could possibly imagine.

When they try to manipulate public opinion...of course they're going to be the target of manipulation.

If ABC wants to be the news source that introduces Palin to America through formal questions, they should at least have the responsibility to offer the unedited version. Over several nights if necessary. Anything short of that is going to open them to charges of bias. Legitimate or otherwise.

Preach it.

Concerning the last paragraph: They wont be doing that... Things like celeb babies and who is f-ing who in hollywood sells more commercials.

[KintlaLake]

Out to get Palin? Maybe, maybe not. In the tank for Obama? Clearly.

Been watching MSNBC again, eh? :D A balance of opinions is one thing, but the Baby Peacock is something else. Keith Olbermann and Chris Matthews are simply breathtaking. Masquerading as anchors and all that. They deserved to be demoted.

Kinda like FOX News, ten steps to the left. ;)


I think Americans are a bit fed-up with the slick, polished media-saavy handler.

Americans say they're tired of negative ads, too. Campaigns keep running them for the same reason they hyper-prep their candidates for interviews and debates -- because it works.


If ABC wants to be the news source that introduces Palin to America through formal questions, they should at least have the responsibility to offer the unedited version. Over several nights if necessary.

That's called an ad.


Anything short of that is going to open them to charges of bias. Legitimate or otherwise.

And that's called a free press. It goes with the territory.

I wouldn't want it any other way.

[ZDL]

Been watching MSNBC again, eh? :D A balance of opinions is one thing, but the Baby Peacock is something else. Keith Olbermann and Chris Matthews are simply breathtaking. Masquerading as anchors and all that. They deserved to be demoted.

Kinda like FOX News, ten steps to the left. ;)



Americans say they're tired of negative ads, too. Campaigns keep running them for the same reason they hyper-prep their candidates for interviews and debates -- because it works.



That's called an ad.



And that's called a free press. It goes with the territory.

I wouldn't want it any other way.

Free press. I agree 100%. There was a quote on here somewhere (too lazy to look for it... might have been from you) that said freedom is the freedom to do the wrong thing as well. I couldn't agree more. This fact is lost on most people.

I do not want derail this thread but there are some points I'd like to hear your side of. PM coming soon.

[mattjmcd]

Been watching MSNBC again, eh? :D A balance of opinions is one thing, but the Baby Peacock is something else. Keith Olbermann and Chris Matthews are simply breathtaking. Masquerading as anchors and all that. They deserved to be demoted.

Kinda like FOX News, ten steps to the left. ;)





Is, say, Shepard Smith that obviously biased? He's a FOX anchor after all, not a commentator ala Hannity or even O'Reilly.

[Gutshot John]

Been watching MSNBC again, eh? :D A balance of opinions is one thing, but the Baby Peacock is something else. Keith Olbermann and Chris Matthews are simply breathtaking. Masquerading as anchors and all that. They deserved to be demoted.

This is not so much directed at your words as at the media in general. They're failing their societal function.

I actually am sick to death of opinion as a general way to fill airtime. I'd much rather be presented with genuine reporting that left it up to the individual American what to think. All in all NPR probably gets this right most often. At least its not an insult to my intelligence to be told what to think.

Generally this is why I use a myriad of news sources to formulate an opinion. Several of them of foreign origin. Foreign policy, diplomacy are all parts of my focus in history and having lived abroad for a good chunk of my life I find most american cable news outlets to be pathetic in comparison.

I also don't listen to talk radio. C-Span callers...well you know.


Kinda like FOX News, ten steps to the left. ;)

Well at least Fox understands the difference between Anchors and Pundits. Something even the NYT conceded.

I don't watch Hannity nor O'Reilly anymore than I watch Olberman or whomever. I'm smarter than both and I'm capable of making up my own mind.

My only problem is when the media pretends to be unbiased and then clearly applies a double-standard to its reporting and questions. I mean, Palin may be unqualified, but no one has applied the same standard to Obama? Why do you think that is? Besides, isn't he the one running for President?

Even still, I don't think it hurts her in this campaign. I think most Americans went "huh...what is the Bush doctrine?" They did get a sense of what it meant to her, and I don't think it hurt her with the average American. It only hurt her with the media saavy...and Americans love that.


Americans say they're tired of negative ads, too. Campaigns keep running them for the same reason they hyper-prep their candidates for interviews and debates -- because it works.

What is a negative ad? I'd say its different things to different people. But it gets thrown around so much, like the phrase "Bush Doctrine" or "Neoconservatism" that no one actually knows what the hell it means.

Americans say they're sick of them, but what does that really mean? They're sick of a candidates policies being questioned? I don't think so.

They want to see someone who is going to fight, and they want to see someone who can take the heat with grace and smile. Americans hate to see someone whine about being attacked...when they've been attacking right along.

I think what they ARE sick of outright lies and attacks on family members: "McCain wants 100 more years"..."Obama is a Muslim Manchurian Candidate".

So long as the media keeps hammering Palin...and she keeps smiling. McCain will keep winning.

That's a poor substitute for a debate, but thankfully...


That's called an ad.

And that's called a free press. It goes with the territory.

I wouldn't want it any other way.

I guess it's free, but where is the responsibility?

Sure they're free, but ther're not performing their function to watch government any more than they're informing the public...but hey no big deal right?

That the media holds Americans in such contempt is much of the reason why they keep getting this thing wrong.

[ZDL]

I guess it's free, but where is the responsibility?

Sure they're free, but ther're not performing their function to watch government any more than they're informing the public...but hey no big deal right?

That the media holds Americans in such contempt is much of the reason why they keep getting this thing wrong.

No problem with anything you have said.

I'll just try to answer the question above.

Their responsibility is to sell commercials. What they report is a direct reflection of what the public eats up. Free market an all that jazz... We are collectively responsible for what/how they report.

They are NOT performing their function from the definition of the word "journalism" but they aren't journalist. They are puppets. Non offensive looking people with a minimum accepted vocabulary and diction. You know where to go to get real news. You mentioned it above. I'm not telling you anything you don't know I believe, but American's as a whole have difficulty separating the forest from the trees in respect to news.

You and I can both agree that journalistic integrity is their least concern.

[chadbag]

http://townhall.com/columnists/CharlesKrauthammer/2008/09/13/charlie_gibsons_gaffee

[f.2]

...And for crissakes, it's got nothing to do with a big, bad, liberal bias...

Of course it does.

[johnson]

Double standard?

http://www.thedailyshow.com/video/index.jhtml?videoId=184086&title=sarah-palin-gender-card

[KintlaLake]

...where is the responsibility?

Why, in each of us, of course. :)

[Gutshot John]

Why, in each of us, of course. :)

Too clever by half.

I think it was pretty clear what I meant, with freedom comes responsibility, but your response is an acknowledgment not only of the media's failure to serve as a watchdog of our republic, but an ABUSE of that responsibility.

We can only be responsible if we're making decisions based on accurate information, so far the press seemingly doesn't care about whether the facts get in the way.

The media uses public airwaves to make their money. They hold these in trust of serving the greater American public. They are violating their trust and their societal responsibility, but then hide behind the 1a. I go through extraordinary lengths to sort through their nonsense. If they're going to make the claim of journalistic intergrity/neutrality...they should at least TRY to demonstrate it.

Charlie Gibson isn't even the worst offender, he's just hung up on his own intellectual superiority and bias or no, he utterly failed to reveal anything interesting about Palin. His questions were so ham-handed that she's no longer the focus of the interview. Honestly he should be embarrassed.

Should I thank the media for being so over the top in their bias against Republicans that people have stopped listening...oh wait maybe that should scare the shit out of me? :(

Hmmmmm...so much for responsibility. :rolleyes:

Pathetic.

[KintlaLake]

Too clever by half.

I accept responsibility for that. :)

[Gutshot John]

I accept responsibility for that. :)

Too bad you're not running ABC news. :p

[GKoenig]

My only problem is when the media pretends to be unbiased and then clearly applies a double-standard to its reporting and questions. I mean, Palin may be unqualified, but no one has applied the same standard to Obama? Why do you think that is? Besides, isn't he the one running for President?

The core of the problem here is that the Republican party keeps changing their standard.

Obama's experience (or lack therein) is a known quantity and the people who support him don't really care about it as an issue. They view his intelligence, his message and his plans as more fundamentally important than his lack of legislative or executive experience. It was the McCain campaign that made the "experience" question the centerpiece of their campaign because they know full well that it was the one advantage McCain had over Obama.

That strategy simply didn't work. They pointed out Obama's lack of experience till they were blue in the face and trumpeted McCain's experience as loud as they could, but it never took with the electorate. So they put Palin up because they knew she would be sexy red meat to get the GOP base fired up. In doing so, they cut themselves out at the knees on the very issue they were once pushing so hard and now they have nothing but spin to try to reverse their course. Hence all the rhetoric about "executive" experience (a term that had hardly entered the current cycle's lexicon till the Republicans trotted it out), or the BS about her commanding the Alaskan National Guard, or this utterly ridiculous assertion that she has foreign policy experience because Alaska is next to Russia.

johnson linked to this video a couple of posts back, but it is important to watch:

http://www.thedailyshow.com/video/index.jhtml?videoId=184086&title=sarah-palin-gender-card

See how these people can just utterly turn their positions, their standards, and their morals as it suits their needs? Now how does one propose "the media" keep up?

[Gutshot John]

The core of the problem here is that the Republican party keeps changing their standard.

Only the Republican party?


Obama's experience (or lack therein) is a known quantity and the people who support him don't really care about it as an issue.

Obviously, the question is whether the other 2/3rds of the electorate care.


They view his intelligence, his message and his plans as more fundamentally important than his lack of legislative or executive experience.

Even though all this intelligence hasn't resulted in a single piece of significant legislation.

Even still, Palin has accomplished more than he has.

Besides as one famous VP once said, the position has about as much significance as a "bag of warm spit". Let's not pretend that the Vice presidency is anything other than a political choice.


It was the McCain campaign that made the "experience" question the centerpiece of their campaign because they know full well that it was the one advantage McCain had over Obama.

The one advantage? I don't think so, there might be one or two other, but I guess if you buy into the democratic party line, it might be an assumption you operate from.


That strategy simply didn't work.

No? Then why did Obama pick Biden as his VP pick?

As for their grand "strategy" In a year where Republicans have every disadvantage, McCain is either tied or ahead. I'd say that there are lots of people not sold on Obama's experience...outside of the Democratic party base that it.


They pointed out Obama's lack of experience till they were blue in the face and trumpeted McCain's experience as loud as they could, but it never took with the electorate.

So you speak for the electorate? Sorry but wishing it were so doesn't make it so. Moreover the polls tell a different story. No one can make such a broad observation about the electorate. Sorry.


So they put Palin up because they knew she would be sexy red meat to get the GOP base fired up.

You just keep on believing that. This is why she's been handing the Obama campaign their ass lately.


In doing so, they cut themselves out at the knees on the very issue they were once pushing so hard and now they have nothing but spin to try to reverse their course.

Wow...do you just make this stuff up? Again given your flawed reasoning above, I'm not sure this subsequent conclusion is correct.


Hence all the rhetoric about "executive" experience (a term that had hardly entered the current cycle's lexicon till the Republicans trotted it out), or the BS about her commanding the Alaskan National Guard, or this utterly ridiculous assertion that she has foreign policy experience because Alaska is next to Russia.

Nice try, but the claim made was that her as CinC of the Alaskan National Guard, as meager as it was, was still superior to Barack Obama's. Guess what...it's true.


johnson linked to this video a couple of posts back, but it is important to watch:

http://www.thedailyshow.com/video/index.jhtml?videoId=184086&title=sarah-palin-gender-card


See how these people can just utterly turn their positions, their standards, and their morals as it suits their needs? Now how does one propose "the media" keep up?

Too bad you don't apply that same standard to Obama.

I expect the media to keep up, by applying that same standard to both...and NOT changing/editing interviews to create a false impression.

[mattjmcd]

It was the McCain campaign that made the "experience" question the centerpiece of their campaign because they know full well that it was the one advantage McCain had over Obama.



False premise.

In addition to experience, one could note the "achievement" gap, the "judgement" gap (depending on one's perception), Obama's naive economics assumptions, and his lack of candor regarding his personal associations with the likes of Ayers, Wright, etc. All of these feature prominently in the McCain campaign messaging.

[GKoenig]

Only the Republican party?

The Democrats have delivered a far more coherent message over the course of this campaign. Obama's key word is "Change" and he has solidly attached himself to that word and spent the bulk of his attacks on his opponents (Hillary and now McCain) on their lack of it.

McCain's campaign has been nowhere near as coherent. First he was all about being independent and the only chance the beleaguered GOP had at winning this year. Once he clenched the primary, he started running on "Experience". With Palin on the ticket, he is trying to copy Obama's change message while running attack ads with claims of dubious providence ("Obama wants to teach kindergardeners about sex!" "Obama called Palin a pig!" "Obama is gonna raise your taxes!").

Before we go on, I should make it clear that I am writing from the perspective of the respective campaign's tactics, not from my own personal value judgements on Obama v. McCain. In fact, I am voting for McCain this November.

Having said that, I am doing so mostly because I think it would be utterly unhealthy for this country to have the Democrats controlling the Congress and the White House. The current incarnation of John McCain is not my first pick to run against Obama and I am utterly dismayed to see his campaign playing out of the dirty, hardball, Karl Rove playbook. Even so, I am voting for him.


Obviously, the question is whether the other 2/3rds of the electorate care.

Well, it is really about 10% of the electorate. The other 90% are evenly divided, have picked a side and are now entrenched. Barring some utter disaster, nothing is going to change the opinions of 90% of voters at this point.


Even though all this intelligence hasn't resulted in a single piece of significant legislation.

Even still, Palin has accomplished more than he has.

Besides as one famous VP once said, the position has about as much significance as a "bag of warm spit". Let's not pretend that the Vice presidency is anything other than a political choice.

And what significant quills of governance has Palin collected?

Did she champion any major legislation in Alaska to fruition through their legislators?

Did she oversee any major crisis with aplomb?

What exactly did she accomplish as mayor of Wasilla? Apparently (and I don't know how to fact check this,) she tripled the city's debt to $20 Million while sending lobbyists off to DC to feed at the very trough her image as a hardcore fiscal conservative is diametrically opposed to. Is that true?

Accomplishment is a funny word. I'm going to guess that if your kids went to Harvard on scholarships, worked in the community, got a law degree, were college professors, state representatives, senators and than the first minority to run for President (all before the age of 50), you would likely call them pretty f-ing accomplished...


So you speak for the electorate? Sorry but wishing it were so doesn't make it so. Moreover the polls tell a different story. No one can make such a broad observation about the electorate. Sorry.

No sir. The numbers speak for the electorate who, until McCain tapped Palin, were not really buying his schtick.

We will see, over the next two weeks, if the poll increases for McCain after the Palin selection and the convention are going to stick or if people were just window shoppers. The Obama Campaign OODA loop reset that the Palin selection gained for McCain is now over and Obama is going to start going for the Action portion of the cycle. WIth much dirt uncovered, it will be interesting to see if her selection holds up under withering fire (I am sure Palin can hold up, but can her record and history hold up?).


Nice try, but the claim made was that her as CinC of the Alaskan National Guard, as meager as it was, was still superior to Barack Obama's. Guess what...it's true.

That is utterly ridiculous and you are clearly far too intelligent to actually be buying this sort of bullshit from the McCain campaign. For all intensive purposes, Palin has zero CinC experience. There are mayors of major urban areas who control more cops than Palin did National Guard personal (and budgets, and citizens).

Of course, Obama has zero experience as well, but to be championing Palin as "more" experienced in this regard is a silly red herring.

[Gutshot John]

The Democrats have delivered a far more coherent message over the course of this campaign. Obama's key word is "Change" and he has solidly attached himself to that word and spent the bulk of his attacks on his opponents (Hillary and now McCain) on their lack of it.

Entirely debatable, unless you buy into the Obama spin. The difference is what Obama talks about, and what he's actually done.

Obama has done his best to adopt the mantle of change, and he uses the word quite a bit, but he's DONE nothing in his history that demonstrates it. Moreover the type of change he talks about is a return to the old worn liberal ideal of big government.

McCain has consistently talked about bringing change and has the record of bipartisan career of doing it...to the point he's really pissed off his own party numerous times.

Obama has consistently pandered to the left-wing base of his party.


McCain's campaign has been nowhere near as coherent. First he was all about being independent and the only chance the beleaguered GOP had at winning this year. Once he clenched the primary, he started running on "Experience". With Palin on the ticket, he is trying to copy Obama's change message while running attack ads with claims of dubious providence ("Obama wants to teach kindergardeners about sex!" "Obama called Palin a pig!" "Obama is gonna raise your taxes!").

The above is spin worthy of James Carville. How is the "Obama wants to teach kindergartners about sex" attack any less true than "McCain is 4 more years of Bush" or "McCain wants to sell the country to corporate America"? It's all horsephuckey, but let's not pretend that McCain is the only one who lacks coherence, or runs attack ads of dubious "provenance".

McCain has ALWAYS run as an independent mind.

He has ALWAYS touted his experience.

He has ALWAYS pointed to his record of reform.

More specifically about untrue attack ads, Obama has been coherent on this point. For example "McCain wants to stay in Iraq for 100 years". EVERY news outlet questioned the veracity of these claims.

Unlike Obama however, McCain took those hits with good grace, Obama only whines about it being unfair. Politics isn't beanbag, and some attacks are going to be unfair. DUH.

False outrage at McCain's "attack" ads ignores 200+ years of political history. Welcome to politics, compared to our fore fathers, Obama and McCain are not only rank amateurs, but a good deal more civilized compared to charges leveled against Adams and Jefferson. To pretend that McCain is the only one doing it is simply disingenuous.


Before we go on, I should make it clear that I am writing from the perspective of the respective campaign's tactics, not from my own personal value judgements on Obama v. McCain. In fact, I am voting for McCain this November.

I can't tell you how many times people online claim to be for "this" or "that" to give themselves credibility about something. I, nor anyone else, cares who you vote for, but don't adopt Democratic talking points and pretend that one party "Democrats" have the monopoly on truth or change.


Having said that, I am doing so mostly because I think it would be utterly unhealthy for this country to have the Democrats controlling the Congress and the White House. The current incarnation of John McCain is not my first pick to run against Obama and I am utterly dismayed to see his campaign playing out of the dirty, hardball, Karl Rove playbook. Even so, I am voting for him.

What is this dirty "Karl Rove playbook" I keep hearing about? You mean that political campaigns, are using political concerns/criteria to make their decisions? Shocking. Now you're telling me Obama isn't using a Rove equivalent? Please.

Karl Rove is a convenient political target for Democrats to demonize, I'm amazed you don't see through that artifice. In fact by demonizing Karl Rove, you and Democrats are engaging in what you believe to be Rovian tactics.

The Democrats=virtuous, Republicans=slimeball narrative is completely one-sided.


Well, it is really about 10% of the electorate. The other 90% are evenly divided, have picked a side and are now entrenched. Barring some utter disaster, nothing is going to change the opinions of 90% of voters at this point.

Actually you should re-read some of those polls. About 1/3 are solid Obama, 1/3 are solid McCain, about 1/3 still have concerns about both candidates' claims even if they are leaning one way or the other.


And what significant quills of governance has Palin collected?

I'm going to guess more than the Democratic PRESIDENTIAL and VP candidate combined.


Did she champion any major legislation in Alaska to fruition through their legislators?

Name one starving kid in China? Can't do it? Does that mean there aren't any?

I'm sure there's been at least one but even still she's nothing to do with its passage.

She's not a legislator, she's an Executive.

You do understand the difference?


Did she oversee any major crisis with aplomb?

Did Obama? Did Biden? Nope.


What exactly did she accomplish as mayor of Wasilla? Apparently (and I don't know how to fact check this,) she tripled the city's debt to $20 Million while sending lobbyists off to DC to feed at the very trough her image as a hardcore fiscal conservative is diametrically opposed to. Is that true?

Huh? According to who? Seriously that is 100% Democratic spin. If you don't know how to fact check it, then it's meaningless.


Accomplishment is a funny word. I'm going to guess that if your kids went to Harvard on scholarships, worked in the community, got a law degree, were college professors, state representatives, senators and than the first minority to run for President (all before the age of 50), you would likely call them pretty f-ing accomplished...

Boy for someone voting for McCain you seem pretty impressed with Obama.

That being said, accomplishment is a funny word. "Character" is another one.

All the accomplishments in the world, don't imbue character. Character is what allows someone to take their accomplishments and actually DO something with them that serves OTHERS.

BTW I never said Obama never accomplished something. It's only been said that despite his rhetoric, his experience has only ever served his own vanity/career.

Please tell me of one dramatic change Obama made in a poor neighborhood that he "organized". Are the people in these neighborhoods less poor? Are they victims of less crime?

Please tell me anything Obama has done to reform or bing "change" to Illinois politics and cronyism?

Please tell me any position he has taken that wasn't in lockstep conformity with the far-left of the Democratic party.

Obama has had a significant opportunity to affect the change he spoke about. What's he actually done?

He talks a lot about bringing change to Washington, but so far he's offered none, even in his home state...despite all of his "accomplishments".


No sir. The numbers speak for the electorate who, until McCain tapped Palin, were not really buying his schtick.

You either weren't paying attention or are engaging in more spin.

McCain and Obama have been within 2-3 points for months so they weren't really buying Obama's "schtick" either.


We will see, over the next two weeks, if the poll increases for McCain after the Palin selection and the convention are going to stick or if people were just window shoppers.

They've stuck a lot longer than Obama's post-convention bounce.


The Obama Campaign OODA loop reset that the Palin selection gained for McCain is now over and Obama is going to start going for the Action portion of the cycle. WIth much dirt uncovered, it will be interesting to see if her selection holds up under withering fire (I am sure Palin can hold up, but can her record and history hold up?).

So Rovian tactics are ok with you so long as it's against Republicans.

My, that's evenhanded.


That is utterly ridiculous and you are clearly far too intelligent to actually be buying this sort of bullshit from the McCain campaign. For all intensive purposes, Palin has zero CinC experience. There are mayors of major urban areas who control more cops than Palin did National Guard personal (and budgets, and citizens).

Sadly you've no idea of what you're talking about. But even still I can return the favor.

You're far to intelligent to be buying the sort of nonsense from the Obama campaign.

So why are you quoting their spin doctors almost verbatim?


Of course, Obama has zero experience as well, but to be championing Palin as "more" experienced in this regard is a silly red herring.

Palin doesn't have loads of executive experience, but then she's only VP pick.

That being said she has lots more than Obama. Red Herring? Please, I don't think that phrase means what you think it means.

All of this ignores that I can get spin from the campaigns until it comes out of my ears. I don't want it from the media.

[Gutshot John]

As for Obama being more "honest" than McCain...please.

Not even the Washington Post buys that one.

Case in point...
http://voices.washingtonpost.com/the-trail/2008/09/17/obama_airs_more_negative_ads_s.html

It would seem that Obama has borrowed extensively from the same Rove tactics he decries.

I'm not one for "hooker with a heart of gold" fairytales.

Even still is it so much to ask that the media give us the unfiltered "scoop" and let us make up our own minds?

[b_saan]

The Democrats have delivered a far more coherent message over the course of this campaign. Obama's key word is "Change" and he has solidly attached himself to that word and spent the bulk of his attacks on his opponents (Hillary and now McCain) on their lack of it.

It's easy to stay on the ephemeral "change" message when a) you change what that word means from day to day and b) you're lying out your ass.


“Today, he claimed that the Congressional stimulus package was his idea. That’s news to those of us in Congress who supported it. Senator Obama didn’t even show up to vote.

“He talks a tough game on the financial crisis, but the facts tell a different story. Senator Obama took more money from Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac than anyone but the chairman of the committee they answer to. And he put Fannie Mae’s CEO, who helped create this problem in charge of finding his Vice President. That’s not change, that’s what’s broken in Washington."
Some "change"... lawl. Somehow, even though he's only been a Senator for 3 years, he was still able to garner the number 2 spot ahead of John Kerry, who's been in the Senate for 23 years, and just behind Chris Dodd, who is chairman of the Senate Banking Committee.


Name Office State Party Grand Total Total from PACs Total from Individuals
Dodd, Christopher J S CT D $165,400 $48,500 $116,900
Obama, Barack S IL D $126,349 $6,000 $120,349
Kerry, John S MA D $111,000 $2,000 $109,000

Now that's some change... in his pockets!

[mattjmcd]

I agree with GKoenig if he is trying to say that the marketing message aspect of Obama's campaign has more or less been "Change" all along. If you ask the man on the street to sum up Obama's core message, most people could name the "Change..." tagline. So in that sense, I suppose he is coherent and consistent. IMO McCain doesn't have that messaging down pat.

Still, I think most honest observers would have to admit that a) Obama is not terribly specific about his proposals, and b) that his proposals sound less like "Change" and more like "more of the same, only bigger/fatter/more expensive".

[Left Sig]

Many years ago, during officer elections in my college fraternity, I implored my brothers not to listen to what a candidate says he will do, but to look at what he has DONE over the full term of his membership. Certainly, that was a much smaller scale, and far less important than a Presidential election, but the words are still just as true.

Obama has simply not accomplished much of anything significant in his political career. He talks a great game, but there just isn't much to back it up. He has shown no record of implementing any significant changes in any public office he has held, and he espouses a rather typical left wing agenda.

In corporate management, you run into these types all the time. Big thinkers with grand plans and zero follow through. Every month there's a new initiative, and after a couple more months it dies and is replaced by the next new idea. Nothing ever really changes, because the charismatic manager is focused on HIMSELF and not the success of the organization.

So based on all of this, I can only assume that Obama will continue to do more of the same if he is elected President. Talk about change, make everyone feel good about it, give some good speeches, but fail to follow through when it counts. For this reason, I do not fear his potential Presidency, because I really don't think he will ever follow through on implementing any of those grand socialist plans. He will be little more than a figurehead and a placeholder.

I plan to vote for McCain, but if he doesn't win I can take solace that at the very least, Hilary Clinton will not be President!