Media Coverage

robeiae said:

If you wrongly say "Bush did this," then follow it with "McCain will, too" because...well, just BECAUSE...I'd say that's a little personal. And again, attacking McCain through Bush is qualitatively not all that different than attacking Obama through Ayers.

Click to expand...

It's attacking McCain's public, documented voting record; yes, it's also drawing an analogy and making a connection, but it's one that is at least based in policy (albeit in the past, which doesn't necessarily have to do with the future). Either way, it's more substance policy-wise than the Ayers ads. The other day, when I saw a negative McCain ad about Obama's policies rather than Bill Ayers, it was a welcome difference.

kuwisdelu said:

It's attacking McCain's public, documented voting record; yes, it's also drawing an analogy and making a connection, but it's one that is at least based in policy (albeit in the past, which doesn't necessarily have to do with the future). Either way, it's more substance policy-wise than the Ayers ads.

Click to expand...

Nah. It's not attacking his record. It's making a misleading claim about the economy--attaching full responsibility to Bush--than making McCain guilty by association. Come on. You're stretching to justify it. No need. They all do it. Obama's no different.

That doesn't mean there's no difference between Obama and McCain. There certainly is. Substantial differences, imo. But not from the standpoint of their ads. They'll both use whatever they've got, whatever they think will help them win. Neither one is on high ground, here.

robeiae said:

I say--to dem and repub, alike--get over yourselves. Your guy is nothing special, here. He's trying to win the Presidency and he has no qualms about stretching the truth to get there.

Click to expand...

I don't entirely disagree, but in this case, there is a decidedly different slant from McCain's side.

But we've had this argument in a different thread, where you maintained that ads which exaggerate, such as "McCain is no different than Bush" are morally equivalent to "Obama wants to teach your kindergartners about sex."

I find that a hard position to justify.

robeiae said:

Nah. It's not attacking his record. It's making a misleading claim about the economy--attaching full responsibility to Bush--than making McCain guilty by association. Come on. You're stretching to justify it. No need. They all do it. Obama's no different.

Click to expand...

I'm not trying to justify it. I still think it sucks, and the ad definitely stretches the truth with its conclusions. But nonetheless, even if the claim is bull, the analogy to Bush is based on documented record (unless we're talking about different ads--I'm talking to the voted 90% bits) that directly has to do with policy while the Ayers association is completely empty policy-wise and makes even more of a stretch.

donroc said:

More scary if Barney Frank would be added.

Click to expand...

Since you mentioned Barney - http://www.southcoasttoday.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20081024/NEWS/810240332/-1/NEWS10

the analogy to Bush is based on documented record

Click to expand...

That's the problem, Obama has no record to base anything on.

Palin's got a much more in-depth record than Obama has.

So Obama just keeps on with these speeches where he waxes eloquent, describing the woes of the downtrodden masses, and offers up nothing of substance.

He says that his opponents (first Hillary, now McCain) are the problems, and he's the solution, yet we don't know what the hell his solutions are.

But the media doesn't grill him on anything, they just play the best sound bites they can and fawn all over him.

Now Palin, they're grilling her like a ribeye, and she's only going for the VP slot. How the hell can Obama get such a pass?

Where are the women who were ranting and raving over the media's 'misogynistic' attacks on Hillary? Crap, the little bumps Hillary faced were nothing compared to the mountains Palin's facing. Yet there is silence from that camp. Hmmm. Maybe they aren't for women breaking the glass ceilings, women who lead by example rather than rhetoric? Sorta misogynistic, if you ask me.

Frankly, I'm getting really sick of hearing how 'Obama is sticking to the issues', when all he does is describe the issues. Then he offers his grand plan, which has no details. He doesn't offer up a way to pay for all the plans, including his latest of raising teacher pay, hiring more teachers, etc., none of which can he possibly deliver on. . .

. . . short of making the POTUS all-powerful and in control of all things government from the Supreme Court to the HOAs, with the school boards in between.

Why doesn't the media ask how in the heck is he gonna set teacher pay scales in, what, 500 school districts in the country? Or will he lump all school districts into a new federal agency?

I really doubt Obama's gonna answer that question.

I wasn't saying it was okay, Joe, just different from the Ayers thing.

I wasn't saying it was okay, Joe, just different from the Ayers thing.

Click to expand...

I don't see Obama's connection with Ayers as something off-limits, or as 'dirty politics'.

I see Ayers as someone who hates the USA so much that they would engage in treason and domestic terrorism during a time of war to hurt our country as much as they possibly could, even lamenting that he 'wished he'd done more'. Ayers should be in prison, and should have been there for decades, not rewarded in Chicago. But Obama's one who does fund him, and that says volumes about Obama.

Obama's associations with him are close, no matter how much the democrats try to downplay that angle, and that association troubles me greatly.

Joe270 said:

I don't see Obama's connection with Ayers as something off-limits, or as 'dirty politics'.

Click to expand...

Me neither. I happen to think it's a dead-end, personally, but I was only saying it's a very different kind of accusation than comparing McCain to Bush.

Not to beat a dead horse for too long, but both are intended as 'guilt by association' attacks.

rugcat said:

I'm not sure how showing images of McCain is a personal attack.

Click to expand...

Purposely picking images which are intended to make him look like an idiot (especially when taken out of context) would be...

I seem to recall many times when people would post similar-type pictures of Hillary out of context during the primary season...as Rob mentioned, it's the same garbage every campaign...

Joe270 said:

Palin's got a much more in-depth record than Obama has.

Click to expand...

Utter nonsense. The McCain camp would like everyone to believe this, for obvious reasons. Problem is, Sarah Palin has now been exposed to scrutiny, and most people don't believe it, for obvious and good reasons: It simply ain't so.

Now, I've been trying real hard to be friendly to Republicans on this issue for some weeks now. And I am in agreement with a fair number of highly-credentialed Republican pundits and supporters (David Frum, George Will, Charles Krauthammer, and several others) in saying that John McCain made a terrible blunder in selecting Sarah Palin as his VP candidate. He had plenty of other more credible people available to choose from. I remain astonished at how deeply some Republicans cling to the illusion that Palin is this goddess sent down from on high to save the Party. Listen close:

You have plenty of people far more qualified and with far greater demonstrated ability to get behind in the next four years. Go get behind some of them. Sarah Palin didn't get destroyed by the media or by any unseemly degree of "attacks" from the opposition; she got destroyed because she herself turned herself into a charicature, with her own actions and words. With breathtaking quickness and efficiency, I might add.

So, my advice: Four years down the road, go find a candidate whom I can oppose on policy grounds, instead of for reasons of plain shallowness and inadequacy. John McCain himself I oppose primarily on policy grounds (though I've become dismayed by the lack of focus of his campaign, too); but Sarah Palin has exposed herself as simply inadequate, and the majority American public now clearly thinks so, too.

And, after eight years now, I am sooooooo tired of inadequacy. Let the next big election discussion be one about principles and policies. Please.

caw

Perhaps the Republicans who are negative on Palin fear her "wing" will strong enough to make her the candidate in 2012 if McCain does not pull an upset in 10 days. That may be why they denigrate her. Remember, the Palin/Limbaugh/Coulter "wing" was not for McCain at first. Some may prefer to lose an election than be shut out of party influence and power and then regroup for the next election with the candidates of their choice.

donroc said:

Perhaps the Republicans who are negative on Palin fear her "wing" will strong enough to make her the candidate in 2012 if McCain does not pull an upset in 10 days. That may be why they denigrate her. .

Click to expand...

Methinks you did not read blacbird's post.

Read mine again. There is a slight difference of POV while agreeing in part. I am always suspicious of pundits' motives anyway.

Sarah Palin has now been exposed to scrutiny,

Click to expand...

I'm just a-wishin' that Obama would get the same exposure before the election. I'm figuring that won't happen with mere days left.

It made the front page that Obama's 'leaving the campaign trail to tend his ill grandmother'. Obama's still making a whole lot of speeches for a person who has left his campaign.

I'll try again, with a clarification: Republicans have many credible social conservatives to pick from, people who share virtually all of Sarah Palin's views, and have far more demonstrated ability (and far less demonstrated inability). I suspect they will rise in standing among the religious/social conservative set during the next four years. Sarah Palin was a huge mistake for McCain, and she'd be a huge mistake for a Presidential candidate in 2012, compared to any number of other possibilities Republicans will have. Like I said, I am mystified at the ardor with which some still cling to her $150,000 coat-tails. I hope you enjoyed your campaign contributions going to those.

caw

johnnysannie said:

The difference is that Obama buys his own clothing but Ms. Palin had $150,000 of new things purchased by the RNC, an organization that has been accepting political donations to help McCain win, not dress Caribou Barbie.

The fact that the money came from the Republican National Committee is the point just as much as what it was spent buying.

If anything new were to underline how much Palin is just a Barbie doll to draw voters to McCain's failing ticket, it would be buying Barbie an all-new, expensive wardrobe on money that Republican voters donated to the cause.

Click to expand...

I have no opinion on the cloths buying part - where the money came from - or what it means. I do not care about that part.

BUT, I would like to offer a possible reason (why such MAY have been necessary - broadening her wardrobe I mean).

A man - Obama or McCain - can have 5 (or less) suits. Dark suits. Wear them all the time and no one notices he is duplicating his wardrobe. All he has to do is change blue shirt to white and add a tie that varies on occasion. A man could get through this campaign with less than 5 suits, 5 ties and 6 shirts (white/blue). No one would notice or comment. I am not saying they do not have more clothing, just saying they could get away with such and it not be noticed.

CONVERSLY:

Women are always viewed more closely in what they wear. How "put together" they look. How fashionable they appear. And judgements are made on such about the woman. Yes, judgements are made in the clothing men wear too and how they present. But, for women, it is noticed (and commented on) if they wear the same thing as they did last Sunday - while a man can get away with it without same comment.

Just saying is all....

Christine

Women are always viewed more closely in what they wear.

Click to expand...

Ain't it comical that the same folks going crazy over 'Makeovergate' are the same ones who complained about too much attention devoted to Hillary's pantsuits?

Yet another double-standard uncovered, so to speak.

willfulone said:

I have no opinion on the cloths buying part - where the money came from - or what it means. I do not care about that part.

Click to expand...

You should. It might have been illegal to use campaign funds for that purpose, and lawsuits are being filed even as we discuss it.

caw

willfulone said:

Women are always viewed more closely in what they wear. How "put together" they look. How fashionable they appear. And judgements are made on such about the woman. Yes, judgements are made in the clothing men wear too and how they present. But, for women, it is noticed (and commented on) if they wear the same thing as they did last Sunday - while a man can get away with it without same comment.

Just saying is all....

Christine

Click to expand...

That is true.

But why this story has resonance is not just the money spent on clothes. It's that Palin has presented herself as a down to earth "hockey mom," a populist, -- I'm just ordinary folks, like you. Her campaign speeches have often made fun of the Washington elites, casting them as appalled that just an ordinary mom would even dare to run for national office.

Then, when it comes out that she's acquired 150 K of clothing for a few months campaigning, an amount that it takes three years for ordinary folks to earn, it seems a tad hypocritical and makes folks wonder how much of that average Jane image is manufactured.

John Edwards, in a different way, also presented himself as a populist, which is why the 400 dollar haircut got such play. (Seems like a bargain, now.)

whistlelock said:

http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5hiE-7-7YbMg-msHxLrN2b_g8RF7gD93VQU481

An interesting read about the coverage of the candidates. Two things jump out at me, one I expected to hear:

And, that makes sense to me. As a candidate take a lead there will be more positive press about them and as they fall behind there will be more negative press.

However, the second thing to jump out at me I did not expect to see but had started to notice on my own a few weeks back:

And, to explain further- I have noticed a similar pattern with McCain and Hillary in their campaign's against Obama. Neither one could settle on a message or slogan to use against his Change banner. Both used Experience as their keystone argument, and both abandoned it quickly to take up Change and then switched to negative attacks as their talking points.

And, both have complained about unfair coverage of the media.

So, my question here is how much do you feel the media reporting that someone is behind or ahead affects those trends?

And, to phrase it a different way in the trend of media coverage: Would John McCain be losing if we weren't being told he was losing?

Click to expand...

I believe that publishing polls should be banned until after the election.

They can be published then for analysis and hindsight. They can be conducted for the campaings themselves for their own strategies, but I think they should be banned from being published until after the election.

johnnysannie said:

The difference is that Obama buys his own clothing but Ms. Palin had $150,000 of new things purchased by the RNC, an organization that has been accepting political donations to help McCain win, not dress Caribou Barbie.

The fact that the money came from the Republican National Committee is the point just as much as what it was spent buying.

If anything new were to underline how much Palin is just a Barbie doll to draw voters to McCain's failing ticket, it would be buying Barbie an all-new, expensive wardrobe on money that Republican voters donated to the cause.

Click to expand...

All over the country I'm sure women are hearing plywood being nailed over the glass ceiling.

wordmonkey said:

Could it also illustrate a disconnect with Joe (insert trade or beverage delivery quota here)? How can someone who has that amount of money JUST for clothes, lavished (and I think that word is appropriate here) on her, claim to be just like me? I'd be willing to bet I haven't spent that much money on clothes for me, my wife and all three kids, on all our lives - let alone two months.

Click to expand...

What's the difference between a hockey mom and a pitbull?

$150,000. wardrobe.

Thank goodness we've got this thread back on track.