Blogs home Liberals Can All Go To France
Why Obama Will Be the Next President
Obama has been enjoying lots of attention from the press, and rightly so. He is a Presidential candidate after all. Just flip through the news channels or newspapers and you are sure to see Obama more than once. He is all over the place. This is probably why McCain launched his ad calling Obama "the biggest celebrity in the world." After the backlash this ad created both in the campaign and in the media itself, I realized something: the "mainstream media" is in the bag for Obama.
Let me explain. The media took offense to the McCain ad because it was, in part, a shot at them too. They seem to have created and continue to be perpetuating his "celebrity" status. I mean, who ever heard of Barack Obama four years ago? And what exactly did he do in these past four years to gain his celebrity status? I argue that he hasn't done anything to earn his status (except have charisma), but instead, that he has been given a leg up by the powers that be in the national media.
While the media has been reporting his every move, they have not engaged in any type of critical analysis of either him or his past. No investigative reporting has been done on him, short of the pieces done by Fox News and other conservative news outlets, and such reports are quickly dismissed as being biased. (As if "biased" is synonymous with "false.") The problem is, while everyone knows Fox's bias (they practically wear it on their sleeve), no one seems willing to acknowledge the bias that is running rampant in the mainstream media.
I have noticed that MSNBC, CNN, and even AP writers seem to be doing Obama's work for him. They over-analyze McCain's and Palin's every move, every statement, and every slip of the tongue. When reporting Obama's recent tumble in the polls, all they talk about is what he can do to make a comeback. They subtly suggest that the only reason he will lose is all those racist white men and dis-enfranchised women voters. Could it be that there are still people who actually want to get to know their candidate and desire experience and a long history of public service in the White House? Could it be that some people have legitimate reasons as to why they prefer McCain?
In closing I would like to ask you, would you have even read this article if McCain's name had been in the headline instead of Obama's? Try to view this week's news coverage with open eyes and an open mind; see if you, too, notice the one-sided nature of the mainstream media.
*This is adapted from an article I wrote that appeared in the Washburn Review. You can find this article and respond to it at: http://media.www.washburnreview.org/media/storage/paper1140/news/2008/08/25/Opinion/Why-Obama.Will.Be.The.Next.President-3403535.shtml
5 September 2008
at 6:14 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
Logan72 (Alia Ahmed) says…
Today's online edition of the LJW
McCain-4 headlines
Palin-3 headlines
Obama-0 headlines
One might expect some disparity because the RNC has just concluded and Sarah Palin is a newcomer on the political scene. Since Obama is a newcomer in comparison to McCain, so you might expect more stories about him. Newspapers write what people are interested in.
RJ, do you have statistics to back up your position? Also, sometimes candidates are in the headlines but the story is negative about the candidate. Are you saying what celebrities do,that any publicity is good publicity? If that's the case, Sarah Palin has definitely won by a landslide in the past week, eh?
5 September 2008
at 6:22 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
Logan72 (Alia Ahmed) says…
KC's online front page edition
McCain-5
Palin-4 +1 story about her entitled small town hockey mom
Obama-3 (1 negative)
5 September 2008
at 6:23 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
coltrane (Anonymous) says…
OBAMA will win in the fall and Latinos in America will make it so !
5 September 2008
at 6:31 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
Redneckgal (Anonymous) says…
rednecks for obama!!
5 September 2008
at 6:42 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
Marion (Marion Lynn) says…
“I have noticed that msnbc, cnn, and even AP writers seem to be doing Obama's work for him. They over-analyze McCain's and Palin's every move, every statement, and every slip of the tongue. When reporting Obama's recent tumble in the polls, all they talk about is what he can do to make a comeback.”
Marion writes:
Well, you just proved a good point about the Left-leaning media in the USA!
5 September 2008
at 6:43 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
ASBESTOS (Anonymous) says…
Good article!
FoxNEws is doing an expose' on the MSM and will show the Bitching primmadonnas at CNN when they got called on it. They looked like a bunch of high school kids “tying to be cool by being bad”.
Their professionalism is in question totally at CNN, as they “snickeder” on open mics whilst the R's were responding.
You don't see the bias yet. Look at:
www.newsbusters.com
It has it all in glorious color, why the media has to “fact check Palin and McCain, but there is nothing about them “fact checking the Rezko or the Ayers” foundations, businesses and Chairmanships that Obama had with these guys?
How about fact checking that.
How about Oprah giving Obama time, but then rejecting Palin on the show, “until after the election”. What a bunch of BS.
How about the MSNBC giving their press passes and credentials to the Code Pink gals and 3 other “protesters” that got on the floor. Yes they are “bar coded” and we do know this happened.
How about the MSM questioning a former mayor and governor of a state about “experience” but nothing about Barak's lack of or his “community organizer” roles. Whjo with, what did he organize and what was the budget, oh, yeah, the Ayers and Rezko thingy again.
How about Barak ignoring the problems with Chicago sky high violent crime rate which is Higher than Baghdad, but giving McCain hell on it?
Fair? I think not!
Defensible? No Way!
“Journalism” or “objective”? Not on a bet!
5 September 2008
at 7:04 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
tangential_reasoners_anonymous (Anonymous) says…
“Why Obama Will Be the Next President”
… because McCain only qualifies as a *former* President.
5 September 2008
at 7:28 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
scott3460 (Anonymous) says…
“Well, you just proved a good point about the Left-leaning media in the USA!”
Noticing something does not prove it.
5 September 2008
at 8:32 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
beatrice (Anonymous) says…
“FoxNEws is doing an expose'”
Jumpin' Jesus on a pogo stick, that is a funny line right there.
The idea of FauxNews doing an expose about slanted political stances in the news is like South Park trying to have a very special episode about the harming effects of vulgarity in the media.
Asbestos, less it get past you, they were snickering because a Republican was trying to make a serious case that Sarah Palin is not only perfectly qualified to lead our nation, but was the most qualified of all others available. That is snicker worthy stuff right there.
5 September 2008
at 8:48 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
toe (Anonymous) says…
Maybe not.
5 September 2008
at 9:12 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
RJ (Anonymous) says…
Thank you all for your comments.
Scott, your right, I didn't prove anything, just speculating. Do you think there is anything to it?
Alia Ahmed, you are right, McCain/Palin are dominating the headlines right now. I wrote this article before the DNC. I am planning on doing a statistical analysis on media bias this semester for my Applied Political Research class. I will analyze how many articles each McCain/Obama each get and the instances of negative/positve/neutral phrases. We will see if I am just being paranoid or if there really is a bias. Do you think there is?
The real question is, how can we find the truth and demand an unbiased media?
5 September 2008
at 9:26 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
RJ (Anonymous) says…
Beatrice, I am looking to build a constructive discourse here, could you please enlighten us with some facts and not make fun others? Professional journalists should not be snickering, they should leave it to the viewer to do so. (Although, I don't even know what you two are referring to.)
If you don't agree with my premise, just say so and provide examples of CNN or MSNBC being critical of Obama. I will be glad to admit I am wrong.
Actually I hope I am wrong, our country depends on a strong and unbiased media!
In fact, Asbestos, would you be able to post some links that would back up your assertions? I went to newsbusters but didn't find anything significant.
5 September 2008
at 9:42 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
jimincountry (Anonymous) says…
I understand Obama's campaign is preparing promotional stuff to describe the responsibilities of a “Chicago community organizer” on which Obama's political career began, as I understand.
5 September 2008
at 10:16 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
RJ (Anonymous) says…
Jimincountry, sounds interesting, I can't wait. I don't think being a community organizer is exactly a bad thing.
Would you all consider MLK Jr. a community organizer?
What matters is “Was Obama a successful community organizer?” and “What kinds of things did he pursue?”
5 September 2008
at 10:41 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
UFC_FAN (Anonymous) says…
i really don't see the tv media being that bad actually (i am a republicon or rethugican). sure there are those (olbermann) who tick me off, but he is entitled to his opinion and those who watch his show know what they are going to get. foxnews will be more conservative than msnbc. cnn and foxnews i think really play it more down the middle than msnbc. print media, that's another story…
5 September 2008
at 11:13 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
verity (Anonymous) says…
Maybe Obama will be the next president because he's an elitist (definition of elite–the best).
5 September 2008
at 11:16 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
Marion (Marion Lynn) says…
I like this:
http://z.about.com/d/politicalhumor/1…
5 September 2008
at 11:18 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
Marion (Marion Lynn) says…
Of course, this one is not bad at all:
http://z.about.com/d/politicalhumor/1…
5 September 2008
at 11:34 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
RobertMarble (Anonymous) says…
the only thing he'll be president of is his personal fan club. while he came out of the gate with a strong lead he's since flatlined. hussein has failed to deliver any substance & it's going to cost him the election. The only question is: who will be the first lib in denial to blame it on racism?
5 September 2008
at 11:41 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
bearded_gnome (Anonymous) says…
RJ,
I applaud your courage in posting this on this paper's online site.
I also applaud and support your conclusions.
Personally, I agree with Sarah's characterization of “community organizer” as somebody who didn't really have responsibilities or the need to make executive decisions.
MSNBC is the network where more than once people have stated they had “tingles” from watching Obama. Whenever I tune past them, the bias is cloying.
On Fox, you will note, the liberal perspective is presented with respect, because we conservatives need to know what they're saying. Howard Wolfson, aide to Hillary Clinton said that Fox News was definitely the fairest news outlet to Hillary during the democrat primary.
***
you are correct about your title.
one important measure
www.mrc.org
has documented is that 9 to 1 american reporters donate and vote democratic.
we feel that Fox News is *the equal time* to npr/abc/cbs/cnn/nbc/msnbc et al. and, you may wish to note in your analysis that Fox News is beating the crap outa all other cable news channels, often combined! There are certainly reasons for that. and “beating the crap” I'm sure must have an operational definition.
5 September 2008
at 11:47 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
UFC_FAN (Anonymous) says…
calling Obama by his middle name is a low blow. it is something that you should have stopped long ago. there are Muslims who serve the red, white, and blue who have the name Hussein.
i do think that if Barack loses, racism will be brought up, fairly or unfairly. let's not stoop to dailykos levels here.
6 September 2008
at 1:54 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
RobertMarble (Anonymous) says…
i disagree. hussein is his legal name; if he considers it to be a low blow perhaps he should look into alternative names. A more accurate example of a “low blow” would be the husein obama supporters rioting, vandalizing, looting, etc outside the republican convention. real smooth tactic, hussein. what do you have to say about their integrity?
6 September 2008
at 2:10 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
XD40 (Anonymous) says…
I think Obambi is going to lose. His choice of Biden as his veep sealed his defeat. He showed fear with the Biden choice. Fear and a loss of confidence in his hope/change message. He put himself on the defensive and shows that his politics are the politics of the entrenched liberal, left, elitists he wants to be a part of. His associations with William Ayers, Tony Rezko and the Rev. Wright will dog him into late October sealing his fate. Too bad.
6 September 2008
at 2:20 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
beatrice (Anonymous) says…
Obama will be the next President because he will win both the electoral and popular votes.
6 September 2008
at 3:15 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
jhwk2008 (Anonymous) says…
RJ, a study like you are proposing has already been done. It concluded that there is a liberal bias bias. Although Obama is featured in more stories than McCain, those Obama stories are negative.
It was done by S. Robert Lichter, George Mason University political communication professor and director of GMU's Center of Media and Public Affairs. In 2005, Bill O'Reilly heralded Lichter's findings that conservatives in academics face discrimination in hiring and promotion.
Major Findings:
Since the primaries ended, on-air evaluations of Barack Obama have been 72% negative (vs. 28% positive). That's worse than John McCain's coverage, which has been 57% negative (vs. 43% positive) during the same time period.
This is a major turnaround since McCain and Obama emerged as front-runners in the early primaries. From the New Hampshire primary on January 8 until Hillary Clinton dropped out on June 7, Obama's coverage was 62% positive (v. 38% negative) on the broadcast networks; by contrast, McCain's coverage during this period was only 34% positive (v. 66% negative).
Obama ran even farther behind McCain on Fox News Channel's Special Report with 79% negative comments (v. 21% positive), compared to 61% negative comments (v. 39% positive) for McCain since June 8. During the primaries Obama had a slight lead in good press on Fox, with 52% favorable comments (v. 48 % unfavorable), compared to 48% favorable (v. 52% unfavorable) for McCain.
Obama's bad press has come at a time when he was much more visible than McCain. Since June 8, he has been the subject of 120 stories on the three network evening news shows, 50% more than John McCain's 80 stories.
http://www.cmpa.com/Studies/Election0…
6 September 2008
at 3:48 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
snap_pop_no_crackle (Anonymous) says…
When does coltrane hit the magic number for posts being removed that entitles him to a one-way trip to Nowheresville?
6 September 2008
at 4:41 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
XD40 (Anonymous) says…
I've heard that Obambi (THE Obamessiah) is going to pull an Eagleton on Biden and try to get Hillary on the ticket.
6 September 2008
at 5:40 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
RJ (Anonymous) says…
Thanks for the info jhwk2008. I will use these studies as a starting point. I would not have expected those results.
6 September 2008
at 5:47 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
RJ (Anonymous) says…
jhwk2008, I just looked at your link. I noticed that they studied the broadcast evening news programs and that the study was published on July 28th. I had in mind studying the 24 hour cable news channels and maybe some print media. I wonder if there would be a difference in the results?
6 September 2008
at 10:37 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
jaywalker (Anonymous) says…
RJ:
Have noticed exactly what you have. It concerns me more dependent on the source, particularly with the AP which is supposed to be a 'just the facts' organization. The poll referred to was done on ABC, NBC, and CBS. Funny how they 'supposedly' ran more negative pieces on BO, but accompanied him on the plane and recorded everything short of bathroom breaks during his 'Global Tour' earlier this summer.
I've argued this point with a few regular posters, and my contention has always been to look impartially at the tone, tenor, wording, and slant that is in the headlines and the content of so many articles. I have an english and journalism background, and perhaps it's more noticeable to certain people who are sensitive to the written word. It is often a subtle nuance, but the tilt is incredibly obvious to me.
Perhaps it's because of this subtlety that I find the assertion to back this opinion with 'independent studies' nearly laughable. If one can observe with an open mind, and is able to grasp how a phrase can be turned with a simple manipulation of words or wording, then I believe what you are referencing is fairly obvious.
The media has an overwhelming 'liberal' tilt. I can only think of two major sources that are considered conservative, and that's Fox News and the Washington Times. MSNBC (and all NBC affiliates),CNN, New York Times, LA Times, Washington Post, Atlanta Journal Constitution, Newsweek, Time - all are decidedly left. CNN attempts to seem fair, but it merely does a decent job of hiding its agenda. Happen to catch the 'Applause-o-meter' during the DNC? Wasn't there for their opponent. They did run a ticker at the bottom of the screen that perpetually ran blurbs on McCain's bouts with skin cancer and Palin's 'Troopergate' nonsense, though.
Chances are high that this post will raise the squawk level. Just wanted to let you know you're not alone. And if you're looking for a news mag that shows both sides of the fence after summarizing the plain facts of a story first, check out The Week. Fantastic weekly.
6 September 2008
at 11:19 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
tunahelper (Anonymous) says…
White America is NOT gonna vote for a black (or half-black) man with a muslim name for President. Douglas and Wyandotte Counties will be the only blue counties in Kansas in the 2008 election. omaba is gonna lose.
Sarah Palin Rocks! Go McCain!
6 September 2008
at 11:24 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
cowgomoo (Anonymous) says…
Of course the mainstrseam media is in the tank for Obama.
Hillary Clinton said as much…bitterly and correctly so.
It's so obvious that SNL has parodied the mainstrseam media over it several times…hilariously and correctly so.
To be fair to those who blindly state otherwise, if the media was as much in the tank for McCain I'd probably deny it too. Must be hardwired blinders we have.
7 September 2008
at 8:57 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
beatrice (Anonymous) says…
RJ, “This is probably why McCain launched his ad calling Obama “the biggest celebrity in the world.” ”
Or is it because John McCain has little to offer that isn't a reminder of Bush's failed policies so he must run negative ads.
Now, his running mate is getting praised for her one national speech. I guess he is going to have to start calling her “The other One,” since she is apparently popular despite people knowing virtually nothing about her.
As far as “over-analyzing” everything Palin says — are you kidding me! She hasn't said anything of substance yet. When you pick a vp candidate that is virtually unknown, would you prefer the media “under-analyze” her statements?
jw: “They did run a ticker at the bottom of the screen that perpetually ran blurbs on McCain's bouts with skin cancer and Palin's 'Troopergate' nonsense, though.”
Darn those facts! I wish the news channels wouldn't bother showing us facts! And there is no way you are so tuned in to Alaskan politics to know whether or not the investigation into Palin is “nonsense” or not. So who is being biased now?
The 72 year old McCain parades his mother around to note her longevity, but he never mentions the fact that his father died of a heart attack at age 70, and his grandfather died of a heart attack at age 61. Just more facts for you to enjoy.
7 September 2008
at 9:08 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
cowgomoo (Anonymous) says…
He outlived his father and grandfather and doesn't have heart problems, I guess that takes care of the ageism issue. He's fiesty like his wirey sassy momma.
The American people are seeing through “the audacity of worthless platitutdes.” Latest Gallop poll:
McCain 48%
Obama 45%
7 September 2008
at 10:20 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
RobertMarble (Anonymous) says…
“Sept. 7) - John McCain has overtaken Barack Obama in the Gallup daily tracking poll and has his highest level of support in that poll since early May.
McCain leads Obama 48 percent to 45 percent among registered voters, by Gallup's measure. McCain has so far earned the same convention bounce as Obama, though at a more rapid pace.”……………………..looks like the downfall of hussein obama is now.
8 September 2008
at 12:29 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
galileo57 (Anonymous) says…
Well beatrice lets talk facts …
Lets talk about liberals having the bollocks to criticize Gov. Palin as an irresponsible VP choice “as she would be one heartbeat away from the Presidency”.
Ignoring Obama's lack of experience as the front runner of his party, he of Community Service, a few years as a State Senator, a few years in the US Senate spending the overwhelming majority of his first term running for POTUS… using yes votes as examples of his taking part in writing important legislation.
Lets talk facts… lets tak Barack Obama and Tony Rezko, a nice relationship…. with Tony Rezko now serving how many years in Prison? Where and how did Barak afford that 1.5 mil home… on a candidate for Senate salary? And you have the nerve to bring up troopergate? By the way…..how many People did the Clintons fire while in the White House…and based on what?
beatrice .. I love beating down Socialist hacks …
8 September 2008
at 12:44 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
anxiousatheist (Clint Gentry) says…
Here you go repubs, just reminding you of your true colors…
http://thinkprogress.org/2008/06/17/g…
8 September 2008
at 12:55 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
galileo57 (Anonymous) says…
beatrice, Here is a couple of more facts I failed to mention…
While Gov. Palin enjoys an 80% approval rating amongst Alaskans .. (she must be doing somthin right) , the Obama/Polosi lead Democrat-Controlled Congress Gets a historically low 9% Approval Rating amongst Americans..
Why? Because as Guiliani says … like Obama …they do nothing …nada…. except whine about “Change” .. and what is the change they talk about..? Higher Taxes on people or employers who make a certain amount of money… an amount they perceive as being obscene… (by the way, this is what the hollywood elite supports, do they even know it?) Universal Health Care, a failed notion thats been around since Harry Truman, big change huh? Free Education… hmm… sounds like more Guvmnt Control.
Facts…your change is a figment of your socialist imagination.
8 September 2008
at 1:05 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
galileo57 (Anonymous) says…
Hey Clint… maybe your true colors is whats behind this photo shopped piece of garbage. look in the mirror ….
8 September 2008
at 1:14 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
anxiousatheist (Clint Gentry) says…
Nice try “galileo”, but the bile and venom that comes from the far-right crowd must be delivered as to see the bigotry and small-mindedness of the right. Rather be a hippy than a nazi…
8 September 2008
at 1:14 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
anxiousatheist (Clint Gentry) says…
Hey “galileo” check this out!…
http://www.vietnamveteransagainstjohn…
8 September 2008
at 1:22 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
offtotheright (Anonymous) says…
You couldn't get a job at McDonalds and become district manager after 143 days of experience.
You couldn't become chief of surgery after 143 days of experience of being a surgeon.
You couldn't get a job as a teacher and be the superintendent after 143 days of experience.
You couldn't join the military and become a colonel after a 143 days of experience.
You couldn't get a job as a reporter and become the nightly news anchor after 143 days of experience.
BUT….
From the time Barack Obama was sworn in as a United State Senator, to the time he announced he was forming a Presidential exploratory committee, he logged 143 days of experience in the Senate. That's how many days the Senate was actually in session and working. After 143
days of work experience, Obama believed he was ready to be Commander In Chief, Leader of the Free World, and fill the shoes of Abraham Lincoln, FDR, JFK and Ronald Reagan. 143 days.
AND, strangely, a large sector of the American public is okay with this and campaigning for him. We wouldn't accept this in our own line of work, yet some are okay with this for the President of the United States of America? We are not voting for the next American Idol !
8 September 2008
at 1:37 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
logicsound04 (Anonymous) says…
“Why? Because as Guiliani says : like Obama :they do nothing :nada:. except whine about “Change” .. and what is the change they talk about..? ”
––––––––—
The change they talk about is right here:
http://www.barackobama.com/issues/
See, it's out there if you care to listen or…*gasp* READ about something besides the RNC talking points.
Someone needs to alert the McCain supporters that there are two parties running for the Presidency…
Both of them are now talking change.
One of them has been promoting change all along.
One of them has only started talking about a slightly different type of change now that they've seen that simply mocking the other's message of change isn't going to cut it.
One of them has a slew of policy positions and specific plans of actions. The other still has a major policy gap and didn't bother to mention any positions (except generalistic, empty ones) at their convention.
A hint for you—the party with actual policy positions isn't the one most of the McCain supporters think it is.
I personally watched most of both conventions on PBS (because I can't stand the obvious slants of CNN and FOX) and they provided analyses that were critical as well as praising for both the Republicans and Democrats. Just to prove the point that they aren't biased—every one of the analysts for PBS loved Palin's speech.
However, the one area that they pointed to as a severe gap in the Republican platform is on policy. Ironically enough, the party whose primary message is to mock Barack Obama's “substanceless” offering is the one who has little substance themselves.
8 September 2008
at 1:39 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
anxiousatheist (Clint Gentry) says…
Pretty ridiculous line of argument there “farofftherightedge”, it seems nobody would be qualified to be president under your definition. Of course the ultimate failing of your argument is that Barack actually has MORE experience that lincoln did when he was elected, you shot yourself in the foot on that one. Barack 08'!
8 September 2008
at 1:40 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
towanda54 (Anonymous) says…
Well, 143 days experience post surgical residency, I'd the rather surgeon at the top of the class operate on me rather than someone from the bottom of class. Obama aces it and McSame bombs it.
8 September 2008
at 1:41 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
TheSychophant (Anonymous) says…
Where and how did Barak afford that 1.5 mil home: on a candidate for Senate salary,
Simple. His two books made him several million dollars. And his wife makes 300 plus grand a year as an executive and general counsel for a health care system.
8 September 2008
at 1:49 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
snap_pop_no_crackle (Anonymous) says…
“His two books made him several million dollars. And his wife makes 300 plus grand a year as an executive and general counsel for a health care system.”
Of course, the fact that his wife got a huge raise after the O'dude steered a ton of government money to that system was just a coincidence….
8 September 2008
at 2:07 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
kidicarus (Anonymous) says…
“offtotheright (Anonymous) says:
You couldn't get a job at McDonalds and become district manager after 143 days of experience.
You couldn't become chief of surgery after 143 days of experience of being a surgeon.
You couldn't get a job as a teacher and be the superintendent after 143 days of experience.
You couldn't join the military and become a colonel after a 143 days of experience.
You couldn't get a job as a reporter and become the nightly news anchor after 143 days of experience.
BUT:.
From the time Barack Obama was sworn in as a United State Senator, to the time he announced he was forming a Presidential exploratory committee, he logged 143 days of experience in the Senate. That's how many days the Senate was actually in session and working. After 143
days of work experience, Obama believed he was ready to be Commander In Chief, Leader of the Free World, and fill the shoes of Abraham Lincoln, FDR, JFK and Ronald Reagan. 143 days.
AND, strangely, a large sector of the American public is okay with this and campaigning for him. We wouldn't accept this in our own line of work, yet some are okay with this for the President of the United States of America? We are not voting for the next American Idol”
I received this email from my great aunt a couple of days ago. You could at least acknowledge the source.
8 September 2008
at 2:28 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
ASBESTOS (Anonymous) says…
I just read Obama's “Plan”.
It is 33 pages of “talking points” and wandering generalities. There is Nothing, nada, zero, as far as policy changes, and some are downright scarey.
Such as in Barak's “Economic Plan” the first bullet point is a “Oil Windfall Profits Tax”. Anyone that was around last time of “windfall Profits Tax” knows it willmake the economy worse, and shows that Obama is going with idealogic “theory” rather than economic reality.
Clearly, this guy is a moron.
8 September 2008
at 2:41 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
tjhoops69 (Anonymous) says…
Heres the real deal, and I will be interested to see if it plays out like this, but Im thinking that Obama wont be elected and that its the black people who wont elect him.
If he is elected, then the argument of this being a “white mans” government will be out the window as well as the racism thing. If a black man is elected president of the USA, then black people will have to shut up about it, and I dont think that will happen. (by the way, Im black)
8 September 2008
at 3:04 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
lindad (Anonymous) says…
I am now a Baraak Obama supporter (was for Hillary) - I kept an open mind for a while - but the more I learn about McCain - by listening to him - the less I want him in the White House. This one following statement from McCain's 2002 book 'Worth Fighting For' about McCain's history of making fast, instinctive and sometimes risky decisions is enough all by itself to convince me: - “I make them quickly as I can, quicker than the other fellow, If I can. Often my haste is a mistake, but I live with the consequences without complaint …” This is totally unacceptable in a President - all of us would have to live (or die) with his mistakes - I will complain! (Thank you Christy Kennedy for writing the letter to Editor - Sunday, 9/7/2008.) One reason a lot of the press may seem to be biased for Obama is they know that McCain would not be good for our country (neither at home nor abroad). His choice of Vice President bothers me just as much & there is no way I would want to see Palin as Vice President nor President. Examining her record in Alaska (trying to ban books, disbelief in human causes for global warming, her stand on banning all abortions, vindictive nature to people who try to thwart her efforts, ……… and a lot more) all convince me that she would be very wrong for our country. If we want to see this country improve in all aspects of life we need to all work together - but if McCain- Palin lead us for the next 4 years, I am convinced any changes will be for the worse. So don't blame the Press for Obama's popularity! His Popularity is due to his charisma, ideas and the alternate choice!
8 September 2008
at 3:13 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
towanda54 (Anonymous) says…
tjhoops69 (Anonymous) says:
Heres the real deal, and I will be interested to see if it plays out like this, but Im thinking that Obama wont be elected and that its the black people who wont elect him.
If he is elected, then the argument of this being a “white mans” government will be out the window as well as the racism thing. If a black man is elected president of the USA, then black people will have to shut up about it, and I dont think that will happen. (by the way, Im black)
TJ, as we all know, anyone can annonymously say they belong to a certain ethicity or race to try to make their point more valid, but no one can really challenge the authenticity of the statement. It sounds like a racist comment, no matter what color your skin is.
8 September 2008
at 3:25 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
kidicarus (Anonymous) says…
“asbestos (Anonymous) says:
I just read Obama's “Plan”.
It is 33 pages of “talking points” and wandering generalities. There is Nothing, nada, zero, as far as policy changes, and some are downright scarey.
Such as in Barak's “Economic Plan” the first bullet point is a “Oil Windfall Profits Tax”. Anyone that was around last time of “windfall Profits Tax” knows it willmake the economy worse, and shows that Obama is going with idealogic “theory” rather than economic reality.
Clearly, this guy is a moron.”
He graduated from Columbia, served as law review editor at Harvard Law School, became a U.S. Senator and won his party's nomination for U.S. President. Yes, he is clearly a moron.
Your posts are “scarey”.
8 September 2008
at 3:29 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
tjhoops69 (Anonymous) says…
not racist, just the truth
8 September 2008
at 3:33 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
beatrice (Anonymous) says…
“And his wife makes 300 plus grand a year as an executive and general counsel for a health care system.”
Hey, with $300,000, Cindy McCain could almost purchase the outfit she wore at the Republican National Convention. Yep, nothing says caring for the middle class like wearing a $300,000 outfit. http://www.azcentral.com/style/fashio…
gal, regarding Palin's popularity rating, I say two things — first, good for her. Lets hope the whole abuse of power investigation thing that was started before she was a national figure doesn't make McCain's entire campaign collapse. Second, George Bush once had an approval rating of 91%. So your point is?
Yes, the Dems in Congress have had a very difficult time getting things accomplished due to their razor thin “control” and the fact that they don't have enough votes to override a Bush veto. But that will all change soon. Obama as President and a Democratic Congress will accomplish plenty, and provide tax cuts for the poor and middle class. Or, you can go with McCain who has made it clear that his tax breaks will continue to benefit the wealthiest of the wealthy.
Asbestos calling anyone a “moron,” especially someone clearly as intelligent as Barack Obama, is classic.
The most amazing part is that John McCain is now trying to hide from the fact that he is a Republican. He does this while picking a right-winger, a representative of the type of people he previously refered to as “agents of intollerance.” The “agent of intollerance” Mom could possibly be a heartbeat away from the presidency serving under a 72 year old man whose father died at 70 and grandfather at 61, both of heart failure.
Happy voting!
8 September 2008
at 3:34 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
towanda54 (Anonymous) says…
tjhoops69,
You didn't say whether the statement about you being black was true.
8 September 2008
at 4:08 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
anxiousatheist (Clint Gentry) says…
Palin is starting to unravel, (and only after a week on the trail…)
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/09…
8 September 2008
at 4:34 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
logicsound04 (Anonymous) says…
“The Messiah's presidential campaign started after he received praise for one national speech in 2004.”
–––––––—
Ah yes, giving a speech and then running for president 4 years later is exactly the same thing as giving a speech and being placed on the presidential ticket for 3 MONTHS later.
8 September 2008
at 4:42 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
jaywalker (Anonymous) says…
“Darn those facts! I wish the news channels wouldn't bother showing us facts! And there is no way you are so tuned in to Alaskan politics to know whether or not the investigation into Palin is “nonsense” or not. So who is being biased now?
The 72 year old McCain parades his mother around to note her longevity, but he never mentions the fact that his father died of a heart attack at age 70, and his grandfather died of a heart attack at age 61. Just more facts for you to enjoy.”
There's that reading comprehension bugaboo rearing its ugly head for ya again, bea. The point of my statement was that there was no such 'negative news ticker' running during the DNC, nor an 'applause-o-meter' running during the RNC. Gee, I wonder why? You're inability to grasp this point, or you're outright denial of the 'fact', demonstrates the defined ignorance I'm weary of pointing out in you, and no less your distinct bias. I don't have a 'dog' in this race as you do, and I'm proud that I'm able to read or view something AND comprehend. Don't get mad at me 'cuz you can't.
Troopergate is nonsense. I've said it before, if the trooper were unknown to her and she discovered his indescretions, she would have acted in the same manner, as any Governor should.
And thank you so much for drooling out the 'Mac's dad died at 70' for the thousandth time. Any real substantive points to make or are you determined to ramble on like an Alzheimer's sufferer? You know, your repetition of the inane is akin to certain posters insisting on including 'Hussein' in every reference to BO. Congrats.
8 September 2008
at 4:52 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
invictus (Anonymous) says…
I see Obama's cousin Tanvir Hussain was convicted in Great Britain for terrorism. I wonder if he would ask for a pardon if elected?
8 September 2008
at 5:13 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
towanda54 (Anonymous) says…
invictus (Anonymous) says:
I see Obama's cousin Tanvir Hussain was convicted in Great Britain for terrorism. I wonder if he would ask for a pardon if elected?
Invictus, when you continue to post this drivel, you only display your own bigotry and ignorance. I don't think you even attempt to make logical arguments, you just comment to see how much animosity you can create. Sad! Sad! Sad!
8 September 2008
at 5:58 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
BABBOY (Anonymous) says…
Look at this way.
Do you really want to support someone that Marion Lynn or Invictus supports?
I mean read their posts and some of the insane crap they post.
So, if you are rational compassionate person, why would you support someone who these idiots think is the answer?
My two cents.
8 September 2008
at 6:02 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
PosseComitatus (Anonymous) says…
This has to be the most perplexing election ever.
Do you vote for WW III to keep our economy afloat, and keep our current standard of living?
or
Do you vote for “change” that causes a complete collapse of our monetary system?
8 September 2008
at 6:05 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
anxiousatheist (Clint Gentry) says…
“Do you vote for “change” that causes a complete collapse of our monetary system?” - possecomitatus
republican talking points, no validity whatsoever. They said the same thing about Clinton, of course we went on to have the best economy since before Reagan, (or since). Don't buy the smears from the lying-right, they will say anything to maintain power!
8 September 2008
at 6:13 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
PosseComitatus (Anonymous) says…
I have been reading that our current war is over Iraq taking the eureo over the dollar and Iran has started to do the same thing and this is what is causing the price of oil to rise and in turn is causing the economic problems that we are feeling today. I do not see where either one has any plan to address this.
8 September 2008
at 6:38 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
RJ (Anonymous) says…
jaywalker- In doing my research, something like that (the different graphics on the screen) wouldn't show up in the results, just the transcripts.
My teacher also mentioned the possibility of negative pictures appearing next to a neutral story which I wouldn't be able to account for. Like how after Tuesday nights speech by GWB at the convention (where he wasn't even in person) Wednesday morning all the papers had GWB on the front page. They will not let McCain distance himself, they are just sticking to the Obama campaign's talking points.
Anyone know anything about Matthews and Oberlman getting basically canned? Did their bias do them in?
8 September 2008
at 11:53 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
ASBESTOS (Anonymous) says…
RJ wrote:
“In fact, Asbestos, would you be able to post some links that would back up your assertions? I went to newsbusters but didn't find anything significant.”
It was between the firing of Olberman and Matthews as “anchors” during any more political coverage, and Campbell Brown's clear leading statments that she is for Obama, and showing bias big as life.
How about all the hell being raised about Palin's “religion” ow ahat her pastor said?
Nothing in the MSM about Rev. Jeremiah Wright, nothing about how Obama sat there and Bought those DVD and CDs of Wrights sermons. ALl these claims abou the Gov's “earmarks for the People of the State of Alaska, but nothing abou the earmarks Obama got for His wifes agency, and those other earmarks for his political supporters? Nothing about thos? those were on Newsbusters.org as well.
Nothing “significant”?
Seems like bias and braninless on your part.
Oh and CNN has a new section on Campbell Brown's show ,it is called “No Bias, NO Bull” as if we would fall for that. Did they think we would fall for something so overt after the shellacking the News Media has taken over the last 2 weeks about Bias.
9 September 2008
at 12:31 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
RJ (Anonymous) says…
Asbestos,
I think an apology might be due. To me.
In your first post you sent me to newsbusters.com and I didn't find anything significant there.
After you said “Seems like bias and braninless on your part” you sent me to newsbusters.org. This is much better and now I see your point, which brings me back to my question and the answer you should have sent-
-“In fact, Asbestos, would you be able to post some links that would back up your assertions? I went to newsbusters but didn't find anything significant.”
- Yes, sorry RJ, I incorrectly posted the link, try newsbusters.org.
Have you read my other blog “Is blogging a waste of time?”?
9 September 2008
at 8:07 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
KansasPerson (Anonymous) says…
tunahelper said:
“White America is NOT gonna vote for a black (or half-black) man with a muslim name for President. Douglas and Wyandotte Counties will be the only blue counties in Kansas in the 2008 election. omaba is gonna lose.”
Erm…. could someone please pony up $7.95 and buy tunahelper an atlas? I feel someone should illustrate to him or her that there are other states in the U.S.
Hint: I-70 continues east past Kansas City and continues west past Sharon Springs. Not o