Democrats & Liberals Archives

Fear of a Black Lady

The Republicans are getting in their usual high dudgeon about the Vice Presidential debate moderator Gwen Ifill, promoting the notion that Gwen is in the tank for Obama. But as the second linked article indicates, folks might say the same about the other two moderators.

I doubt, though, that the Obama campaign or the MSM Democratic punditry will make too much of a big deal out of the friendships or leanings of Tom Brokaw and Bob Schieffer. And why should they?

The Republicans are preparing a narrative here to explain failure. As a matter of fact, the media bias argument IS the essential narrative Republicans use to explain away failure and bad PR. And it's been crippling their ability to function, the way a crutch used unnecessarily will weaken the stride of a person capable of walking on their own two feet.

What if Ifill is in the tank? Why be afraid of her? Is Palin so weak that she might become entrapped? Well if so, why did you put her out on the battlefield in the first place? The choice of Palin seems to reflect a hope on the part of some conservatives that media spin will over come a lack of substance in leadership. That never really works out as planned. It's part of what's dropped the popularity of the Republican party like a hot rock.

Sarah Palin, if she was the right choice, should be able to hold her own. She should be able to explain and offer her positions, appeal to others on a number of levels. If the moderator or reporter is biased against you, you should have the brainpower and the blarney available to you to win despite that disadvantage.

The Republicans have spoiled themselves with the myth of media bias. It's allowed them to excuse bad performance. But it's also allowed them to make excuses for weak candidates, instead of allowing the market, if you will, to impose its corrections. The trials of competition, in favorable arenas and unfavorable, can serve to forge and temper the steel of a candidate, if the candidate's up to it.

Pat Buchanan suggested that Sarah Palin have first gone on the Talk Radio circuit, interviewing with friendly conservatives. I don't thinks so. She should have been left in Alaska until 2012, first to see if she was going to remain the golden girl of the great north, the fine filly of the frozen frontier, or whether she was going to get dropped like third period French. She should have been gradually brought to the national stage so that she could learn what she needed to learn. The way she was yanked from obscurity, and the kind of parochial concerned politician she was, set her up for these problems.

If Sarah Palin flunks the debates, I'm sure the Republicans will go after Gwen Ifill. But the folks who really deserve the cross words are them. They are the ones crippling themselves with mediocre candidates and insular politics. The Democrats got tired of that. They brought out a political prodigy and then backed him with an experienced expert. They confronted the challenges of an often unsympathetic press and sometimes narrow-minded moderators, rather than weep and rage in the corner about an unfair media.

The Republicans complain about the media's favorable coverage of Obama, but the truth is, Obama time and again rises to challenges, and employs his strengths in the wider world without apology.

Democrats like me want this out of him. Rather than having Obama complain and whine about the media, we want him out there conquering and fighting, battling the Bill O'Reilly's, refuting the Rush Limbaughs, maniacally laughing at Michelle Malkin's cheerleader video (wait...)

Seriously, we want our people to get out there and compete, get out there and win. Rather than have them try to win through some focus-grouped attack, we want them to appeal to people and undermine the unfair myths that have been spread about them.

The Republicans seem to think that the American people, reporters and voters, pundits and bloggers, should just hand them the election out of a sense of duty. They constantly try to appeal to some sense that it would irresponsible to vote for anybody else. Democrats know better. They know they'll have to earn people's trust. You can't earn people's confidence by hiding beneath a shell of liberal bias theory. The use of liberal bias as a means to work the referees in these debates is a display of weakness on the part of the Republicans.

If they want to continue looking weak, that's their business. But as a bit of friendly advice, I hope they stop whining for sympathy, and start engaging in these proceedings with a little bit more dignity.

Posted by Stephen Daugherty at October 1, 2008 11:25 AM
Comments
Comment #265385

Stephen:

The Democratic Party and Obama campaign should be overjoyed that the Republican Party is running an obviously weak and inexperienced candidate, per their rhetoric. Should be easier to beat. The fact that there appears to be great effort to discredit Palin is perhaps an admission that either: 1) she is a stronger candidate than is being admitted; or 2) there are a lot of folks that will vote based on what their favorate TV or radio talking heads say. I don’t think the majority of posters on this blog would agree to Item 1, so say that Item 2 is the answer. That may be why some think having biased moderator would be a big deal - you are not always dealing with well informed, well reasoned, discerning voters, just folks watching TV.

I agree that a candidate should be able to hold their own, and make a biased moderator look biased through their answers.

So, a question - if (potential) media bias is something that politicians should just deal with, why the push to suppress the influence of right wing talk radio? Isn’t this really the same issue?

Posted by: Mike in Tampa at October 1, 2008 12:36 PM
Comment #265391

[He] should have been left in [Illinois] until 2012, first to see if [he] was going to remain the golden [boy] of the great [lakes], the fine [stud] of the [Land of Lincoln], or whether [he] was going to get dropped like third period French. [He] should have been gradually brought to the national stage so that [he] could learn what [he] needed to learn. The way [he] was yanked from obscurity, and the kind of parochial concerned politician [he] was, set [him]up for these problems.

Thanks Stephen, all I did was change the words in brackets from your assessment and it works fine. Couldn’t agree more.

Posted by: Jim M at October 1, 2008 12:54 PM
Comment #265392

“Fear of a Black Lady”

Really Stephen? I’ve seen this kind of nonsense from others but really thought it would have been beneath you…

Posted by: Rhinehold at October 1, 2008 12:58 PM
Comment #265402

Steven, two questions:

What’s wrong with third period French? I wouldn’t drop it.

Michelle Malkin has a cheerleader video? Like with Pom-Pom’s and a short skirt? I’d watch that as long as I could mute the sound.

I loved watching Fox trash Ifill this morning. As though they have the credentials to attack anyone on the McNeil report. Like Really. Totally.

Posted by: googlumpugus at October 1, 2008 1:28 PM
Comment #265403

>“Fear of a Black Lady”

Really Stephen? I’ve seen this kind of nonsense from others but really thought it would have been beneath you…
Posted by: Rhinehold at October 1, 2008 12:58 PM
Rhinehold,

Why? What nonsense? There are out-loud concerns that Gwen Ifill will somehow favor Biden in the debate. This will happen because she’s supposedly in the Obama camp, and she’s there because he and she are black (talk about your elitist snobbery).

It is pretty obvious that the folks worrying about this are not Democrats, so can it not be assumed they are Republicans?

Think about it for just one second…now, can it be said that such worriers and complainers have a fear of a black lady? If you need more time, take two seconds.

Tom is a liaison for NBC/RNC, Bob is an admitted conservative…I find it acceptable for them to moderate debates…if my guy can’t take on two at once…I don’t want him as president.

Posted by: Marysdude at October 1, 2008 1:32 PM
Comment #265411

Mike In Tampa-
I wouldn’t push to surpress it, just change the broadcast laws so that the Right Wing Doesn’t have a monopoly on the medium. You like competition, don’t you?

clarancec-
People like Obama mainly for reasons that go beyond his race. He’s a good, charismatic spokesman for our party and our values.

If he were white, and waging the same kind of campaign, I’d be voting for him, and so would many blacks, I imagine. I don’t think the color of a man’s skin should be a barrier to somebody voting for somebody who fulfills some long desired qualities in a candidate.

You might want to go back to McCain’s website, though, and pick up your reward for inserting both racism and homophobia into the same comment.

Jim M-
You screwed up the alliteration! Darn you. No, the real difference is that Obama has long been a good public speaker, and he amazed people in 2004, long before his campaign. If Palin had burst out onto the national scene at the same time, a comparison might have been valid. But they just plucked Palin out of Alaska last month.

Obama had the chance to get used to the national scene, to debate during the primaries, campaign on a national level for well over a year before.

Sarah? No. You seem willing to lower your standards and double them to achieve such an equation between Obama and Palin. But that defeats the purpose of your argument. Obama’s gained some experience, and even before that was a well trained debater. Palin? Palin’s not had that chance.

And worst yet, her opponent won’t be Obama, it will be Biden, who’s experience is even greater than Obama’s on this level of politics. That’s who and what she’s up against.

Rhinehold-
They honestly seem scared that little old Gwen Ifill is going to scuttle Palin’s chance to shine. You know, if she can’t handle Couric or Gibson, folks who were more than willing to extend Palin the benefit of the doubt, how’s she going to survive questions really designed to put her on the spot? Is she supposed to be above answering such challenging queries?

She’s out of her league on substance.

As for the title, it’s just a riff on a movie title from a while back, which itself was a riff on a rap album title. Haven’t even seen the movie, really. Thought it might be funny (The title. I don’t know about the movie.)

You remember that, right? Humor?

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at October 1, 2008 1:48 PM
Comment #265415

googlumpugus-
It’s a line from Ocean’s 11, the 2001 Steven Soderbergh film.

Speaking of movies: Here’s the Michelle Malkin video. Sadly, I was not kidding. Sadly for Republicans looking to file this under youthful indiscretions, she did it last year.

Wearie Willie-
Yes. I was aware of that publication. If I wanted to hide it, I wouldn’t publish a blog entry with a direct reference to it.

Point still stands: if Gwen Ifill takes a bias approach, if Brokaw takes a biased approach, if Schieffer does so too, then the best response for either set of candidates is to confront, hold their own, or even win in spite of the moderator. Whining about bias, though, means you fully expect your candidate to be unable to overcome such challenges. Where’s your confidence in your fellow party members? :-)

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at October 1, 2008 1:59 PM
Comment #265422

“then the best response for either set of candidates is to confront, hold their own, or even win in spite of the moderator”

Or just tell FOX NBC that they won’t debate on their network. People defend your decision to do that.

Posted by: kctim at October 1, 2008 2:27 PM
Comment #265426

kctim-
NBC has its share of both liberals and conservatives. One of their reporters did a comedy sketch with Karl Rove a while back. You get Tucker Carlson and Joe Scarborough doing part of their coverage, then you have middle of the road people.

I can point to PBS’s journalism on politics and point to some significant achievements. It’s also got a very informative news broadcast.

The three main networks and the MSNBC spinoff have names and reporting to back them up that goes back decades.

CNN has been a big name in news for quite some time It’s reputation for being liberal probably comes from it having been the primary news network on cable for a long period of time.

The trick is, I think, FOX seems to have been founded just to push Republican talking points. Your platform for a debate should be considered fair and balanced by more than one side. It should not be some purpose made outfit for political propaganda.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at October 1, 2008 2:52 PM
Comment #265427

Stephen:

Your comment -

Mike In Tampa-
I wouldn’t push to surpress it, just change the broadcast laws so that the Right Wing Doesn’t have a monopoly on the medium. You like competition, don’t you?

What monopoly? What broadcast laws prevent any party from competing in the marketplace? Or is this a “equality of results” rather than “equality of opportunity” thing? It seems that several left-leaning competitive shows have been tried, and failed, from lack of listeners. Why not try the “competitive” approach of attracting listeners with content?

Posted by: Mike in Tampa at October 1, 2008 3:07 PM
Comment #265428

Oh, I’m sorry Stephen. I thought you were saying BOTH sides should be able to hold their own. BOTH sides should be able to explain and offer their positions, appeal to others on a number of levels. And that if the moderator or reporter is biased against them, then BOTH sides should have the brainpower and the blarney available to them to win despite that disadvantage.
My bad.

Posted by: kctim at October 1, 2008 3:07 PM
Comment #265431

>Why not try the “competitive” approach of attracting listeners with content?
Posted by: Mike in Tampa at October 1, 2008 03:07 PM

Mike,

To compete in the theater you suggest, we’d have to line up a cast of spewers of hate and discontent…they’d have to be willing to lie like dogs and bark like hyenas…frankly, on the liberal side there are few listeners for that kind of thing…thank gawd!

Posted by: Marysdude at October 1, 2008 3:15 PM
Comment #265433

Mike in Tampa-
You’re assuming that the broadcasters simply bowed to ratings pressure. In fact, what really happened is that as soon as regulations forbidding it were relaxed, conservative broadcasters stacked their decks with conservative radio hosts. Many of these broadcasters are subsidized by conservative organizations, so talk of this being a market-organic approach is disingenuous.

kctim-
I don’t know why you’re so touchy about FOXNews. I tell you what. Show me a liberal network founded by a liberal political apparatchik (Roger Ailes worked for Bush 41), and I’ll let you boycott debates to that. Democrats aren’t stupid. They know what FOX was designed to do. Why should they step into that punch.

Your objections, on the other hand, are to an organization with a much wider spread of ideology, and one that wasn’t purpose built for an ideological purpose.

There’s fair and then there’s been doormats. You try and turn around the FOX thing towards NBC as if they were equivalent. They have, however, different origins, and different basises for their respective reputation. NBC earned its distinction by news. FOX has distinguished itself by its punditry and openly ideological programming. Why NBC should not be taken seriously hasn’t been made clear. Why FOX should be has not been established at all; it is not a distinguished organization in its reporting.

FOX has not earned its credibility, just as Sarah Palin hasn’t.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at October 1, 2008 3:28 PM
Comment #265435

I think PBS is a very balanced news organization. Gwen Ifill is from PBS. Although I don’t have the opportunity to listen to her product I would give her the benefit of the doubt as to her objectivity based on my observations of PBS as a whole.

Stephen Daugherty, I’m not sure what point you were trying to make in your response to my post. Could you elaborate?

Posted by: Weary Willie at October 1, 2008 3:31 PM
Comment #265439
Many of these broadcasters are subsidized by conservative organizations..

If you refer to listeners as conservative organizations then you would be correct.

.., so talk of this being a market-organic approach is disingenuous.

The predominance of conservative talk shows only reflect what the audience wants to listen to. Their being market-organic is correct.
Liberal talk shows fail because they have no audience large enough to support them.

Posted by: Weary Willie at October 1, 2008 3:39 PM
Comment #265444

>Liberal talk shows fail because they have no audience large enough to support them.
Posted by: Weary Willie at October 1, 2008 03:39 PM

WW,

See comment #265431 for an explanation of low audience numbers.

Posted by: Marysdude at October 1, 2008 4:00 PM
Comment #265445

Stephen: There is nothing that you have described (organizations sponsoring broadcast that support their views) that liberal-bent organizations or listeners can’t do as well as conservative-bent organizations. As Marysdude pointed out, you may not want to do so. That’s no reason to suppress others’ speach.

I personally listen to a lot of different news broadcasts. They all have something to offer. Although leaning left, NPR probably does the best job at being neutral.

If I had Bill Gate’s money, I’d sponser a news broadcast that presented only fact. What a change that would be.

Posted by: Mike in Tampa at October 1, 2008 4:04 PM
Comment #265446

Geez Stephen, I’m not touchy about FOX News. I thought your post was about having the guts to stand up to those who are “in the tank” for the other side and I agree with that.
IMO, there is no doubt that the right-wing is trying to play down a possible bad performance by Palin.

So, my objection isn’t with NBC or Ifill, its with how someone can tell the other side to suck it up, stop whining and debate, even if the moderator is biased, but justify and praise your own side for doing the same thing because its somehow “different.”

Posted by: kctim at October 1, 2008 4:12 PM
Comment #265450

kctim,

There is a difference in going into the lion’s den (FAUX News) for a debate with a (Faux News) moderator, where it is pretty well assured the result will be to authenticate Faux News by your very presence, and a debate being moderated elsewhere by a news person of some reputation. Tom is acceptable because he would be expected not to infuse his political views into the debate…the same with Bob, and Gwen. Repubs are spewing a smokescreen, and the screen is coming from, guess where…yep, FAUX News.

Posted by: Marysdude at October 1, 2008 4:25 PM
Comment #265453

http://www.watchblog.com/democrats/archives/006223.html#265431

Marysdude,
Your comment insisting conservative talkshows thrive because of lies and barking is dead wrong. In fact I would venture to say liberal talkshows fail precisely for that very reason.

Conservative talkshows survive because they strike a cord with the majority of people. It is not lies and barking hyenas that draw these people. It is the viewpoint they found missing in the programming that equal-time laws drowned out. Their position finally being reflected without equal time clutter is what allowed these talkshows to thrive. Liberal talkshows couldn’t stand on their own.

Posted by: Weary Willie at October 1, 2008 4:36 PM
Comment #265458
WASHINGTON (AP) — Deep-seated racial misgivings could cost Barack Obama the White House if the election is close, according to an AP-Yahoo News poll that found one-third of white Democrats harbor negative views toward blacks — many calling them “lazy,” “violent,” responsible for their own troubles.

http://news.yahoo.com/page/election-2008-political-pulse-obama-race

“The Democratic party, at its best, is the party of inclusion and expansion…”

Reverend Jesse Jackson

Looks like Jesse may want to rethink that statement.

Now who is it that is afraid of a black woman or man for that matter? Things that make you go hummm.

Posted by: Kirk at October 1, 2008 4:47 PM
Comment #265462
Obama had the chance to get used to the national scene, to debate during the primaries, campaign on a national level for well over a year before.

Sarah? No. You seem willing to lower your standards and double them to achieve such an equation between Obama and Palin. But that defeats the purpose of your argument. Obama’s gained some experience, and even before that was a well trained debater. Palin? Palin’s not had that chance.

Sorry Stephen, but I do not want a well trained debater for president. I want someone who has shown that they can get things done, can buck the system and lead. Speeches and words will never replace accomplishments and deeds.

Posted by: Kirk at October 1, 2008 4:54 PM
Comment #265464

Dude
Stephen said “What if Ifill is in the tank? Why be afraid of her?” which I take to mean why be afraid of Ifill even if she is biased, go out there and prove yourself.
If a biased moderator shouldn’t matter and your out to prove yourself, what difference does it matter what network the biased moderator is on?

Posted by: kctim at October 1, 2008 4:58 PM
Comment #265465
To compete in the theater you suggest, we’d have to line up a cast of spewers of hate and discontent…they’d have to be willing to lie like dogs and bark like hyenas…frankly, on the liberal side there are few listeners for that kind of thing…thank gawd!

Exactly why Franken and Garafalo have been soooooo successful alng with the rest of Air America.

Posted by: Kirk at October 1, 2008 5:00 PM
Comment #265467

Weary Willie-
If there isn’t an audience for liberal thought, why’s Keith Olbermann doing so well? There’s an audience for liberal thought, it’s just not in the same medium. I wouldn’t expect liberal shows to just overwhelm the airwaves there; rather, I would expect that only the most appealing and competitive conservative voices would remain, while liberals or independents might grow somewhat into that market.

Conservative talk shows probably do strike a chord with people. But that’s not the same as telling them the truth. Take it from a writer: bulls*** can be made compelling. You just have to tell the story right. Getting the facts right is secondary to that effect, unless the audience is well informed, in which case, the air tends to be let out.

kctim-
Then why bring up FOX? Seems like the perfect thing to mess up a nice argument, no? :-)

Well, I forgive you. But seriously, FOX hasn’t earned the credibility in either reporting or objectivity to join the club of places where I would agree to a debate.

Similarly, I would find it rather problematic to have the debate hosted by Keith Olbermann, Bill O’Reilly, or other such similar ideologues. When I talk about bias, I’m talking about somebody who’s perspective runs a certain direction, not somebody who’s essentially a broadcast advocate of certain politics. The whole point is to provide an even playing field, and a moderator who, whatever their beliefs, has a professional obligation to stick closely to facts and substance.

Mike In Tampa-
Which brings me to what I’d say to you. Though I like sometimes to watch Olbermann and other Democratic-type pundits, I’m more interested in hard facts reporting. As seductive as the idea of having somebody playing to my party’s preferences is to me, to anybody with strong political opinions, I’ve learned that at the end of the day, one has to wake up and live in a real world where the people you really need to convince aren’t necessarily subscribers to your conventions of thought. That’s in part why I prefer a nuanced, parsed sort of style.

It’s also why I advocate that people of my party not make media bias arguments for the most part. I sincerely believe they helped to undermine the Republicans. If the Republicans at the base of the party recognized how far they had strayed, if they were aware of or accepting of more of the ugly truths about their party, they could have done something about it.

If Democrats take the same route, they’re heading for the same fate: ultimately, you must venture outside your comfort zone, and seek out the facts you need to know, rather than just the propaganda you’d like to hear.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at October 1, 2008 5:02 PM
Comment #265471

There are three facts that everyone can agree on prior to this debate about the VPs and the moderator.

1. Palin is an idiot, I’m sorry, as an American citizen who recognizes what our system was based on and worked to from 1776-2001, all politicians I think should have not only a law degree, but can hold conversations ranging from Chinese opera to the Anti-federalism movement.

2. Biden talks way too much. Philadelphia, where I live, is next to Delaware, so we get a good deal of news about local politics, etc. The guy’s really friendly, but he just blurts out random stuff sometimes before confirming if it’s real or not. He’s pretty fun though to listen to.

3. Gwen Ifill is a nice lady.

There.

To add about FOX, this is the guy behind it for those who’ve lived in a cave.

http://www.vanityfair.com/culture/features/2008/10/wolff200810?printable=true¤tPage=all

Posted by: Jon at October 1, 2008 5:48 PM
Comment #265476

jon,

While you are helping set up our new elite ruling party (only those rich enough to afford attending law school) I’m sure you will have no problem finding time to get that amendment passed to change the constitutional requirements for being a president…

Posted by: Rhinehold at October 1, 2008 6:05 PM
Comment #265477
o compete in the theater you suggest, we’d have to line up a cast of spewers of hate and discontent…they’d have to be willing to lie like dogs and bark like hyenas…frankly, on the liberal side there are few listeners for that kind of thing…thank gawd!

You’re joking right? The venom and hatred spewed forth by not only those on the left here and on places like DailyKos is so foul that it makes me sometimes run back to ignorant jackasses like Hannity for the 5 minutes I can stomache listening to him just to hear some kinder words long enough to keep me from driving into a wall…

Posted by: Rhinehold at October 1, 2008 6:07 PM
Comment #265479

Sorry, left out ‘..like DailyKos is nothing compared to what I hear on any left leaning radio I listen to and is so foul…’

Sorry for missing that as the screen went a little red…

I mean, the day I turned on Sirius’ left channel the day Russert died and the host was reading emails proclaiming this a national holiday, that they were glad the evil Russert had been dispatched… Well, I lost any taste I may have had for progressive radio that day.

Posted by: Rhinehold at October 1, 2008 6:13 PM
Comment #265481

I like Gwen Ifill a lot, but she did an interview for the News Hour on PBS with BHO which was a joke. She asked softball questions, his responses were little prepared speeches.

On Palin, I don’t care. She might as well be Dan Quayle in a dress. When Tina Fey did her bit on SNL last week, I thought it wasn’t that funny because it was too on the nose. If she doesn’t make a complete fool of herself tonight, people will be disappointed. It will be more interesting to watch Biden suppressing his own instincts.

Posted by: ohrealy at October 1, 2008 6:17 PM
Comment #265501

Rhinehold-
Daily Kos is a community, a bottom up affair. So, as a consequences, you get a range of opinions, and not all of them are inoffensive.

It makes for some interesting debates. Here was

one person’s reaction to the Senate bailout plan:

So fine, my position has changed. I was previously “skeptical” of the Paulson plan. Now I want it to die a hot, flaming death. I want its ashes to be fed to goats, and the goats fed to sharks, and the sharks put on a rocket and fired into the sun. I want the whole premise to be made Unspeakable, so that future generations shun anyone who even threatens to mention it.

But there are others who react differently, and Kossacks are both analytical and passionate in their views. If you just visit occasionally, and glance at things, only the most strident views will pop out. But Daily Kos has a range of views, and a range of people who post them. You can’t look at isolated bloggers, even Kos himself, and see the full shape of the Democrat’s premiere online community.

If you want a good idea of what the shape of Daily Kos is, look at the Recommended and the Recent Diaries. Right now, Michael Moore, a Congressman, one of the Young Turks, and three or four unknowns are sharing the Recommended Diary Column. Just about anybody can show up there. All it takes is a bunch of people voting it up there. I read the first entry on the front page, found the other on the Recommended column.

Yes, there are a******s on DKos. But that’s the internet for you. If you stop looking at DKos as a haven for Blue meanies, you might find that there are plenty of nice people and intelligent people there, plenty of regular folks.

Anybody who truly wishes to unify the country will have to learn to take and occasionally just ignore heated comments. But if you do, you might be surprised at how much you might agree with the other fellow.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at October 1, 2008 8:35 PM
Comment #265503

For those who think it stinks that Ifill is moderating the VP debate, please take a look at this:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/judd-legum/ifill-book-public-weeks-b_b_130834.html

Posted by: Marysdude at October 1, 2008 9:05 PM
Comment #265537

Why are they still calling it a debate? Palin will be reading from a script and no back and forth exchange with Biden? Unless that has changed again, what is the point of watching anyhow? I will just be an hour long commercial.

Posted by: NapaJohn at October 2, 2008 2:05 AM
Comment #265538

excuse me … It will just be an hour long political commercial.

Posted by: NapaJohn at October 2, 2008 2:07 AM
Comment #265540

Ifill is a tool.

Posted by: David M. Huntwork at October 2, 2008 3:32 AM
Comment #265541

[He] should have been left in [Illinois] until 2012, first to see if [he] was going to remain the golden [boy] of the great [lakes], the fine [stud] of the [Land of Lincoln], or whether [he] was going to get dropped like third period French. [He] should have been gradually brought to the national stage so that [he] could learn what [he] needed to learn. The way [he] was yanked from obscurity, and the kind of parochial concerned politician [he] was, set [him]up for these problems.

Exactly. Well said. We haven’t had someone this unprepared and unready to take over the white house in a very, very long time. Obama is a tool of the business as usual crowd in Washington. His pick of Biden is perhaps the greatest and most obvious evidence of that. It will be a sad day when we decide to enshrine a celebrity socialist in the oval office.

Posted by: David M. Huntwork at October 2, 2008 3:41 AM
Comment #265543

>It will be a sad day when we decide to enshrine a celebrity socialist in the oval office.
Posted by: David M. Huntwork at October 2, 2008 03:41 AM

David H,

I assume by this that you would advise Democrats not to place any candidate to run this year? And, by extrapolation, Palin would have to drop out…John, ‘the POW’ would just walk into the office (if he can still walk by January) without a Vice President and without having to compete?

Good luck with that…

Posted by: Marysdude at October 2, 2008 4:55 AM
Comment #265549

Stephen

1. I kinda thought the Michele video was cute. If the Dems want, why not a “Botox Pelosi” ad cheerleading piece? It might have more political juice than a blogger. I was thinking that maybe she could try to stretch her face into a “Bush Sucks” letter type of thing . That would be impressive.

2. In the law, an attorney is supposed to withdraw from a case (or a judge) when there is the slightest hint of impropriety or appearance of impropriety.

Since this woman will be making $3.50 for every book that she sells, (standard industry rates), there certaintly is an appearance of impropriety,no?

Anyway, I am popping the old pop corn tonight and festooning the house out in my elephant decor,hanging my Sarah cheerleading poster, and wearing my moose head antlers. I guess I am a six pack kinda guy.

Will you be bringing brie and chablis to where you are watching, or will it be “pate of Blowhard Biden” pate?

:)

Posted by: sicilian eagle at October 2, 2008 7:08 AM
Comment #265550

David M. Huntwork-
Where have you been? That celebrity meme is so last month!

Look, here’s some logic for you: McCain voted for the bailout, and has attended the talk shows and shown up in TV Series and Movie cameos. So, by some Republican measures, he’s another celebrity socialist.

As for unreadiness, I addressed Palin’s unreadiness and responded to Jim M’s valiant attempt at turning this around at me by point out that Sarah Palin was just dropped in our laps last month, while Obama’s had four years and a presidential campaign to get used to voters and get them used to him.

This talk about readiness neglects one important point: the way the candidates deal with events. McCain’s way of dealing with things is to react, and make a big deal out of his reaction. However, he has not matched this reactiveness with prudence and an ability to get things done behind the scenes. He didn’t exactly make himself look all that ready when he blundered into DC without much to do besides a photo-op with Bush and a drug-along Obama, and get the Congressional Republicans riled up in a meeting. He didn’t look ready when he claimed credit for the bailout passing right before it didn’t.

Obama’s done the right thing by keeping things calm, working behind the scenes, and not being a gloryhog or making big promises as to what he’s going to deliver.

Ultimately, that’s what makes him more ready: his mature style of management. This is not some impulsive twit who thinks he can change things overnight with razzle-dazzle. This is a guy willing to work things out and be part of a team, rather than try and make himself the conquering hero.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at October 2, 2008 7:11 AM
Comment #265553

SE-
1) Democrats have come to expect, though never gotten used to moments of “WTF?” in regards to Republican politics. I think y’all have a bit of a tin ear as far as how things look to outsiders. Take out one’s sympathy for the message, and it seems pretty petty and lame.

2)Bob Schieffer is a friend of Bush’s (41,43, I don’t know) But you don’t hear me complaining. I believe he’ll have the sense not to make a lightning rod of himself by playing gotcha, and Ifill’s no different.

As for Joe Sixpack? Palin’s sitting on about a million dollars. She was pulling down a six figure salary before she became governor. She’s probably worth more than Biden at this point!

As for Brie and Chablis, I don’t like most cheeses, don’t drink, and probably will have meatloaf or sloppy joes tonight. That and perhaps a Birthday Cake. ;-)

I’m one liberal who doesn’t have to have sympathy for the working class to back Obama’s play, just a healthy dose of self-interest.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at October 2, 2008 7:25 AM
Comment #265565
Obama’s done the right thing by keeping things calm, working behind the scenes, and not being a gloryhog or making big promises as to what he’s going to deliver.

Ultimately, that’s what makes him more ready: his mature style of management. This is not some impulsive twit who thinks he can change things overnight with razzle-dazzle. This is a guy willing to work things out and be part of a team, rather than try and make himself the conquering hero.

Stephen, that is utter poppy-cock!!!!!!

Obama has taken a hey call me if you need me approach to leadership. He is obviously too inept and/or too afraid to get his hands dirty doing the heavy lifting required of a president.

McCain may not have made himself as you put it “look all that ready” when he went to DC, but as a true leader he did exactly what he should have done. Stepped up entered the frey and at least tried to get something done.

Obama on the other hand took the opportunity to hide from his duty as a Senator if not as a possible president. Yeah he did show up for one meeting then high tailed it out of town and made the lame I am working the phones statement so that he could keep his butt firmly planted on that fence. He now has the ability to claim he was on the right side of the issue how ever if shakes out. True back bencher leadership if I have ever seen it.

Posted by: Kirk at October 2, 2008 9:48 AM
Comment #265568

“While you are helping set up our new elite ruling party (only those rich enough to afford attending law school) I’m sure you will have no problem finding time to get that amendment passed to change the constitutional requirements for being a president…”

Rhinehold,

Thanks for the support! But law school isn’t all for the rich, or elite, thinking like that is what makes people avoid thinking about going into medicine, law or the sciences, most loans for these schools, even with the crisis now, are far better than a normal post-graduate degree of any other field.

I don’t want the constitution amended for qualifications for president, just my opinion on what their background should be, but I’m a pro-brain voter, and brother, Palin has a huge echo going on up there.

Posted by: Jon at October 2, 2008 10:14 AM
Comment #265572

Kirk,

firmly planted on that fence. He now has the ability to claim he was on the right side of the issue how ever if shakes out. True back bencher leadership if I have ever seen it.

This is so far off from everything Obama has said it can only be described as intentionally spreading lies.
Why do people dedicate all their energy to spreading intentional lies? I don’t get it.

If Ifil’s book was about women in politics would democrats be complaining? No - they would be laughed out of town if they said anything.

Posted by: Schwamp at October 2, 2008 10:36 AM
Comment #265574

If Mcain’s bunch did not know about Ifill’s book several weeks before this debate was scheduled, they are more inept than even I think they are. It was public knowledge, so would not have required a CIA investigation. If they did know about it and just now raise a question about it, they are as dishonest as Cheney/Bush.

My vote is for the latter. I think that if McCain ever did have any honor, he lost it in Viet Nam. Electing him will be just another vote for Cheney/Bush. This country can’t afford another Cheney/Bush administration. And it cant afford another four years of alienating the rest of the world either. These things should be just as important to Republicans as Democrats, but you’d never know it reading these posts.

Posted by: Marysdude at October 2, 2008 10:55 AM
Comment #265575

kirk-
The main difference between McCain’s involvement and Obama’s involvement was that Obama had the sense to keep his involvement low key.

Neither of them are on the relevant committees, so unless they’re making calls behind the scene, monitoring the situation, they’re basically twiddling their thumbs. There wasn’t much point to riding into Washington on a white horse, besides the optics. Obama chose, before Bush dragged him into that photo-op, to keep his distance and use telecommunications to discuss things and keep tabs on the situation.

McCain’s flexing of his political muscle amounted to a bill that fell through, even as he was trying to take credit for its success. Obama’s restraint seems the better idea, given how quickly the bill passed the Senate yesterday. Whether he stood to the side and just kept tabs, or took a subtle behind the scenes leadership role, he didn’t get in the way of this thing or let himself get run over by it the way McCain did. I don’t want my president to be a blustering fool.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at October 2, 2008 11:51 AM
Comment #265580

This Sarah Palin stuff is such a mess. McCain and camp don’t want her treated differently but then treat her differently. I found Katie Couric’s interview demeaning and fluff. I can’t imagine her asking a legitmate male candidate some of the silly questions that she ask Ms. Palin. So again we treat Ms. Palin differently. Did Katie Couric low ball her interview with Ms. Palin because Ms. Palin is a woman or because it was apparent that Ms. Palin could not seriously answer legitmate questions related to the job of VP. Ms. Palin is not stupid but is ignorant on a whole host of topics and issues. She has grown up in a rural state in an even more rural town and raised in a church that doesn’t encourage curiosity or free thinking. And don’t even go there suggesting that Barack wasn’t better prepared. Ms. Palin’s responses to simple low ball questions from Ms. Couric demonstrate just how difficult it is for Ms. Palin to think for herself. If this is the best the republicans could offer in terms of a woman candidate that is sad. Ms. Palin has been treated differently because she is a woman which is sexism. If she was a man candidate no one would be tip toeing around her or the issue of her inability to perform the job of VP let alone president.

As for Gwen Ifill, I am shocked at the treatment she is receiving. I can not remember a previous election year when a moderator has been so totally disrespected. Some on the left don’t like Tom Brokaw and feel he is partisan but do we hear the democrats complaining. Ms. Ifill has years of experience and by all accounts is considered a moral and upstanding journalist. I have had respect for her for a number of years. For the republicans to attack her because she is writing a book is the lowest form of low.

Posted by: Carolina at October 2, 2008 12:41 PM
Comment #265582

I would disagree that Couric’s questions were “fluff” or lowball in any way. How difficult is it to answer what newspaper you read? And if she is intelligent and wise in all aspects of governmental workings, then the Supreme Court question shouldn’t have sent her into a panic. I’m not sure if the first part of your post is in support of, or against Palin, but regardless of that, bottom line is that Palin did not, and can not answer the most basic questions. She absolutely looks like the proverbial deer….er…make that moose….caught in the headlights.
The whirlwind shuffle by the McCain camp regarding Ifill, had to be strategically planned. The notice of release on her book came out in August, I believe, so if anyone failed to see it, too bad ! I would be far more willing to believe that they have to see the trainwreck in front of them and figured this presented an opportunity to wiggle out of, or postpone the debates long enough to maybe do a brain transplant or something.
I’m really tired and fed up with the Reps whining and snivelling and crying foul on every turn. Perhaps they should have thought a little farther ahead when McCain sifted out of the mix.

Posted by: janedoe at October 2, 2008 1:06 PM
Comment #265585

This may very well be copyright infringement, as I’ve just copied part of a post I just read on another blog site:

“Gwen Ifill’s book should be no surprise to a professionally run campaign. It was announced weeks before they approved her as moderator!

But then again McCain runs his campaign the way he would run the country —like a pinball careening from bumper to bumper in a random, erratic, uncontrollable way.

I hope that blogger will forgive me for the use of his words, but I could not have phrased it better myself.

Posted by: Marysdude at October 2, 2008 1:28 PM
Comment #265586

Carolina,

I know how badly you have felt at the constant bombardment Ms Palin has received at our hands, and I know you think that much of it has been uncalled for. And if McCain had not dumped her on us like a sack of wet noodles, she’d likely have gotten a break or two. But, let’s face it…she has more than lived up to almost everything we’ve said about her (with the exceptions of the baby being her daughter’s baby, and…???). You get my meaning, I’m sure. I’d rather we’d had something more substantial myself, but I guess we live with the meat we eat and not the fillet minion we wish for.

Posted by: Marysdude at October 2, 2008 1:36 PM
Comment #265592

Ms. Palin is trying so hard to fit in with her team that she has taken to lieing everytime she opens her mouth. She couldn’t be honest in her interview, her speeches have had consistently dishonest claims about bridges to nowhere, dishonest about what she reads, she is even dishonest when she makes a harmless quip about hearing of Biden’s debates when she was in the second grade.

But you haven’t heard nothing yet. Wait till tonight because her coaches are filling her head with lies.

She has really missed an opportunity to be a fresh political face by being honest but she wanted to play the bs game instead.

Posted by: Schwamp at October 2, 2008 2:00 PM
Comment #265630
Obama’s restraint seems the better idea

For a fence sitting back bencher.

If he wants to be president he needs to be out front and visible showing at least a modicum of leadership. As the old saying goes lead, follow or get the hell out of the way. Obama choose the get out of the way call me if you need me route. Great leadership traits he displays there.

Posted by: Kirk at October 2, 2008 6:06 PM
Comment #265634

>If he wants to be president he needs to be out front and visible showing at least a modicum of leadership.

Posted by: Kirk at October 2, 2008 06:06 PM

Kirk,

There are as many ways to lead as there are leaders to do it…your way might be good for Republicans who subscribe to the philosophy ‘damn the torpedoes, full speed ahead’…without thought, without principle, without honor…but, thankfully ‘O’ does not subscribe to that philosophy…McCain obviously does.

Posted by: Marysdude at October 2, 2008 6:49 PM
Comment #265643

Marysdude - here, here - I can’t agree more. McCain is living proof that wisdom doesn’t necessarily follow age. He is running a awful campaign rife with the people he claims to be running against. His first choice as executive was to pick Sarah Palin possibly the least qualified person he could have selected. His policies on Iraq are wrong, his policies on the economy are wrong, and his policies on our health care system are wrong. For someone who was a Navy pilot his sense of direction and navigation are pretty weak.

He calls himself a maverick but I can’t think of a single instance when he stood up at a time that mattered against Bush. He talked a lot but did little other than cave into his party - exactly what he did by choosing this ridiculous running mate. His campaign is bailing out of Michigan because he knows that state is lost - I predict the states he is competitive in will keep shrinking as he continues to run an awful campaign.

Let’s see if Palin can get through this debate without answering a question beyond vague generalities - “I support democracy and freedom around the world” “I don’t want to second guess Israel” “We have to find efficiencies in the budget” and so on.

Posted by: tcsned at October 2, 2008 8:03 PM
Comment #265646
He calls himself a maverick but I can’t think of a single instance when he stood up at a time that mattered against Bush.

Just off of the top of my head, how about the surge?

Posted by: Rhinehold at October 2, 2008 11:02 PM
Comment #265649
There are as many ways to lead as there are leaders to do it…your way might be good for Republicans who subscribe to the philosophy ‘damn the torpedoes, full speed ahead’…without thought, without principle, without honor…but, thankfully ‘O’ does not subscribe to that philosophy…McCain obviously does.

Sitting in the shadows waiting for all the chaffe to fall so that you can step out on the winning side is far from leadership. Obama has thought it through, lacks principal and takes the dishonorable tact of fence sitting on this critical issue.

The leftists giving Obama a pass on his obvious disappearance on this issue are doing nothing but showing their intellectual dishonesty as they are the same people who were taking shots at Bush for not being out front on the issue. Bush is a lame duck president, Obama wants the job, if Bush needs to be out front so does Nobama.

Posted by: Kirk at October 3, 2008 12:03 AM
Comment #265696

“Maverick v. Bush?” Just off of the top of my head, how about the surge?

Posted by: Rhinehold at October 2, 2008 11:02 PM


Umm, try again Rhinehold. I understand it was “just off of the top of your head,” but, McCain was lockstep on this one with W.

You can debate the impact of the surge, but to use this as an example of how much of a “maverick” McCain is misguided. Kind of makes the argument showing he’s not a “maverick.”

Biden’s comment stands. He correctly pointed out that while it might be a nice soundbite tag line to keep using, the facts don’t fit.

Posted by: boomxtwo at October 3, 2008 9:53 AM
Post a comment