Third Party & Independents Archives

That’s why I supported her.

I remember sitting about five rows from her as she spoke in Tacoma…and she rattled off statistic after fact after statistic, all totally impromptu. Yes, a good politician can do that…but she’s better than merely ‘good’.

Hopefully next time she runs, I can be a full delegate for her rather than just an alternate. Until then, though, I’ll certainly support Obama.

David, having watched the coverage another couple of hours past your post, multiple interviews in the crowds showed that Hillary did, indeed, move the support in Obama’s direction. And not with grumbling, or whining, bitterness or complaining, but with resounding agreement that it is our country critically in need of change, and that Obama is the one that can provide that change.
People were speaking with conviction, that they must follow her lead and put our country ahead of personal feeling and choice. I believe she made a successful effort in creating solidarity within the party.

Good information here:

http://www.usaelectionpolls.com/

David: i agree 100%. Hillary delivered a clear message to her supporters, the world and the naysayers; she is supporting Barack for President.

IMO, the major message to her supporters was when she said:

I want you to ask yourselves: Were you in this campaign just for me? Or were you in it for that young Marine and others like him? Were you in it for that mom struggling with cancer while raising her kids? Were you in it for that boy and his mom surviving on the minimum wage? Were you in it for all the people in this country who feel invisible?

She told her supporters that they must support Barack because of the important issues facing the next President.

Immediately following the speech, i switched to Fox News to see their coverage. And the ‘panel of experts’ unanimously voted that her support was lackluster and without conviction. After a couple of double-takes and some q-tips for my ears to make sure that i heard FNC correctly, i laughed FNC off as sidesplitting comedy and switched it off. Obviously they were watching something other than Hillary’s speech.

JT - Faux News - they are getting their talking points straight from the RNC. They should be forced to take “News” out of their title much like when the WWF (World Wrestling Federation) was forced to change their name to WWE (Entertainment) in part because they are not a real sport. As I have said before, I don’t think they even have a journalist on staff. They are no more news than shows like the Simpsons and Family Guy - except that these shows are funny not sad.

I thought Hillary hit it out of the park last night and couldn’t have been more clear on why someone who supports her cannot vote for John McCain. If she had run her campaign like she spoke last night we would have been watching Obama delivering that speech not her. I have been a pretty harsh critic of the Clintons since Bill left office but she really threw down last night. Way to go HC! Hillary is at her best when she is talking to subjects bigger than her as an individual.

I agree totally. She hit it way out of the ball park. A true class act last night. Most importantly to me, I felt that it was a speech of conviction. That she is genuine in her belief that Obama is now what is best for this country at this time. I suspect that Bill will enthusiastically re enforce Hillary’s position tonight with back to back home runs.

Fox is so blatantly partisan and ridiculously off kilter that I do not even bother to glance at their coverage. It is not a news source for people mired in reality. It would be hard pressed to call it a news source. I think propaganda machine might be more appropriate.

I am so glad Obama chose Biden to be his VP pick. We would never have heard another word about McCain in the fall if he had chosen Hillary.

Lee,

Since I was in favor of Biden as VP, I’m glad as well. Hill was my choice for Pres, but she’d have made a horrible choice to run second. I’m sure glad you and I can agree on something…

Lee

I am so glad Obama chose Biden to be his VP pick. We would never have heard another word about McCain in the fall if he had chosen Hillary.

You are so very right on this one. Not being able to bring the many faces of John McCain into the homes of millions may have been disastrous for Obama.

This was a speech written by a committee, tested on focus groups, and then read off a teleprompter.

She hit all the right points? I should certainly hope so!

much like when the WWF (World Wrestling Federation) was forced to change their name to WWE (Entertainment) in part because they are not a real sport.

That’s not why they had to change their name…

As for Fox News, the channel is made up of two departments, one news, the other commentary on the news. The commentary is decidedly right wing, though they do have more opposing views than someone like McCafferty or Olberman, which are also commentary and not news. As for the actual news, it is correct more often than not, probably about as much as CNN or MSNBC because none of those organizations do much ‘news’ anymore, just read AP wire articles for the most part.

I know its fun to bash on Fox (I want to wretch every time I see Hannity or O’Reiley) but let’s not replace honest assessment with hyperbole.

re: Faux News

Couldn’t agree more with y’all! O’Reilly and Miller’s obvious slant comes through everytime they open their mouths… sad…

And… just as sad…

In switching over to MSNBC, I think Matthews and Olberman might attempt to make sweet love with Obama when he shows up at the convention. As bad as the ‘news people’ on Fox News are, those guys on MSNBC are just as bad the other way… if I didn’t like Obama so much, it might make me sick… it still kinda does… ;-)

nicely said, Rhinehold… was wondering if anyone would catch the wrasslin’ gaffe.

LO-
I hate to break it to you, but most modern candidates have their own speechwriters, even Obama, who sometimes writes his own speeches, has a few.

And yes, Obama and Clinton both have their marketing staff, too. That a member of the party of Reagan considers this shocking is a joke. Obama’s marketing, in fact, was designed distinctively for it.

And yes, these people do read off of teleprompters. Unless you have a memorized stump speech, that’s usually the way most speeches are read.

Now that we have so totally shattered these illusions, lets get down to brass tacks: if you think McCain is superior to this, watch to see whether they remove the teleprompters from his convention.

Don’t be silly. The Republicans aren’t virgins to focus grouping. Does the name Frank Luntz ring any bells?

Just how do you think the phrases “Death Tax”, “Tax Relief”, “Climate Change”, “Partial Birth Abortion”, and other such loaded words enter common usage? The Republicans have marketed their vision of America for decades now, using such terminology. More to the point, though, they have done their best to muddle the discourse with doubletalk. For example:

In a 2002 memo to President George W. Bush titled “The Environment: A Cleaner, Safer, Healthier America”, obtained by the Environmental Working Group, Luntz wrote: “The scientific debate is closing [against us] but not yet closed. There is still a window of opportunity to challenge the science…Voters believe that there is no consensus about global warming within the scientific community. Should the public come to believe that the scientific issues are settled, their views about global warming will change accordingly. Therefore, you need to continue to make the lack of scientific certainty a primary issue in the debate, and defer to scientists and other experts in the field.”[6]

It’s selling uncertainty. Doubt is the Republican product.

Both sides prepare their concepts for the marketplace of ideas. The question is, what is each side selling.

There was something real Clinton had to sell: Clinton supporters joining their cause to Obama. From all accounts, she did a very good job. That she prepared her words first should not be assumed by those naive of the process to mean that they could not do their job as intended.

Take this from somebody else who prepares what he writes for desired effect: me.

Rhinehold-
Just as often as not, the anchors themselves engage in the rhetoric. There’s a whole litany of things that Brit Hume, John Gibson, and other reporters have said, playing a commentary role. Some of this stuff I’m amazed any sane person would let out on the airwaves.

If I remember correctly - the name change and changing was a result of a lawsuit from the WWF (world wildlife federation) and changing from calling rasslin’ a sport to entertainment. I stopped watching rasslin’ back in the 70s but had a roommate who forced me to see some of it in the last 10 years.

If I am off-base I issue a retraction on that point - I do not retract that Faux News is more fake than the WWE.

Yeah, I agree that Olberman and Matthews were over the line drooling over some of the speeches at the convention - notably Hillary, Michelle Obama, and Ted Kennedy (though this one is understandable). I do think, however, that there is no comparison to this love-fest and what Faux News does. It’s one thing for the love-fest and glowing commentary it’s another to make stuff up, run scrolling banners that are intentionally mix up Obama and Osama, call Republicans that get in trouble Democrats (Mark Foley), and give credibility to people that have none (Corsi, Coulter, Malkin, etc).

I do think, however, that there is no comparison to this love-fest and what Faux News does.

No, at CNN and MSNBC, it is a hate-fest, not a love-fest. The day I heard McCafferty call Bush ‘despicible’ (and some other choice words) during a ‘news’ discussion was the point that CNN, the last hope I had for somewhat unbiased TV news, lost all credibiilty for me and the illusion was broken. Now I have to be more circumspect on my news gathering, especially TV news, even 60 Minutes, just because there is no attempt to even TRY to appear unbiased.

And I’m sorry tcsned, there is almost no difference between the scrolls on Fox News and CNN and MSNBC. I watch them all (grudgingly) and sometimes without the logo and the ‘overall color’ of the screen, I would forget which channel I was watching. :/

Rhinehold, McCafferty makes no pretense at being a journalist. His segment covers blog comments, public opinion, and his own.

To critique Cafferty as a journalist is like critiquing a kindergartner as a politician.

I frankly don’t understand why anyone would think it odd that shows sprung up as counterparts to Fox News infotainment programs. One good bias deserves a counterpoint, don’t you think, in public forums. That is afterall, what WatchBlog is based upon.

It doesn’t prevent real news and facts from becoming part of the distortion and interpreted opinion fabric of the site. Same with the opinion shows like HardBall and Lou Dobbs, and O’Reilly’s slants.

They are what they are. And they have appeal to a minority in the public sector.

Rhinehold - I would disagree - fawning over someone like the MSNBC crew did and editorializing like you mention is much different than just making things up as Faux News does all the time. I am smart enough to tell the difference when someone is inserting opinion and when reporting on facts. I find this annoying in supposed “news” broadcasts but not in the same league as falsifying things to suit an agenda.

There will always be bias in news, there always has been and there always will be. It starts with what journalists choose to report on and goes through language that they decide to use - and that’s only the beginning.

David does make a good point - except the Faux News does this stuff in a supposed “news” broadcast and not just on a commentary show like O’Reilly, HANNITY and combs, etc.

editorializing like you mention is much different than just making things up as Faux News does all the time

All the time, like? Do you have an example when they have ‘made things up’?

And no quotes from Hannity, O’Reiley, Fox News and Friends, etc. We’re talking news stuff here.

And *try* to not rely upon Media Matters, hardly the best place to go for ‘unbiased’ information…

This conservative has watched the dem convention with interest and Hillary’s speech last night was a good one and not unexpected. While most of her speech, and all of the pre-speech video was about her with not even one shot of Barry, she bowed to the party and praised a man who only short months ago both she and Biden were claiming to be not ready for prime time.

Above all else, Hillary is a realist and she did what was necessary to stay in the game for a future run.

My question, what is there that Barry has done since being called unready to be CIC by both Clinton and Biden, to change their minds? My answer, nothing, except win the nomination. There were seven or more (I think) dem candidates in the primary and of these only Barry was singled out by both Clinton and Biden as being not ready. And, I might note, neither Clinton or Biden made that observation about each other.

Have Clinton and Biden found something new in Barry’s credentials or is this praise of the chosen one just politics or hypocrisy? What do Clinton and Biden know about Barry now, that they didn’t know a few months ago?

I would appreciate answers to these questions rather than just saying that McCains primary opponents also said disparaging things about him. That would be a discussion to have after the RNC has their convention.

This was a speech written by a committee, tested on focus groups, and then read off a teleprompter.

According to the nytimes it was being revised right up until the last minute…

Do you have an example when FOX news ‘made things up’?

How about when they referred to Obama’s fist bump with his wife as a “terrorist fist jab”?

And, just because you asked people not to post it - here’s a Media Matters links with Fox news errors. Each example is backed up with facts.

http://mediamatters.org/issues_topics/tags/fox_news_channel?f=h_hot

Clinton gave a class act speech!

HRC was just saying that people should vote Democratic, regardless of the candidate. Personally, I would have liked her to go out there with a rolling pin, wearing an apron, and carrying some fresh baked cookies, but she is trying to protect her own legacy for the future. I don’t see her having much of a future in presidential politics. 2012 will be too far away from the good old days when William Jefferson Clinton was 42nd President of the United States. Whoever wins this year will only be in for one term, and won’t be able to clean up the W mess quickly enough.

“kindergartner as a politician”

Me thinks there is a lot of unintended and profound truth in that… ;-)

Doug, yes, unintended, but, now that you mention it, the commonality of lack of depth of knowledge is indeed parallel for far too many politicians who, like kindergartners have learned to speak, but, not yet what is appropriate to say or do.

L.O. -

I don’t think Hillary was using a teleprompter. I was watching her eyes closely, and unless they had teleprompters in about six different locations, she didn’t use one. At no time did her eyes do any side-to-side movement as they would if she were reading.

I know they certainly have teleprompters in the venue…but watch the video again, and watch her eyes. If there were words going across a screen that she was supposed to read, she didn’t look at them.

And I can tell you from personal experience she’s capable of doing just that without a teleprompter. I was in the fifth row, and all she had was a microphone. She really is that good.

Like small children, people who have various mental illnesses, even ADHD, don’t know “what is appropriate to say or do.”

I am glad to here this from Hillary that she wants OBAMA to be the President. I will truly support her.

——————

ella

Blazeinfotech