Further evidence the networks are in the tank for Obama. They'll be covering his trip as they might if he were the current POTUS. Yes, he may become POTUS, but neither he nor McCain are currently in that role.

While it's certainly within a network's rights to cover (or not to cover) a current event, does the inconsistency exhibited concern anyone?

For cons it's more evidence of what we've claimed for some time.

I'm curious as to lib/Dem's opinions on this.

Why bother with the election?

OOHRAH

It helps that he's taking the anchors of three major networks with him.

Of course, he's going to get all the coverage. It's another one of Obama's brilliant strategies.

"Further evidence the networks are in the tank for Obama."

Turns out the explanation is actually pretty simple. The McCain campaign didn't invite the networks to accompany him on his trip. Obama did.

Its called being media savvy. One campaign is, the other is not.

I have to tell you, you know, it's part of reporting this case, this election, the feeling most people get when they hear Barack Obama's speech. My, I felt this thrill going up my leg. I mean, I don't have that too often. No, seriously. It's a dramatic event.

-Chris Matthews, MSNBama

No bias, nothing to see here. Carry on....

If you just keep citing the same old example over and over and over, it really seems like a whole bunch of examples, right Cookie?

Let's look at the numbers: Jim Rutenberg reports in the New York Times that since June, news shows of the major U.S. television networks have spent 114 minutes covering Obama and 48 minutes covering John McCain.

Yup, no bias at all. Ha!

Gee, I wonder if ANY of that could have been due to Obama still being involved in the primary fight for part of that time, then the coverage of the Hillary/Obama transition, while McCain already had won his race and was more or less on the sidelines waiting for the Dem race to finish?

Let's also keep in mind that this number includes virtually any mention of Obama, including negative stuff like the Jesse Jackson issue, for example.

You call it "bias", I say its much more a function of what is happening out there.

And in my opinion the Olbermanns, Matthews, and O'Reillys of the world should be excluded as they are commentators, not news reporters, per se.

The news industrys fascination with Mr. Obama has carried over to general-interest magazines, with the candidate landing on considerably more covers in recent months than has Mr. McCain. In the last couple of weeks Mr. Obama has graced the front of Rolling Stone for the second time this year, and the cover of Us Weekly (both of which are owned by the company of a prominent Obama supporter, Jann S. Wenner).

The media is not just "in the tank" for Obama, most of them are on their knees as well.

"general-interest magazines"

I understand your bitterness, Cookie, and why you need to find an excuse. You have a candidate who is not very interesting and doesn't generate any excitement from, well, anybody.

Face it - Obama's campaign is much more media savvy than McCain's. They know how to generate publicity, they actively court the "general-interest" magazines (which, in case you didn't know, are NOT news media), and they are smart enough to think to INVITE the networks along on a trip. (Now if you can show me where McCain asked them to go and they turned him down, I would have to agree that would be an issue.)

Bias or a smart, comprehensive strategy for the 21st, rather than the 19th century?

What a whiney little righty thread this is. SanAntonioRogue has it correct. McCain didn't invite the Press to go with him. The coverage of Obama was high because the primary fight with Clinton and the fact that the primary for Republicans was over.

The right should be grateful the Press goes so easy on McCain. He's made so many horrible gaffs, and the Press lets him slide. Had the Press been with McCain on his Latin tour, you'd have seen him having to explain his jobs program. It wasn't good for America.

The one thing McCain can't handle is scrutiny. Sunni/Shia? Soviet Union? Czhechoslovakia? Rape jokes? Gramm? Flip-flops?

Why don't the authors talk about how much Press time Hillary received during this same time frame relative to Obama? Ohhh. Blows their point out the window.

Cookfish

Careful what you wish for.

More media for McCain means more senior moments for us to enjoy.

Can you spell Czeckoslovakia?

Well, hell.

Took me so long to figure out how to mangle Czechoslovakia, Yav beat me to it.

It takes McCain half an hour to make his way across a room. Its boring as hell. If people wanted to see him on TV, they'd put him on TV more.

Obama may be full of crap but people like to watch him.

Amazing how the same pussies that cry about re-establishing the Fairness Doctrine have no problem with "fairness" when their candidate is having his sack slobbered on by the media, while the other candidate is basically ignored.

Let's look at the numbers: Jim Rutenberg reports in the New York Times that since June, news shows of the major U.S. television networks have spent 114 minutes covering Obama and 48 minutes covering John McCain.

'Nuff said. As usual, I seee no back-up from anyone here showing that the media is actually FAIR to McCain. Anybody?

"I seee no back-up from anyone here showing that the media is actually FAIR to McCain. Anybody? "

You're right. No one is taking McCain to task on his flip-flopping, or his "senior moments", or his lack of knowledge on economics. If Obama had confused Sunni & Shia, or had claimed Iran was training AQ, that's all we'd hear on Fox for weeks.

Maybe the media could devote some additional airtime to McCain to discuss why, after criticizing Obama this week for not holding any sub-committee meetings on Afghanistan, it turns out that McCain attended ZERO of the Senate Armed Services Committee hearings on Afghanistan for the past two years.

That would be an interesting story. Mr. Foreign Policy National Security Expert my ass.

"The right should be grateful the Press goes so easy on McCain. He's made so many horrible gaffs, and the Press lets him slide"

And how many states are there again?

"And how many states are there again?"

Did Obama make that exact same error 3-4 times like McCain frequently does?

YEAH!

Always fun to see an entire group of "tough guys" piss, moan and whine like a Bunch of Elisabeth Hasselbecks over someone effectively capitalizing on available resources!

You people are a Joke and an embarrassment to people of Principle and Conviction Everywhere!

You people are a Joke and an embarrassment to people of Principle and Conviction Everywhere!

Nailed it.

I'm curious as to lib/Dem's opinions on this.

I think it's funny as hell. McCain and the right have been making it a big deal for months that Obama hasn't visited Iraq enough. So now that he's doing it, it has become a much bigger story and the networks want a piece of it.

Smooth move, my Republican friends.

No bias, nothing to see here. Carry on....

Chris Matthews is not a reporter. He runs a talk show just like Sean Hannity on Fox News. Those guys are paid to give an opinion. That's not bias.

I wonder if Couric or Williams will go down on him first.

"As usual, I seee no back-up from anyone here showing that the media is actually FAIR to McCain. Anybody?
Posted by cookfish at 2008-07-18 09:23 AM"

How would you go about proving "the media" (whoever or whatever that might be) is being fair to McCain? Or to Obama, for that matter? Or to the Pope or the Grand Cham of Tartary?
Anyone?
Anyone?
Stop embarrassing yourself, Cooky.

With all that media coverage his trip will get, I hope he takes his teleprompter.

-I wonder if Couric or Williams will go down on him first.

Depends on who can push Matthews aside first.

-Those guys are paid to give an opinion. That's not bias.

It may not be bias on their part, but it may be bias on the part of those who pay and promote them.

For cons it's more evidence of what we've claimed for some time.
Posted by OohRah

Oohrah, I think it's an Obama infatuation, and not a "liberal media" thing, and for a couple of understandable reasons.... the most obvious is the historic import of having, potentially, America's first black president. No network wants to be left behind not having as much material on that as possible.

Just like all the networks having hotel rooms rented outside St. Peter's for years before Pope John Paul II even died.

I wonder if Couric or Williams will go down on him first.

Posted by 101Chairborne

They'll agree to do it together.

Left nut and up, Katie
Right nut and up, Brian.

You're right. No one is taking McCain to task on his flip-flopping, or his "senior moments", or his lack of knowledge on economics. If Obama had confused Sunni & Shia, or had claimed Iran was training AQ, that's all we'd hear on Fox for weeks.

Posted by Danforth

"senior moments" like 57 states?
Flip flopping - When I am in office we will pull the troops out immediately - um let me talk to the generals first - no nevermind I mean immediately.

I will take public funding if my opponent does - no wait I am getting too much money now - forget what I said - did I say that?

Whyizzit....the Right squawks about "Liberal Bia" when it's MSNBC, but nary a peep when it's FOX? Methinks it depends on whose OX is getting GOREd. Same for "talk radio" (as if it's a conversation. Just hours of bullshit from either side). When I was young we had Michael Jackson, Ray Bream, people that would engage in debate instead of potting the caller down, insulting them, then hanging up on them. Whining about coverage? Buy the Economist, log on to an English language Pakistani news site, get out there and explore instead of sitting on th couch listening to well-paid monkeys aping their handlers political line.

Oon mccains trip he got 4 news items and one of those was a hit piece and i'm sure obama will be speaking all those foreign languages so we won't be embarssed like he is when americans go abroad.

It is not necessarily going to be a good thing for Obama to be accompanied by so much media. He will be watched and analysed so intensely that any slight faux pas will be reported infinitum.
On the disparity in coverage between McBush and Obama, I suspect that much of the media realizes that they enabled Bush to accede to the presidency by not thoroughly examining the many examples of his less than stellar behavior when he was younger, their acquiescence when he invaded Iraq, their unwillingness to warn the country of the economic consequences to those huge tax cuts....etc.

I have a feeling that the majority of the media feel strongly that either Obama gets elected or this country will not be able to pull out of the doo doo that Bush created while the media acted like lap dogs.

Katie Couric is 2 to 1 to either cry, faint, swoon or piss her self if she gets to interview obama.

yep just what we need one more coke head in office,out of the frying pan into the fire.

""senior moments" like 57 states?"

Nah...senior moments like saying Iran was training AQ, only to be corrected by Joe Lieberman...and then making the same mistake a few days later, only to be corrected by Lieberman again.

Or his infamous "You Kids Get Off My Lawn" speech the night Obama clinched the nomination. About as lame as they come.

O.K. let see if you Fucking idiots can get anything right. While I was in High School Blacks in this Country were fighting in the streets for CIVIL RIGHTS. Rights that were given to them as American Citizens, but they had to fight for it an many died for that right.

So here we are in my lifetime, an African American is the Nominee of his party for the office of the President of the United states. An you fucking idiots need a reason to wonder why he is getting so much attention. Had Senator Clinton won the Nomination, she would be recieving all the attention. THIS IS HISTORIC GET WITH THE PROGRAM YOU ASSHOLES!!!!

The Republician Party an the Demoratic Party, have for as long as we have been a Country Nominated Middle age Old men as heads of thier Party, if yu fucking idiots cannot see the Historic nature of this Election you dumb Fuck are beyond relief.....

John McCain is an old fool, the fact the the Republician Party has nominated an Old White man to lead there Party is not News. NEWS is just that something NEW, wheather you like it or not Senator Obama an his Party have given this Country NEWS!!!! LIVE WITH IT PRESIDENT OBAMA GET US TO IT!!!

I guess that means he will have anchors attached to his ass.

You think all that shit is bias cook-niggerhater-fish, wait until you see the polls in November.

Bias as hell they will be.

See you then!!!!

I seee no back-up from anyone here showing that the media is actually FAIR to McCain. Anybody?

Posted by cookfish

How can we post proof of new stories of McBullshits flip flops that don't exist? I cannot provide links to stories of his "senior moments" and Baby Joe Liebermann whispering the correct answers in his (good?) ear if they do not exist.

God, we already had eight years of a president that had to have his VP run the country. Do we really need four more?

Is there a link to show Obama INVITED ALL 3 network anchors to come along?

And where is the link that McCain did not want or allow any press who asked to come along with him??

The MSM is in the tank for Obama--at least be honest.

Obama overplayed his hand a bit with the B-Gate appearance--not going to happen.

Yes--you should have to EARN the opportunity to speak at such a place. Which Obama has not earned.

It's good he is going--about time actually.

Too bad he put himself into a box by outlining his Iraq policy Before he goes to Iraq. lol

Another naivete --blunder on the horizon.

"I have a feeling that the majority of the media feel strongly that either Obama gets elected or this country will not be able to pull out of the doo doo that Bush created while the media acted like lap dogs." - DANNI

Let's assume what you said is true.
Question: Is it the job of the press to do it?

"If you just keep citing the same old example over and over and over, it really seems like a whole bunch of examples, right Cookie? Posted by SanAntonioRogue"

SanAntonioRogue, Matthews has said several times he cums down his leg when Obama talks.

"They know how to generate publicity, they actively court the "general-interest" magazines (which, in case you didn't know, are NOT news media)"

Of course they are not the news media. The news media are IN the tank and spend their time WITH Obama. The big 3 news anchors will be spending vacation with Obama in Europe. Oh joy.

Yes, Obama is the best candidate money can buy. And of course that price is very high both in getting elected as well has having him in office. Praise him as you write checks to his government. Love him as you do with less. Cherish him as he drains your savings account. Above all adore him as he redistributes your's and other American taxpayer's money to the world's poor. Finally admire him as you volunteer for his big brother "Civilian National Security Force" as he disbands the military. Then you can personally go after those that disagree with your Obamessiah.

As for some posters rationalizing the networks' decision to send their anchor with Obama and that McCain didn't want any media...

Are you seriously expecting us to believe that the networks are going because they were "invited?" It's not like snagging the last seat in a mini-van headed to the beach where you otherwise can't go unless the driver invites you onboard. Invited or not, networks make their plans.

McCain (or any candidate) would absolutely LOVE the media exposure. By adding the three anchors into the mix this becomes a huge event. How many times are all three anchors dispatched in such a fashion?

As to the claim Reps brought Obama's "military inexperience" to the forefront... yes, that's the case. Yet wouldn't it make sense when either major party candidate travels like this that the networks would cover it in pretty much the same capacity? Almost no one went with McCain.

Too bad he put himself into a box by outlining his Iraq policy Before he goes to Iraq. lol

Another naivete --blunder on the horizon.

You mean the one that everyone but Bush/McCain camp seems to be following? Timelines? Permanent withdrawal?

Blunder huh? God you are a dumb bitch. Where did you come from?

KBM says: "Cherish him as he drains your savings account."

Isn't that precious! Presently the US has a negative savings rate and he is worried Obama will drain our saving accounts?????

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!

What savings????

It's a bit late KBM, but thanks for the warning. Next time though tell us BEFORE it happens not after.

You mean the one that everyone but Bush/McCain camp seems to be following? Timelines? Permanent withdrawal?

Posted by Manypaths

Who do you call everyone? It does seem to me that Bush and McCain arn't the only ones saying that a total pull-out before the surge would be a huge mistake. It also seems to me that most of the dems were saying the surge wouldn't work.

Blunder huh? God you are a dumb bitch. Where did you come from?

Are you seriously expecting us to believe that the networks are going because they were "invited?" It's not like snagging the last seat in a mini-van headed to the beach where you otherwise can't go unless the driver invites you onboard. Invited or not, networks make their plans.

Seriously. You got your answer didn't you?

200 requested to go, Obama said 40 could go.

How many did McCain let go with him?

Zero.

If you want to whine, whine over McCain's decision and judgement.

It's a photos-opt--not a Fact Finding mission.

Obama already outlined his policy.

Can't wait to see him "Change" it again when he gets back.

He still won't have the "experience" needed to be the POTUS.

But some folks will vote for him anyway...Fools.

MSM in the tank for Obama.

What is really hypocritical are the folks who complained bitterly about McCain going anywhere overseas including Canada.

Wot's he doing coming here--I believe was one post..

Good job Murphy! You repeated the McCain campaign talking points issued yesterday almost verbatim.

YAV-
Sending reporters is one thing. Sending your network's anchor is entirely different. Surely you grasp the heightened significance attached to something when the big three anchors go on location.

Whether or not McCain "invited" reporters on his flight isn't the point. One presidential candidate goes to the Middle East and gets sparse mention... and the other has the network anchors along for the ride - and you chalk it up to McCain's judgement? I don't buy that. It doesn't take much for a major network to send a couple folks - I'm sure they can afford it and advance teams can plot out how to get things done.

Obama is a bit of a rock star at this point. Not unlike Bill Clinton had been. I don't say the anchors should remain home... just that there is such an obviously wide split in the level of coverage for the two major party candidates.

Oohrah - please read my 2:21 post.

Whether or not McCain invited reporters on his flight is exactly the point.

He didn't do that and left them on their own to find transportation, get visas, make other travel arrangements, with no guarantee of any access to the candidate himself. Can you not see why any news organization would be limited in how many and who would make a trip under such circumstances? It would be more of a business decision than any political bias.

Obama made a good strategic decision to include the media in his planning. McCain did not.

SAN-
I'd caught that, but thanks for bringing it to my attention.

A couple things.
1. Why bring the anchors and not a couple reporters? It's hugely symbolic.
2. Assuming the story you related earlier (about McCain not formally inviting) is true... it isn't that difficult to make it happen if a network really cares to... AND... do you really think McCain wouldn't want the media attention?

My opinion is that ANY candidate would love the attention. You and I don't know the details as to what goes on regarding candidate/reporter travel interaction.

It's possible - and I'm not necessarily suggesting this is the case - but it's possible the press "demands" certain accomodations. If the McCain camp doesn't agree to all of them, the press can say they weren't welcome because McCain turned them down.

By the same token, McCain could have placed restrictions on the reporters as a pre-condition for them hanging around. If the network refuses, the network can simply stay away and it's left to McCain to whine (as YAV suggested I'm doing) that he's not getting publicity. As the candidate it comes off as petty or childish for McCain to do so... so he's basically left without media coverage and without an effective means of raising the issue to Americans without sounding petty.

My thought is each network ought to have a policy whereby they try to be fair in their coverage of such events. Same for the conventions. Is it proper to only cover one party's convention? I know all networks have really scaled back their coverage... but at least it's done to both parties.

Opinion/analysis/commentary is one thing. As a major network news outlet purporting to be fair, credible, etc., it's hard for them to maintain that stance when coverage is slanted so heavily toward one side.

Beyond that... and what I think really frustrates cons... is how networks (and newspapers) cling to this facade of remaining unbaised. If they were simply honest about their agenda they'd be more credible for me.

Off the soapbox now.

So, if I read Celisry's post correctly, it is historic that Curious Barack is going abroad as the uncorinated first black president. Further, it appears from Celisry's post that black is the one qualifier that he has...other than the fact that he is not old and white.

It is interesting to see the basis for voting for him is what I thought it was. With that said, wonder how many of those Hillary supporters will be exercising the same level of judgment and voting for McCain because he is white and not young and black. More over, I wonder if you will bitch about that being the basis for their vote.

The most probable reason the press is going with him is they believe that the American public is dumb enough to elect him. If that happens, you certainly would want to be in good with the president. Get the exclusives, access, etc. Their motivation is purely business...the same reason they had their head up Hillary's ass. Hopefully their grasp of the will of the American people is as good now as it was then.

"My opinion is that ANY candidate would love the attention. You and I don't know the details as to what goes on regarding candidate/reporter travel interaction."

I agree with you, Oohrah. But what I think this really boils down to is that Obama figured out how to get it, McCain didn't.

If you read the article it is pretty specific about the difference between the 2 trips

To me it looks like a simple case of McCain's campaign attitude being: Hey we're going on a trip. You can tag along but you're pretty much on your own and maybe the candidate will talk with you but we're not sure about when or how much.

vs.

Climb aboard, we've taken care of the essential arrangements, and you get lots of access to the candidate.

Its basic Customer Service 101 - you make it as easy as possible for the customer to do business with you and they will flock to you... and you will profit from it.

SAN-
I see your points and agree with you that (if true) Obama's customer service is superior.

Let me take another approach with you on this. Let's say Obama makes it easy and McCain is laissez-faire.

Now put yourself in the postion of the three networks. If you're a network chief, you might say, "F*ck McCain... Obama's working with us".... or you might think, "As a major network, is our image of consistent news reporting advanced by sending our anchors?"

So, regardless of whether invited or shunned, if the networks are concerned about how the public perceives their impartiality, wouldn't that dictate something different from what we've seen? Perhaps sending reporters but not anchors. Is the public really going to catch the nuances your article mentioned?

This incident simply drives another nail in the coffin of how a growing percentage of Americans perceive today's mainstream media coverage. Network news, many newspapers... are losing readers and viewers and turning elsewhere for info. Yet FOX is strong. There's a reason and it's apparently escaping (or they're not interested) the old media folks.

San,

I believe that you are half right. Consider how many media ANCHORS would come to an NRA convention if the travel, etc. was paid. Certainly newsworthy in the wake of Heller...but that is not on their agenda. Granted, they would definitely NOT come if their way was not paid for by someone else (typical liberal)...but there is a second motive for this move on the part of the media....and all of the customer service in the world will not cure it.

I see your points and agree with you that (if true) Obama's customer service is superior.

yeah, well, then there's this little issue McCain's created:

But that access has been whittled away as McCain became the nominee. The Straight Talk is reserved now as a carrot for local reporters, leaving the national press corps on a charter bus trailing behind.

The new approach may reflect the growing influence of the newly-powerful Steve Schmidt, a top adviser and protege of Bush political guru Karl Rove, who was famous for his desire to control the press's access to his candidate.

San--

You mean that McCain talking points quoted Spud??
;o)

And your point is well taken--but it's the anchors that is showing thier colors.

And if you are implying that Obama GIVES something more to the press--compared to what McCain did not give--that would be Conflict of Interest.

YEAH!

Notice how oohra in his endless potification leaves out the fact that Bush meet "privatly" on many ocassions with the likes of hannititty, boortz and most of the hate radio crew! It was stratagy only, nothing but "stratagy was talked about, no reporting, no interviews, no nothing but coniving on how to Fool the american people!

Now I wonder why THAT was left out of his dissertation on what america "thinks" of the media!

RED-
Where've you been lately?

The radio hate crew you love is not part of the mainstream media... those you describe offer analysis of the day's events. I'm talking about the originating news sources - the major networks. You DO see a distinction, I assume.

A second differentiation is contained in your post. According to you, Dubya met PRIVATELY with them whereas the three networks are sending their top dog on a candidate's visit. Remember, this is only a presidential candidate - it's not as though any official state business will be conducted.

What is really hypocritical are the folks who complained bitterly about McCain going anywhere overseas including Canada.

Wot's he doing coming here--I believe was one post..

~MURPHY

Bitterly complaining?

Hell no, Spud was laughing at the befuddled old fart.

Let's go to tape...

"Consider how many media ANCHORS would come to an NRA convention if the travel, etc. was paid." Posted by A Citizen

I don't think you read the article. Nobody is paying the media's way. The campaign is providing logistical assistance and including them as part of the traveling party.

"And if you are implying that Obama GIVES something more to the press--compared to what McCain did not give--that would be Conflict of Interest." Posted by Murphy

In addition to the above all they are "giving" the press is guaranteed access to the candidate for interviews and a front-row seat to his first overseas trip as the presumptive nominee.

It is a brilliant strategy coup and McCain got caught standing there looking.

Spud--

Thanks for the recap! ;o)

I was using the word "bitter" as a play against Obama and his "bitter" comment to the elites in San Fran. You make jokes about McCain going overseas.

Why aren't you making the same kind of jokes about Obama going overseas??

San --

It is a bit pathetic of you that you do not see that the MSM is totally ga-ga over Obama and this trip is another example.

Katie gave McCain 31 WORDS--when McCain went on his trip. No--Katie didn't go.

NBC--Williams--he gave 10 SECONDS to McCain..No Williams did not even go.

ABC DID NOT even send a reporter with him!

Real unbiased coverage--and don't give the business that HRC was with Obama and running in the "heat" of the Primary BS either.

If you think that McCain would not love the coverage and have the anchors and at least a correspondent go with him overseas--you don't know politics.

This is a "coronation" of Obama because he doesn't care about the troops--he voted against their funding for goodness sakes!!!

This is a big giant photo-op!!!

Be honest!

Franky, Murphy, given your track record, I'm not terribly impressed by anything you find "pathetic", and an exhortation from you to "be honest" is laughable, at best.

So you are honestly pathetic...

You are boring with your condescending remarks.

You don't need to respond to my comments and I won't respond to yours.

Waaaah.

"You are boring with your condescending remarks.
Posted by MURPHY "

Isn't this what is known around here as a self-retorting retort?

Ditto right back at ya'

Ditto right back at ya'

Posted by MURPHY at 2008-07-18 09:56 PM | Reply | Flag: Flag: (Choose)
FunnyNewsworthyOffensiveAbusiv
e

Murphy's out tonight!

I'm not sure what this is supposed to mean. Right back at truthfree with a self retorting retort?

and "ditto". wtf?

this is good stuff.

McCain spoke to 5,000 cheering supporters, while at the other end of the country Obama spoke to 50,000 cheering supporters. Those damn biased supporters, it just not fair!

When Sean Hannity devotes his radio show to he cause of "all Obama, all the time" the drunk can't really complain, and neither can you. No one wants to talk about McCain. Everyone wants to talk about Barack.

"No one wants to talk about McCain. Everyone wants to talk about Barack."

Small wonder.

McCain just isn't very interesting to talk about. Granted, every once in a while somebody gives him a shot of B-12 but for the most part, he just drones along and puts me to sleep. Judging from the gaffes, I have to wonder if he's banging on all eight cylinders himself.

In a Q & A (like the Viagra/Birth Control question) I get the impression that McCain spends more time curbing his temper than he does formulating an answer.

Quickdraw McGraw he ain't. And anger management isn't his forte.

Hopefully when you vicious Barry supporters reach John McCain's age, you will be able to do things, like serve your country, rather than shitting yourself in your depends....but, somehow I doubt it.

I think we've all seen the before and after pictures of past presidents. The stress of the job is enormous. McCain looks old and tired going in. I can't imagine what he'd look like on the way out. If he even makes it out, that is.

What with all his health problems and such.

It's a tough job by a young man's standards. I couldn't vote for anybody if I thought the job was going to kill him. Then there's that V.P. thingy to consider. A vote for McCain is a vote for Romney (most likely) and the primaries already decided Romney was a no-go.

Why would I want a shaky administration like John McCains when I can vote for someone who doesn't need a nap every four hours.

A vote for McCain is a vote for Romney (most likely) and the primaries already decided Romney was a no-go.

The primaries in NJ, NY, MA, OH, PA, and CA proved Barry was a no-go, too. Your point?

CK

We're in the General Election now and Obama isn't running against Hillary Clinton so your point is moot.

I'm still not going to participate in sending a pitiful old man to his death.

Neither is Romney (or the Huckster) running against McCain.

"Romney touches all three bases... at least two fairly strongly - economy & faith."

We probably disagree, Oohrah, but I view Romney's major speech on religion as a disgrace. It's not that he's a Mormon. On that, I could care less. The canons of that faith are no weirder, better or worse than those of any of the others I've run into. But he's woefully lacking in displaying any understanding of how a pluralistic society is supposed to works, at least as envisioned in The Fedralist.

DOC-
Yes, we would disagree. Kind of like how Dems really liked Obama's big "race" speech... and opponents dissed it.

At primary time (and ultimately come general election time) Romney's problem isn't so much convincing Dems to vote for him. It was convincing Christian conservatives that a Mormon could be "trusted" on faith issues. IMO he was able to do that. But that's certainly a subjective decision on my part.

But with the genuine article (Huckaby) hanging around, Christian conservatives voted Huck - not unlike Dem voters voting for a largely second tier candidate like Kucinich or Reps for Paul.

I just can't forget that Romney raised sick SOB of a son who hung a stray dog by the neck and tortured the poor animal to death.

With Romney in the White House I wonder what important job THAT particular son would have.

I don't know, TWIN. Health and Human Services?
:^)

But with the genuine article (Huckaby) hanging around, Christian conservatives voted Huck - not unlike Dem voters voting for a largely second tier candidate like Kucinich or Reps for Paul.
Posted by OohRah at 2008-07-19 08:56 AM

Good point.

I just can't forget that Romney raised sick SOB of a son who hung a stray dog by the neck and tortured the poor animal to death. . .
Posted by Twinpac at 2008-07-19 09:26 AM

Wasn't that Huckleberry?

Wasn't that Huckleberry?

Yes it was. Romney is the buffoon that puts his dog in a cage and then straps it to the roof of the car.

You're right! My mistake. It was Huck.

Always look before you leap. That's my motto! Boo-hiss to me.

This just in: Obama plays basketball with the troops. Now we know why he went to the gym 6 times a day. He didn't want to be photographed like he was at the bowling fiasco.

Posted by KBM

FF (sad, but true)

Ah, but as Reinheit puts it, a buffoon, nonetheless.

"A-CITIZEN".....You dumb Fucks never seem to get it right, Obama is a BLACK man that makes his Nomination a World Wide event, 40 Years ago this man could not Vote in this Country without being at risk, by Racist Pricks like yourself. This is the worst NIGHTMARE for you Racist Fucks but deal with it, PRESIDENT OBAMA sounds good to me!!!!!!!

It is not just because he is Black that he will win, he will win in spite of it. Because he is the best canditate thats why he will win. It doesn't hurt that he can speak the Language without embarrasing the Country. It doesn't hurt that he is a Harvard educated an that he came from humble stock, A TRUE AMERICAN SUCCESS STORY.....

Smooth move, my Republican friends.

Posted by rcade at 2008-07-18 11:52 AM

I told you he was a political genius.

I even think he is smarter than our Sworn Arch Enemy...not something I can say for the Bush, Cheney, McCain Gang.

Hell, he might even catch up with "He Who Shall Not Be Named" even if all we get out of it is bragging rights and a bag of bones on a dialysis machine.

But, I was thinking that anchors would just slow Obama down!

The man is a steam roller right now.

And so was John Kerry about this time in election!

Obama is a media genius. It was quite clever to load all those reporters on plane and ship them out when he wanted to secretly meet with Hillary during the primaries. Maybe he will also abandon the anchors in Iraq if they become inconvenient for him.