The way Obama and McCain deal with the press

[Cobol74]

Originally Posted by Lambos r4ever

Hmm maybe, try this though:
http://www.thedailyshow.com/video/in...-three-pointer

or this:
http://video.aol.com/video-detail/ju...ter/4049672062

He sunk the basket - right I'd vote for him, (I do not have a vote) but man he sunk a 3 pointer!

[jayhawk]

I think my original point may not have been stated in a clear way. What I am getting at, is that with the messiah (and that word is key) Obama is that he is NEVER held accountable for his words or actions by the mainstream media. In their eyes, he is perfect, and because of that, there is no objectivity in their reporting! Is that clear enough??!?

It is all a Obama love fest! If the tables were turned, I would say EXACTLY the same thing about McCain. In my opinion, our news media is to report the news in an objective manner, with no bias to one side or the other. In fact, I feel it is their duty. Instead, what we have today is, in essence, media making news out of speculation.

And I for one, feel it is my duty to report what is not covered in the media, what they do not want to report, so people here on this board can get an opinion and facts contrary to what is stuffed into their brain by extremely biased media outlets. And I see what a lot of people do not, or do not want to see: that Barack Obama is nothing more than an empty suit socialist who has no new ideas. He is...Jimmy Carter part two.

I stand for limited Government, less taxes, more freedom even if it costs us national security. He does not. Neither does McCain. I want neither of those clowns as my President.

If you do not like what I post or say, put me on your ignore list or don't read my reply's, simple as that. This is a political sub forum, and dammit, I am going to have my say, even if it goes against popular opinion on this board!!

[cvrefugee]

The media went downhill a long time ago, beginning with the Vietnam war.

[Andrewticus]

First off, I am not a supporter of either of the major parties, but I am getting the idea that most of us aren't.

That being said, I think a lot of people see Obama as this generation's Kennedy, rather than this generation's Hitler. Just like Hitler and Kennedy, Obama represents a changing of the flag. A generation of people have lived under a Bush/Clinton style of politics for their entire lives. The legislative branch has worked virtually the same as the executive branch, and lots of people are feeling the need for a housecleaning. Most people are upset with the new direction of the Republican party, and it seems like they are also upset at the misdirection of the Democratic party.

When Obama comes in, it may be appear to be a superficial election at present, but it should serve in the future as an icon of a changing time in American (and global) politics. I can forsee lots of old faces and ideas being tossed out of the legislative branch, as well.

Also, I don't really get the idea that Obama nor McCain are power hungry, as some people have suggested. I think they just happen to be two passionate people that happen to be at the right place and time. Of course, connections help, but I truly believe that the parties have simply selected the people that represent the majority of their party's beliefs.

[Firecat]

Originally Posted by jayhawk

I think my original point may not have been stated in a clear way. What I am getting at, is that with the messiah (and that word is key) Obama is that he is NEVER held accountable for his words or actions by the mainstream media. In their eyes, he is perfect, and because of that, there is no objectivity in their reporting! Is that clear enough??!?

Like when they spent weeks focusing on the Reverend Wright "scandal"...?

[idk]

I guess i missed sth. i wanted to state in my first post in this topic.

I started wondering about the Obama hype when Hillary still was in the race. Bush and his policy doesn't have any friends here somehow... so they want another one and this happens to be Obama now.

But since they are for a "change" they did not even differ between Hillary and Obama. From my perspective (and i repeat: I don't know hardly anything about domestic policy in the US) she'd have been a better candidate.

She really must know everything about the corrupt system (there isn't one on earth that isn't, especially not in America) and who is in charge for what, and who to ask for every specific question.

Obama won't use any less lobbyists but until he fully understands how to use it it will consume a specific time where "business" won't be as usual.

Just from the facts (don't focus on the personality now) she'd be the best candidate for that position i can imagine.

So why the media (at least here) never really considered her... it's a mystery for me.

[Firecat]

I'll preface this by saying that I don't like Obama...But...

I think it's great that a possible future president of the USA can give a speech in another country to 200,000 cheering. It's something the current president can't do. And I think our country will be better for it (if he can do it as president as well).

It beats having them protest and burn flags, right?

[katwalk]

Originally Posted by jayhawk

Don't forget that the American media is so in love with Obama they do not point the STUPID ASS statements he made in the Middle East this week. The way they treat him, you would think he walks on water. Hell, the way he thinks of HIMSELF you would think he was going to stroll out to the Dead Sea to tap dance on it.

I hear him ripped apart plenty, granted I do not avidly watch/listen to the news but the only thing I heard of the speeches at all was negative.

[jetsetter]

I think it's great that a possible future president of the USA can give a speech in another country to 200,000 cheering.

A speech that consisted of nothing given by a person who has accomplished nothing. In addition having Germans cheer for you is not the best thing.

[jetsetter]

Found this on the website of the Telegraph:

[Firecat]

It seems that we have become so pessimistic that we worry when people get excited for a political figure and expect the worst. Aim high and you disappoint. So rather aim low.

Sad.

[jetsetter]

Nothing wrong with aiming high you just have to be able to back up the talk.

[BlaRo]

Originally Posted by Firecat

I'll preface this by saying that I don't like Obama...But...

I think it's great that a possible future president of the USA can give a speech in another country to 200,000 cheering. It's something the current president can't do. And I think our country will be better for it (if he can do it as president as well).

It beats having them protest and burn flags, right?

It's a shame they're not doing the voting for us. Sometimes I think we're better off having other countries choose our president for us, seeing as we've proven before to be clearly incompetent at doing it ourselves.

[jetsetter]

It's a shame they're not doing the voting for us. Sometimes I think we're better off having other countries choose our president for us, seeing as we've proven before to be clearly incompetent at doing it ourselves.

The world outside the U.S. hasn't proven to be much more adept at choosing leaders. If you look at our history and how we have ended up you could say that we haven't done all that bad as compared to the various European countries.

Edit: And another thing, some Germans comparing Obama to Kennedy and seeing that as a good thing doesn't really make all that much sense. Kennedy did quite a few things that the Germans of today would disagree with such as the Bay of Pigs, Vietnam, etc. What they did have in common was good speech writers and speaking ability, youth, and that's about it. The Germans seem to love the good speakers.......lol.

[jetsetter]

Barack Obama held a press conference in Sderot, Israel today. I wouldn't have blamed him if he had stuck to a reasonable degree of pandering, but check out this question and answer from the press conference:

QUESTION: Senator Obama, you said in AIPAC convention that the (INAUDIBLE) Jerusalem could continue to be the capital city. Then you changed it and clarified later on in the -- (INAUDIBLE) wonder.

How could you be sure if your other statesmen, that you are going to be committed to the security and safety of Israel and you're not going to change it even when you're the President of the United States?

OBAMA: First of all, I didn't change my statement.

I continued to say that Jerusalem will be the capital of Israel. And I have said that before and I will say it again. And I also have said that it is important that we don't simply slice the city in half. But I've also said that that's a final status issue. That's an issue that has to be dealt with with the parties involved, the Palestinians and the Israelis. And it's not the job of the United States to dictate the form in which that will take, but rather to support the efforts that are being made right now to resolve these very difficult issues that have a long history.

Let's pause here. Characteristically, Obama claims that he "didn't change [his] statement." But this is a fantasy. At the AIPAC convention, Obama made the ringing declaration that "Jerusalem will remain the capital of Israel, and it must remain undivided." "Must." Within 24 hours, however, his advisers scurried to take back Obama's commitment to an undivided Jerusalem, saying that he meant only that Jerusalem shouldn't "be divided by barbed wire and checkpoints as it was in 1948-1967," and that, in fact, Obama was open to Jerusalem also being the capital of the Palestinian state.

In Sderot today, Obama didn't say anything about Jerusalem being the Palestinian capital, but he essentially repeated, not his original call for a Jerusalem that "must" be "undivided," but his mushier fall-back position. In doing so, he not only failed to acknowledge, but specifically denied, that this was a change from his AIPAC call for a Jerusalem that "must remain undivided."

Obama continued:

Now, in terms of knowing my commitments, you don't have to just look at my words, you can look at my deeds. Just this past week, we passed out of the U.S. Senate Banking Committee, which is my committee, a bill to call for divestment from Iran, as a way of ratcheting up the pressure to ensure that they don't obtain a nuclear weapon.

But Obama is not a member of the Senate Banking, Housing and Urban Affairs Committee. Obama just made that up so he could count the committee's action as one of "my deeds."

If committed by a Republican, this would be a gaffe of historic proportions. Even a Senator as inattentive to his duties as Obama certainly knows what committees he serves on. For him to fabricate the claim, out of whole cloth, that the Senate Banking Committee is "[his] committee," strikes me as another sign of Obama's megalomania. That, plus more evidence that he is totally at sea without a teleprompter.

Vid:

http://www.powerlineblog.com/archive.../07/021066.php

Lol, looks like Obama went all senile on us again.

[Labcoatguy]

Brilliant satire by the Times. "He ventured forth to bring light to the world", and that's just the title.

[teeb]

Originally Posted by jetsetter

What they did have in common was good speech writers and speaking ability, youth, and that's about it. The Germans seem to love the good speakers.......lol.

If I remember right, Kennedy's "Ich bin ein Berliner", which was the climax of that speech, was an ad-lib he scribbled on the card just before he was due to speak.

I would also like to put out the fact that McCain has been campaigning significantly harder than Obama. He has been traveling thousands of miles across the U.S. and has given hundreds of town hall style meetings. As of now he has had very little rest.

I'm not denying the fact that McCain's been campaigning hard. He's been going at it relentlessly, all the more impressive bearing in mind his age.

The thing is, these 'town hall' meetings aren't very interesting to the media. They'll include the same speeches, and will involve McCain always being asked the same questions - "do something about the price of oil", "when are you fixing Iraq" and "can we kill the liberals yet". Repetition isn't very newsworthy, although what McCain's doing is excellent campaigning.

I just get the impression that McCain's tactics - whilst admirable - may not be the best idea. With the best will in the world, the US is such a vast country McCain can't get to every town and every voter. He can only do that using the media.

Originally Posted by jayhawk

For the rest of world, do you now see how extremely biased the American media is, and that they are, for all intents and purposes, the propaganda machine for the political left? Think about that the next time you watch CNN, CNBC, etc.

I refuse to accept that the American media is the "propaganda machine for the political left" when Fox News is on the air.

Actually, Craig Ferguson did something interesting at the White House Correspondents' Dinner. He said that, as a new American, he should ask the room full of journalists who to vote for. He then asked "Democrat?" (cheer) "or Republican?" (equally large cheer). There was nothing to tell the two apart - the journalists were all split 50/50. Much like the US.

[Lupin_IV]

Originally Posted by teeb

I refuse to accept that the American media is the "propaganda machine for the political left" when Fox News is on the air.

Fox News is the exception that proves the rule of leftist bias in television media, just like AAR is the exception to the conservative bias of talk radio.