The way Obama and McCain deal with the press

[Zorlac]

"Don't forget that the American media is so in love with Obama "

Oh Christ here we go. McCain has been a media darling for decades. While Obama was getting hammered about Rev. Wright (I do think it was valid to look into it, but the media went on an orgy with that story...twice!), McCain's own pastor troubles were almost glossed over. McCain has made repeated missteps and fumbles and it goes unnoticed.

Both get advantages and disadvantages with the press. Obama has unquestionably gotten more scrutiny from the media than McCain, especially the 1st half of this year. But as soon as the media does is job and looks into McCain/Palin, they bitch and moan that they're being picked on.

[optimusprime]

Originally Posted by Zorlac

McCain's own pastor troubles were almost glossed over.

By "pastor troubles," I assume you mean that a radical pastor with whom McCain has no connection endorsed him. Yeah, because that compares with Rev. Wright. Fortunately, the media were smart enough (surprisingly) to see how idiotic it would be to compare the two.

[Censport]

Originally Posted by Zorlac

"Don't forget that the American media is so in love with Obama "

Oh Christ here we go. McCain has been a media darling for decades.

Yeah, when he was bucking his own party. Once he was the GOP nominee, the love affair ended. The difference in how the press treated Obama and Hillary in the primaries was so obvious, Saturday Night Live (a haven of leftists) did a skit about it. The adoration of Obama has been so blatant that Keith Olbermann and Chris "tingle up my leg" Matthews have been removed as news anchors of MSNBC's election coverage and replaced by David Gregory, who merely hates Bush and his administration.

Both get advantages and disadvantages with the press. Obama has unquestionably gotten more scrutiny from the media than McCain, especially the 1st half of this year.

When conservatives complain about the treatment Palin is getting in the presss, liberals say the media is only "vetting" her because she is an unknown. So I argue it's the same for Obama. The difference is, the same media that ignored Obama's Wright controversy (until the talk radio industry made the issue too prominent to ignore) is the same media that is spreading every rumor it can find about Palin. It isn't Charlie Gibson or Matt Lauer who has been trying to obtain redacted documents about Obama's past with Annenburg and Ayers, it has been a lone writer for National Review. It hasn't been Keith Olbermann or Chris "tingle up my leg" Matthews who has been pointing out that Mr. Change has never changed a single thing in his entire life, it's been pundits like me.

McCain, to contrast, is known. Very. And optimusprime nailed it about McCain's "pastor troubles".

But as soon as the media does is job and looks into McCain/Palin, they bitch and moan that they're being picked on.

Here's a sample of the difference:





And the one you didn't see: (but should have):

[Firecat]

McCain is on The View right now, and I wish I was warned because I started watching late. Damn, these women are brutal.

[Censport]

Geez, that's like Obama going on G. Gordon Liddy (except Liddy is smarter than Whoopi, Babs & Rosie combined).

[avanti]

McCain cancels on Dave...

+ YouTube Video

[avanti]

Did someone catch Katie Couric's interview with Sarah Palin?
This might be Americas next president...

part 1

+ YouTube Video

part 2

+ YouTube Video

[optimusprime]

Originally Posted by avanti

This might be Americas next president...

No, this might be America's next next president. Even that, as I have stated, has much less than 15% likelihood.

[avanti]

sorry, next next prez.

There is no point talking about percentages, I know chain smokers that lived to a 100 and athletes that have dropped dead at 30.

[optimusprime]

Originally Posted by avanti

There is no point talking about percentages, I know chain smokers that lived to a 100 and athletes that have dropped dead at 30.

That is idiotic and fallacious - the inverse gambler's fallacy.

Of course, by that reasoning, Obama is as (or more) likely as McCain to die in the next 4 years, he did do a lot of cocaine back in the day.

[teeb]

Originally Posted by optimusprime

Of course, by that reasoning, Obama is as (or more) likely as McCain to die in the next 4 years, he did do a lot of cocaine back in the day.

The insurance industry is basically a large business that works in odds; so they can probably judge better than us.

Whose health insurance premium do you think is higher; Obama or McCain's?

Speaking of the media and McCain's 'stopping campaigning and the debate to concentrate on the crisis'...A poll this morning showed that voters overwhelmingly wanted tonight's debate to proceed, by 60 per cent to 22 per cent.

In other news...

This ad is apparently running on wallstreetjournal.com already. Bit early perhaps?

And the front and back of this month's Nature magazine...this.

[BlaRo]

Originally Posted by optimusprime

That is idiotic and fallacious - the inverse gambler's fallacy.

Of course, by that reasoning, Obama is as (or more) likely as McCain to die in the next 4 years, he did do a lot of cocaine back in the day.

So did Dubya, if you remember. Either way, I'd rather take my chances with the former cokehead than the guy whose recurring skin cancer threatens to kill him every 3-5 years.

[optimusprime]

Originally Posted by BlaRo

Either way, I'd rather take my chances with the former cokehead than the guy whose recurring skin cancer threatens to kill him every 3-5 years.

Clearly you're unfamiliar with malignant melanoma.

[BlaRo]

Originally Posted by optimusprime

Clearly you're unfamiliar with malignant melanoma.

The kind that kills 75% of skin cancer victims?

[optimusprime]

Originally Posted by BlaRo

The kind that kills 75% of skin cancer victims?

Way to cite an irrelevant statistic. McCain had stage II melanoma with an associated 10 year mortality of around 15%. Among patients who survive 7 years, 10 year mortality is in the low single digits.

If you don't like the guy and want to vote for Obama, fine - just don't skew medical facts to justify your choice.

[BlaRo]

Originally Posted by optimusprime

Way to cite an irrelevant statistic. McCain had stage II melanoma with an associated 10 year mortality of around 15%. Among patients who survive 7 years, 10 year mortality is in the low single digits.

If you don't like the guy and want to vote for Obama, fine - just don't skew medical facts to justify your choice.

Don't blame me, I'm not pre-med.

I think McCain's health is still a legitimate concern, since as you probably know he'll be the oldest president if he gets elected, etc. He'll make Reagan look like a high school freshman.

Still, I'm watching the debate right now and he not only seems like in good shape but he's really going for the jugular, Obama seems more shaky and nervous without a teleprompter. I may support Obama but respect where respect's due, anyway.

[optimusprime]

Originally Posted by BlaRo

Still, I'm watching the debate right now and he not only seems like in good shape but he's really going for the jugular

Exactly. He'd clean house at a carnival "guess your age" booth.

[Censport]

I'm watching the debate too. McCain missed calling Obama on a couple of things, but the main thing (to me) is that Obama is coming off very "prissy".

[Firecat]

Originally Posted by Censport

I'm watching the debate too. McCain missed calling Obama on a couple of things, but the main thing (to me) is that Obama is coming off very "prissy".

I've gotten that vibe from him before, but not at all tonight. McCain on the other hand, oh boy....he used his normal one liners (miss congeniality?), he even called himself a maverick which is just lame.

I don't think either of them "won"....but I think Obama made better points.