Comments for What A Surprise! Media Shilled for Obama-Washington Post »
Posted By pc25 1 year, 1 month ago in NewsThe Post provided a lot of good campaign coverage, but readers have been consistently critical of the lack of probing issues coverage and what they saw as a tilt toward Democrat Barack Obama. My surveys, which ended on Election Day, show that they are right on both counts.
Read Full Story at washingtonpost.com »
RSS Join the Discussion
+ Add CommentComments So Far: 311
-
35%
pc251 year, 1 month ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
FTA
Reply
Bill Hamilton, assistant managing editor for politics, said, "There are a lot of things I wish we'd been able to do in covering this campaign, but we had to make choices about what we felt we were uniquely able to provide our audiences both in Washington and on the Web. I don't at all discount the importance of issues, but we had a larger purpose,
The op-ed page ran far more laudatory opinion pieces on Obama, 32, than on Sen. John McCain, 13. There were far more negative pieces about McCain, 58, than there were about Obama, 32, and Obama got the editorial board's endorsement. The Post has several conservative columnists, but not all were gung-ho about McCain.
He must be kidding right......story line more important than the ISSUES......-
71%
Dionys1 year, 1 month ago
-
-
mntnman444Comment removed: Spammer, Hard Banned
-
-
83%
Dionys1 year, 1 month ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
I supported America and everything it used to stand for before BushCo started raping the constitution. I supported the possibility of change instead of eight more years of the same failed policies. I supported a man who I believe will do more good for this country in one year (barring obstructionist Repugnant Cons) than Bush has done in his lifetime. That he was the 'winner' just shows that a majority of Americans felt the same way.
Reply-
hefaa1Comment removed: Hard Banned
-
-
-
TcarosComment removed: Hard Banned
-
-
-
-
86%
hamy1 year, 1 month ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Um...the media prints and runs what people watch. If you didn't want to watch the dirty parts of the election to try and run constant stories about the filth and lies McCain threw out about Obama, then you would understand that people voted for Obama because he was better. Because he isn't Bush. Bush and Palin lost that election for McCain.
Reply
Now go to another thread and tell us how wonderful Bush is. -
-
80%
CRYMTYPHON1 year, 1 month ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
the MEDIA DIDN"T ALLOW DISCUSSION ON THE ISSUES
Reply
By the 'issues, ' Pc25 means, the Michelle Whitey Rant Tape, and the Norway API interview; and Misters Ayres, Wright and Rezco.
And all too often, the media ignored Obama's middle name ,
and his birth-certificate and the mystery-authors of his books!
They ignored these vital issues
treacherously allowing Obama to talk about the economy.
What is this country coming to?
Better things, apparently.
Way to go, Media! -
-
-
-
-
75%
djn3nunez31 year, 1 month ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
(After licking Scott's tears off the table)
Reply
Cartman: Ohhh, the tears of unfathomable sadness, mmm, yummy… yummy you guys!
http://www.dailynugget.com/2003/06/ -
43%
memestryker1 year, 1 month ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
WaPo has been an unabashed left-leaning tool for a very long time, pc25. This is nothing new.
Reply
My family and friends write LTEs to the Post and Times, and the Post rarely prints anything that is not embraced by the left. The Times will print both, although some consider it right-leaning overall. I can actually point to specific examples where WaPo printed left-biased material based on bad data, if you're interested. But it sounds like you're already in the know.-
mackiemesserComment removed: Retracted by user1 Reply
-
TFLComment removed: Hard Banned
-
-
-
80%
mesodude1 year, 1 month ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
I don't claim to be unbiased but my opinion was based on the poster's statements--which are there in black in white for all to read. Meme seems to claim that one paper is more biased than the other based only on anecdotal evidence. Meme's observations and third person accounts are not ironclad proof that the Times is more moderate than the Post.
Reply
-
-
17%
memestryker1 year, 1 month ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
There have been recent analyses on their biased actions--one showed a 10,000 attendee-Obama fundraiser on the front page, with a 30,000-attendee Palin fundraiser in an inside section, and even in the story on the Palin fundraiser, it quickly switched over and continued focusing on the Obama one.
Reply
Some memorable standouts are a piece based on claims made by Jesse Jackson's Rainbow/PUSH Coalition which presented such badly skewed statistics as to make them laughable, and no one checked them out; an opinion again based not on available statistics but on partisan hype written by PG state's atty. Glen Ivey; and another stands out that was also based completely on partisan hype and not available statistics by MD Del. Currie. Remember that WaPo itself tried to get someone from the "right" on staff to self-correct its own perceived bias.
We're all biased. It's part of the human condition. (Or do you really think your endless ad hominem attacks, name-calling, and mocking are unbiased?) And I still read the Post and other major newspapers--I just know to look deeper whenever I read a story about something where I'm personally familiar with the statistics.
What makes it funny for me is I'm accused of being on both the right and the left because I don't glue myself to partisan platforms--I stick to issues.-
80%
mesodude1 year, 1 month ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
I don't think you fully understand the concept of bias, meme. Let's say we agree that the Post leans left and the Times leans right. Just because you *feel* that based on your research, the Post is more biased than the Times doesn't make it so. What criteria are you using to compare the two publications because it's apparent that you've been studying one publication more than the other. That's *bias* and that makes your research (as it were) tainted. Your approach to drawing a comparison is not methodical or scientific.
Reply
And you and Endo both have really poor reading comprehension. I never claimed to be unbiased but that's irrelevant because biases can't change facts. Your information was anecdotal. The fact that you've read some studies suggesting that the Post leans left is unremarkable. We already know that. What we don't know (based on *your* comments, anyway) is that the Post is more biased than the Times. You do not provide any compelling information to prove this other than your opinions and your research--which are based on your biases. -
-
-
-
-
-
-
62%
hyperbola1 year, 1 month ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Actually the "tilt" was just about nothing, as the article points out.
Reply
""""The number of Obama stories since Nov. 11 was 946, compared with McCain's 786. Both had hard-fought primary campaigns, but Obama's battle with Hillary Rodham Clinton was longer, and the numbers reflect that."""
One should also remember that Deborah Howell is a right-wing neocon whose own actions at the WaPo included trying to cover up lies about Jack Abramoff, Bush lies about WMDs, ...
Deborah Howell and Fred Hiatt: Fact Free and Loving It
I go back and forth on the Deborah Howell conundrum -- ignorant or craven? I always find myself touching down on the Upton Sinclair quote:
It is difficult to get a man to understand something when his salary depends upon his not understanding it.
And so we find ourselves with Lil' Debbie, failing to disappoint with this week's excuses about last week's Fred Hiatt column:
.... Yes, we know you have a lot invested in your warmongering. It has no doubt paid the giant cocktail weenie bill for years. But the fact is that there was no reason for the president to believe Iraq was seeking uranium at the time. Do we have to go through this again? I guess so. ....
http://firedoglake.com/2006/04/15/deborah-howell-a... -
37%
hyperbola1 year, 1 month ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Well pc25, it is certainly true that there are monstrous issues that never get touched by our corporate media.
Reply
Obama, Emanuel and Israel
In the first major appointment of his administration, President-elect Barack Obama has named as his chief of staff Congressman Rahm Emanuel, an Israeli citizen and Israeli army veteran whose father, according to the Israeli newspaper Haaretz, was a member of Menachem Begin's Irgun forces during the Nakba and named his son after "a Lehi combatant who was killed" -- i.e., a member of Yitzhak Shamir's terrorist Stern Gang, responsible for, in addition to other atrocities against Palestinians, the more famous bombing of the King David Hotel and assassination of the UN peace envoy Count Folke Bernadotte.
...Obama repeatedly pledged unconditional allegiance to Israel during his campaign, most memorably in an address to the AIPAC national convention which Israeli peace activist Uri Avnery characterized as "a speech that broke all records for obsequiousness and fawning", and America's electing a black president has always been more easily imagined than any American president's declaring his country's independence from Israeli domination.
...The profound loathing and hatred of the Muslim world toward the United States, which has always had its roots for America's unconditional support for the injustices inflicted and still being inflicted on the Palestinians, can fairly be considered the core of the primary foreign policy and "national security" problems confronting the United States in recent years. Why would Obama, a man of unquested brilliance, have chosen to send such a contemptuous message to the Muslim world with his first major appointment? Why would he wish to disabuse the Muslim world of its hopes (however modest) and slap it across the face at the ealiest opportunity?-
29%
ugagentorange1 year, 1 month ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
When are the stupid Liberals gonna get over the fact that Bush did NOT lie about WMD's. There is a HUGE difference between bad intelligence (CIA and FBI provided Bush with his "lies") and outright lying. Grow up and get an education.
Reply-
89%
Tangent0011 year, 1 month ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
He DID lie about WMD when he said "We found them."
Reply
"Bush, May 29, 2003: We found the weapons of mass destruction. We found biological laboratories. You remember when Colin Powell stood up in front of the world, and he said, Iraq has got laboratories, mobile labs to build biological weapons. They're illegal. They're against the United Nations resolutions, and we've so far discovered two. And we'll find more weapons as time goes on. But for those who say we haven't found the banned manufacturing devices or banned weapons, they're wrong, we found them."
http://zfacts.com/p/581.html -
75%
bruhaha1 year, 1 month ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
He lied about them. We knew those aluminum tubes weren't for centrifuges. France told us that those mobile trailers were for weather balloons, not WMDs. Bush knew the Nigerian yellowcake story was bogus but he said it anyway.
Reply
Yes, he got evidence from the CIA, NSA, FBI, etc. Some of it said yes there might be, others said no. He ignored evidence that said no WMDs.
I'll call that lying.
-
-
-
44%
hyperbola1 year, 1 month ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
A further contemptuous message is widely rumored to be forthcoming -- the naming as "Special Envoy for Middle East Peace" of Dennis Ross, the notorious Israel-Firster who, throughout the 12 years of the Bush the First and Clinton administrations, ensured that American policy toward the Palestinians did not deviate one millimeter from Israeli policy and that no progress toward peace could be made and who has since headed the AIPAC spin-off "think tank", the Washington Institute for Near East Policy...
Reply
... it may well be salutary not to waste eight more days (let alone eight more years) playing along and playing the fool while more Palestinian lands are confiscated and more Jewish colonies and Jews-only bypass roads are built on them, clinging to the delusion that the charming Mr. Obama, admirable though he may be in so many other respects, will eventually (if only in a second term, when he no longer has to worry about reelection) see the light and do the right thing. It is long overdue for the Palestinians themselves to seize the initiative, to reset the agenda and to declare a new "only game in town".
http://www.propeller.com/story/2008/11/07/obama-em...-
44%
jimdoze1 year, 1 month ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
"It is difficult to get a man to understand something when his salary depends upon his not understanding it."
Reply
Who pays your salary, hyperbole? It seems to me that you are so prolific on these pages that there is naught left for a 40 hour workweek. Just who is your benefactor?
Shall we now assume that you are adamantly opposed to Barack Obama?
-
-
75%
ADAGUY1 year, 1 month ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
This is no different than the efforts of the RNC and the GOP party leaders to blame Palin for their losing the election. I personally don't understand why they never learn from their mistakes. The GOP will continue to be a party of greed, and corruption, yet when they loose an election, they are always yelling "liberal media".
Reply-
-
-
mntnman444Comment removed: Spammer, Hard Banned
-
-
-
33%
Endoscopy1 year, 1 month ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Ignorance is bliss I guess. Palin did not create the problem and this election has made her a star to the GOP. It is you on the left that could not stand a person who had moral principles and stood by them. All of the lies that your side created to try and destroy her shows what kind of people you are.
Reply-
-
-
-
25%
Endoscopy1 year, 1 month ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
ROTFLMAO
Reply
That is not what all of the lies that were posted here and you amongst others had a rhetorical orgasm over them and later found out it was all a lie. Or did you ever find that out and just go on to the next lie posted here and repeat the orgasm again?
There were 1 to 3 stories posted here per day that were lies. Where was the outcry from the left that those lies were despicable. One had her banning books before they were published.-
100%
Tangent0011 year, 1 month ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Dude, even though she knew she lacked experience on the National Stage, she failed to prepare for an interview with Couric and made a laughing-stock of herself.
Reply
"Where was the outcry from the left that those lies were despicable." It's not our job to defend YOUR candidates. -
-
100%
mesodude1 year, 1 month ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Your post (and avatar) made me think of those on the right as chefs who repeatedly enter and lose baking contests because they keep using different variations of awful recipes. Cons will use ingredient they know taste disgusting and when their entries lose they'll say things like "Gee...we used the same rotten eggs we did last time. I can't believe that didn't wow the judges. Oh, well...Let's try again with a *new* batch of rotten eggs next time." ;-x
Reply
-
-
-
-
17%
memestryker1 year, 1 month ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Endoscopy,
Reply
I'm an atheist, and I was horrified at the way this woman was treated based on her religious beliefs. I am a strong supporter of the first amendment, and I respect people's right to freedom of religion.
Overt sexism was palpable, including ugly anti-female epithets spewed at her. She had a total of 9 weeks to come up to speed, and I thought she did a fabulous job under stress on short notice. In fact, if Obama had only had 9 weeks to prepare, he would have been completely lost. She held up well, took the attacks, and was strengthened by them. I was very disappointed in Rick Warren, for publicizing what should be a private matter when an individual consults the clergy. She was hit on all sides.
I may disagree with her moral principles, but I admire her for holding fast to them. And so many ugly lies continue to circulate about her. And I think some females can be harder on other females than the most vitriolic sexist males can be.
What's funny is people keep saying Palin weakened the ticket, but all the Repubs I spoke with really like her and think McCain is a little too much of a RINO. I think he was hurt most by his association with Bush.-
67%
mesodude1 year, 1 month ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
"I'm an atheist, and I was horrified at the way this woman was treated based on her religious beliefs."
Reply
--Still claiming to be "independent" huh? How was she mistreated based on her beliefs?
"She had a total of 9 weeks to come up to speed, and I thought she did a fabulous job under stress on short notice. "
--Boo hoo...Who's fault is that McCain chose someone who needed to be brought up to speed in the first place? Who is responsible for that?
"In fact, if Obama had only had 9 weeks to prepare, he would have been completely lost."
--Uh...Are you medicated? McCain had the GOP nomination back in JANUARY. Obama didn't finish his race with Hillary until June. What was McCain doing all those free months that he was stuck with a candidate he needed to bring up to speed in mid-September? Oh wait...I just remembered. Palin was a spur of the moment decision. Nevermind...
"She held up well, took the attacks, and was strengthened by them."
--Yep, you're sounding more "independent" by the minute. What about all the filth that bird-brained Alaskan trollop slung at Obama? Get serious. ;-( -
-
-
fiftynineComment removed: Hard Banned
-
-
-
82%
dunkirk1 year, 1 month ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
OMG here we go again. The same routine by the Alpah Tomatoes as after 2006. Waaahhhhhhh they didnt publish our lies, Wahhhhhhhhhhhhh they didnt buy our spin Wahhhhhhhhhhhhh they didnt let us smear Obama. Wahhhhhhhhhhhhhh hes been President ELECT for almost a week and the proiblems hes idneitifed havent been fixd and the "liberal" media isnt exposing him as a fraud. Wahhhhhhhhh Wahhhhhhhhhh Wahhhhhhhhhhhh
Reply-
27%
ugagentorange1 year, 1 month ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Another splendid example of Liberal debating skills. After 8 years of whining, you would think you would be a little more understanding, especially since this is all payback. Better prepare yourself for alot more mudslinging at Obama the next 4 years. Lets see how Liberals enjoy the whining and crying now. Maybe you Liberals can give us some pointers??
Reply
-
-
62%
Tangent0011 year, 1 month ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Of course, it could simply be a reflection that McCain was a worse candidate than Obama. McCain struggled to differentiate himself from the policies of Bush and caved to pressures from the neo-conservative ranks on several of his 'maverick' stances. In the final analysis, the McCain campaign was mostly about negative attacks and 'staying the course' rather than a new direction for the country. This is not only evident is his ads, but in campaign stump speeches delivered by both McCain and Palin. Lots of jingoism, lots of Obama attacks, nothing substantially new policy-wise.
Reply
Palin was also a heavy drag on the ticket after the early novelty wore off. It became clear early on, Palin was merely window dressing meant to 'energize' Republicans and carve off a portion of Clinton supporters. When she failed to prepare for interviews and present herself as something truly serious, McCain's judgment came into question.
It is not the job of the media to make up positive stories for the sake of 'fairness' when the content simply isn't there. -
-
-
hefaa1Comment removed: Hard Banned
-
80%
Spadecaller1 year, 1 month ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
I don't need to do better with your self-evident idiotic comments, and the misfits, losers, and remaining discontents who still support an agenda that has finally been laid to rest 6 feet under, where it belongs.
Reply
The neocons like you will go by the way of David Duke in time or join their heroine, Sarah Palin in Russia ... well it's near Russia. ha. Good riddens.
-
-
-
-
-
38%
pc251 year, 1 month ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
http://www.theminorityreportblog.com/blog_entry/st...
Reply
Election 2008: A Story Line Won Last Night, Not An Ideology-
72%
antibrainwasher1 year, 1 month ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Not that the facts matter to right wing shills who can't think objectively, but 100% of all american media is corporate owned, and 100% is owned for profit, and 100% is conservative board controlled.
Reply
NBC / General Electric/ Universal Studios. conservative corporate controlled, for profit. Joe Scaroborough, who was just fired today for saying the f word on air, was a republican congressman.
CBS / Westinghouse Corp conservative corporporate board controlled for profit.
News corp, largest media empire in the world, owned by the far right wing Rupurt Murdock, who invented tabloidism, owner of the Weekly Standard and WSJ. Far, far right wing.
ABC/ Disney....held and owned by a banking Cabal in Israel. Massive corporate structure, multi tiered conservative board controlled for profit.
Time Warner/ AOL/ Netscape/ Propeller. Conservative corporate controlled massive media for profit board controlled empire, cable tv programming and news.
Sinclair Media, Hard, hard right wing media empire controlling local broadcasts in both radio, newspapers, TV. Very religious, very conservative, owned by a billionaire republican.
99% republican controlled, 99% conservative, 100% board controlled, 100% for profit.
PBS...the chairman of PBS was the former Republican political director appointed by Bush.
You see, when you look at the facts, the house of cards blows away. The bile of posters comes from Rush or Hannity, who are told exactly what to say by their masters, the owners of the media empires. Murdock, who lost a 30% share of viewers, is becoming sick of Roger Alies and the right wing shills.
Please think. Please try and see the truth. Look it up online, and think for yourselves. Do you think the owners of these media empires want anything but more and more money, however they can make it. Its cut throat competitive business practice. THEY ARE SELLING YOU PROPANDA.
You conservatives are very good at making money, so why can't you follow the money on this topic of the false liberal media bias you keep talking about?
Its as if you have blinders, you can be logical up to a point, then some evangelical ideology based on hatred for objectivism or analysis kicks in, and you start shouting socalist or marxist or some other Mcarthyistic buzz word from the past.
Just think this through, and follow the trail of ownership. Roger Alies, the director of Fox News, look into his background. Read about the ownership of ABC and Eisner.-
71%
Tangent0011 year, 1 month ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Excellent points. Not only was the Obama candidacy of great historical significance, but he was simply a better 'draw' for readers/viewers. Modern media is all about attracting and keeping an audience. McCain is just another cranky, old, white guy. Obama is young, gifted, and black (wasn't that a funk band?).
Reply
Sorry to say it, but the Right set themselves up for this. Deregulation and consolidation brought about a profit-centric media that is all about salable images rather than hard journalism. They were happy as hogs in slop when it worked to Bush's favor (Gore's 'orange moment' and Kerry's mind-numbing boredom and 'Frenchness'), but when it's one of their own...?-
33%
ugagentorange1 year, 1 month ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Talk about a racist and ageist post. You Liberals would be all up in arms if we said Obama was a typical black man. And gifted?? Gifted at what?? He hasnt done anything in his life noteworthy. We can find eloquent speakers in the local community college, the problem is finding substance to back it up. Obama bamboozled you idiots.
Reply
-
-
55%
Endoscopy1 year, 1 month ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
What you ignore is that almost 100% of the news people on the MSM are very liberal and show it these days. The old method of just giving the facts has gone by the wayside. The bias is very real and gets worse as time goes by. If you can't see it you are blinded by your own bias.
Reply-
-
33%
memestryker1 year, 1 month ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Yes, we had Soros, Bloomberg, and a lot of wealthy bullies backing Obama, too. I hope he's a great president, who shows excellent choices in his cabinet and other appointments, turns out to be a great decision-maker, embraces the entire U.S. Constitution and Bill of Rights without wiggling, successfully forges foreign alliances without bringing the U.N. into it, signs off on legislation that truly improves our country so it's better for all people, and goes down in history as one of the best. I truly want that. I don't want this all to be about hype and who spent more money.
Reply
-
-
20%
memestryker1 year, 1 month ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
The study recently reported here on propeller showed about 75% of those employed by the MSM are liberal. I'm only really "conservative" on a couple of issues, but one would think I'm James Dobson's daughter attending Liberty University and planning a career with Halliburton with the way people who consider themselves "liberal" respond to me on those issues.
Reply
Of course, the "conservatives" disown me because I'm "liberal"--an atheist, pro stem cell and pro choice, so I guess all those negs and ad hominem attacks come with the territory. -
-
-
-
-
45%
RedRiverJ1 year, 1 month ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
PC you just don't understand, it was the news media's DUTY to get him elected! That way Chris Matthews would have a job. It's Matthew's "job to help make Obama a success!"
Reply
Forget doing honest, factual reporting so people can have true facts to make informed decisions, he's got to make Obama a success at all costs.
Doesn't sound to me like Chris has much faith in his idol!-
72%
GWHayduke1 year, 1 month ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
YES!!!
Reply
The magical MEDIA is to blame.....not some kind of failed antiquated ideology supported by backpeddling fools who believe that invading Iraq was solid foreign policy.
Until you realize that the world is leaving you behind, you will continue to lose despite what the media prints or shows on the tube.
Convenient scapegoat however, huh? -
72%
tchef1 year, 1 month ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Oh yes, it couldn't have had anything to do with the fact the your candidate offered nothing but what we have already seen in the last 8 years. And even if you went to his website the only things you found was why you shouldn't vote for Obama instead of why you should vote for McCain.
Reply-
-
29%
Endoscopy1 year, 1 month ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
There is the rant that the liberals created to send out a false message. They kept saying that he voted for 90% for Bush legislation. Then you ignore the other 10% and the fact that Obama either did not vote in the legislature and Senate or voted 100% to the left. 90% means the same while 100% is ignored. Who reached across the aisle and who did not?
Reply
And what is Obama saying now. Now he wants to reach across and be president for all. We will see what we will see. Is he just talking the talk or will he walk the walk.-
71%
Tangent0011 year, 1 month ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
See? You still didn't say which McCain policies differed from Bush.
Reply
That Obama voted with the Democrats is the POINT. He didn't vote with Bush. If I'm in a car with a cliff on the right and a pasture on the left, I'm not gonna choose a driver who has a history of jerking the wheel to the right.
BTW, Obama had more actual votes in Congress during the campaign than McCain did. -
0%
mesodude1 year, 1 month ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Here is the thing: You conveniently forget that cons didn't think McCain was so wonderful at the time he was actually being a so called maverick. You thought he was a RINO and a traitor (we know you thought we forgot about "McAmnesty" but you were wrong). You only seized on that maverick crap after he got nominated. In essence, you wanted McCain the Presidential nominee to get credit for behavior for which, not long ago, you wanted him drummed out of the party.
Reply
-
-
-
-
-
52%
RedRiverJ1 year, 1 month ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/artic...
Reply
After it's all over now they admit they all were in the tank for Obama......
Gee thanks news media! And they call Fox Faux News. Who's faux now?????????-
44%
pc251 year, 1 month ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
another story that received little attention as this one from a few days ago
Reply
Bill Clinton: Obama Has “Political Instincts of a Chicago Thug”
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2128059/p...
Clinton also still hasn’t gotten over vote rigging he claimed he personally witnessed by the powerful Obama-endorsing Culinary Workers’ Union in Nevada.
All that said, the quote, “Bill Clinton believes the Democratic nominee, far from practicing a unifying, transformational brand of politics, has the political instincts of ‘a Chicago thug,’” is still quite a doozy, coming out the day of the Democratic Convention:-
39%
nostalgia1 year, 1 month ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Here's another story from the end of October:
Reply
Hillary Backers Decry Massive Obama Vote Fraud
Lynette Long, a Hillary supporter from Bethesda, Md., who has a long and respected academic career, believes Obama’s victory in Iowa and in 12 other caucus states was no miracle. “It was fraud,” she told Newsmax.
Long has spent several months studying the caucus and primary results.
“After studying the procedures and results from all 14 caucus states, interviewing dozens of witnesses, and reviewing hundreds of personal stories, my conclusion is that the Obama campaign willfully and intentionally defrauded the American public by systematically undermining the caucus process,” she said.
In Hawaii, for example, the caucus organizers ran out of ballots, so Obama operatives created more from Post-its and scraps of paper and dumped them into ice cream buckets. “The caucuses ended up with more ballots than participants, a sure sign of voter fraud,” Long said.
In Nevada, Obama supporters upturned a wheelchair-bound woman who wanted to caucus for Hillary, flushed Clinton ballots down the toilets, and told union members they could vote only if their names were on the list of Obama supporters.
In Texas, more than 2,000 Clinton and Edwards supporters filed complaints with the state Democratic Party because of the massive fraud. The party acknowledged that the Obama campaign’s actions “amount to criminal violations” and ordered them to be reported to state and federal law enforcement, but nothing happened.
http://www.newsmax.com/timmerman/obama_voter_fraud... -
75%
JamesMarcus1 year, 1 month ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Needless to say the "Chicago thug" quote is unsourced--the "longtime associate" could be anybody on the planet. Which doesn't mean that Clinton didn't say it. Still, the act of thuggery he most fiercely resents is that Obama beat out his wife for the Democratic nomination. And all of their dire predictions about the election--the idea that only Hillary could win enough votes among white, blue-collar, and female voters--turned out to be completely false.
Reply
-
-
60%
memestryker1 year, 1 month ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
RedRiverJ,
Reply
When Palin was selected, CNN's Anderson Cooper said he had never heard of her, although she'd been mentioned months earlier as a possibility. I had immediately researched all the potential veeps as I heard about them--and I'm no Anderson Cooper. I sent him email and told him he and his team dropped the ball. And I've sent email to attack dog Chris Matthews for playing softball with his own personal favorites.
I also sent Brit Hume email when he had a "panel" of people who all agreed with him. That was pretty useless to hear all the "me, toos". I even sent O'Reilly email and asked him to shut up while opposing views were being shared so I could at least hear the people. He does seem a bit more self-controlled lately, so maybe a critical mass of people said something.
I tell them when I see bias, whether they listen or not.-
-
50%
mesodude1 year, 1 month ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
He'd never heard of her because she's done nothing remarkable as governor or otherwise. What is there to actually govern in a state that has fewer than 700,000 people and which is flush with cash? They can afford to blow millions on bridges only a handful of people will use and their constituents want for nothing. Money talks.
Reply
-
-
74%
Goppy1 year, 1 month ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Sorry RedRiver .... your Liberal Media Propaganda won't work here. Propeller members are way too savvy for this. It astonishes me that you want to keep pushing this propaganda when no sane person on Propeller believes you.
Reply
What, do you say this kind of stuff to convince yourself? Sorry, but we are not going to assist you in your delusion.
Here, check out this Chris Matthews clip where the roundtable extolls the heroic nature of John McCain. This was when the Mainstream Media was pushing for John McCain. The MSM was of a mind that said ... 'It's John's turn now ... he got screwed by Bush in 2000 ... now it's HIS turn.'
http://mediamatters.org/items/200611200001
If you don't want to view the clip, here are a few out-takes.
Chris Matthews even compares his heroic 'Maverick-ism' is so awesome, he compares him to Martin Luther!
Other comments on the clip...
He's a 'Reformer!"
He's a 'Smart Hawk!"
He's finding what's "PURE" in the Conservative Party!
He's got "Principles!"
He's got a "Core!"
He's a "Fighter Pilot"!
And this quaint line where a journalist admits to being biased!
"We journalists can't be unbiased when it comes to McCain! We just like him!
I especially love this quote spoken by Chris Matthews in the clip ... "I LOVE his office! It's the most ... it's ... like ... It is really a Senator's office out of a movie set!"
The fact is, the election was McCain's to lose --- which he did very, very well --- all on his own.
But of course, a hallmark of Republicanism is unaccountability. And this is just one more whining example from pc25 that proves this standard.
.-
75%
jbgiraffx-881 year, 1 month ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
I wish everyone would just stop talking about McCain's heroism. When's the last time anyone cared what any of you did forty years ago and more? Viet Nam was four or five wars ago, depending on your perspective. America is about the now and what are doing lately. Besides that heroism has a whole new definition today than it did in past wars. For my money, a person is far more of a hero, when he/she is able to sit at a conference table with potential enemies and solve a problem without missiles using his/her brain with patience, intelligence, forsight and honesty than anyone whose finger is on "The Button"! Besides, the media constantly spoke of McCain's potential for outbursts of rage and his erratic behaviors. Does that sound Presidential?
Reply -
-
75%
Goppy1 year, 1 month ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
And of course, here's Endo ... the Fake Christian whose own self righteous arrogance knows no bounds.
Reply
Hey! A Fake Christian who supports Bush ... the Fake Christian Politician!
What's it all spell?
An Political Ideology built upon a foundation of Fakery.
It's nice to see things all tied up so nicely ... with bows.
-
-
58%
mesodude1 year, 1 month ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
We're going to resurrect the Fairness Doctrine so cons won't be able to pollute our airwaves without a counterbalancing POV (which doesn't include O'Really shouting down guests with whom he disagrees). Cons, we told you this day was coming. You're going DOWN. ;-(
Reply-
-
-
-
-
30%
Endoscopy1 year, 1 month ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
ABSOLUTELY WRONG.
Reply
The lip service is equal time. The reality is shutting up the opposition.
You own a talk radio station. The people you put on need to have ratings in order to charge money for advertising. The lower the ratings the lower you can charge for advertising.
Air America that the left put a lot of money into with a lot of people doing left leaning talk. They were a financial flop. They were put on the air and their ratings were very low. There are VERY FEW talk shows with good ratings and only in specific markets.
So talk radio station owner you have a line up of highly rated right talks shows. Now you have to put on very low rated left talk shows to match each right talk show. Half of your revenue has just gone out the door. What are you going to do to stay solvent? What they did in the past was to get rid of ANYTHING controversial. Remember we had that law before so it is absolutely known what will happen.
We will have talk about music, sports, How to, etc. No politics or religion etc. Put on a Christian show and it will have to be balanced with an atheist.
Censorship is what you people on the left are really all about with this "Fairnes Doctrine". It sounds nice and fair but in the real world it is impossible AS HAS BEEN SEEN IN THE PAST.-
80%
Tangent0011 year, 1 month ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
I'm divided on the Fairness Doctrine, actually. I don't think it's workable, nor do I think it is necessary. Progressive radio has been making inroads into markets and proving they can attract an audience all on their own. I do worry about increasing corporate input into news coverage, but I think that has more to do with profit motive than ideological bent (at least in the non-Fox world).
Reply
I'm on the left and I hate censorship in any form, so don't go a-paintin' me with your broad brush Cap'n. The doctrine doesn't say you CAN'T say something, just if you DO say something, the other side has the chance to rebut. But again, I think it's unworkable and I don't really trust the FCC in the first place.
-
-
-
-
-
-
33%
BB641 year, 1 month ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Fairness? What you will do is reduce your own tax base you moron. Force the fairness doctrine. I dare you. You will see large hosts like Rush, Hannity, Levin and the like move to satellite where you have no control. Then you will have have an entire wing of the media die. AM radio exists for sports and talk radio. Remove talk and the game is over. Thousands will be unemployed. Killing an industry you can't control and you call me a capitalist. Here's another funny. The conservative take it one step further and start lawsuit after lawsuit claiming discrimination. ABC, NBC, CBS, PBS, and any other over the air media including shows like Oprah and Saturday Night Live are targeted for failing to show equality. We may not win but we will have you folks tied up for years. You were very good teachers and I think we've learned well. The more noise the more cost the better for us.
Reply -
-
-
-
52%
Klarissa1 year, 1 month ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
But coverage of McCain has been heavily unfavorable—and has become more so over time. In the six weeks following the conventions through the final debate, unfavorable stories about McCain outweighed favorable ones by a factor of more than three to one—the most unfavorable of all four candidates—according to the study by the Pew Research Center’s Project for Excellence in Journalism.
Reply
"The media coverage of the race for president has not so much cast Barack Obama in a favorable light as it has portrayed John McCain in a substantially negative one, according to a new study of the media since the two national political conventions ended.
For Obama during this period, just over a third of the stories were clearly positive in tone (36%), while a similar number (35%) were neutral or mixed. A smaller number (29%) were negative.
For McCain, by comparison, nearly six in ten of the stories studied were decidedly negative in nature (57%), while fewer than two in ten (14%) were positive. "
so, what happened to the Editor and responsibility for fair and impartial journalism.-
47%
memestryker1 year, 1 month ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
It's not journalism, K. There is little interest in reporting, unless it's something dirty on those with whom one disagrees. Sensationalism sells. Bottom line. Someone published a survey within the past couple of months that showed fully 75% of people employed in the media are left-leaning. It seems to attract them--they self-select.
Reply-
-
40%
jimdoze1 year, 1 month ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
We have witnessed the re-definition of the word "progress" as in "progressive", the word liberal vis-a-vis what it meant to the founding fathers and now we are to prepare ourselves for the re-definition of the word "left" as it most certainly must be skewed?
Reply-
-
-
0%
jimdoze1 year, 1 month ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Lincoln was a fantastic Republican, wasn't he? He was a true liberal. He was also unafraid that the unspeakable carnage of war that stood in the way of what was ultimately the greater good of the nation and all of its people. He could have easily preserved lives and diplomatically negotiated a peace that, perhaps, would have involved the breakup of the union.
Reply
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
62%
mesodude1 year, 1 month ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
"There is little interest in reporting, unless it's something dirty on those with whom one disagrees. Sensationalism sells."
Reply
--It sure does sell. You're just bitter and dejected because the McCain campaign's desperate lies and sleaze peddling (that Obama wasn't a US citizen, that he was a "socialist" a terrorist and a racist) didn't buy him a ticket to the Oval office. You lost and now you're crying and displaying your sour grapes. Thoroughly disgraceful.-
50%
gwhiddon1 year, 1 month ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
McCain was just doing what the MSM refused to do - bring out the facts on Obama. By forcing McCain to bring out the truth, the media could then call his investigation reporting "negative"
Reply
Have fun Obama voters - enjoy paying through the nose to "redistribute your wealth"-
0%
mesodude1 year, 1 month ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
The time for you to be scared was when Bush was redistributing it to the ultra-wealthy during war time. It didn't trickle down in the form of jobs or anything else that we can point to as useful to our country as a whole. What good did it do? How did Americans benefit from giving money to people who needed it the least and giving crumbs to the ones who needed it most. Exactly...It not only didn't do any good, it led to economic catastrophe. Bush shouldn't have been giving tax cuts during a war and now cons shouldn't be crying because we're cleaning up another won of your steaming piles of elephant crap.
Reply
Your poor judgement DESTROYED our country and the world's economy. There's not a lot of things to be scared over when your country has been ruined from within. Why can't cons get that? ;-(
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
73%
HarrisonPenn1 year, 1 month ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
If you print the news, and the news is negative, you print negative news.
Reply
I have listened hard to both candidates. I found McCain to be very "charming," as a friend put it, but I also found him to convey messages of non-substance, and messages that, were he Obama, would have been immediately branded as "flip-flopped." Moroever, he himself had said he voted 90% with Bush.
He was nowhere as capable as Obama (or Hilary, for that matter), and, havingheard him louse up when speaking, and louse up in a particular way (pointing to meory or thought-issues), I began to fear his ability to lead, as well as earing his capacity to lead.
The pick of Palin was the coup de grace. It must be a reflection of judgment, or it points to cynicism, or desperation, or all of the above. (One could argue all one wants that it was Rove or the GOP who picked her, but where was McCain's judgment or integrity in going with Rove in the first place, or desperatel;y bowing unto pressure ot put in one of the most incompetent people Ever to be in a position to take the Helm?
Coupled with McCain's /Palin's propensity to make perosnal attacks rather than to intelligently address the issues?
I would say there were mostly negative news bits to report.-
67%
hamy1 year, 1 month ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Exactly! Run a negative campaign full of lies and innuendos and what do you expect? McCain pushed stories that were negative in theme about Obama and so he got negative press back. If you throw out a lie that Obama is a terrorist, don't you think the tone of the article putting that info out there would be negative?
Reply
It's a no brainer. So obviously you Bush apologists should have no problem understanding it.
-
-
63%
mesodude1 year, 1 month ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
"But coverage of McCain has been heavily unfavorable—and has become more so over time."
Reply
--I think this only proves there is a price to be paid (politically and otherwise) for increasingly negative campaigning and McCain paid it. Why do you need studies to help you understand this?-
50%
Endoscopy1 year, 1 month ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
You need to get your facts straight. The least negative side was McCains. Obama went negative with a whole broad spectrum of short ads that barraged the media. Of course to someone like you who is an Obama shill that is not to be looked at.
Reply
-
-
64%
JamesMarcus1 year, 1 month ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Most publications have a least a slight bias, whatever they may claim. I'm always mentally correcting, depending on where the news is coming from. But if McCain had run a less shambolic, embarrassing campaign--if the tone of his concession speech had dominated the entire election cycle--he would have gotten better press. It's a hard to say something nice about a candidate who's praising his VP nominee's tenure on the PTA as a qualification for national service.
Reply -
63%
hamy1 year, 1 month ago
-
-
86%
hamy1 year, 1 month ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Who's fault is that? McCain ads mentioned Obama's name over and over. His ads were about Obama. He gave us nothing but lies. And hopefully because of the last 8 years, Americans may have a better understanding of when they are being lied to. We know now how to spot the hideous lies before their damage is done. Thanks Bush!
Reply -
-
-
-
-
43%
GLee1 year, 1 month ago
-
77%
memestryker1 year, 1 month ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
I think Huckabee would have tanked with moderates, and Romney was greeted with suspicion by the strongly religious of other religions and Christian sects.
Reply
I think that Bush limited McCain to a great extent. I still think Ron Paul was the best person for the job. -
77%
Grrr1 year, 1 month ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
What a bunch of hooey. We The People INSISTED, in spite of all the right leaning media's constant slandering of Obama, that he be our nominee and our president. The media tried to ram Clinton down our throats as a nominee, and we RAN OVER THEM WITH THE HOPE BUS. I repeat, overwhelming support from sectors of the population never represented by the MSM elected Obama IN SPITE of the media; plainly, simply, and obviously.
Reply
Get over it, and start practicing...."PRESIDENT OBAMA".-
47%
BBcamaro1 year, 1 month ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
"We the people" are going to be very surprised (unhappy) in 4 years, if you listened and I mean really listened to his speech the other day he left little innuendo's thru out it to let him out of some of his campaign promises already, and oh yea his complete 180 on Iran. I wonder how many people really caught that one.
Reply-
100%
Ratskii1 year, 1 month ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
I recall presidential races all the way back to Eisenhower. Everyone of them had multiple campaign promises they failed to deliver on; it's the nature of the beast.
Reply
Obama will probably do or not do some things that cause me to disagree. Again, true of every president all the way back through Eisenhower.-
14%
BBcamaro1 year, 1 month ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Thank you for proving my point! I thought he ran a campaign on a "promise a change in Washington", but as soon as he gets elected it's back to the same old politics as every other president back through Eisenhower. I really don't expect to see the change that everybody thinks they are going to see just by reviewing his voting record in congress.
Reply-
86%
Tangent0011 year, 1 month ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
To be fair, Obama hasn't announced his 'first 100 days' plan. Obama said in the debates he would have to scale back or delay some plans because of the $700 billion bailout, and it remains to be seen how cooperative Congress will be. The Reps can still filibuster 'til the cows come home.
Reply
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
63%
Goppy1 year, 1 month ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
There ... this is how y'all exploit your Liberal Media Mantra.
Reply
You know it's bogus ... you know it's a lie.
The fact is, to you Extremists, ALL media is too liberal ... because you have one agenda ... to push everything to the right ... to the far, extreme reaches of the right.
But your LIberal Media Whine serves an amazing array of other, cowardly purposes.
For instance, whenever YOUR candidate loses, you can blame the media. Cowardly, Ethically Hypocritical, Backward Looking, and of course, Morally Vacant.
Just like the ideology you extremists support.
.
And for the record, there is no way ANY of the Right Wing candidates could have beaten Obama. McCain was the best shot.
Huckabee was Palin-light.
Romney was the very personification of what it means to be a FLIP-FLOPPER.
.-
46%
GLee1 year, 1 month ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Just my opinion Gop so settle down. Obama won by 6% and he wasn't the 'right's best man. He is and always has been a 'middle of the road' Senator at best and is NOT a true conservative. He gave his personal best shot and I am proud of him for that. I also understand that President-elect Obama is our man for the next 4 years and I will do my best to support him as I remain planted as a conservative. Not Republican or Democrat but conservative. The Republicans have lost their way somewhat and need a 'make-over' to straiten the ship. Hang in there and I hope your daughter is fairing well.
Reply
Now, as far as flip-flopping...... we are going to see a bunch of that out of Obama as he will fail in a great many of his pre-election 'promises'. Happens to every President every 4 years. Expect it. No way he can fullfil all of his pledges and everyone knows it...... except those who voted for him.-
-
-
33%
maj1 year, 1 month ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
I couldn't agree more with you GLee. I'm not happy with either party. I'm still conservative but consider myself to be more independent. My college-aged daughter campaigned hard for Ron Paul, and I have to say except for a couple of issues he made a lot of sense. Unfortunately he wasn't good at communicating his platform but I think he really inspired a lot of future leaders.
Reply
Also, even though the electoral vote was a landslide, people keep overlooking the popular vote. The last time I looked Obama had 53% of the popular vote. It means that 47% of Americans did not support him. That is still a significant number and one that I hope president-elect Obama has not overlooked.-
100%
GLee1 year, 1 month ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
I feel that the only ones who overlook the popular vote are the ones with the 'glassy eyes'. Although I will support our President-elect, I cannot condone many of his policies. There are several things I like about him as well, but I can't close my eyes to several of his issues/beliefs.
Reply
As I have stated before, the true conservative movement has planted it's feet firmly and begun to sprout new roots. This tree will grow. The United States of America is a 'center-right' nation from a 'world wide' view and always has been. That won't change. Americans won't let that happen.
-
-
-
-
-
53%
Klarissa1 year, 1 month ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
" Home
Reply
Home :: blogs :: streetwise's blog
Election 2008: A Story Line Won Last Night, Not An Ideology
By streetwise - Posted on November 5th, 2008
Tagged: Op-Ed
First, congratulations to Barack Obama for his election to the presidency, and to Joe Biden as our incoming vice-president. . . .Barack Obama deserves the credit for creating such an effective narrative, and the MSM should also take a bow for promoting it so intensely. It was a truly masterful performance. Obama had the sense to move quickly to the center after he secured the nomination, putting lots of distance between himself and the divisive leftists whom he canoodled for so many months. The MSM put its fog machine into overdrive, hiding the implausibility of a conventional Chicago machine politician campaigning as a reformer.
Of course, story lines can not govern. We need to give President-elect Obama a chance to get established and put his Administration together, and then we will judge how it governs."-
48%
RedRiverJ1 year, 1 month ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Don't forget George MEDIA MATTERS Soros.
Reply
It will be interesting to see how Obama handles all the people when they call in all their favors. Far left people and more those more to the center that helped get him elected. Left will be angry if he does too much to please center and center will be mad if he pleases the left too much........this might be an interesting 4 years.-
45%
pc251 year, 1 month ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Obama pretty much much finds himself in the same position as Clinton after the 1992 election. A 6% popular vote margin with the House and Senate having a similar makeup. Dick Morris when he appeared on Hanniity and Colmes the other evening brought out this camparison between Obama and Clinton. Although Obama had the sense to move to the center as Clinton did in 1992, Obama like Clinton is going to have an extremely tough time governing from the middle. He owes a lot to a relative few and those few are the George Soros crowd. Obama like Clinton is going to find himself being pulled more to the left by the more radical elements in his party. It wouldn't be a surprise come the mid term election in 2010 if the Democrats find themselves in the same position they were after the 1994 elections.
Reply-
25%
nostalgia1 year, 1 month ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
I have to wonder how many who think Rahm Emanuel was a good choice as chief of staff really know his background.
Reply
I think the left on Propeller are going to be very upset if they bother to do some reading about Emanuel
Emanuel's first big assignment in Clinton's White House was helping pass the North American Free Trade Agreement. He was a consistent voice for anti-crime measures, welfare reform and other initiatives that pushed against liberal orthodoxy.-
-
83%
GWHayduke1 year, 1 month ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Liberal orthodoxy is "pro-crime" and "anti free-trade"?
Reply
Emanuel is a moderate pragmatist.
I know, its shocking after the past 8 years of politicizing ALL of the government and leveraging extreme right wing personalities, to see a leader exercise rationale and good judgment with the country's best interest in mind rather than the party's.
Ideology fails where logic and critical thought succeeds.
-
-
-
-
-
45%
memestryker1 year, 1 month ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Take a look at http://change.gov to see how Obama has already moved back to the left on some issues where he remained evasive or quiet on the campaign trail. Of course, the voters didn't pay close attention anyway, so they didn't even read the fine print on the campaign website (this one quotes it verbatim in some areas) that would have alerted them to some of his unspoken but major issues where he plans to aggressively push forward.
Reply-
55%
hyperbola1 year, 1 month ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Well meme, to get back to american democracy, Obama would have to move massively away from what he has inherited.
Reply
Barack Obama will be the catalyst for a new movement
Barack Obama will be the catalyst for a new movement, away from false hope and false promises, not because he will deliver to the people of this country anything worthwhile, but because he won’t. This will be the final nail in the coffin of our corporatist society.
...There are so many so-called “progressives” that have believed that it was the Bush Republican neo-cons that have gotten us where we are. This is wishful thinking. The Democratic 110th Congress did nothing but rubber-stamp every bill that was put before it. Democrats have blindly caved in to fear of being called “anti-patriotic” if they voted against the meaningless war in Iraq. They put their political fortunes ahead of their conscience at every opportunity, from Pelosi taking impeachment “off the table” to voting for the new FISA bill that granted telecoms immunity from illegally working with the executive branch to illegally eavesdrop on US citizens. They passed every military budget and went along with almost every Bush attack on our civil liberties. How one could possibly imagine that Barack Obama or any other Democrat could undo the damage they helped to create is just wishful thinking.
The time for real change is now. I must tell you that the change we seek will not come from the President-Elect, but from the disgust and anger we will all feel when corporate interests and the Military Industrial Complex (corporate welfare) dominate the Democrats agenda. War will not end; it will be moved to different theaters.
Now the time has come to actually put up or shut up. Mr. Obama has already chosen a Democratic interventionist in Joe Biden, a man who never saw a war he didn’t like. The self-proclaimed Zionist that has stood with AIPAC since its inception, a man that ranks right up there with Bush when it comes to Iran and Palestine. Obama has also kowtowed to the Israeli’s, and there doesn’t seem to be any hope for those that want America to look at both sides of the tensions in the Middle East. We will blindly follow the Israelis as far as they wish to take us, for their own self-interests.
-
-
-
61%
Klarissa1 year, 1 month ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Regardless of what the media did or didn't do, I think that our schools have failed in their mission to teach students civics.
Reply
That includes looking at both sides, asking the same questions of candidates, and being aware of the tricks of propaganda.
see below-
47%
Klarissa1 year, 1 month ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
source- wikipedia
Reply
Ad hominem
A Latin phrase which has come to mean attacking your opponent, as opposed to attacking their arguments.
Ad nauseam
This argument approach uses tireless repetition of an idea. An idea, especially a simple slogan, that is repeated enough times, may begin to be taken as the truth. This approach works best when media sources are limited and controlled by the propagator.
Appeal to authority
Appeals to authority cite prominent figures to support a position, idea, argument, or course of action.
Appeal to fear
Appeals to fear seek to build support by instilling anxieties and panic in the general population.
Appeal to prejudice
Using loaded or emotive terms to attach value or moral goodness to believing the proposition. For example, the phrase: "Any hard-working taxpayer would have to agree that those who do not work, and who do not support the community do not deserve the community's support through social assistance."-
45%
Klarissa1 year, 1 month ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Bandwagon and "inevitable-victory" appeals attempt to persuade the target audience to join in and take the course of action that "everyone else is taking."
Reply
Inevitable victory: invites those not already on the bandwagon to join those already on the road to certain victory. Those already or at least partially on the bandwagon are reassured that staying aboard is their best course of action.
Join the crowd: This technique reinforces people's natural desire to be on the winning side. This technique is used to convince the audience that a program is an expression of an irresistible mass movement and that it is in their best interest to join.
Black-and-White fallacy
Presenting only two choices, with the product or idea being propagated as the better choice. (e.g., "You are either with us, or you are with the enemy")
Beautiful people
The type of propaganda that deals with famous people or depicts attractive, happy people.
Big Lie
The repeated articulation of a complex of events that justify subsequent action. The descriptions of these events have elements of truth, and the "big lie" generalizations merge and eventually supplant the public's accurate perception of the underlying events.
Common man
The "'plain folks'" or "common man" approach attempts to convince the audience that the propagandist's positions reflect the common sense of the people.
Demonizing the enemy
Making individuals from the opposing nation, from a different ethnic group, or those who support the opposing viewpoint appear to be subhuman
Direct order
This technique hopes to simplify the decision making process by using images and words to tell the audience exactly what actions to take, eliminating any other possible choices.
Euphoria
The use of an event that generates euphoria or happiness, or using an appealing event to boost morale. Euphoria can be created by declaring a holiday, making luxury items available, or mounting a military parade with marching bands and patriotic messages.
Disinformation
The creation or deletion of information from public records, in the purpose of making a false record of an event or the actions of a person or organization, including outright forgery of photographs, motion pictures, broadcasts, and sound recordings as well as printed documents.
Flag-waving
An attempt to justify an action on the grounds that doing so will make one more patriotic, or in some way benefit a group, country, or idea. The feeling of patriotism which this technique attempts to inspire may not necessarily diminish or entirely omit one's capability for rational examination of the matter in question.-
42%
Klarissa1 year, 1 month ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Glittering generalities
Reply
Glittering generalities are emotionally appealing words applied to a product or idea, but which present no concrete argument or analysis.
Half-truth
A half-truth is a deceptive statement which may come in several forms and includes some element of truth.
Intentional vagueness
Generalities are deliberately vague so that the audience may supply its own interpretations. The intention is to move the audience by use of undefined phrases, without analyzing their validity or attempting to determine their reasonableness or application. The intent is to cause people to draw their own interpretations rather than simply being presented with an explicit idea. In trying to "figure out" the propaganda, the audience forgoes judgment of the ideas presented.
Obtain disapproval or Reductio ad Hitlerum
This technique is used to persuade a target audience to disapprove of an action or idea by suggesting that the idea is popular with groups hated, feared, or held in contempt by the target audience.
Oversimplification
Favorable generalities are used to provide simple answers to complex social, political, economic, or military problems.
Quotes out of Context
Selective editing of quotes which can change meanings. Political documentaries designed to discredit an opponent or an opposing political viewpoint often make use of this technique.-
50%
Klarissa1 year, 1 month ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
For the rest of the types of propaganda, it is here.
Reply
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Propaganda
How many methods do you recognize that were used in this campaign.
And how many civics classes teach students that this is what they will have to deal with when they are old enough to vote? -
-
-
-
-
70%
memestryker1 year, 1 month ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
I found this astounding. I didn't know civics had mostly been dropped in schools. We learned about rhetoric, yellow journalism and mudslinging, the branches of government, the electoral college, and a lot of others things that I've found useful over the years. It was required in middle school and high school when I was an inmate, and even elementary school had some basic teaching.
Reply
-
-
43%
Klarissa1 year, 1 month ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
I think that the Democrat campaign successfully used these methods:
Reply
A Latin phrase which has come to mean attacking your opponent, as opposed to attacking their arguments.
Bandwagon and "inevitable-victory" appeals attempt to persuade the target audience to join in and take the course of action that "everyone else is taking."
Inevitable victory: invites those not already on the bandwagon to join those already on the road to certain victory. Those already or at least partially on the bandwagon are reassured that staying aboard is their best course of action.
Euphoria
The use of an event that generates euphoria or happiness, or using an appealing event to boost morale. Euphoria can be created by declaring a holiday, making luxury items available, or mounting a military parade with marching bands and patriotic messages.
Intentional vagueness
Generalities are deliberately vague so that the audience may supply its own interpretations. The intention is to move the audience by use of undefined phrases, without analyzing their validity or attempting to determine their reasonableness or application.
The intent is to cause people to draw their own interpretations rather than simply being presented with an explicit idea. In trying to "figure out" the propaganda, the audience forgoes judgment of the ideas presented.-
70%
memestryker1 year, 1 month ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
It was so obvious that I was actually surprised that so many who called themselves "highly-educated" didn't know. I remember bringing something from Obama's campaign website to the attention of two teachers, an engineer, and two college professors, and they didn't believe me! They all suggested he couldn't really hold that position. That was in September, and, as far as I know, they never looked.
Reply
I was in a professional meeting Saturday, and one man was actually in tears as he shared with the room the emotion he was still feeling over the election. He actually assumed that everyone in the room had jumped on the bandwagon with him. I didn't bother to tell him I'm a Libertarian. It probably would have drawn gasps.-
-
-
mntnman444Comment removed: Spammer, Hard Banned
-
-
75%
Goppy1 year, 1 month ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Wolfie, I cannot believe what a hostile remark you made to Grrr.
Reply
Grr gave his assessment after reading many of mems remarks over time.
Clearly, Democracy does not suit you.
For anyone that doesn't agree with you is idiotic and uninformed.
Perhaps you would feel more comfortable in Totalitarian Regime?
-
-
-
-
-
53%
pc251 year, 1 month ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
http://penetratinginsights.blogtownhall.com/2008/1...
Reply
Millions of Early Obama Voters Say Oops!
this will be closer to the truth in a short time than the libs
will admit........ -
-
71%
Dionys1 year, 1 month ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
He probably could have run a very successful campaign if he hadn't sold out to the neo-con religious right nutjobs and thereby completely invalidated any hope he ever had of resting upon the 'maverick' status he actually held at one time.
Reply -
55%
nostalgia1 year, 1 month ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
The McCain campaign was one of the most inept I have ever witnessed.
Reply
Why do you think "anonymous" sources within that campaign are attacking Palin?
Who would want to hire campaign staff who did such an abysmal job? They need someone to blame the failure of the campaign on and Palin is an easy target. Their future careers are on the line. -
100%
Tangent0011 year, 1 month ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
I think you're putting the cart before the horse. McCain decided to run a negative campaign. His campaign manager said he wanted to make the election about image, rather than issues.
Reply
The McCain camp wasn't offering any positive messages that differed from Bush policies. What was the media supposed to do?
Headline: "McCain Attacks Obama Yet Again, Isn't that Great?"
Headline: "McCain on Iraq: Stay the Course!"
-
-
56%
stephen-johnson1 year, 1 month ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
FTA:
Reply
"But Obama deserved tougher scrutiny than he got, especially of his undergraduate years, his start in Chicago and his relationship with Antoin "Tony" Rezko, who was convicted this year of influence-peddling in Chicago. The Post did nothing on Obama's acknowledged drug use as a teenager."
The question going forward is whether Obama will get tougher media scrutiny now that he's the president. Somehow I doubt it.-
67%
Tangent0011 year, 1 month ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
"The Post did nothing on Obama's acknowledged drug use as a teenager."
Reply
What were they supposed to do with that? Obama admitted it in his book. People only get in trouble when they refuse to own up to it. "I didn't inhale" is a case in point, as is Bush's coke use.
Rezko? Beating a dead horse is not journalism. BTW, I didn't see the media making a big deal out of the Keating Five, either.
-
-
60%
stephen-johnson1 year, 1 month ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
FTA:
Reply
"But Obama deserved tougher scrutiny than he got, especially of his undergraduate years, his start in Chicago and his relationship with Antoin "Tony" Rezko, who was convicted this year of influence-peddling in Chicago. The Post did nothing on Obama's acknowledged drug use as a teenager."
The question going forward is whether Obama will get tougher media scrutiny now that he's the president. Somehow I doubt it.-
-
63%
stephen-johnson1 year, 1 month ago
-
100%
Tangent0011 year, 1 month ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
What about his undergraduate years?
Reply
What about his start in Chicago?
What about Rezko?
These are all dead horses (like Ayers, Wright, etc.). Sounds like you're looking for a witch hunt. You all were so desperate to find a 'smoking gun' in Obama's past that you still assume one exists.-
50%
stephen-johnson1 year, 1 month ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
They are all dead horses because Obama is the president-elect. But if Obama's relationship with Wright had been public knowledge before the primaries began, it would have had some effect on the outcome, don't you think.?
Reply
We may not know much about Obama before he became the president-elect, but that won't be the case going forward. Unless, of course, the media keep their heads in the sand:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/artic...
"Journalists, who were widely seen as giving Obama an easy ride during the campaign, generally hailed his election as a breakthrough moment for racial progress. Once a president takes office, though, an adversarial relationship usually flourishes, at least with beat reporters."
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
50%
lovemylibs1 year, 1 month ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Except for the fact that Hillary Clinton herself claimed that she experienced a pro-Obama bias with the media. Remember the SNL skit about the pillow.
Reply
Anyway, the pro-Obama bias was evident and expected.
Chris Matthews now views his job as a journalist to entail making Obama as successful as he can. As a journalist, his first repsonsibility should be to reporting facts.
-
-
-
mntnman444Comment removed: Spammer, Hard Banned
-
-
72%
Ratskii1 year, 1 month ago
-
57%
slate1 year, 1 month ago
-
79%
Ratskii1 year, 1 month ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
I'm saying that you're picking your sources selectively. I'm also saying, hey, give your opposition a chance. We came up in support of Bush after 9/11, you don't think he got that 92% approval rating without us, do you? No the media didn't shill entirely in Obama's favor. What they did do was ignore rumors being passed around about both Obama and McCain which they couldn't verify. For example -- did you see the major media pursuing the claims that McCain betrayed this country while he was a prisoner of war.
Reply
Fact: The major media did not forward your idiotic claims about Obama--claims that couldn't be verified or that they were able to show weren't true.-
36%
nostalgia1 year, 1 month ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Ratskii
Reply
Wait for the books that are going to be published going into detail on Obama's history - his ties to Rezko, Ayers, Wright and others in the Chicago political machine; his elections to the IL Senate and his race for the US Senate; the fraud in the caucus states during the primaries and on and on.
Who is going to write those books - reporters who wouldn't write the stories while the campaign was going on
They are going to make a fortune now "outing" the real Obama -
71%
hyperbola1 year, 1 month ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Well Slate, you must be way out in the provinces somewhere if you think talk radio is "fair and balanced". Real progressive ideas are almost totally without representation in America at present. One of the reasons the US is increasingly out of tune with the rest of the world.
Reply
Silence on War Crimes
It’s a sad indictment of a country’s state of mind when the ruling administration has been devoted to dictatorial powers and war crimes, but an election campaign comes and goes as though it had never happened.
http://www.propeller.com/story/2008/11/06/silence-... -
75%
slate1 year, 1 month ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
I’ve already made it very clear that I support Obama now that he’s won. Having the media shill and have a thrill (running up their legs) and doing everything they can to not only help their guy win, but to do everything they can to make him successful once there. Is this what you mean by asking me/us to give a chance?
Reply
Surely, you understand what this means? It means that the media can also do this for or against someone you support or don’t as well. Since when has it become part of the media’s job to obfuscate issues and basically chose our presidents, by how they decide to cover them?
You on the left hate talk radio because they have a voice against this sort of thing. At least we know they lean one way and they are truthful. Yet other than a few shills that I no longer listen to, the radio folks usually talk about both sides and they usually put those of the opposing view to the front of the line, for balance and hearing the other view as well actually sells more so than a one view program. That’s why they are successful and the dinosaur networks and papers are dying on the vine.
Having the media cheat is the worst kind of cheating in an election.-
71%
slate1 year, 1 month ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
you must be way out in the provinces somewhere
Reply
Yeah I know. The 4th largest ;province' in the country. Where do you live Hyper?
You really think there is no 'progressive' ideas out in America?
CNN, MSNBC, CBS, ABC, NBC, Print Medea, all the internet sites such as this one, the KOS, Huff N Puff.
Radio is there to help balance things out, that is why it became popular after every right leaner got tired of only getting the left's perspective form an industry run and anchored by unabashed leftist. tingle TINGLE.
Dictatorial? Show me one dictator that would leave after a vote of the people? Can you name one? Bush is leaving in a few weeks and you still play that silly notion.
Viva Israel Hyper! -
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
38%
GutsyMSUSA1 year, 1 month ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Exposing Obama's lack of fiscal experience,i.e.; running a corporation, balancing a huge budget, actually producing income, instead of acquiring it from social sources.....would have doing Americans a service...One in which now we will sadly just be pawns in the game of "Let's see if this works"..then hearing the big "oops"....
Reply
All financial pundits say we are in for a really big financial disaster with Obama at the helm...and they say he should fire himself immediatley....Doesn't sound good....Now, arent you sorry you didnt report the "real story"....????-
64%
most_reasonable1 year, 1 month ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
We all remembered Bush's vaulted promise of experience as a Governor, and the ONLY candidate that ever ran a business (of course he ran it into the ground).
Reply
Nice job he did, but I bet the right wing posters here, STILL think he did a great job. -
-
57%
jbgiraffx-881 year, 1 month ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Hey, GutsyMSUSA, you're an idiot. Mostly, the government doesn't "sell" anything to make a profit. They collect money, from "SOCIAL SOURCES", like you and me - it's called taxation. They say, "we want it," and we go to jail if they don't get it. How is that more like "running a corporation" than it is like running a multi-billion dollar campaign? Not only has McCain never run a corporation, his campaign didn't even collect as much money or run as efficiently as Obama's. As you're hero the Bush, when he ran corporations they failed. As Jay Leno would say, "Oh, Shut Up!"
Reply
-
-
-
50%
gerrywong1 year, 1 month ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
This is American Politics! It is definitely not democracy. Sadly, voters allow themselves to be manipulated by the retoric. In four years our Democratic congressional representatives will have received millions in lobbying money from bailed out companies. The middle class, who are doing their civic duty and spending less so they can pay more taxes so professional politicians can get re-elected because they took good care of the poor and themselves with our money, are going to wake up and blame Barak for not making any progress. He will take his payoffs like Clinton did and make big bucks as a retired president and the next guy will come along to dupe the voter.
Reply
In the days of Tammany Hall, they called this kind of politics crooked. Today they call it Democracy and the media is giving an open forum to their "Reporters"....Or rather, new age apostles of manipulation. -
-
-
70%
memestryker1 year, 1 month ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
But Newsmax and Human Events sell themselves as conservative, so no one expects to get unbiased news. If I want to see in-your-face bias, I'll visit Daily Kos or Free Republic (I read everything I find time to read).
Reply
People still expect reporting all sides of issues from WaPo, and are surprised when its strict bias is brought to their attention. I usually agree with their bias on most issues, but where I don't, it's strikingly obvious where they stand.
-
-
75%
djn3nunez31 year, 1 month ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Yes! Yesss!! .... Mm, your tears are so yummy and sweet.
Reply
http://www.dailynugget.com/2003/06/ -
-
89%
demshosingyou1 year, 1 month ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
From Wikipedia: Propaganda is aimed at influencing the opinions or behaviors of large numbers of people. As opposed to impartially providing information, propaganda in its most basic sense presents information in order to influence its audience. Propaganda often presents facts selectively (thus lying by omission) to encourage a particular synthesis, or gives loaded messages in order to produce an emotional rather than rational response to the information presented. The desired result is a change of the cognitive narrative of the subject in the target audience to further a political agenda.
Reply
Propaganda is the deliberate, systematic attempt to shape perceptions, manipulate cognitions, and direct behavior to achieve a response that furthers the desired intent of the propagandist.
—Garth S. Jowett and Victoria O'Donnell, Propaganda and Persuasion-
-
86%
memestryker1 year, 1 month ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
It doesn't seem biased when one agrees.
Reply
I'm pro-second amendment, for example, and WaPo has printed biased stories based on bad data covering this issue on multiple occasions I can specifically think of off the top of my head. They simply didn't do their homework.
I'm also pro-first amendment, and they are much more likely to agree with my views on that issue, and it's obvious in which LTEs they choose to publish, which editorials they feature, and whose articles they print.
They've been called on it recently, so maybe they'll try to do a better job.-
67%
GWHayduke1 year, 1 month ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
WOW!
Reply
Meme, I happen to be pro-ALL of the Constitutional amendments.
Are you saying that you dont support SOME of them or that some are more important than others?
Or are you saying that only when the media fails to give equal time to issues you find important that the bias comes out?
I guess you cant have EVERYTHING just the way you want it, but claiming that a bias is evident for a failure to report or because of additional reporting is a FALSE claim.
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
60%
memestryker1 year, 1 month ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
I know quite a few people who voted 3rd party, and it probably hurt McCain. He was in a difficult position--if he didn't go along with Bush, he would have been sidelined, but by trying to be a team player, he lost a lot of the anti-Bush crowd.
Reply-
50%
nostalgia1 year, 1 month ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Many in the Republican party refused to vote for McCain - they knew who McCain really was. Many conservatives simply stayed home - look at the exit polls
Reply
Here is a good explanation of why many conservatives refused to vote for McCain:
Several years ago McCain seriously considered switching parties. He seriously considered being John Kerry’s running mate in 2004. His first choice for his VP running mate was Joe Lieberman. The New York Times endorsed McCain over the other Republican contenders during the primaries. That’s another clue he’s a liberal.
How could McCain run as a tax cutter when he voted against the Bush tax cuts twice, saying they helped the rich out too much?
How do you convince someone you really are in favor of expanded domestic oil drilling when you still oppose it in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge?
How do you convince people you are a conservative when every successful piece of legislation you’ve co-authored has the names of Kennedy, Lieberman or Feingold attached to it?
How do you convince your party members you’re a conservative when you wanted to essentially grant amnesty to illegal aliens under the guise of immigration reform?
What McCain learned, and the Republican National Committee must realize, is that if the electorate wants to elect a liberal for high office, they’ll vote for a Democrat, and not someone posing as one
http://www.northstarwriters.com/gl051.htm-
100%
mesodude1 year, 1 month ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
"Several years ago McCain seriously considered switching parties. He seriously considered being John Kerry’s running mate in 2004. His first choice for his VP running mate was Joe Lieberman."
Reply
--And just to prove the adage that some people never learn, what is it that the GOP is doing this very minute? Why, Republicans are cozying up to greasy turncoat Joe Lie-berman. Not that I *really* care (someone is bound to get screwed before long and I'm happy whether that's Joe or Republicans) but again, why play with fire for a single lousy vote when it's going to come back to haunt the party?
-
-
-
-
-
Nobama_2012Comment removed: Retracted by user5 Replies
-
64%
NoWayMan1 year, 1 month ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
just more crybaby antics from the right.
Reply
one of the main criteria in the article thats used to determine that there was bias in Obama's favor is the fact that Obama had more photos in the paper over a certain time period than McCain did.
but if that's true, then the media was very very biased towards Palin.
what? now you don't want to use that criteria any more?
and back in 2000, the media barely covered Bush's past drug use, so to use that as a criteria for bias in Obama's case is also false.
and then there's the fact that the media (including the NYTimes) lead the cheers when we were stupidly stumbling into Iraq...
bottom line: whatever.
keep checking the scoreboard cons.
you still lost. -
43%
NoWayMan1 year, 1 month ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
just more crybaby antics from the right.
Reply
one of the main criteria in the article thats used to determine that there was bias in Obama's favor is the fact that Obama had more photos in the paper over a certain time period than McCain did.
but if that's true, then the media was very very biased towards Palin.
what? now you don't want to use that criteria any more?
and back in 2000, the media barely covered Bush's past drug use, so to use that as a criteria for bias in Obama's case is also false.
and then there's the FACT that the media lead the cheers when we were stupidly stumbling into Iraq...
bottom line: whatever.
keep checking the scoreboard cons.
you still lost. -
100%
social06111 year, 1 month ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
The new election will have good and bad impacts on the India after Obama. Outsourcing industry of India is in panic since, the statements of Obama have had been twisted by media and intellectuals in such a manner that a havoc got created that outsourcing work to India will be curtailed. On the contrary, Indian Healthcare and Pharma companies have every reason to cheer over the victory of Obama in US as he has pledged to strengthen global fund.
Reply
get more information on www.made-from-india.com -
50%
memestryker1 year, 1 month ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Either way the election went, I was going to have a fight on my hands. Now I know which issues are front and center.
Reply
I'm pleased that Obama plans to loosen up stem cell research--it has the potential to be a real boon to the economy and help a lot of people.
I'm sorry he's still on his anti-second amendment high-horse, seeking to abridge the constitutional rights of law-abiding citizens in ways that have already been proven ineffective on criminals. He reminds me of Bush in that regard--stubborn and not open to change unless he finds himself cornered.
I'm also sorry he's for faith-based funding and even wants to expand it. I think it flies in the face of the first amendment. If he were to open it to all non-profits and put in a clause that does not allow employment discrimination, then I still wouldn't support it, but I wouldn't fight against it.-
33%
nostalgia1 year, 1 month ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
"I'm also sorry he's for faith-based funding and even wants to expand it. I think it flies in the face of the first amendment. If he were to open it to all non-profits and put in a clause that does not allow employment discrimination, then I still wouldn't support it, but I wouldn't fight against it."
Reply
Shouldn't the major focus be on how effective the program is?
Why continue to throw money into programs that are not effective just because they are NOT faith-based or because they ARE faith-based? -
0%
Wolfie20071 year, 1 month ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
meme
Reply
Why would Obama loosing up on stem cell research be a boon to anything? Stem cell research continues and so far the only positive results that have been discovered have been research done with adult stem cell. Fetal stem cells research has produced no, nada, positive results. Although, fetal stem cell research has been going on for the past eight years some misinformed people think it was curtailed by President Bush. What President Bush did is stop federal money from going toward creating more fetus for the research.
The only people who would be helped by more fetal stem cell research would be the universities and other entities who would stand to get more tax money for research. They really don't care whether it's productive or not, after all, it's only other people's money.
-
-
57%
Jimjn21 year, 1 month ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Just one of most "supposed" news media outlets showing their liberal bent that were blatantly obviously campaigning for Obama.
Reply
This was the most all around blatant liberal bias news coverage or lack of real news coverage I have ever seen in my life. Things like Acorn stealing votes, questionable political ties not fully investigated or reported, irregularities ignored like refusing to declare donations per law downplayed.
It's sad that our news and political processes have gone done the drain so much.-
40%
antibrainwasher1 year, 1 month ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Still don't get it do you? You conservatives need to grow up, or you will never win another election.
Reply
The brains and money have left the GOP, because of ranting idiots spouting lies.
True conservatives are sick of the pack of backwoods ignorant morons foaming at the mouth like Joe the Plumber.
Modern society has grown up, the complexity of problems in finance and international relations requires more than racism and status quo 50's Mcarthistic slander to solve.
Grow up or die, conservatives. Do you really need these evangelical idiots? Do you still you can win with Arian nation religious zealots?
NBC / General Electric/ Universal Studios. conservative corporate controlled, for profit
CBS / Westinghouse Corp conservative corporporate board controlled for profit.
News corp, largest media empire in the world, owned by the far right wing Rupurt Murdock, who invented tabloidism, owner of the Weekly Standard and WSJ. Far, far right wing.
ABC/ Disney....held and owned by a banking Cabal in Israel. Massive corporate structure, multi tiered conservative board controlled for profit.
Time Warner/ AOL/ Netscape/ Propeller. Conservative corporate controlled massive media for profit board controlled empire, cable tv programming and news.
Sinclair Media, Hard, hard right wing media empire controlling local broadcasts in both radio, newspapers, TV. Very religious, very conservative, owned by a billionaire republican.
99% republican controlled, 99% conservative, 100% board controlled, 100% for profit.
PBS...the chairman of PBS was the former Republican political director appointed by Bush.
-
-
-
-
PsychoHosebeastComment removed: Spammer, Abusive2 Replies
-
88%
jbgiraffx-881 year, 1 month ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
As Jay Leno would say, "Oh, shut up!" We, in the USA, NEVER get any full coverage or objective reporting or any other details or comprehensiveness that should be the hallmark of the news. There's no more prejudice here, one way or the other, than there is regarding almost any other issue. All you need do is watch any major or evening news shows on CBS, NBC, FOX, ABC, CNN, HNN, or any other mainstream or local network and then compare it to the stories and reporting on the news from PBS, the BBC or any other EU/Int'l news and you'll see the "news" that we get from our reporters and news readers for the fluff that it is. As for the Washington Post, with a heritage of the likes of Woodward and Bernstein, they should be ashamed. Neither they nor the Times nor any other paper have the same gutsy journalistic research and reporting that could, today, break a story the likes of Watergate. "Oh, shut up!"
Reply-
40%
antibrainwasher1 year, 1 month ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Rupurt Murdock bought the WSJ last year, a national treasure, and now plans to fire 30% of all staff there.
Reply
Sam Zell, the right wing blatant zionist media mogal, bought the LA times, and has now fired almost alll the the pultzer prize winning journalists.
Its called darwinian capatilism, and listen the the righties shout socialist or some dark ignorant McCarthistic slogan, liike the brown shirts shouted in their day.
you are correct, the people I talk to from overseas are amazed at how far right the media is here, they say its worse censorship than in the Soviet Union.
The us media, the purpose of the US media, is to MAKE A PROFIT the stockholders.
The media is selling commercials for Walmart. They are selling patriotism to walmart shoppers.
-
-
33%
Hhussk1 year, 1 month ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
In my opinion, the story is interesting only because of the statistics, not whether they show a left-leaning bias.
Reply
In other words, I could care less about the bias of The Washington Post.
What does interest me is how George W. Bush was treated by the same newspaper in 2000-2001, when he was running against Al Gore. I would be very interested in comparing statistics between that race and this one. As I recall, The Washington Post endorsed Al Gore.
What I have done today is archived this newspiece for its statistical content. In the future presidential races, I will be looking for statistics from this newspaper.
And finally, my goal will be to correlate the bias of the newspaper to its lower and lower readership. Currently, I am involved in research, showing that there is a direct relationship between newspapers that "cover up" news stories and their falling subscriptions. -
-
80%
ETproductions1 year, 1 month ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
John McCain was a great Senator for many years. He was a man who acted on his own principles, often angering his own party by doing so. But in the past two years he abandoned virtually all his principles. He flipped flopped on tax breaks targeted at the rich. He caved in on opposing torture.
Reply
In the face of that, it's ridiculous to demand that the media make up news to make it look like McCain is a man of principle. Would you expect fair and balanced coverage of the trial of a felon? Should the press have to say something scurrilous about the prosecuting attorney and the judge every time they detail a piece of evidence about the accused?
Sometimes, the story is what it is. Partisans may not like it, but it still is what it is. -
50%
BB641 year, 1 month ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
The left wing communist/socialist media that thinks it knows best for everyone as long as you support their belief do as I tell you not as I do, was shilling for Barry? No kidding. I suppose the next thing they're going to admit is that rain is wet. The media in the US no longer is a credible news source. When the likes of Rush, Hanity and Milwaukee's own Belling becomes a more credible news source, you're no longer relevant. They're little more than Goebbels and his Ministry of Propaganda.
Reply-
antibrainwasherComment removed: Spam3 Replies
-
-
antibrainwasherComment removed: Spam
-
-
67%
420nation1 year, 1 month ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
The entire mainstream media was (are) in the tank for Obama. It doesn't take a genius to see that. They wanted the "historic" candidate to win, it was much better for business. That's all the media is now, a business. Profit and loss. Those stories that sell will get their attention. Those that don't won't get reported at all.
Reply
The media in this country is a disgrace. I have to rely upon the foreign media to find out what's REALLY going on in my own country.
Thanks, corporate media! You are totally irrelevant now and I hope your profits continue to dwindle. Perhaps one day you'll once again do what you're SUPPOSED to do: Investigative journalism and informing your readers in an unbiased fashion.
As it is now, you''re on par with The Weekly World News, only not as entertaining, or honest.-
40%
CRYMTYPHON1 year, 1 month ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Why 'in the tank'?
Reply
What exactly is this tank?
Is it a war machine tank, or just a fish tank?
Is it like a hot tub? Do they sit around in it and sip drinks? Are they wearing anything?
Do you think about this a lot?
Are you angry, because you were not invited to get into the tank too?
No, don't tell us; - don't really want to know.
It is those who are least open to the truth, - who are quickest to say that everyone else is lying. All the papers, all the TV news, all the radio programs, all the web news sites, - each covers part of the truth; and that is all we should expect.
If you pay attention to a decent share, then you can know what is going on.
Otherwise you are just one more person calling in to a radio talk-show to agree with themelves.
-
-
33%
CRYMTYPHON1 year, 1 month ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
It is right that someone who spent the last 2 years as a shill for a political wing, should end the campaign spewing out the final bitter dregs of accusation, - against the media ; for being shills !
Reply
There was no lie so base, personal or obviously false, that PC25 did not turn himself into a human sewer conduct, - to bring us the latest rumours, fake interviews, links to links to rants.
And it failed.
Had PC25 and company spent their energy in honest debate, in promoting their own candidate, at least now they could feel it was a race well-run.
But they lied; every chance they could get.
and no one believed them.
What a well-deserved humiliation. -
60%
janesmom1 year, 1 month ago
-
-
60%
jimdoze1 year, 1 month ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
No problems there, Crym. It has already far outshone the Bush Administration in terms of incompetence, malfeasance, waste of money... by neutron bombing the U.S. and World economy with Fanny, Freddie and its related social engineering programs and organizations... facts which will be swept under the rug by the incoming collective "need for change". One has to hope that historians will eventually see things for what they are.
Reply
In terms of the singular events of 11/04/2008 and 01/20/2009, I think it is absolutely fantastic that a black man will assume the office of the presidency. These are monumental events for two very healthy reasons. First, they reaffirm American exceptionalism and, secondly, they eviscerate the politics of victimhood based on skin pigmentation.
My fervent hope is that President Obama and the Democrat Congress will make policy decisions that will 1. continue to steer the foreign policy in such a manner as to prevent large-scale war as has been done since the end of WWII, and 2. manage the self-generated financial crisis in a way that does not freeze up the U.S. and World economy any worse than they are now... this, a crisis which also bears a sizable risk of degenerating into a large-scale war.
Godspeed and Good Luck, Mr. Obama!-
50%
CRYMTYPHON1 year, 1 month ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
I'm having some kind of computer problem.
Reply
It looked (don't laugh) like you had said Obama's presidency had already done worse than Bush's! .
You would think even random static would have trouble with that kind of statement.
Technology; it seems to mock us.-
50%
jimdoze1 year, 1 month ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
It's ok, Crym. Take your time with it. Your computer is not mocking you. I used poetic license to illustrate what is true and undeniable... that Dems such as Barney Frank and Chris Dodd and, yes, even Barck Obama were the primary culprits in facilitating the malfeasance of Fanny and Freddy... thereby precipitating the worst crisis, by many orders of magnitude, to face this country and the world in many decades.
Reply-
67%
CRYMTYPHON1 year, 1 month ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Flat nonsense.
Reply
We ran 2 wars for 7 years, longer than WW2; - and charged it to the deficit .
While giving tax cuts to global corporations, - who re-invested in central america and china .
Of course we went broke.
Not because Dems allowed poor people to take out mortgages,
- but because too many americans became poor .
After 8 years of Republican economic policy,
there was no more money to lend, and no more economy to keep the wheels moving.
'Poetic licsence' is used to express a truth;
not express a lie.-
50%
jimdoze1 year, 1 month ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Definitely "longer than WWII" but less costly than the 5 weeks of Iwo Jima... or, virtually any of the other great campaigns of WWII. Furthermore, by doing what we did in Iraq, we have so far prevented a WWII type war from breaking out in that region. You have seen my reasoning on this before, so I won't bore you with it again. It is doubtful my reasoning would be met by anything other than a harrumph from you anyway.
Reply
The Dems not only "allowed poor people" to take out mortgages. They promulgated legal action against those who would not otherwise lend to poor people... and, in doing so, created the whole sub-prime industry which gnawed away at the foundation of the economy... until it collapsed. Could the Repubs have been more vociferous as to the dangers and additional regulation of these entities? Probably. Should they have been? Obviously! But, it certainly wasn't politically popular to do so, was it? Just check the testimony of Barney, Chris and numerous others on the matter. It is easy enough to find.
"Republican economic policy" DID NOT lead to there being no more money to lend. The sub-prime mortgage mess led to those who had money available to lend refusing to lend due to the shakiness of almost every financial institution who had a piece of the sub-prime mess in their portfolios. If there was no money to lend, the price of money (interest rates) would go through the roof. Pray tell, what are interest rates these days?
BTW, who were the biggest securitizers of sub-prime stuff? Do the names Bear Stearns and Lehman Brothers ring any bells? Any connections there to Fannie, Freddie and CountryWide?
You and yours need to get over this "tax cuts to corporations" thing. Money always seeks a return. If you tax the return out of existence, money will go elsewhere or just sit on its hands. That's a simple fact of economics and of life.
I do agree that outsourcing has, at least temporarily, caused a somewhat lower standard of living for a substantial segment of the U.S. population. However, putting up trade barriers to protect workers only works in the short run and can be very dangerous in the long run as it gives a false sense of security to some segments of the economy and can trigger trade wars which, if history is any kind of guide, can easily devolve into shooting wars. To my way of thinking, the answer to outsourcing is education and improving the human capital of as many as possible.
I do express the truth, Crym. You just can't handle the truth.-
100%
CRYMTYPHON1 year, 1 month ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
"Definitely "longer than WWII" but less costly than the 5 weeks of Iwo Jima... or, virtually any of the other great campaigns of WWII." .
Reply
Was that more poetic license?
Wait; no; it was misdirection.
We were talking about money; and you changed the numbers to lives.
Hey. Good trick.
We charged 7 years of war.
We charged the tax cuts.
The bill came.
This is where the money went.
We have too much debt and no national investment.
This has been the policy you supported.
Loans to poor people did not break our banks.
And me and mine have been saying this would happen. Not you and yours.
Note the latest Nobel prize for economics: Paul Krugman.
On the plus side, I agree I can't handle truth.
Truth is dangerous as a live grenade, and it always scares me when I
pick it up.
But you seem able to toss it about like a street juggler.
boom!-
0%
jimdoze1 year, 1 month ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
"We were talking about money; and you changed the numbers to lives."
Reply
Which, to you, is more important?
Just because you are saying something will happen does not mean you have any clue as to the causes. As such, yours is a form of religious belief... one which does not stand scrutiny to careful observation.
You and I both know that Krugman received the Nobel prize primarily because of his anti-Bush stances much the same way that great peacemaker, Yasser Arafat, received his Nobel Peace Prize.
I'm sorry, Crym, loans to poor people and those not so poor on both sides of the mortgage equation who gamed the system, did break the banks, big time. There is just no denying that.
Money disappears from the system when the money multiplier reverses itself due to lenders sitting on their hands as a result of a major shock to the system, i.e. falling home prices. BTW, your Paul Krugman once devoted an op ed piece to the idea that we need not worry about deflation. Deflation is precisely the phenomenon that policy makers are dealing with right now by injecting massive amounts of capital (money) into the system. That deflation has, at its core, falling home prices which are now reverting to mean after having been artificially inflated by your friends at Fannie, Freddie, Countrywide and their protectors in Washington. Serious deflation is nastier to the body politic than you ever want to know. As such, I fervently hope that policymakers can stop it. So, speaking of boom!, that is what you'll get in a very major way if they can't.-
100%
CRYMTYPHON1 year, 1 month ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
"We were talking about money; and you changed the numbers to lives."
Reply
Which, to you, is more important? "
That's almost good; but I think if you could have thrown in dying puppies, it would have some real power to distract from the subject.
We are talking money.
Money is not as important as lives;
but it is what I commented on;
and what you replied to tell me I was wrong about.
You and I both know that Krugman received the Nobel prize primarily because of his anti-Bush stances .
Nah. Most real economists have been against Bush.
Krugman got the prize for talking sense when others were babbling.
Let's try it ourselves:
Money disappears from the system when the money multiplier reverses itself due ...
No. Money disapears when it is spent ;
if it is not invested in anything that gives us a return, it is gone. .
Tax cuts without spending cuts, is deficit spending.
If the tax cuts are not invested in our country,
it is gone .
Revolutionary!
Definitely worth a Nobel.-
50%
jimdoze1 year, 1 month ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Money does not disappear when it is spent. It changes hands. And when it is spent again, it changes hands again. When asset values deflate, that is when it disappears.
Reply
Don't get me wrong. I am not, nor ever have been, a great fan of deficit spending. And, I am truly heartened that the left now abhors deficit spending. There truly should be unanimity on that issue now!
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
100%
kjecoptex1 year, 1 month ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Isn't Fox News part of the media? ALL their coverage of the campaign was anti-Obama. If you only want your information from sources supportive of your personnal ideology, there are choices. It is better to review several different news sources and take each with a grain of salt.
Reply -
ipich83Comment removed: Hard Banned
-
ipich83Comment removed: Hard Banned
-
sonofreasonComment removed: Hard Banned
-
67%
aapoet1 year, 1 month ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Just because there were more positive things about Obama and more negative things about McCain doesn't mean that the coverage was unfairly skewed toward Obama. If Hitler were running against Ghandi, fair media coverage wouldn't show the same amount of negatives for both guys. Fair coverage is telling the truth as it is. Now, I'm not comparing McCain to Hitler or Obama to Ghandi, but the point is valid. Obama ran a more positive campaign. He was the more even tempered candidate. He has the more stable history. And, when there were negatives to talk about concerning Obama, such as Bill Ayers, it was covered extensively. Fair and balanced do not necessarily go hand in hand.
Reply -
sonofreasonComment removed: Hard Banned1 Reply
-
sonofreasonComment removed: Hard Banned
-
40%
Commodore11 year, 1 month ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
It's not just the Post, it's the entire liberal media. If we were in a communist country (which may happen in a few months) the liberal media would the state run media. Like China or North Korea. Now we have a terrorist sympathizer who wants to redistribute the wealth in office. Good show liberals. I'm sure Obama will keep all his promises. Just like all the other politicians do and I'm sure the miracles you're expecting from him are being put together as we speak.
Reply-
50%
antibrainwasher1 year, 1 month ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
General Electric, a communist corporate organization, how stupid do you have to be to keep vomiting the same crap?
Reply
Westinghouse, a communist liberal corporate for profit? Idiot.
Disney, a communist liberal corporate for Profit? Moron.
New Corp/ Rupurt Murdock/ Wall Street Journal/ Weekly Standard...a communist marxist liberal bias. Not so, congenital idiot.
Time Warner/ AOL/ CNN a liberal communist socialist corporatation? All Those for profit board rooms run by socialists.
How stupid do you have to be to keep regurgitation this liberal media crap?
With commadore, PC and other shills, we have our answer.
It works on the Drug Lamebaugh show......your hero, the drug addicted, closet homosexual, fat, sock puppet for clear channel billionaire, say it's so, so who are you to question your master? -
50%
Goppy1 year, 1 month ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Sorry, Commodore, but none of the intelligent Propeller members buy your Liberal Media Whine.
Reply
It just doesn't work here.
Why don't you try it down on some street corner. Take along a crate of some sort ... stand on it ... and start yelling about Liberal Media there?
You know, right next to the guy yelling 'REPENT NOW, THE END IS NEAR!!
.
-
-
-
sonofreasonComment removed: Hard Banned1 Reply
-
-
sonofreasonComment removed: Hard Banned
-
100%
orndorffter1 year, 1 month ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
11/10/08 To: Propeller Friends and Groups
Reply
In Regards of all our Storys and Comments here at Propeller:
I'v seen the good, bad,and the augly, thats what makes Propeller so great. I feel that we have pleased our readers and Propeller at the same time.Propeller has gave to us the freedom to speak our thoughts and our dreams. We are frequently attacking the Media, and the correspondent of ones comment, our comments have become somewhat the same by putting the blame off on others.Our replys and statements has often stayed or spent on the subject of the storys, which seems the people I have spoke with admires and cannot wait to read more. Regardless of what one say they seem to want more, I myself have learned so much from being here, and thanks to all of you I would not be writing this today.I feel that we are one big happy family no matter what we say to each other in our comments.I want to thank all of you here at Propeller, Thanks for letting me be me. -
Nobama_2012Comment removed: Retracted by user
-
100%
hazzardpro11 year, 1 month ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
wow...look at you democrats, acting like little spoiled children. the level of immaturity has changed me from Dem to the GOP. Republicans at least acted like adults during the campaign, while the Dems acted like, well-like they are acting right now! Grow up people. act like adults, for gosh sakes.
Reply -
TcarosComment removed: Hard Banned
-
Republicrat1844Comment removed: Retracted by user
-
50%
BB641 year, 1 month ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
I have a question. Does the Obama campaign have to declare the total cost of free ads from ABC, NBC, CBS, CNN, PBS and the like? Because I saw very few news reports and tons of puff pieces. That's fine however, they were neither fair nor balanced in the coverage. Palin's daughter knocked up front page. Obama's questionable friends, other than the talk radio guys I must have missed the coverage because I don't remember anyone actually addressing this. Again double standards.
Reply -
100%
rmirod1 year, 1 month ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Unless news organizations are deunionized their opinions will always show a decided slant toward their union brethren. One cannot serve to masters...the truth requires independence of purpose and allegiance.
Reply
No honest newsman in this country who has an ability to think critically, as a true American in the spirit of our founders, and independent of sychophant pressure to conform, would ever allow themselves to be a shill to a politician. Therefore only dishonest and corrupt news organizations would succumb to such "larger purpose".
loading ...
Add a Comment
Sign In With Your Propeller Account
Please keep your comments relevant to this story.
To create a live link, simply type the URL (including http://) or email address and we will make it a live link for you. You can put up to 3 URLs in your comments. Line breaks and paragraphs are automatically converted — no need to use <p> or <br /> tags.