Yeah, it sounds like he his schedule is pretty tight considering that he's running for president. I don't really know. Do you think he is dodging Bill?
Hillary didn't get screwed in the primary, not even close. If women under 45 wanted her to be president, she would have been.
Does Bill O ever admit that he didn't treat a person fairly? Ask Bill to define fair. I don't buy that garbage for one second. Bill is paid to attack. If that means using Hillary as a weapon, so be it.
The police are downplaying this. Is it really no big deal when they find a sniper with intent to kill a candidate? within miles of said candidate?
If Fox doesn't have a dog in the Democratic Nomination Hunt, then maybe they're being a little more analytical of the situation instead of cheerleading. Tho O'Reilly is a pinhead, and I agree with you about Spike Lee being a terrific fellow and one of our great filmmakers. Hillary made her speech last night. I watched it with my wife, and about 3/4 the way through the speech, I mentioned to her how Hillary had done not much more than talk about herself, why she ran, her policy ideas, and REALLY played the gender card to the hilt. While she started and ended by saying she supported Obama and that electing a Democrat was THE most important thing, there was nothing resembling a ringing endorsement of Obama. She only mentioned his name a handful of times in the whole speech. </smile,>Think about what a ringing endorsement of Obama would be. "I know Obama, he's a great man and ready to lead this nation into a brighter future. There is no better person to be president." &c. Instead, it was along the lines of "I was the best choice, but since I am not the nominee, we have to elect Obama because he's better than McCain." <smile, wink="">Do you agree? One way to cover the news is to say what I just wrote. Another is to say "she hit the ball out of the park and united the party." The former is truthful, the latter is wishful thinking. For the record, I do think she made a terriffic speech, did hit it out of the park, but it fed her agenda only. The superdelegates are still not bound by any rules to vote for Obama, and it was a sneaky backhanded way for her to bring out the most in any buyer's remorse they might have in choosing Obama over her. With Obama's weak showing in the polls, she effectively presented herself as a viable alternative. </smile,>
I thought the beginning of her speech was self-serving, and done intentionally or not it was divisive just as you stated. She should make people forget about the bitter primary process, but she's just bringing up freshly healed wounds. Whatever, I don't give much importance to her speech either way.
Sorry it took me so long to respond, been busy, but here it goes... Wow, this is such an atrocious and totally unapplicable analogy it makes me sick. If I was talking strictly about campaign ads, then yes, you would blame the McCain campaign for not spending as much money on advertising. However, we are talking about coverage of the candidates on major news networks. CNN is seemingly ALWAYS talking about Obama and generally speaking he can't fart without them knowing about it. When Obama took his trip overseas he had the 3 biggest anchors following him everywhere and wall to wall coverage every step of the way. When McCain made his most recent trip earlier in the year, CNN reported on it from New York, and it appeared in the "in other news" portion of the broadcast. As for Fox News "smearing" Obama with racist and untrue slander...I'd challenge you to post youtube videos of this supposed slander and I'll go out on a limb and say that I can probably find factual backing for the videos you post. If you want to go into Fox news being biased (sorry, can't help but laugh hysterically given the bias of other news networks) I could always bring up the George Mason study that proves Fox News to be the most balanced news network in existence. http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/505231/media_reports_hard_on_clinton_fox_most.html You didn't say it was a big deal, however that was the conclusion I came to after reading the thread, my apologies. Well if you are impartial and vote for who is the better candidate, then what is it about Obama that makes him a better candidate than McCain? Before you respond, "It's time for a change" won't do. 1. Yes 2. I have no problem with Liberals wanting him to be President, however when you are a liberal who has influence over public opinion and change your broadcasting to show your candidate in the best possible light, yes I have a problem with that. 3. Nice job trying to paint me as a racist. I object to the notion that "It's time for a black President" simply because it will never just be time for a black President. When a candidate comes along who is the best man for the job and happens to be Black, that will be the time. Until then, you don't force some inexperienced jackass into office for the sake of having a black man run the country. For the record, I'd vote for Colin Powell over McCain. 4. He hasn't Once again, horribly wrong. The people to blame for Obamas ridiculous edge in press coverage are the head honchos at CNN and MSNBC. The republican party has NOTHING to do with how much press McCain gets on these networks. I can complain because it is unfair. Liberals control the vast majority of news you see today, with their own tilt on it. I am all for Freedom of the Press, however this is becoming a problem because of the massive influence these networks have on the country.
*Sigh* I thought we were done with this. First and foremost, I was not trying to paint you as a racist. 50 Cent even said that America might not be ready for a black president, his reasoning being an assassination attempt. I don't agree with that reasoning and 50's opinion is irrelevant to me, but the point is there are many people of all races who think America is not ready for a black president. I label them all as ignorant, which is how I referred to you, not as a racist. Once again, read before posting. But since you didn't, here's the quote. I'm not going to post a bunch of clips for you of racism towards Obama on the part of Fox News, if you are really oblivious to it then your complaints of unbiased coverage are completely invalidated to me because you clearly do not follow both sides of the issue. Ann Coulter called him Hitler, they accused he and his wife of making a terrorist fist pound, focused on him being half black (which is true, but consider the motivation behind that statement), focusing on the fact that his middle name is Hussein. What is to be gained by me posting all that stuff here, you trying to justify it all? Anyway I'd rather move on but feel free to have the last word .
LOL. Okay wait a minute. So you have a problem with Liberal coverage being too pro Obama, but no problem with FOX's slander towards Obama? As evidenced in this quote from your last post. Okay, I'll gladly wait while you show me some factual backing that Obama is a terrorist and a modern day Hitler. You say that you have a problem with liberals with influence changing broadcasting to favor Obama, but no problem with FOX doing the same to hurt him? Brilliant.
This is not a right wing WWW site: http://www.talkleft.com/story/2008/4/17/151133/172 Obama and Ayers: The Khalidi Question By Jeralyn, Section Elections 2008 Posted on Thu Apr 17, 2008 at 05:11:00 PM EST The Swamp has a long profile on University of Chicago Professor William Ayers. I don't think that Obama's association with Ayers is a problem because of Ayers' Weatherground past. And I support President Clinton's pardon and clemency for the two members of the group because it was based upon valid considerations and because we need Presidents who give more, not fewer grants of clemency. In addition, I have admired Ayers and his wife, Bernadine Dohrn, for taking in and raising Chesa Boudin from the age of 14 months, when his parents, Kathy Boudin and David Gilbert, were arrested for their misdeeds with the Weather Underground. Chesa went on to graduate from Yale and become a Rhodes Scholar and an advocate for children of the imprisoned. A few years ago he wrote a very moving article, I am the son of Inmate 83A6158, about a jail visit with his parents. Kathy Boudin finally was released on parole in 2003. I also applaud the work that Ayers and his wife Bernadine Dohrn and Obama have done on behalf of juvenile offenders. For the past few weeks, however, I have been concerned about a totally different issue with respect to Prof. Ayers: his political views concerning Palestine and Israel. The LA Times recently explored Obama's connection to those politics through his and Ayers' service on the board of the Woods Fund, during which time he and Ayers voted to award a grant of $70,000 to an organization created by Rashid Khalidi. The article raises questions about the depth and sincerity of Obama's expressed support for Israel. [FONT=verdana, arial, helvetica, sans-serif] [/FONT] Khalidi, like Ayers, held a fundraiser for Obama at his home. The Ayers event was in 1995 as Obama was making his first bid for the Illinois state senate. Khalidi held his event for Obama in 2000 when Obama made his failed bid for the U.S. House. From the LA Times article linked above: In 2000, the Khalidis held a fundraiser for Obama's unsuccessful congressional bid. The next year, a social service group whose board was headed by Mona Khalidi received a $40,000 grant from a local charity, the Woods Fund of Chicago, when Obama served on the fund's board of directors. At Khalidi's going-away party in 2003, the scholar lavished praise on Obama, telling the mostly Palestinian American crowd that the state senator deserved their help in winning a U.S. Senate seat. "You will not have a better senator under any circumstances," Khalidi said. The following is taken from a column about a debate on Mideast policy that took place at Columbia University in 2005, at which Khalidi was a panelist [Mideast Parley Takes Ugly Turn At Columbia U., The New York Sun, February 4, 2005, available on Lexis.com.] How did a great institution of higher learning allow itself to be transformed into a platform for vicious political propaganda and hate speech directed against one country, Israel? Surely one crucial moment in this transformation was Columbia's decision to raise $4 million - including a contribution from the United Arab Emirates - to create the Edward Said endowed chair in Arab studies, and then to give the prize to professor Khalidi. We don't doubt that Mr. Khalidi has academic credentials. Compared to professors Massad and Pappe, he is a model of decorum and moderation. But when Columbia academic officials made this choice they knew they were getting a Palestinian political activist. From 1976 to 1982, Mr. Khalidi was a director in Beirut of the official Palestinian press agency, WAFA. Later he served on the PLO "guidance committee" at the Madrid peace conference. In bringing professor Khalidi to Morningside Heights from the University of Chicago, Columbia also got itself a twofer of Palestinian activism and advocacy. Mr. Khalidi's wife, Mona, who also served in Beirut as chief editor of the English section of the WAFA press agency, was hired as dean of foreign students at Columbia's SIPA, working under Dean Anderson. In Chicago, the Khalidis founded the Arab American Action Network, and Mona Khalidi served as its president. A big farewell dinner was held in their honor by AAAN with a commemorative book filled with testimonials from their friends and political allies. These included the left wing anti-war group Not In My Name, the Electronic Intifada, and the ex-Weatherman domestic terrorists Bernadine Dohrn and Bill Ayers. (There were also testimonials from then-state Senator Barack Obama and the mayor of Chicago.) The message sent by Columbia University officials by this choice was that they were determined to honor the memory of Edward Said by continuing to have radical Palestinian activism on campus. I don't know whether this column is right-wing propaganda or has some kernels of truth. But Obama has placed Khalidi in issue by his outreach to Jewish voters in the presidential campaign and his statements at a campaign event such as "Nobody has spoken out more fiercely on the issue of anti- Semitism than I have." It would be one thing if he acknowledged, if true, that he wasn't always such a strong supporter of Israel -- particularly while he was a state legislator in Illinois -- and explain his evolving positions. Or, if he thinks he has been consistent in his support for Israel, explain this. I'd like to hear him distance himself from the expressed beliefs of Rashid Khalidi, just as he has distanced himself from objectionable remarks of Louis Farrakhan and Rev. Wright. Larry and Susan at No Quarter have been all over Khalidi and Obama and Ayers. I have far fewer problems with Ayers than Larry and his co-bloggers, and certainly none based on his work on behalf of juvenile offenders. But I would like an explanation from Obama on his expressed support for Israel and his past support for Khalidi, which was shared by Ayers. In view of Obama's extensive reachout to Jewish voters, I think that's a reasonable request. Again, my prior post on this is here.
Again, speaking of media bias.... <object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/JJbAS9z4N8Q&hl=en&fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/JJbAS9z4N8Q&hl=en&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object> <object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/gIlRogxCnW4&hl=en&fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/gIlRogxCnW4&hl=en&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>
I could see multiple points being expressed in the posting of those two videos concerning media bias, even in the second video alone. Which point were you trying to make? Only asking because I was not sure.
It underscores my point above. People like KO turning on anyone that doesn't kiss Obama's ass or MSNBC's ass. It's really not more media bias as it is jealously of Fox News.
That's a good point Real. I also thought it was interesting that the lady in the second clip kept telling Wolfson that he was making good points. Generally media should just state the point or acknowledge it and move on.
I find it amusing that MSNBC is taking potshots at Fox for signing up Hillary's press guy when MSNBC was all over hiring Bush's press guy when he wrote a tell-all book. It was very much the same deal in both cases.
Ann Coulter is a GUEST on Fox News if I recall correctly. Shes also a right wing nutjob and can be expected to make stupid statements on a pretty regular basis. E.D. Hill is a Fox Anchor and that comment isn't exactly appropriate either. However those 2 things alone are not Fox News blatantly spinning their programming to be positive for one candidate or another. Pulling a page from your weak play book, why don't you READ my whole post and you'll notice I never said I didn't have a problem with it. Of course I cannot find anything to prove Obama is a terrorist or Hitler. I could very easily find some evidence that some of his close associates are though. The bottom line is this, the bias of CNN and MSNBC are beyond arguing. I also like how you totally dodged the fact that your reply to my original post was an epic failure due to you not understanding the difference between network coverage and campaign ads.
MSNBC prez defends convention team By: Michael Calderone August 27, 2008 10:57 PM EST DENVER — Amid a spate of awkward on-air conflicts among MNSBC anchors at this week’s Democratic convention, some staff members say there are sharp internal disputes at the cable network over whether its opinion and personality-driven political coverage has crossed the line. “The situation at our channel is about to blow up,” a high-ranking MSNBC journalist told Politico on Wednesday. Two other MSNBC sources said some of the testy on-air exchanges between Keith Olbermann — whose quick-witted and often caustic commentary has fueled ratings growth — and other network personalities were a public glimpse of much more intense behind-the-scenes turmoil. As replays of the conflicts became YouTube hits, MSNBC President Phil Griffin gave his first public defense in a Politico interview. “MSNBC does not have an ideology,” Griffin said. “We hire smart people who are passionate about their love of politics and love of news.” “Do I want them to have squabbles?” Griffin asked. “No. But I understand they’re human.” In addition to Olbermann, MSNBC personalities Chris Matthews, Joe Scarborough and David Shuster were involved in Denver controversies. On Monday evening, Olbermann interrupted Scarborough while he was talking about McCain being competitive in the polls. “Jesus, Joe, why don’t you get a shovel?” Olbermann remarked. On “Morning Joe” the following day, a clearly agitated Scarborough went off on Shuster during a discussion of Iraq, which quickly devolved over several cringe-worthy minutes into personal attacks, such as Scarborough telling the world how his colleague missed the show three times by oversleeping. "Are you Rip Van Shuster?” Scarborough asked. “Have you been sleeping for the past couple of months?” But Scarborough, a former Republican congressman from Florida, became enraged when Shuster made a reference to “your party.” Asked by Scarborough what his party was, Shuster said he was an “independent.” "I feel so comforted by the fact that you're an independent,” Scarborough said, in a mocking tone. “I bet everybody at MSNBC has independent on their voting cards. Oh, we're down the middle now.” (Shuster left the set, but returned later to hug it out, "Entourage"-style.) That night, Scarborough told NPR that he “get frustrated by people who have an obvious partisan bias that don't proclaim that bias.” The old debate over election coverage bias was given new life on Sunday, when Democratic Pennsylvania Gov. Ed Rendell — who’d remarked during the primaries that Fox News was the “most objective” network — told a panel of Sunday show anchors, including NBC’s Tom Brokaw, that “MSNBC was the official network of the Obama campaign." “I’ve got to laugh a little bit,” Griffin said, over the notion that MSNBC has an agenda, while Rendell is “the voice of reason.” “Ed Rendell, bless his soul, has an agenda,” Griffin said. “Period.” Even with Obama as the presumptive nominee, it was MSNBC vs. the Clinton team again, a battle that played out throughout the primaries. During Tuesday night’s broadcast, both Olbermann and Matthews took shots at Howard Wolfson, the Clinton campaign’s former communications director, criticizing him as a Republican collaborator because of his work as a Fox News analyst. Matthews called Wolfson a "little toy soldier waiting on the shelf," while Olbermann compared him to “Tokyo Rose,” the woman who delivered propaganda over the airwaves during World War II. “I think these antics have seriously damaged NBC's brand,” wrote Wolfson in an e-mail to Politico. On Wednesday, Wolfson criticized MSNBC on the air, too. "I'm not gonna take any lectures on how to be a good Democrat from two people who spent the last two years relentlessly attacking Bill and Hillary Clinton every day," Wolfson said Wednesday on Fox News. Also on Wednesday, the New York Post reported that Olbermann was an obstacle in allowing McCain adviser-turned-NBC political analyst Mike Murphy to get on the air during the convention. Murphy was bumped from Monday’s convention coverage due to “technical difficulties,” the Post reported. He also didn’t appear on Tuesday. “I’m told I’ll be on the air tonight,” Murphy said, when reached by phone Wednesday. And so will Olbermann and Matthews, anchoring on a big night when Bill Clinton hits the stage. But last night the two volatile hosts bickered, with Matthews jumping into the frame as Olbermann introduced House Majority Leader Steny H. Hoyer (D-Md.). "You made that sound, Keith,” Matthews said, raising his voice. “I can do the same to you. That's what I thought, and I said it." Some sources who have worked with Olbermann at MSNBC describe him as a difficult colleague, and one source said that there are tensions with Matthews. Regardless, Griffin said he has faith in his convention anchors — including Olbermann, a scourge of the right — for both the final days in Denver and next week in St. Paul, Minn. “Look, when Keith anchors, he plays it straight down the line,” Griffin said. “This is our team. They’ve served us well. We love ’em, and we’re going to be at the Republican convention, and it’s going to be great. And I don’t have any hesitation.” © 2008 Capitol News Company, LLC http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0808/12900.html
