U.S. Elections 2008: General Elections -- Analysis and Commentary

[Koga No Goshi]

How is using Bush as a platform to get elected show more substance then using moral issues?

How is pointing out that McCain offers nothing substantively different from 8 years of Bush off-topic?

[Lord Winter]

I'm not saying that Obama has no substance, I already admited that overall Obama is doing a better job of running a campigen based on the issues. However the democratic party as a whole is not as aloft from partisinship as you think it is. I'm just tired of hearing my democratic senate candiate run his whole campigen around the idea that EVERY republican is the same as Bush. His oppenet in question is a fairly moderate (though I would perfer slightly more) republican that has gone against Bush. Yes comparing MaCain's policy to Bush is valid you just can't use that in every single race. It shows nothing about what the party is going to change and its hippocritical when many democrats supported the same things there now using against the GOP.

[Koga No Goshi]

I'm not saying that Obama has no substance, I already admited that overall Obama is doing a better job of running a campigen based on the issues. However the democratic party as a whole is not as aloft from partisinship as you think it is. I'm just tired of hearing my democratic senate candiate run his whole campigen around the idea that EVERY republican is the same as Bush. His oppenet in question is a fairly moderate (though I would perfer slightly more) republican that has gone against Bush. Yes comparing MaCain's policy to Bush is valid you just can't use that in every single race. It shows nothing about what the party is going to change and its hippocritical when many democrats supported the same things there now using against the GOP.

A) Nobody said the Democratic Party is stringently clean of partisanship.
B) I'm tired of people excusing pretty much any incompetency or poor campaign or slew of attack ads with "but sometimes Dems do it, too." Is this Republicans' grand strategy to convince independents that they are better than the Democrats?

[Seamus Fermanagh]

Something I didn't know from fivethirtyeight.com:

Still it seems that Obama has reached his "ceiling", the maximum number of people who would vote for him. It looks like things will tighten as we get close to Election day. The question is, will it tighten enough for McCain to eke out a victory?

I think they'll tighten as well. The key, as always, is the distribution of those percentages. A minority grand total of support, placed in the correct combination of states, yields a majority in the electoral college.

Florida is, by all accounts, too close to call.

Obama could run the table in OH, PA, VA, NM, WI, MI etc., or McCain could squeeze by to win and turn the tables.

Btw, I don't think you should dismiss Zogby's numbers quite so quickly. A majority of Americans still self-report themselves as conservative or somewhat conservative. Obama clearly has a modest advantage, and we have finally reached the point in time where people start to wake up and think about voting (aside from us politico junkies, we decided a long time back). It will be very interesting to see the trends over the next 14 days.

[Lord Winter]

A) Nobody said the Democratic Party is stringently clean of partisanship.
B) I'm tired of people excusing pretty much any incompetency or poor campaign or slew of attack ads with "but sometimes Dems do it, too." Is this Republicans' grand strategy to convince independents that they are better than the Democrats?

Earlier you seemed like you were excusing the democrats from any major campaign failings.
B) Either way it doesn't excuse the GOP or the Dems from substanceless campaign tactics, but I do get tired of everyone saying that the GOP is the only party with a problem and the democrats aren't doing anything wrong either.

[Koga No Goshi]

Earlier you seemed like you were excusing the democrats from any major campaign failings.
B) Either way it doesn't excuse the GOP or the Dems from substanceless campaign tactics, but I do get tired of everyone saying that the GOP is the only party with a problem and the democrats aren't doing anything wrong either.

What I get tired of is, let's take the Obama campaign as an example. Even a lot of the more conservative leaning posters around here have made comments, even in this very thread, that Obama did a better job in the debates of staying on message, on-issue, etc. That McCain frequently meandered off-point and acts exciteable and vague about his plans and policies. I didn't do a count but if you went back through here looking for comments conservatives made about how they've been disappointed with McCain and/or his campaign, they would not be few. And that's not even getting into Governor Palin. *Shudder*

What I get fed up with, though, is the constant insistence that if either party uses a particular tactic, or any obscure element of either base can be found to use a particular tactic, everything is equal and all bets are off and you can't listen to or trust either side. When the Dems or more specifically Obama and his team have put together such a great campaign--- and not just against McCain, few people six months ago thought he could beat Hillary Clinton, including Hillary Clinton. And they have attacked back in a measured manner and almost always in direct response to a slew of negative personal attacks from the McCain camp-- everything from implying Obama is perverted and wants to teach kindergarteners sex education to that he hangs around with domestic terrorists to making vague innuendos about his name, ethnicity or religious affiliations. There are relatively few analysts or commentators out there of even arguably neutral constitution who would deny that the acutely negative tenor of the campaign started with the McCain campaign, and has been consistently perpetuated by the McCain campaign. And I would even go so far as to say that even the sharper attacks by the Obama camp are still basically on-topic and relevant; McCain's connection in the Keating 5 scandal very much calling into question his trustworthiness at the reigns of government with the economic crisis is certainly vastly more relevant than implying Obama hangs out with terrorists because he's participated on some non-profit education issues with some guy who was in the Weathermen back when Obama was six years old-- even though the guy has won citizen of the year type awards since then and somehow no one sees the need to arrest him today and send him off to Gitmo.

It's hard to even get McCain to be on message about anything, and even when he is, he either gives really vague remarks ("I know where Osama is. I know how to get him.") or else changes his position between 8am and 12pm so often it's hard to pin him down. Is he a fiscal conservative or a big government interventionist? Is he for balancing the budget or is he for deficit spending supply siding a la Reagan and Bush? Who knows-- it can change from appearance to appearance. And even the positions he's tried to foothold with like his mortgage buyout plan and his running back to D.C. and cancelling his campaign and his healthcare plan, fail to gain any traction in the polls. So he falls back on attack, attack, attack. That's all you can do when you can't win on the issues. And it's served the Republican Party well in virtually every Presidential election cycle since Bush I. Character assasination and Karl Rove style negative substance-free campaigning with some wedge issues thrown in.

Getting back to the present, though: Obama and McCain. You can look at both campaigns and say "well they have both used some attack tactics, therefore they are both not focusing on substance and I'm sick of both of them." But I think that's a really obtuse view and frankly given the difference in mud vs. message between these two campaigns, which even a lot of conservative posters around here have acknowledged (even if only indirectly by making comments about being "disappointed" with McCain, his campaign, or his performance in appearances) it comes off like making up an excuse not to look at things as they are and instead pretend that the paper mache depth of the McCain campaign is really no worse than what the Dems are doing and so there is no need to change my viewpoint, or how I will vote.

This is one of the best-run, best-managed Dem campaigns in decades. Whereas McCain offers more of the W Bush style Karl Rove "lie, cheat, smear and scare tactic yourself into that bare 51%if you gotta" tactics. To say that they've both been equally negative and off-topic is putting on some neon pink all-weather shades in favor of the Republicans.

[CountArach]

Obama raises $150 Million last month

Senator Barack Obama’s announcement on Sunday of his record-shattering $150 million fund-raising total for September underscored just how much his campaign has upended standards for raising money in presidential campaigns.

His campaign has now raised more than $600 million, almost equaling what all the candidates from both major parties collected in private donations in 2004.

It is a remarkable ascent to previously unimagined financial heights — Mr. Obama’s September total more than doubled the record $66 million he collected in August — that has been cheered by some and decried by others concerned about the influence of money in politics. The impact on the way presidential campaigns are financed is likely to be profound, potentially providing an epitaph on the tombstone of the existing public finance system.

[Don Corleone]

Well, I was starting to actually consider Obama. And then, like a brick to the head, followed by somebody urinating on my back when I'm down, the New York Times comes through and reminds me of who Democrats really are.

An 8 point lead, Obama is getting 1/2 hour blocks of prime time television and playing to sold out crowds in 'battleground' states like North Carolina and how does he choose to play? dirty. He gets his favorite propaganda rag to go do a hatchet job on Cindy McCain, drudging up mud from 30 years go, like the fact that John McCain left Carol McCain for Cindy in the early 80's and that she did painkillers. Now that hatchet jobs on wives are on the table, can't wait to see what skeletons come out of that unglued maniac Michelle Obama's closet. Wonder what she did all those years she was ashamed to be American...

Class. Really classy. And don't give me that that the NY Times does want they want, and it has no ties to the Obama campaign. They won't post the weather without getting it approved by Obama's campaign.

Thanks for settling my mind for me, so I can return to political oblivion early this year. I know McCain has no hope of winning, and based on this article, I know Obama's coming to the door with the guns drawn, kicking everyone in the crotch to make them kneel down. Janet Reno's going to come off looking like Mother Theresa comared to what we're in for in the next four years.

And to think, I almost bought your this time.

[Don Corleone]

For example, let's take a look at this little piece of prose, the 2nd to last paragraph on the first page of the article...

Carol McCain was still a presence on the social scene, working in the Reagan White House and as an events planner. Everyone knew her story: she had stood by her husband during his captivity in North Vietnam, never passing word of a debilitating car accident, only to discover, a few years after their reunion, that he was leaving her for a younger, richer woman.

Class. Real class. What the was I thinking? Of course Democrats' ideas sound good... they say whatever you want to hear... they don't mean any of it. It's all about getting elected by any means necessary, and and to anyone that gets in their way.

Cindy McCain? Really? A 30 year old divorce and an addiction to painkillers? That's where you want this fight? Fine. My new hobby is finding every last piece of I can on Bill Ayer's Pal and his wife, the Ashamed American.

[Ronin]

just for you don!

[Don Corleone]

Amen Brother Ronin.

[m52nickerson]

@ Don

Senator Obama controls the NY times and were considering voting for him just as much as I have a third arm growing out of my head.

Spare us the melodrama!

[Don Corleone]

@ Don

Senator Obama controls the NY times and were considering voting for him just as much as I have a third arm growing out of my head.

Spare us the melodrama!

The NY Times has been in lockstep with the Obama Campaign since the primaries. I'm sorry, I just don't see that they would do the hatchet job on pill-popping Cindy the Homewrecker without at least tacit approval from Obama's communication director. I just don't believe it. I really, to the depths of my core, believe that the Obama campaign vetted that story before it ran.

I've calmed down some, but I haven't backed off my thinking. I knew that McCain had some slimers working for him, and it's why I was leaning towards Obama in the first place. Now that I see Obama's seeing McCain's personal attacks, and raising him with a personal attack on McCain's wife, well, let's just say any considerations I had for exploring the other side of the street just went right out the window.

You can call me a kook and a fruitbat all you want, you're not going to change my mind. That was payback straight from Obama's camp for all the Bill Ayers associations.

If you're really being honest and you don't think Obama had anything to do with this story... ask yourself, why would the NY Times run something like that in the first place? They whored themselves, they've cost themselves a lot on the credibility scale, and you're going to tell me that they did it out of the goodness of their hearts? No. This is about Obama taking religious-right voters away from McCain, and punching McCain's wife at the same time.

You know, you add up Hillary, Sarah Palin and now Cindy McCain... Obama really seems to have some issues with respect for women, doesn't he?

[Dutch_guy]

Well, I was starting to actually consider Obama. And then, like a brick to the head, followed by somebody urinating on my back when I'm down, the New York Times comes through and reminds me of who Democrats really are.

So you're going to base your vote on something a magazine said, instead of on his policies and merit ?

You can call me a kook and a fruitbat all you want, you're not going to change my mind. That was payback straight from Obama's camp for all the Bill Ayers associations.

But as far as I know, McCain's mudslinging campaign didn't do much for him at all. It lost him credibility, and didn't win him the votes he needed - as the polls show he's still lagging behind. So why would the NY times risk so much to put 'their' candidate in harms way, just to score a cheap point against McCain's wife ?

[Koga No Goshi]

The NY Times has been in lockstep with the Obama Campaign since the primaries. I'm sorry, I just don't see that they would do the hatchet job on pill-popping Cindy the Homewrecker without at least tacit approval from Obama's communication director. I just don't believe it. I really, to the depths of my core, believe that the Obama campaign vetted that story before it ran.

I've calmed down some, but I haven't backed off my thinking. I knew that McCain had some slimers working for him, and it's why I was leaning towards Obama in the first place. Now that I see Obama's seeing McCain's personal attacks, and raising him with a personal attack on McCain's wife, well, let's just say any considerations I had for exploring the other side of the street just went right out the window.

You can call me a kook and a fruitbat all you want, you're not going to change my mind. That was payback straight from Obama's camp for all the Bill Ayers associations.

If you're really being honest and you don't think Obama had anything to do with this story... ask yourself, why would the NY Times run something like that in the first place? They whored themselves, they've cost themselves a lot on the credibility scale, and you're going to tell me that they did it out of the goodness of their hearts? No. This is about Obama taking religious-right voters away from McCain, and punching McCain's wife at the same time.

You know, you add up Hillary, Sarah Palin and now Cindy McCain... Obama really seems to have some issues with respect for women, doesn't he?

*This* is what decides your vote? Months of negative McCain campaigning, and now something about McCain's marriage history (was on-topic for Giuliani back in the primaries..) and Cindy McCain is what gives you that last excuse to vote Republican?

If these are the sorts of things that decide your vote, don't complain about the use of dirty tactics in campaigns. For some bizarre reason this one hatchet in the NY times decides the course of the country for the next 4-8 years for you, but negative campaigning in the opposite direction like the McCain robocalls implying Obama is a terrorist are actually gaining McCain voters in states like Ohio. So as long as people will give away their vote (for or against) based on smear tactics, they're going to continue to be used I expect.

Cast your vote anyway you wish, Don. But it's rather nervy to make pretense that by not voting Obama, what you're doing is voting against smear tactics, when McCain's campaign has been virtually nothing but smear.

[TinCow]

Simply put, mudslinging is used because it works. It may sometimes backfire, but on average it gains more voters than it repels. That's why it has been an integral part of pretty much every political campaign since recorded history began. I don't blame the politicians for it anymore, I blame the people who are influenced by it. It's no different than the War on Drugs. Going after the producers is a hopeless battle, the only real way to have an impact is by reducing demand.

[Koga No Goshi]

Simply put, mudslinging is used because it works. It may sometimes backfire, but on average it gains more voters than it repels. That's why it has been an integral part of pretty much every political campaign since recorded history began. I don't blame the politicians for it anymore, I blame the people who are influenced by it. It's no different than the War on Drugs. Going after the producers is a hopeless battle, the only real way to have an impact is by reducing demand.

When they were competing for legitimacy against each other, Marc Antony alleged that Octavian only held so much favor from Caesar because he provided sexual favors to him.

So yes, as TinCow says... it's not going to stop. But I still think someone who says they are deciding their vote by disgust of smear tactics, and then goes and votes for McCain.... is wearing blinders.

[Xiahou]

Just when I was feeling down about this election, Biden, God love him, comes along and promises an intenational crisis within six months if Obama is elected.

Making room in his mouth for the other foot, he goes on to say that Obama's decisions during the crisis will make him unpopular.

To be fair, he tries to go on to claim that he thinks Obama will be tough enough to handle it, but that begs the questions: Why elect Obama in the first place? Vote for McCain instead and the world's bad-actors won't have an inexperienced leader to test in the first place.

On a lighter Biden note, "jobs" is a three letter word.

Just keep telling yourself, Palin is the dumb one- Biden was brought on the ticket for his wisdom and experience, right?

[Don Corleone]

I just don't think it's right to go after McCain's wife. I'll admit, perhaps I had too much coffee on my way in to work when I heard the story on Imus, but seriously, it is pretty slimy. If you want to know who trashed Giuliani over his personal life during the primaries, talk to Mitt Romney.

I just don't know. I really don't know. It seems like such a shallow, meanspirited, SMALL thing to do... to go drop the house, not on McCain, but his wife. I won't argue that McCain has run a clean campaign, but it's not like Obama has either.

It's not a matter of comparing who said what first, or who said what that was worse. What really bothered me about all of this was the decision to go after McCain's wife. And I dont care what anybody says, the NY Times is part and parcel part of the Obama campaign.

Aside from which, I'm starting to question how much Obama will really step in and try to regulate Wall Street, which would be his primary attraction to me. As for McCain, not only did he approve the bailout, he approved the extra 150billion of bribes, with nary a complaint.

I really despise the way our system works sometimes. Its no wonder they're all crooks. Who else would subject their loved ones, spouse AND children, to this sort of abuse.

[Koga No Goshi]

Just when I was feeling down about this election, Biden, God love him, comes along and promises an intenational crisis within six months if Obama is elected.

Making room in his mouth for the other foot, he goes on to say that Obama's decisions during the crisis will make him unpopulalr.

To be fair, he tries to go on to claim that he thinks Obama will be tough enough to handle it, but that begs the questions: Why elect Obama in the first place? Vote for McCain instead and the world's bad-actors won't have an inexperienced leader to test in the first place.

On a lighter Biden note, "jobs" is a three letter word.

Just keep telling yourself, Palin is the dumb one- Biden was brought on the ticket for his wisdom and experience, right?

I don't know why you would posture as if Dems presented Biden as some sort of bastion of perfection. Most of us if you go back in this thread said that he's a gaffe machine and that we were surprised (look at the predictions about the VP debate) that he didn't flub sooner and say something that could be badly misinterpreted. I suppose making up a myth that the DNC has tried to brainwash everyone into believing Biden is without flaw makes you guys seem like more of the media-oppressed underdogs? :) I've never seen anyone say anything positive about him other than he pretty much unquestionably has the resume to be President if need be. George Bush is proof enough that perfect smoothtalking skills or even basic English mastery are not necessary for holding the office. ;)

I just don't think it's right to go after McCain's wife. I'll admit, perhaps I had too much coffee on my way in to work when I heard the story on Imus, but seriously, it is pretty slimy. If you want to know who trashed Giuliani over his personal life during the primaries, talk to Mitt Romney.

She has made herself part of this campaign. Wasn't she the first one who said people shouldn't be dismissing Palin's foreign policy experience because Alaska is within vision range of Russia? You heard that interview where she was asked if McCain ever had any of the symptoms of PTSD, nightmares or cold sweats or anything? Cindy replied "oh no no.. he was trained.... PTSD, that's a problem with the drafted guys."

Personally I consider what they wheel out wives and family members to say on camera to be beneath discussion most of the time. Not off-topic, or inappropriate to discuss-- but beneath discussion because I'm not electing the wife. However if the campaign wheels her out to start making stupid class warfare comments about PTSD and who suffers from it, or why Palin is qualified to deal with foreign leaders, she's going to take some return fire. So if you consider Cindy an innocent bystander we have the McCain campaign as much to blame as anyone for wheeling her out to make canned statements about politics and policies.

Personally, btw, I considered Cindy's comments about PTSD to be every bit as haughtily patrician and offensive as Barbara Bush's "oh well... you know... most of these people were... were underprivileged anyway, so this is really working out quite well for them" about Katrina victims.

[Crazed Rabbit]

And in regards to why a democratic majority is a bad thing:
The Fairness Doctrine
Or, having the government control what TV and radio outlets air.

I can only bitterly laugh at the idea the democrats are going to save our civil liberties after the 'suffering' they've experienced under Bush*.

CR
*note for knee jerk partisans - I'm not saying civil rights didn't suffer, but not to the 'the sky is falling' extent some dems insist, and that the current democratic majority in Congress has done nothing to stem that.

[Kralizec]

ou heard that interview where she was asked if McCain ever had any of the symptoms of PTSD, nightmares or cold sweats or anything? Cindy replied "oh no no.. he was trained.... PTSD, that's a problem with the drafted guys."

The way you put it, it sounds like she meant that people who joined the military voluntarily or who served longer before being shipped off are less likely to get PTSD. Regardless of the validity, I don't see what's offensive about it, much less how you managed to read "class warfare" between the lines.

[Ronin]

Just keep telling yourself, Palin is the dumb one- Biden was brought on the ticket for his wisdom and experience, right?

I never said that Biden was a genious.....but as dumb as Palin???....I´m hard pressed to find anyone has obtuse has her from what I have seen of her.

also....Obama isn´t 72 and with known health issues either...so Biden can sit on his office and watch the clock hands go around...that´s not a problem.

[Xiahou]

I don't know why you would posture as if Dems presented Biden as some sort of bastion of perfection. Most of us if you go back in this thread said that he's a gaffe machine and that we were surprised (look at the predictions about the VP debate) that he didn't flub sooner and say something that could be badly misinterpreted. I suppose making up a myth that the DNC has tried to brainwash everyone into believing Biden is without flaw makes you guys seem like more of the media-oppressed underdogs? :) I've never seen anyone say anything positive about him other than he pretty much unquestionably has the resume to be President if need be. George Bush is proof enough that perfect smoothtalking skills or even basic English mastery are not necessary for holding the office. ;)

Well, Biden was presented as having the experience and foreign policy cred to balance out the ticket. More often than not, they guys sounds like a nincompoop and regularly puts his foot in his mouth. If I may draw the comparison again, McCain is said to have shown a 'lack of judgment' in selecting Palin. What does Biden say about Obama? Of the Democrats who ran in the primary, he picked one of the one's who performed the worst and who has a reputation for embarrassing gaffes. Why didn't he pick Hillary and unify the party? Because he was mad about how ugly the primary got? Because he didn't think he needed her?

[Hooahguy]

And in regards to why a democratic majority is a bad thing:
The Fairness Doctrine
Or, having the government control what TV and radio outlets air.

I can only bitterly laugh at the idea the democrats are going to save our civil liberties after the 'suffering' they've experienced under Bush*.

CR
*note for knee jerk partisans - I'm not saying civil rights didn't suffer, but not to the 'the sky is falling' extent some dems insist, and that the current democratic majority in Congress has done nothing to stem that.

if they pass that bill im moving.....
"fairness doctrine".... yea right...

arent the dems content w/ the newspapers and almost all the TV stations?

[Seamus Fermanagh]

We are at the creschendo.

Every presidential election, this point in time features the most positive assessment of the Democrat's chances. Win or lose, the Dem nominee never does quite as well as the media or the two week out polls suggest.

The big danger now is overconfidence. As Biden's latest gaffe suggests, it is too easy for the frontrunner candidates to start thinking of the task ahead and to lose focus on securing the election. This sense of "asumption" does present an opportunity for the underdog -- especially in a race where, in the privacy of the voter booth, nobody is quite sure how people will vote or why.*

All in all, however, I see no reason to alter my assesment (Obama by 10-15 in the EC).

To get there, he and his advisors have run a very effective campaign. They packaged "change" as a commodity and it sold extremely well in the early primaries. By the time Hillary was able to hammer back enough to force out particulars and detail, his lead was too big to completely overcome. Moreover, his negatives were VERY low for somebody who was in a tooth-and-nail primary battle for that long. Kudos to he and his team. In the general, he was slipping into an even battle with McCain (and such usually end up narrowly in the GOP column) when the payoff for 12 or more years of credit silliness came due. Since Bush, already unpopular following Katrina and the lengthy war on terror, was the resident of 1600 Pennsylvania, most of the "raspberries" being blown are being aimed at him and at his party (With some justification. This problem may have started under Clinton, but NOTHING was done by the Bush admin to change the landscape -- Bush even embraced the pressure for sub-prime lending as part of his "compassionate conservatism").

This economic kerflaffle -- which may still deepen into a debacle -- cut McCain's legs out from under him and was smoothly exploited by Obama and team, who never went over the top, but did take care to connect McCain and the incumbent President as often as possible.


This economic crisis could not have come at a better time for Obama (and no, I'm not blaming him for it, his personal contribution is no more and no less than any other junior Dem senator). Crisis -- any -- is "show time" for the executive (unless your so lame a duck that action would be counted against you regardless of what action you took -- see G. W. Bush). Obama will have, in all likelihood, a strongly Democrat Congress and a nation who are worried, frustrated, and a little scared. In other words, during the 1st year of his administration, enough people will be worried that he should be able to enact significant portions of his political agenda. Then, crowning this, the economic recovery that will happen 12-24 months from now more or less independently of whatever Washington does will create an era of good feelings and positive attitude that will be cast as a direct result of Obama's bold and transformative leadership.

Barring a major foreign policy screw-up or horrid criminal scandal (which Biden is already trying to inoculate against), Obama will set his stamp on American and her culture every bit as powerfully as Ron Reagan, and quite possibly as emphatically as one of the Roosevelts. We are sitting at the threshold of a watershed moment in history, a change in direction and character which will dominate most of the rest of my life (25+ years). If this proves to be the case, I will pray that things turn out well; that I am wrong; and that a shift toward a more European-style socialist democracy is in the best interests of the United States.


*My Father told me on several occasions that, in the election of 1960, he went into his voting booth with the set intention of voting for Richard Nixon. He didn't like Nixon, but did respect Nixon's experience in foreign affairs, his strong stand against Communism, and his overall experience as a leader. Then, in the privacy of that booth, he found that he couldn't vote against the first Irish Catholic nominee to make a serious run at the presidency.

[Koga No Goshi]

And in regards to why a democratic majority is a bad thing:
The Fairness Doctrine
Or, having the government control what TV and radio outlets air.

I can only bitterly laugh at the idea the democrats are going to save our civil liberties after the 'suffering' they've experienced under Bush*.

CR
*note for knee jerk partisans - I'm not saying civil rights didn't suffer, but not to the 'the sky is falling' extent some dems insist, and that the current democratic majority in Congress has done nothing to stem that.

I do not believe the Fairness Doctrine is going to make a return, personally. Leftie pundits are pretty much just as against it as rightie ones. And its elimination spawned a whole new industry of private, for-profit entertainment news that has become utterly entrenched and won't be going away anytime soon.

Out of curiosity, though, since you guys spend so much of your time complaining about MSNBC... what would you have against the fairness doctrine, per se? Or is MSNBC just a convenient rationale for loading up the airwaves with as much exclusively conservative-leaning perspectives as possible and saying it's all okay "because they have the NY Times and MSNBC"?

if they pass that bill im moving.....
"fairness doctrine".... yea right...

arent the dems content w/ the newspapers and almost all the TV stations?

The Fairness Doctrine used to be the law of the land in the U.S. It was smashed by Reagan and had almost nothing to do with "protecting your freedoms of opinion", it had to do with deregulating the news and giving birth to the private sector news-entertainment bastard child that we all know and love today.

The Fairness Doctrine has been suggested by some as a remedy for the increasingly fact-free, partisan-polarity shift in so called "news" in the United States which has resulted from it being deregulated and encouraged to become private and for-profit in paradigm. For profit means if it sells them more advertiser slots to cover Britney Spears that's what you're going to hear about instead of who won the election in the UK or what happened in Pakistan last week. It is not some brand new concept thought up by radical lefties, it's an old law that Reagan got rid of and some have thought might be a good idea to bring back in some form. It's not mind control, it is simply a requirement that in news reporting if you cover controversial topics or partisan topics you must provide airtime to both perspectives on said issue, instead of 9 people all saying the same thing and ignoring opposing viewpoints.

So, before saying ridiculous things like "omg omg violation of freedoms if they do this I'm leaving", get to know the history of the law first.

I never said that Biden was a genious.....but as dumb as Palin???....I´m hard pressed to find anyone has obtuse has her from what I have seen of her.

also....Obama isn´t 72 and with known health issues either...so Biden can sit on his office and watch the clock hands go around...that´s not a problem.

Fairly clearly a double standard going on. Palin is a moron is apparently = Biden says stupid things sometimes. The bar for Palin is just not to drool on herself or completely freeze up and not have an answer, or say something patently false even to underinformed crowds. The bar for Biden is apparently to have no flaw whatsoever, and never say anything that someone would consider stupid. And that makes them equal.

P.S., the Obama camp could have totally soundproof isolation warded Biden from reporters and interviews and none of you on the right would have any right whatsoever to complain about it if you are supporting McCain/Palin. It certainly would have been a way to make sure he never gaffed or said anything controversial. But it wouldn't have been very good for a open democratic process, either.

[OverKnight]

Frontline has a two hour special on both candidates. I watched it and was impressed. While we are all caught up in the daily nitty gritty of the campaign, it's interesting to look back.

Here's a link to view it online: http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontl...oice2008/view/

Edit: I think someone already commented in this thread on former Senator Daschle's weird Sally Jessy Raphael-esque glasses. It's worth watching this just to see them.

[Crazed Rabbit]

I do not believe the Fairness Doctrine is going to make a return, personally. Leftie pundits are pretty much just as against it as rightie ones. And its elimination spawned a whole new industry of private, for-profit entertainment news that has become utterly entrenched and won't be going away anytime soon.

But the leftists in congress want it back.

it's an old law that Reagan got rid of and some have thought might be a good idea to bring back in some form. It's not mind control, it is simply a requirement that in news reporting if you cover controversial topics or partisan topics you must provide airtime to both perspectives on said issue, instead of 9 people all saying the same thing and ignoring opposing viewpoints.

It's government control of the press, and there's no excuse for it.

Further, the ridiculousness of it is shown unintentionally in your post. You mention 'both perspectives' of an issue, as though there are only two sides to each debate.

EDIT: Palin is more accessible to the media than Biden or Obama, says CBS.

CR

[Louis VI the Fat]

Oh Don, just admit you simply have the hots for Cindy McCain.