Slashdot Mirror

Er, but what are we going to do with all the people who just don't "have" the brains? They get a free ride?

That seems to be the way it's been working so far.

That what it means to hold your own purse strings. The BBC doesn't beg the government for money, but raises their own taxes.

Yes, which is WORSE. How do you not get this? The press is supposed to watch the government, but in this case, the press IS A GOVERNMENT AGENCY. Do you really, honestly, expect the BBC to report objectively on itself?

Scientific analysis disagrees.

Nonsense. For example, both of them ask a form the question, "Has the U.S. found evidence of Iraqi WMD?" The factual answer is, of course, Yes. Absoutely. If you don't know that fact, then you're the uneducarted one. It is a fact. Now, it is also true that the WMD we found was probably unsuable due to age, being from before the Gulf War. But that's not what the question asked.

You could reasonably argue that the respondents to the polls didn't think of things that way, that they likely understood the question to refer to current, usable weapons. But that doesn't help the poll at all; it merely shows the question to be invalid.

So please don't believe you can trust the data from these "studies," as they are obviously, severely, flawed.

I think it's telling that you believe PBS/NPR is pushing a pro-big government statist regime, when really they have no such agenda.

NPR certainly does, and NewsHour leans that way. As for the rest of PBS, eh, it depends on the local station, but most of them seem to.

Exactly what is good about corporate media, when it's more costly, and sings to the tune of its corporate and political interests??

Apart from the fact that it is the only reasonable alternative to state-funded media which violates fundamental principles of liberty and free press?

Except when you don't pay that TV license fee (tax), then the BBC calls on the government to round you up and toss you in jail, or extract the funds from your paycheck.

lol!

That what it means to hold your own purse strings. The BBC doesn't beg the government for money, but raises their own taxes.

Not in the States. NPR and PBS sucks when it comes to news gathering since it was biased towards a statist regime (more/bigger government).

Scientific analysis disagrees. Perhaps you disagree with information provided by PBS/NPR, because it is critical of some of the corporate distortions being pushed by for-profit media.

I think it's telling that you believe PBS/NPR is pushing a pro-big government statist regime, when really they have no such agenda. One might believe they had such an agenda by contrasting their reporting to corporate media -- which has a very well established corporate bias, and is responsible for much conservative hysteria. Effectively, you've got a powerful elitist media manipulating the impressions and social discourse of the USA -- to suit their own private political agendas.

The only good news is that NPR/PBS only costs me about $10 a year in taxation

Yeah, corporate media is really expensive, isn't it. Exactly what is good about corporate media, when it's more costly, and sings to the tune of its corporate and political interests??

You may trust it, but (a) I don't trust the CBC, and I don't want something similar here;

The CBC isn't weened from the government purse.

and (b) I don't trust you to tell me who to trust.

I appreciate where you're coming from. Perhaps a little evidence is medicine. A systematic review of how well informed people are on WMDs in Iraq found:

The extent of Americans’ misperceptions vary significantly depending on their source of news. Those who receive most of their news from Fox News are more likely than average to have misperceptions. Those who receive most of their news from NPR or PBS are less likely to have misperceptions. These variations cannot simply be explained as a result of differences in the demographic characteristics of each audience, because these variations can also be found when comparing the demographic subgroups of each audience

There are many examples of deliberate propaganda in corporate media. For example, would you rely on corporate media to tell you about the cancer risk of milk farming techniques? Fox's official position was: it's not against the law to lie intentionally in a new broadcast. They were successful in the courts -- setting a precedent for blatant lying. Corporate media didn't bother to inform the public about there new power to make stuff up, but rather said that they were "vindicated" -- suggesting that there was nothing wrong with the milk farming techniques!

Interesting that corporate networks seem to be doing the majority of propagandising -- whether for the government or for fellow corporate citizens. A study of public vs for-profit news paints a dismal picture of for-profit news.

"'As I've said before, the traditional business model has to change rapidly to ensure that our journalistic businesses can return to their old margins of profitability,' Murdoch said. 'Quality journalism is not cheap, and an industry that gives away its content is simply cannibalizing its ability to produce good reporting.'"

Is it because they are a cheap news agency and they can't provide quality reporting? Is that why their viewers continuously rank at the bottom of the most uninformed TV news viewers? Oh wait, don't you own them? Hm, odd. So we should presume that, if you are given more money, that money would go into providing "quality reporting" and make the Fox News viewers more knowledgeable right?

For some reason I cannot see that happening.

Damn straight. I wouldn't vote for McCain either.

This winning flight is welcome good news at a time when many have concerns about a down-turn in commercial space and Obama, the likely next President of the United States has recently said of such prizes, "When John F. Kennedy decided that we were going to put a man on the moon, he didn't put a bounty out for some rocket scientist to win â" he put the full resources of the United States government behind the project..."

First of all, you don't really offer much to support your claim that he says one thing and then says the next immediately afterwards. You offer one example of that, and it only applies if you don't accept his explanation that he meant it wouldn't be physically divided as it was until 1967. I bet you accept McCain's clarifications and explanations all the time, don't you?

Here's a McCain overnight reversal for you, and that's only the third entry in the list. You don't seem to care to scrutinize McCain the way you do Obama. I suppose you think that all of McCain's position changes during the primary season were not pandering either? You think that he wasn't modifying his positions to appeal more to fundamentalists and ultra-conservatives who he needs to energize if he's to get them out to vote in November?

The claim of saying one thing and voting another is a classic example of misleading and oversimplifying when it suits your position. Being against a provision of a bill and voting for a bill are not necessarily contradictory. As much as I hated the FISA bill, and as much as it dampened my enthusiasm for Obama after I voted for him in the primary (to the point that I donated to the EFF instead of his campaign), I do understand that congresspeople will vote for bills that they feel do more good than harm, because that's the only way they can get anything done. The fact that people like to use votes on bills that do lots of things as a way to prove support or opposition to one specific provision just shows that there are a lot of gullible people out there ready to believe that crap.

On the debate issue, Obama's camp had offered to do more debates. They were turned down by McCain, apparently because he only wants to do them if he can do them in the format he wants. Info here. Anytime, anywhere doesn't mean that McCain should get to pick the rules. So, offers were made from both sides. Neither side could live with them. So it didn't happen. No story there.

And since when is verbosity a virtue? Any average 8th grader can write a 3 page paper in 5 pages. What takes skill is to write that 3 page paper in 1.

It's not a virtue in itself, but it is a virtue to truly discuss the nuances of the issues rather than spout the bumper-sticker version for the masses that have no clue about the complexities of foreign policy and international relations. Some candidates just like to appear tough and firm in their positions (e.g. Bush). That definitely doesn't make them a good person to be running things. Bush played the cowboy with the kill 'em all and let God sort 'em out philosophy. It's been a disaster for us. Better to have someone willing to discuss things and keep options open as the world is a constantly changing place. I want someone who's really going to put effort into working out problems rather than taking the approach that everyone should do what we want or else.

It's so funny how easy it is to be seduced by Obama's words. I actually voted for him in the primaries, but I had only been paying attention to him for a week or so at that point. But in the months that followed, it was clear that Obama's words and his deeds were at odds with each other. I don't like being told what I want to hear, even if it sounds nice. I want the truth.

John McCain is the real deal. I don't agree with a lot of his positions, but at least I know his positions. I have never voted for a Republican before, but I will in November.

Yeah, I can play that game too. Here's a list of McCain flip-flops. They've both done it. Some of them are pandering. Some are legitimate changes of heart or mind. The fact that you're willing to condemn Obama for it, but give McCain a pass just shows that you're not giving serious consideration to the issue.

They are already scheduled to have 3 debates, and another for the VP candidates. Given the SuperBowl nature of debates these days, they don't really serve much purpose for people who really want to know more about what a candidate thinks about an issue or what they plan to do. They just end up being watched like a sporting event where someone is keeping score.

They might as well be up there slinging "yo mamma" jokes at each other for all the good these things do. Someone like Obama, who is a very good speaker, but also very precise and thoughtful in his speech is at a disadvantage to someone like McCain who likes to go with the "straight talk" and catchy sound-bites intended to mask the complexity of the issues and oversimplify the answers to a point that it should become obvious that what he's saying is meaningless. Unfortunately too many people just like to see him "burn" the other guy with a catchy remark even though it's completely empty, and often just wrong.

It's easy to give people slogans that they can repeat. It worked for Bush... twice. The whole "plain talk" thing and voting for the guy you'd like to have a beer with has lead us to disaster. Vote for the person who is thoughtful and can really give the problems we face the kind of consideration they need rather than just making smart-ass quips like Bush is so fond of.

I rewatched it, and it still doesn't sound like an intentional dig at the town's name. Watch his face, he doesn't crack a little smirk like McCain does whenever he's getting a meaningless dig in on Obama.

Maybe it was intentional. It would be out of character with how he's conducted his campaign to date if it was.

But let's assume that it was (which I am not at all convinced of), even in that case, here you have Obama making one very tiny dig, then going on to support his point with figures and discussion. McCain's campaign - and I have to compare McCain more than Palin since her presence has been so far so short-lived and the GOP is deciding to keep her sequestered away from the press to avoid any gaffes - has made silly and absurd dig after silly and absurd dig at Obama's campaign.

I don't think the fact that he's been briefed on Palin makes his statement a prepared one. I also don't suspect Anderson Cooper send the questions to Obama in advance. Heck, if it was a prepared statement as you suggest, why would he have had the um's and uh's in there (which of course every GOP die hard dutifully transcribes).

If you want to call Obama out on something like that, you have to call McCain out on the hundreds of petty, meaningless digs he gets in against Obama on a regular basis. Things which have nothing to do with issues, policy, or suitability to be president (such as every time they quote Obama, they transcribe the "uh" and such filler sounds). Things that are outright lies (such as repeatedly claiming that Obama's tax plan is to raise taxes for middle class Americans - which is not currently nor has it ever been true unless you include people who make over $250,000 as middle class).

McCain has been running a dirty, dirty campaign. Obama has been refusing to drop to that same level, which interestingly almost seems to make McCain get all the dirtier, perhaps out of desperation.

I agree with Obama that it's more challenging to run a campaign that has 50 times the number of staffers, and 36 times the budget. I can't say whether he addresses her gubernatorial experience since the video cuts off w/ no indication that he was done answering the question except that he was finishing a point. I even had to re-watch to have heard the "and as governer" in the question which was just kind of thrown in there.

Anyway all of this is again a meaningless distraction from the real issues. Maybe he didn't address a question during a live interview that well. Big freaking whoop. The media gives McCain a pass every time he completely changes his policy week to week. Let's get back to what matters.

Obama has concrete thought out and well defended plans for many major issues. He has run a respectable campaign in the face of repeated meaningless insults. He has a strong foreign policy. He has exhibited consistency and clarity of intention throughout. He rarely has had to change his stance, and when he has done so, he has explained in clear terms why he made that change.

McCain doesn't have cogent policy, he changes his stated policy depending on what will get the best response from the crowd he's currently talking to. He has flip flopped on dozens and dozens of major issues (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10,

I rewatched it, and it still doesn't sound like an intentional dig at the town's name. Watch his face, he doesn't crack a little smirk like McCain does whenever he's getting a meaningless dig in on Obama.

Maybe it was intentional. It would be out of character with how he's conducted his campaign to date if it was.

But let's assume that it was (which I am not at all convinced of), even in that case, here you have Obama making one very tiny dig, then going on to support his point with figures and discussion. McCain's campaign - and I have to compare McCain more than Palin since her presence has been so far so short-lived and the GOP is deciding to keep her sequestered away from the press to avoid any gaffes - has made silly and absurd dig after silly and absurd dig at Obama's campaign.

I don't think the fact that he's been briefed on Palin makes his statement a prepared one. I also don't suspect Anderson Cooper send the questions to Obama in advance. Heck, if it was a prepared statement as you suggest, why would he have had the um's and uh's in there (which of course every GOP die hard dutifully transcribes).

If you want to call Obama out on something like that, you have to call McCain out on the hundreds of petty, meaningless digs he gets in against Obama on a regular basis. Things which have nothing to do with issues, policy, or suitability to be president (such as every time they quote Obama, they transcribe the "uh" and such filler sounds). Things that are outright lies (such as repeatedly claiming that Obama's tax plan is to raise taxes for middle class Americans - which is not currently nor has it ever been true unless you include people who make over $250,000 as middle class).

McCain has been running a dirty, dirty campaign. Obama has been refusing to drop to that same level, which interestingly almost seems to make McCain get all the dirtier, perhaps out of desperation.

I agree with Obama that it's more challenging to run a campaign that has 50 times the number of staffers, and 36 times the budget. I can't say whether he addresses her gubernatorial experience since the video cuts off w/ no indication that he was done answering the question except that he was finishing a point. I even had to re-watch to have heard the "and as governer" in the question which was just kind of thrown in there.

Anyway all of this is again a meaningless distraction from the real issues. Maybe he didn't address a question during a live interview that well. Big freaking whoop. The media gives McCain a pass every time he completely changes his policy week to week. Let's get back to what matters.

Obama has concrete thought out and well defended plans for many major issues. He has run a respectable campaign in the face of repeated meaningless insults. He has a strong foreign policy. He has exhibited consistency and clarity of intention throughout. He rarely has had to change his stance, and when he has done so, he has explained in clear terms why he made that change.

McCain doesn't have cogent policy, he changes his stated policy depending on what will get the best response from the crowd he's currently talking to. He has flip flopped on dozens and dozens of major issues (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10,

I rewatched it, and it still doesn't sound like an intentional dig at the town's name. Watch his face, he doesn't crack a little smirk like McCain does whenever he's getting a meaningless dig in on Obama.

Maybe it was intentional. It would be out of character with how he's conducted his campaign to date if it was.

But let's assume that it was (which I am not at all convinced of), even in that case, here you have Obama making one very tiny dig, then going on to support his point with figures and discussion. McCain's campaign - and I have to compare McCain more than Palin since her presence has been so far so short-lived and the GOP is deciding to keep her sequestered away from the press to avoid any gaffes - has made silly and absurd dig after silly and absurd dig at Obama's campaign.

I don't think the fact that he's been briefed on Palin makes his statement a prepared one. I also don't suspect Anderson Cooper send the questions to Obama in advance. Heck, if it was a prepared statement as you suggest, why would he have had the um's and uh's in there (which of course every GOP die hard dutifully transcribes).

If you want to call Obama out on something like that, you have to call McCain out on the hundreds of petty, meaningless digs he gets in against Obama on a regular basis. Things which have nothing to do with issues, policy, or suitability to be president (such as every time they quote Obama, they transcribe the "uh" and such filler sounds). Things that are outright lies (such as repeatedly claiming that Obama's tax plan is to raise taxes for middle class Americans - which is not currently nor has it ever been true unless you include people who make over $250,000 as middle class).

McCain has been running a dirty, dirty campaign. Obama has been refusing to drop to that same level, which interestingly almost seems to make McCain get all the dirtier, perhaps out of desperation.

I agree with Obama that it's more challenging to run a campaign that has 50 times the number of staffers, and 36 times the budget. I can't say whether he addresses her gubernatorial experience since the video cuts off w/ no indication that he was done answering the question except that he was finishing a point. I even had to re-watch to have heard the "and as governer" in the question which was just kind of thrown in there.

Anyway all of this is again a meaningless distraction from the real issues. Maybe he didn't address a question during a live interview that well. Big freaking whoop. The media gives McCain a pass every time he completely changes his policy week to week. Let's get back to what matters.

Obama has concrete thought out and well defended plans for many major issues. He has run a respectable campaign in the face of repeated meaningless insults. He has a strong foreign policy. He has exhibited consistency and clarity of intention throughout. He rarely has had to change his stance, and when he has done so, he has explained in clear terms why he made that change.

McCain doesn't have cogent policy, he changes his stated policy depending on what will get the best response from the crowd he's currently talking to. He has flip flopped on dozens and dozens of major issues (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10,

I rewatched it, and it still doesn't sound like an intentional dig at the town's name. Watch his face, he doesn't crack a little smirk like McCain does whenever he's getting a meaningless dig in on Obama.

Maybe it was intentional. It would be out of character with how he's conducted his campaign to date if it was.

But let's assume that it was (which I am not at all convinced of), even in that case, here you have Obama making one very tiny dig, then going on to support his point with figures and discussion. McCain's campaign - and I have to compare McCain more than Palin since her presence has been so far so short-lived and the GOP is deciding to keep her sequestered away from the press to avoid any gaffes - has made silly and absurd dig after silly and absurd dig at Obama's campaign.

I don't think the fact that he's been briefed on Palin makes his statement a prepared one. I also don't suspect Anderson Cooper send the questions to Obama in advance. Heck, if it was a prepared statement as you suggest, why would he have had the um's and uh's in there (which of course every GOP die hard dutifully transcribes).

If you want to call Obama out on something like that, you have to call McCain out on the hundreds of petty, meaningless digs he gets in against Obama on a regular basis. Things which have nothing to do with issues, policy, or suitability to be president (such as every time they quote Obama, they transcribe the "uh" and such filler sounds). Things that are outright lies (such as repeatedly claiming that Obama's tax plan is to raise taxes for middle class Americans - which is not currently nor has it ever been true unless you include people who make over $250,000 as middle class).

McCain has been running a dirty, dirty campaign. Obama has been refusing to drop to that same level, which interestingly almost seems to make McCain get all the dirtier, perhaps out of desperation.

I agree with Obama that it's more challenging to run a campaign that has 50 times the number of staffers, and 36 times the budget. I can't say whether he addresses her gubernatorial experience since the video cuts off w/ no indication that he was done answering the question except that he was finishing a point. I even had to re-watch to have heard the "and as governer" in the question which was just kind of thrown in there.

Anyway all of this is again a meaningless distraction from the real issues. Maybe he didn't address a question during a live interview that well. Big freaking whoop. The media gives McCain a pass every time he completely changes his policy week to week. Let's get back to what matters.

Obama has concrete thought out and well defended plans for many major issues. He has run a respectable campaign in the face of repeated meaningless insults. He has a strong foreign policy. He has exhibited consistency and clarity of intention throughout. He rarely has had to change his stance, and when he has done so, he has explained in clear terms why he made that change.

McCain doesn't have cogent policy, he changes his stated policy depending on what will get the best response from the crowd he's currently talking to. He has flip flopped on dozens and dozens of major issues (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10,

I rewatched it, and it still doesn't sound like an intentional dig at the town's name. Watch his face, he doesn't crack a little smirk like McCain does whenever he's getting a meaningless dig in on Obama.

Maybe it was intentional. It would be out of character with how he's conducted his campaign to date if it was.

But let's assume that it was (which I am not at all convinced of), even in that case, here you have Obama making one very tiny dig, then going on to support his point with figures and discussion. McCain's campaign - and I have to compare McCain more than Palin since her presence has been so far so short-lived and the GOP is deciding to keep her sequestered away from the press to avoid any gaffes - has made silly and absurd dig after silly and absurd dig at Obama's campaign.

I don't think the fact that he's been briefed on Palin makes his statement a prepared one. I also don't suspect Anderson Cooper send the questions to Obama in advance. Heck, if it was a prepared statement as you suggest, why would he have had the um's and uh's in there (which of course every GOP die hard dutifully transcribes).

If you want to call Obama out on something like that, you have to call McCain out on the hundreds of petty, meaningless digs he gets in against Obama on a regular basis. Things which have nothing to do with issues, policy, or suitability to be president (such as every time they quote Obama, they transcribe the "uh" and such filler sounds). Things that are outright lies (such as repeatedly claiming that Obama's tax plan is to raise taxes for middle class Americans - which is not currently nor has it ever been true unless you include people who make over $250,000 as middle class).

McCain has been running a dirty, dirty campaign. Obama has been refusing to drop to that same level, which interestingly almost seems to make McCain get all the dirtier, perhaps out of desperation.

I agree with Obama that it's more challenging to run a campaign that has 50 times the number of staffers, and 36 times the budget. I can't say whether he addresses her gubernatorial experience since the video cuts off w/ no indication that he was done answering the question except that he was finishing a point. I even had to re-watch to have heard the "and as governer" in the question which was just kind of thrown in there.

Anyway all of this is again a meaningless distraction from the real issues. Maybe he didn't address a question during a live interview that well. Big freaking whoop. The media gives McCain a pass every time he completely changes his policy week to week. Let's get back to what matters.

Obama has concrete thought out and well defended plans for many major issues. He has run a respectable campaign in the face of repeated meaningless insults. He has a strong foreign policy. He has exhibited consistency and clarity of intention throughout. He rarely has had to change his stance, and when he has done so, he has explained in clear terms why he made that change.

McCain doesn't have cogent policy, he changes his stated policy depending on what will get the best response from the crowd he's currently talking to. He has flip flopped on dozens and dozens of major issues (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10,

I rewatched it, and it still doesn't sound like an intentional dig at the town's name. Watch his face, he doesn't crack a little smirk like McCain does whenever he's getting a meaningless dig in on Obama.

Maybe it was intentional. It would be out of character with how he's conducted his campaign to date if it was.

But let's assume that it was (which I am not at all convinced of), even in that case, here you have Obama making one very tiny dig, then going on to support his point with figures and discussion. McCain's campaign - and I have to compare McCain more than Palin since her presence has been so far so short-lived and the GOP is deciding to keep her sequestered away from the press to avoid any gaffes - has made silly and absurd dig after silly and absurd dig at Obama's campaign.

I don't think the fact that he's been briefed on Palin makes his statement a prepared one. I also don't suspect Anderson Cooper send the questions to Obama in advance. Heck, if it was a prepared statement as you suggest, why would he have had the um's and uh's in there (which of course every GOP die hard dutifully transcribes).

If you want to call Obama out on something like that, you have to call McCain out on the hundreds of petty, meaningless digs he gets in against Obama on a regular basis. Things which have nothing to do with issues, policy, or suitability to be president (such as every time they quote Obama, they transcribe the "uh" and such filler sounds). Things that are outright lies (such as repeatedly claiming that Obama's tax plan is to raise taxes for middle class Americans - which is not currently nor has it ever been true unless you include people who make over $250,000 as middle class).

McCain has been running a dirty, dirty campaign. Obama has been refusing to drop to that same level, which interestingly almost seems to make McCain get all the dirtier, perhaps out of desperation.

I agree with Obama that it's more challenging to run a campaign that has 50 times the number of staffers, and 36 times the budget. I can't say whether he addresses her gubernatorial experience since the video cuts off w/ no indication that he was done answering the question except that he was finishing a point. I even had to re-watch to have heard the "and as governer" in the question which was just kind of thrown in there.

Anyway all of this is again a meaningless distraction from the real issues. Maybe he didn't address a question during a live interview that well. Big freaking whoop. The media gives McCain a pass every time he completely changes his policy week to week. Let's get back to what matters.

Obama has concrete thought out and well defended plans for many major issues. He has run a respectable campaign in the face of repeated meaningless insults. He has a strong foreign policy. He has exhibited consistency and clarity of intention throughout. He rarely has had to change his stance, and when he has done so, he has explained in clear terms why he made that change.

McCain doesn't have cogent policy, he changes his stated policy depending on what will get the best response from the crowd he's currently talking to. He has flip flopped on dozens and dozens of major issues (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10,

I rewatched it, and it still doesn't sound like an intentional dig at the town's name. Watch his face, he doesn't crack a little smirk like McCain does whenever he's getting a meaningless dig in on Obama.

Maybe it was intentional. It would be out of character with how he's conducted his campaign to date if it was.

But let's assume that it was (which I am not at all convinced of), even in that case, here you have Obama making one very tiny dig, then going on to support his point with figures and discussion. McCain's campaign - and I have to compare McCain more than Palin since her presence has been so far so short-lived and the GOP is deciding to keep her sequestered away from the press to avoid any gaffes - has made silly and absurd dig after silly and absurd dig at Obama's campaign.

I don't think the fact that he's been briefed on Palin makes his statement a prepared one. I also don't suspect Anderson Cooper send the questions to Obama in advance. Heck, if it was a prepared statement as you suggest, why would he have had the um's and uh's in there (which of course every GOP die hard dutifully transcribes).

If you want to call Obama out on something like that, you have to call McCain out on the hundreds of petty, meaningless digs he gets in against Obama on a regular basis. Things which have nothing to do with issues, policy, or suitability to be president (such as every time they quote Obama, they transcribe the "uh" and such filler sounds). Things that are outright lies (such as repeatedly claiming that Obama's tax plan is to raise taxes for middle class Americans - which is not currently nor has it ever been true unless you include people who make over $250,000 as middle class).

McCain has been running a dirty, dirty campaign. Obama has been refusing to drop to that same level, which interestingly almost seems to make McCain get all the dirtier, perhaps out of desperation.

I agree with Obama that it's more challenging to run a campaign that has 50 times the number of staffers, and 36 times the budget. I can't say whether he addresses her gubernatorial experience since the video cuts off w/ no indication that he was done answering the question except that he was finishing a point. I even had to re-watch to have heard the "and as governer" in the question which was just kind of thrown in there.

Anyway all of this is again a meaningless distraction from the real issues. Maybe he didn't address a question during a live interview that well. Big freaking whoop. The media gives McCain a pass every time he completely changes his policy week to week. Let's get back to what matters.

Obama has concrete thought out and well defended plans for many major issues. He has run a respectable campaign in the face of repeated meaningless insults. He has a strong foreign policy. He has exhibited consistency and clarity of intention throughout. He rarely has had to change his stance, and when he has done so, he has explained in clear terms why he made that change.

McCain doesn't have cogent policy, he changes his stated policy depending on what will get the best response from the crowd he's currently talking to. He has flip flopped on dozens and dozens of major issues (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10,

Given that Bush had more executive experience than either of them prior to getting elected, I fail to see how the 'experience' issue is relevant.

Also, the idea that 'flip-flopping' matters may appeal to the bumper-sticker voters (which I'll grant you are a sizable majority), but given McCain's frequent changes of heart, I think we can rule it out as a contributor to the failure or success of either candidate.

You're right, we need a President who is very concerned about the Iraq/Pakistan border. I'd also like him confuse Sudan and Somalia, after all, they are like the same thing, right?

McCain, at one point, may have known his stuff. But he has lost it. There is already a very long list of these gaffes. Is this the kind of face you want America to have?

One more thing: I think it's especially interesting that this sentiment isn't just from supporters of Candidates like Paul (who is in fact starkly different from most candidates on several fronts). This portrayal of the general presidential election as one of small differences is actually apparently a mainstream media meme:

http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/la-ed-obamacain8-2008jun08,0,543931.story
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601070&sid=aH8EMkkeMCtw&refer=politics

Not unanticipated, or without precedent:

http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/06/04/how-will-the-campaign-be-covered/

I think the question is: Why? Why, when there are easily locatable differences are there people who seem to like level them? I can understand why Paul looks different compared to Obama and McCain, but that's not even who we're talking about -- we're talking about a media that played up the heat of the contest between Obama and Clinton, but now appears to be playing down the much greater gulf.

Maybe it's because McCain appears to be a moderate if you average his positions:

http://www.thecarpetbaggerreport.com/archives/14577.html
http://www.thecarpetbaggerreport.com/archives/15649.html

Or maybe it's some inner working of mainstream "journalism" that's just too mysterious for me.

Or maybe it's true what my acquaintances who've worked in the Senate have said: McCain's great in front of the cameras, assiduously cultivates one media image, but in private, he's at best a tyrant and quite possibly mentally instable (note: before you try to pass that off on partisan rancor, note that these acquaintances (plural) that I've received these opinions from were *Republican* Senate staff).

But that's a rumor, one you can't verify unless you also have the acquaintance of Senate staff, and I don't expect you to believe a random poster on the internet about this. Just whatever you do, don't fall for the line that McCain and Obama are somehow twins, that voting for either won't make a difference.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20080528/pl_nm/usa_politics_issues_dc

Who you cast your vote for absolutely matters this fall. If you absolutely HAVE to -- vote for Ron Paul or your favorite third party candidate to send a message, sure. Everybody has that right and it's a legitimate use of a vote. But make sure you really understand who the candidates are before you cast your vote. If you genuinely think Obama and McCain are the same, you quite simply haven't done that yet, and your vote will be cast irresponsibly.

One more thing: I think it's especially interesting that this sentiment isn't just from supporters of Candidates like Paul (who is in fact starkly different from most candidates on several fronts). This portrayal of the general presidential election as one of small differences is actually apparently a mainstream media meme:

http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/la-ed-obamacain8-2008jun08,0,543931.story
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601070&sid=aH8EMkkeMCtw&refer=politics

Not unanticipated, or without precedent:

http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/06/04/how-will-the-campaign-be-covered/

I think the question is: Why? Why, when there are easily locatable differences are there people who seem to like level them? I can understand why Paul looks different compared to Obama and McCain, but that's not even who we're talking about -- we're talking about a media that played up the heat of the contest between Obama and Clinton, but now appears to be playing down the much greater gulf.

Maybe it's because McCain appears to be a moderate if you average his positions:

http://www.thecarpetbaggerreport.com/archives/14577.html
http://www.thecarpetbaggerreport.com/archives/15649.html

Or maybe it's some inner working of mainstream "journalism" that's just too mysterious for me.

Or maybe it's true what my acquaintances who've worked in the Senate have said: McCain's great in front of the cameras, assiduously cultivates one media image, but in private, he's at best a tyrant and quite possibly mentally instable (note: before you try to pass that off on partisan rancor, note that these acquaintances (plural) that I've received these opinions from were *Republican* Senate staff).

But that's a rumor, one you can't verify unless you also have the acquaintance of Senate staff, and I don't expect you to believe a random poster on the internet about this. Just whatever you do, don't fall for the line that McCain and Obama are somehow twins, that voting for either won't make a difference.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20080528/pl_nm/usa_politics_issues_dc

Who you cast your vote for absolutely matters this fall. If you absolutely HAVE to -- vote for Ron Paul or your favorite third party candidate to send a message, sure. Everybody has that right and it's a legitimate use of a vote. But make sure you really understand who the candidates are before you cast your vote. If you genuinely think Obama and McCain are the same, you quite simply haven't done that yet, and your vote will be cast irresponsibly.

Excuse me, but have you read up on the things McCain has been saying over the last 10 years? When a man says one thing or takes a hard stance on something, then turns around later and says or does the complete opposite, and this on a regular basis, how can that be honorable or good? I undeerstand that people change their minds and morals, but McCain's record is full of these switches in position. I would call that a shill. If he stood by his principals instead of wanging them around in every direction in order to get power, I agree that he would probably be a good candidate. I give you two links, the first of which has already been posted, and the second I submit with a grain of salt, as it appears to be a fairly liberal site but it does lay out some of McCain's flip-flopping. As in all endeavors I hope all readers will think for themselves before embracing any of this. http://blog.wired.com/27bstroke6/2008/06/mccain-id-spy-o.html http://www.thecarpetbaggerreport.com/archives/9111.html I once respected McCain for his campaign finance reform legislation, but over the last couple years my respect has dwindled to nothing after reading about him in the news and comparing him to what he used to say and do. He's just another politician, and my hope (however small) is that whoever runs against him will be a little more than just your average politician.

Instead of directing your distaste for those who voted for Nader, you direct it to those who voted for Bush. They put him into office, not the Nader voters. And Lieberman has his name all over patriot act in case you have any doubts about him. His vote for that(and his authorship of same), the war, the military commissions act show he's no different from the goons in the white house and their staff. You don't need to imagine anything. His record speaks for itself. And his relationship with Obana is a little too chummy for my tastes. And now he and McCain will make a fine pair. Rest assured Gore would have lead us down the same path that we are on now. Nader was the only hope for anything different, and the same applies if he runs now. The other three are joined at the hips.

"Actually what I find most amazing about the 9/11 Saddam link myth: The ONLY people I have ever met that believes it are liberals."

You need to get out more, and read this.

Maybe you should re-evaluate the story here http://www.thecarpetbaggerreport.com/archives/9201 .html [thecarpetb...report.com]

Sorry, I hit submit by accident.... reading this article I see they're equating arrested murderers with murders. Those are two different numbers. If the murderer isn't caught he's not in the statistics. A good argument they could make is proving the immigration status of of those who weren't caught.

A year after the invasion, none other than Colin Powell said the link was tenuous at best.

A few months later, the 9/11 commission, along with the FBI and the CIA found that there were no substantive links.

This, of course, is not surprising given that the administration's own point man on WMD found that Iraq had no WMD, which 33% of Fox News viewers incorrectly believe.

HA HA HA HA HA HA HA!!!!! That's a good one.

What distinguishes Fox News is that, on average, people who watch it are roughly twice as likely to not know the actual facts, not partisan facts, but really basic stuff like the fact that Sadaam Hussein did not have a meaningful relationship with Al Quaeda.

Yes, I'm sure it's just biased accidentily. Consider:

Fox Primarily an "Opinion" Network
Fox Viewers More Likely to be Misinformed
Fox Shills for the War
Fox, Neither Fair nor Balanced

There's lots more out there if you open your eyes.

Your post reminds me of a post from the carpetbagger

http://www.thecarpetbaggerreport.com/archives/4041 .html

where he references the conflict on the right between old-time religion and big-time business. Prediction: cash beats out credo.

"Ennis points out that bio-technology is rapidly becoming a very lucrative field. Those who understand modern biology will reap the benefits. Those who think the planet is 6,000 years old and that dinosaurs and humans lived at the same time will be left behind working at Wal-Mart and watching 'The Flintstones.'"

Doesn't this reek of Orwellian doublespeak? I mean - the privacy board represents a group of people who want to circumvent privacy. The PATRIOT act is the most un-patriotic legislation government action since COINTELPRO. Etc.

Yuck!

See This for a fun look at Bush tactics.

April 02, 2005
Build your own Bush administration! It's easy and fun!

Some snippets from the articles (the judge's last quote, which I put in bold, is especially amusing):

"There are hard cases and there are easy cases," Chin said. "This is an easy case. The case is wholly without merit both factually and legally." He added, "Parody is a form of artistic expression protected by the First Amendment. The keystone to parody is imitation. Mr. Franken is clearly mocking Fox."

"Is it really likely someone is going to be confused as to whether Fox News or Bill O'Reilly is endorsing this book?" the judge asked.

Fox's lawyer, Dori Ann Hanswirth, responded, "It is likely consumers could believe that." She added, "There's no real message that this is a book of humor or political satire. It's a deadly serious cover and it's using the Fox News trademark."

Presumably, Hanswirth said all of this with a straight face. I wasn't in the room, however, so I'm not sure if she pulled it off.

Chin seemed to find Fox News' case irritating. "There is no likelihood of confusion. It is highly unlikely consumers are going to be misled into believing that Fox or O'Reilly are sponsors" of the book. "I don't know if Fox is arguing that its consumers are less sophisticated than people who would buy the book.", he added dryly.