Colin Powell endorses Barack Obama

[Q Classic]

Drake

[Naked Gents Rut]

I agree. I don't like Drake.

[MrFun]

Originally posted by -Jrabbit

BTW, the Palin piece isn't as painful as her earlier interviews. It was pretty softball stuff, but clearly she's becoming more comfortable.

I agree - I mean, I really dislike some of Palin's characteristics (like fact of being a religious nutcase) but when I saw that clip on television earlier this evening, I have to say Palin carried herself better than in past interviews.

[Ben Kenobi]

This reaction just reinforces the message that Palin's abilities are questionable, and coming off as whiny little b1tches in the bargain.

The media is totally in bed with Obama. I thought the point of being a reporter was to report the news with some impartiality.

[Arrian]

Ben, you complaining about "impartiality" is worthy. You're hyperpartisan, and yet you think you even know what impartiality looks like? I'm sure you think Fox News is impartial.

-Arrian

[Ben Kenobi]

Ben, you complaining about "impartiality" is worthy. You're hyperpartisan, and yet you think you even know what impartiality looks like? I'm sure you think Fox News is impartial.

It is impartial, for the most part. Rush on the other hand, is not.

Unlike you, I can tell the difference between "impartial", and "having an Obasm".

Is it so hard to see that?

[Q Classic]

It's "impartial" to say that the rest of the MSM is in the tank for Obama because they... didn't retouch Palin's photo?

Or repeatedly erred by listing unfavored Republicans as Democrats in the wake of gay sex scandals, something no other member of the MSM did?

Or have its hosts "mistakenly" refer to Obama as Osama, and underscore his middle name?

Or air a "comedy" show with an admittedly right-wing partisan bent?

Or deliberately conflate the Iraq War with the War on Terrorism, as per Republican talking points?

If that's "impartial", yes, the rest of the media is enormously biased. In fact, the only other news source as unbiased as Fox would be Pravda.

I have a feeling that you're unable to identify "impartiality" when it conflicts with the "truthiness" of your beliefs.

[Alinestra Covelia]

FOX is not at all impartial. The fact that its political bent happens to be directly counter to all other news media's political bent merely makes it equally and oppositely partial.

[Alinestra Covelia]

...which makes Isaac Newton happy. (Forgot to add.)

[Impaler[WrG]]

I was limiting my criticism to the actual strategy of the campaign, which seems less that stellar.

I'm becoming more convinced that Obama is a strategic (day to day campaign buzz and positions) AND logistical (long term organization building) genius. The later point is self evidently true when you rake in 5 mill a day in donations. The former though is harder to see because is sooo slick. Obama has been described as a master of 'rope-a-dope' in which he tricks his opponents into over-reaching and this often makes it LOOK like he was battling a foolish opponent when in fact he is behind it.

Two excellent examples, early in the primaries between New Hampshire and South Carolina Obama said something to the effect of "Reagan changed the direction of the country in a way Bill Clinton did not". The Clinton's pounced on this and the media decided it was a minor Obama gaff. But in actuality it was meant to get in Bills head by way of his legendary vanity and make him lose his cool, Bill subsequently compared Obama to Jesse Jackson along with a two-on-one tactic which lowered Bill's stature substantially. All of which was subsequently blamed entirely on the Clinton's, Obama's hands remained pristine.

Second much more resent example, between the second and third McCain debates Obama through Biden puts out the "Say it to my face" challenge concerning the Bill Aiers insinuations. McCain takes the bait to strong audience disapproval, the third debate being a complete bloodbath for McCain. Again all this gets blamed on McCain's temperament, desperation and sleaziness while Obama's hands remain pristine. It's been described as political Jujitsu in which your opponents size, power and attacks are turned against him and Obama is so skillful at it that it appears that he's merely getting out of the way while they trip themselves up.

[Kuciwalker]

I'm becoming more convinced that Obama is a strategic (day to day campaign buzz and positions) AND logistical (long term organization building) genius.

If so he wouldn't have picked Biden.

[Jon Miller]

It is for the long long term plan of working with Congress?

JM

[Ramo]

Also reassurance as far as foreign policy.

I don't think that Biden was a bad choice. Clinton would probably have been a better choice, but the fact that this may have caused McCain to do something as monumentally dumb as going with Palin alone redeems Biden.

[Impaler[WrG]]

Obama's entire strategy has been one of getting over a 'bar' of acceptability. People compare it to Reagan who was offering change but had a thin resume vs an experience status-quo candidate. The change was strongly desired by the voters but people were hesitant on the competency of the messenger but once that fear was removed in the presidential debates Reagan lone by a landslide. Under that strategy a 'proven' and 'ready' VP is a valuable tool in removing doubts. You might argue Hillary would be better but Obama simply can not have such an independent and potentially antagonistic source of power inside his own administration and that leave no other major Democratic figures with enough gravitas to do the job. And Biden has done the job well, he tows the line and has approval ratings comparable to Obam's and hasn't hurt the ticket in any way.

[Impaler[WrG]]

FOX is not at all impartial. The fact that its political bent happens to be directly counter to all other news media's political bent merely makes it equally and oppositely partial.

The existence of FOX as a nakedly partisan organization that howls about the 'liberal media' dose not mean that the rest of the media is centrist or leftist, it just means FOX is to the right of them. From my perspective ALL corporately owned TV is on the right and FOX is a straw man which allows the rest of the media to LOOK like its impartial while actually framing everything from the right. PBS is the closest you get to impartial on national TV.

Why should it surprise anyone that an entire media type is entirely on one side of the political spectrum? We all know AM talk radio is far right and is a pillar of the conservative movement, why should TV be immune? Surly everyone knows that all the major TV networks are owned by billion dollar corporations which favor the Republican party and want to see their taxes slashed.

Now of course your going to say "But they worship Obama!" and I'll grant that Obama 'celebrity' gets a lot of coverage and the individual reporters may become 'infatuated' but they are infatuated with PEOPLE of both political persuasions at various times (McCain was one the beneficiary of such infatuation). But never has the TV media been committed to left policies, agendas or narratives. Those are always taken from the right and they frame everything on TV.

Take for example the following question asked at several of the debates, it goes more or less "Given the Economic crisis what part of your budget plan would you cut". That seems innocent enough at first but why not say "modify" instead of "cut", indeed they are REALLY insistent on the cutting if you remember the interviews, the question is framed in such a way that cutting the budget is so obviously the right thing to do that an expansion is never even considered. But why not, after all that exactly what Keynesian economic theory advocates. But Keynesian economics is favored by the left so it is stealthily cut out of the picture, not even fit for consideration. Once you see the framing a seemingly unbiased question is exposed as essentially "Keynesian economics is wrong isn't it !?".