"'Disgusting' Pro-Obama Media Coverage"

topic posted Mon, November 24, 2008 - 6:27 AM by  Cornel
Share/Save/Bookmark
Jake Tapper on Halperin on the Media on Obama:

Halperin Decries 'Disgusting' Pro-Obama Media Bias in Election Coverage
blogs.abcnews.com/political...ecrie.html
November 24, 2008 8:06 AM

Via Politico we hear that at a recent conference, Mark Halperin -- of Time and ABC News -- decried the media coverage of the 2008 race.

"It's the most disgusting failure of people in our business since the Iraq war," Halperin said. "It was extreme bias, extreme pro-Obama coverage."

"The example that I use, at the end of the campaign, was the two profiles that The New York Times ran of the potential first ladies," Halperin said. "The story about Cindy McCain was vicious. It looked for every negative thing they could find about her and it case her in an extraordinarily negative light. It didn't talk about her work, for instance, as a mother for her children, and they cherry-picked every negative thing that's ever been written about her."

The Michelle Obama profile, however, was "like a front-page endorsement of what a great person Michelle Obama is."

Halperin said that obviously some of the positive coverage was for fair reasons. "You do have to take into account the fact that this was a remarkable candidacy," Halperin said. "There were a lot of good stories. He was new."

But that said, Halperin believes that the coverage was way too slanted.

Regular readers of this blog will not be surprised to learn that I too wonder just how fair the media coverage of this campaign was.

Case in point: perhaps the most unfair and negative TV ad run during the entire campaign, by either side, was the Spanish-language TV ad Obama ran against Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz, that got very little media coverage.

Why didn't it get more coverage? If McCain had run a comparable ad -- with unfair charges, trying to exploit racial tensions -- would it have been as under-covered?

In any case, Obama won for any number of reasons, not the least of which were the modern Gold Standard in presidential campaigns and a nation that wanted a dramatic change.

But I believe Halperin's larger point -- since he brought in the media's rather wanting coverage of the build-up to the war in Iraq as well -- is the fact that reporters have an obligation to be better.

What say you?

-- jpt
posted by:
Cornel
  • Re: "'Disgusting' Pro-Obama Media Coverage"

    Mon, November 24, 2008 - 8:01 AM
    let it go, rabidogio.
    • Re: "'Disgusting' Pro-Obama Media Coverage"

      Mon, November 24, 2008 - 9:37 AM
      Cindy McCain is a platinum spoon fed spoiled little rich girl and she is also an ex Drug Addict.
      Being a proper mother to your children is NOT an exemplary thing to be complimented on it should be what EVERY Woman does for her children and is part of being a GOOD Parent and not something to get a gold(platinum?) Star on your forehead for.
      Cindy is viewed by Americans for what she IS "a spoiled middle aged RICH Girl"! Michelle Obama fought hard to get where she is in life,Cindy got her posh life handed to her on a Platinum Platter at her sweet sixteen birthday party!
      Like it or not Cornel,McCain ran a horrific assualt on his opponent's personal character after publically promising to run a "fair and respectable campaign",it was the NASTIEST Campaign Ive witnessed in decades.
      As d'zoner pointed out,LET IT GO Cornel and learn to DEAL with Obama as President! America didnt like BUSH Jr,but they learned how to deal with having him as President
  • Re: "'Disgusting' Pro-Obama Media Coverage"

    Mon, November 24, 2008 - 9:41 AM
    I had no idea that sour grapes could be turned in to wine......bad wine, but wine none the less.
    • Re: "'Disgusting' Pro-Obama Media Coverage"

      Mon, November 24, 2008 - 1:33 PM
      So media bias is an irrelevant issue Jeff? The media don't have some kind of obligation in democratic discourse to be fair to the major sides of a campaign?

      This issue was raised repeatedly before the election, so it's hardly an after the fact sour grapes affair.
      • Re: "'Disgusting' Pro-Obama Media Coverage"

        Mon, November 24, 2008 - 1:38 PM
        <<So media bias is an irrelevant issue Jeff?

        I never indicated any such thing. I am correctly pointing out that Cornel is latching on to any excuse he can as to why his candidate lost and how Obama won. He has no interest in giving any of the credit to Obama and no interest in crediting any of the failures to Hillary.
        • Re: "'Disgusting' Pro-Obama Media Coverage"

          Mon, November 24, 2008 - 1:52 PM
          "I never indicated any such thing. I am correctly pointing out that Cornel is latching on to any excuse he can as to why his candidate lost and how Obama won."


          So instead of addressing anything the man said, you launch into an attack against him. There seems to be a pattern here


          "He has no interest in giving any of the credit to Obama and no interest in crediting any of the failures to Hillary. "


          more personal attacks
          • Re: "'Disgusting' Pro-Obama Media Coverage"

            Mon, November 24, 2008 - 2:00 PM
            <<So instead of addressing anything the man said

            Did you not see the article I posted below that does address it? Pay attention.

            <<you launch into an attack against him

            Yeah, sour grapes is SO harsh..... at least compared to Dustin's typical "CUNT" or "SPINELESS LYING SACK OF SHIT"..... LOL! I think that even Ron would correctly agree that Cornel's grapes are sour over Hillary losing. Is that an attack or is that a correct assessment?

            <<He has no interest in giving any of the credit to Obama and no interest in crediting any of the failures to Hillary.

            <<more personal attacks

            You still don't understand what a personal attack is, this is NOT a personal attack. Just like you don't understand what a Conflict of Interest actually is.
            • Re: "'Disgusting' Pro-Obama Media Coverage"

              Mon, November 24, 2008 - 2:14 PM
              "You still don't understand what a personal attack is"


              It is focusing on the person, not the argument. Why do you think Ad Hominom roughly translates to "argument against the man"?
              • Re: "'Disgusting' Pro-Obama Media Coverage"

                Mon, November 24, 2008 - 3:22 PM
                <<"You still don't understand what a personal attack is"


                It is focusing on the person, not the argument. Why do you think Ad Hominom roughly translates to "argument against the man"? <<

                Yes, it was most definately Ad HominEm, but not all Ad HominEm responses are attacks.

                As the Definition indicates:

                "consists of replying to an argument or factual claim by attacking or appealing to a characteristic or belief of the person making the argument or claim, rather than by addressing the substance of the argument or producing evidence against the claim."

                Now, I was appealing to characteristic of Cornel, ie his bitterness toward Obama held over from the primaries. In addition, take note that the definition indicates "rather than addressing the subsstance". The simple fact is that I did address the substance. :
                • Re: "'Disgusting' Pro-Obama Media Coverage"

                  Mon, November 24, 2008 - 3:24 PM
                  "The simple fact is that I did address the substance. "


                  Where?


                  Your original post: "I had no idea that sour grapes could be turned in to wine......bad wine, but wine none the less. "


                  "Now, I was appealing to characteristic of Cornel, ie his bitterness toward Obama held over from the primaries"


                  Yes, a negative characteristic that you assigned to him
                  • This is the maximum depth. Additional responses will not be threaded.

                    Re: "'Disgusting' Pro-Obama Media Coverage"

                    Mon, November 24, 2008 - 3:40 PM
                    <<"The simple fact is that I did address the substance. "

                    Where? >

                    I posted an article in rebuttal to the original article posted by Cornel here.
                    uspolitics.tribe.net/thread/...d4f53845

                    I subsequently responded to the subject of Pro-Obama media coverage here.
                    uspolitics.tribe.net/thread/...325b0b07

                    Now, have YOU addressed the subject yet? Or have you spent this ENTIRE thread talking about me?

                    <<Yes, a negative characteristic that you assigned to him

                    Cornel assigned this to himself long ago.
                    • Re: "'Disgusting' Pro-Obama Media Coverage"

                      Mon, November 24, 2008 - 4:05 PM
                      "Now, have YOU addressed the subject yet? Or have you spent this ENTIRE thread talking about me? "

                      LOL, blaming me for your personal attacks on Cornel. if you don't want to be called on your bad behavior, then don't engage in it
                      • Re: "'Disgusting' Pro-Obama Media Coverage"

                        Mon, November 24, 2008 - 4:36 PM
                        <<"Now, have YOU addressed the subject yet? Or have you spent this ENTIRE thread talking about me? "

                        LOL, blaming me for your personal attacks on Cornel.<<

                        Nowhere did I blame you for my response to Cornel. Are you lying, or are you stoned and mistake (again)? I am correctly pointing out that you are deriding me for not responding to the subject in my initial post. And yet you have not addressed the subject of this thread, you have focused on the personal. Ad-Hominem indeed. This is what we commonly refer to as hypocrisy.

                        Take note that I have addressed the subject, you STILL have not. Add something of substance for God's sake!
                        • Re: "'Disgusting' Pro-Obama Media Coverage"

                          Mon, November 24, 2008 - 5:03 PM
                          "Nowhere did I blame you for my response to Cornel"


                          Excuse me, you are trying to blame me for the results of your personal attack on Cornel


                          "Take note that I have addressed the subject, you STILL have not. Add something of substance for God's sake! "

                          LOL~!!! You're the one who derailed the thread with your personal attacks against Cornel, not me. Be a man and own up to your personal behavior
                          • Re: "'Disgusting' Pro-Obama Media Coverage"

                            Mon, November 24, 2008 - 5:09 PM
                            <<Excuse me, you are trying to blame me for the results of your personal attack on Cornel

                            Show me where I laid blame at your feet? What I correctly did was point out your hypocisy, which is quite different than laying blame.

                            <<You're the one who derailed the thread with your personal attacks against Cornel, not me.

                            I made one post about Cornel. ONE. How many have you posted about me? The only thing derailing this thread is your plethura of post about me as opposed to actually addressing the subject of the thread. Something you have not even done yet. If you are truly concerned about derailing Cornel's thread, how about addressing the subject matter instead of me?
                            • Re: "'Disgusting' Pro-Obama Media Coverage"

                              Mon, November 24, 2008 - 5:41 PM
                              "I made one post about Cornel. ONE. How many have you posted about me?"


                              It is not my fault you refused to own up to your behavior. We can only hope that one day you will learn from all of this
                              • Re: "'Disgusting' Pro-Obama Media Coverage"

                                Mon, November 24, 2008 - 5:58 PM
                                <<It is not my fault you refused to own up to your behavior.

                                You have free will Dustin. I owned up to my ONE Ad-Hominem. How many have you engaged in with me here thus far while ignoring the thread? *H*Y*O*C*R*I*S*Y*

                                Now, stop hijacking this thread, and stop stalking me in every thread I post in.
                • Re: "'Disgusting' Pro-Obama Media Coverage"

                  Mon, November 24, 2008 - 3:27 PM
                  "Yes, it was most definately Ad HominEm, but not all Ad HominEm responses are attacks. "

                  They are fallacious efforts to divert from the argument at hand by bringing up irrelevant issues about the person making the argument. Interesting that you would admit to engaging in an ad hominem fallacy.
                  • This is the maximum depth. Additional responses will not be threaded.

                    Re: "'Disgusting' Pro-Obama Media Coverage"

                    Mon, November 24, 2008 - 3:37 PM
                    <<Interesting that you would admit to engaging in an ad hominem fallacy.

                    As you know, and as you have thanked me for in the past, I do my best to be honest. We are human, and at times we make mistakes, I understand this. My point was not to divert, it was a reactionary response to Cornel's real and demonstrable bitterness. I subsequently did respond to the subject at hand.
            • Re: "'Disgusting' Pro-Obama Media Coverage"

              Mon, November 24, 2008 - 2:23 PM
              <<Yeah, sour grapes is SO harsh..... at least compared to Dustin's typical "CUNT" or "SPINELESS LYING SACK OF SHIT"..... >>


              No kidding... wow
              • Re: "'Disgusting' Pro-Obama Media Coverage"

                Mon, November 24, 2008 - 2:37 PM
                Sorry, Digital, if someone ios going to constantly attack me with mediocre insults, simply because I don't support the same person they do, then the insults I level back at then have no need to be polite
                • Re: "'Disgusting' Pro-Obama Media Coverage"

                  Mon, November 24, 2008 - 2:39 PM
                  Fair enough but why call someone else on something you do? It's very strange imo.
                  • This is the maximum depth. Additional responses will not be threaded.

                    Re: "'Disgusting' Pro-Obama Media Coverage"

                    Mon, November 24, 2008 - 2:49 PM
                    Because he always tries to deny doing it, and constantly attempts to redefine what a personal attack is. Like he did here:

                    "You still don't understand what a personal attack is, this is NOT a personal attack. Just like you don't understand what a Conflict of Interest actually is."


                    If I gave you the impression that I think I am a saint, then i apologize digital. I am a huge asshole, and have no issue with that fact
                    • Re: "'Disgusting' Pro-Obama Media Coverage"

                      Mon, November 24, 2008 - 3:00 PM
                      Fair enough but why call out other assholes? Just be at one with your iner asshole and the right for others to be an asshole just like you. :)
                      • Re: "'Disgusting' Pro-Obama Media Coverage"

                        Mon, November 24, 2008 - 3:22 PM
                        because that other asshole constantly raises a stink about me being an asshole. Like he did here:

                        <<Yeah, sour grapes is SO harsh..... at least compared to Dustin's typical "CUNT" or "SPINELESS LYING SACK OF SHIT"..... >>
                        • Re: "'Disgusting' Pro-Obama Media Coverage"

                          Mon, November 24, 2008 - 3:28 PM
                          Of course everyone can see that I pointed out your own vulgar and denigrating insults in the wake of you crying about personal attacks. In other words, I was pointing out your hypocrisy.
                          • Re: "'Disgusting' Pro-Obama Media Coverage"

                            Mon, November 24, 2008 - 4:06 PM
                            "Of course everyone can see that I pointed out your own vulgar and denigrating insults in the wake of you crying about personal attacks. In other words, I was pointing out your hypocrisy."


                            Jeff, I never claimed that I didn't engage in personal attacks. While that is exactly what you did in this thread
                            • Re: "'Disgusting' Pro-Obama Media Coverage"

                              Mon, November 24, 2008 - 4:38 PM
                              <<Jeff, I never claimed that I didn't engage in personal attacks.

                              I did not say you did. I said you are being hypocritical. Do you know the difference between claiming you are being hypocritical and claiming that you think you don't engage in personal attacks?

                              Hypocrisy (or the state of being a hypocrite) is the act of preaching a certain belief, religion or way of life, but not, in fact, holding these same virtues oneself.

                              en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hypocrisy
                    • Re: "'Disgusting' Pro-Obama Media Coverage"

                      Mon, November 24, 2008 - 3:35 PM
                      <<Because he always tries to deny doing it, and constantly attempts to redefine what a personal attack is. Like he did here:

                      You are under the mistaken impression that all Ad HominEm responses are attacks, they are not, as I demonstrated.

                      <<I am a huge asshole, and have no issue with that fact

                      Of course, that is part of what mekes you one.
                • Re: "'Disgusting' Pro-Obama Media Coverage"

                  Mon, November 24, 2008 - 3:26 PM
                  "Sorry, Digital, if someone ios going to constantly attack me with mediocre insults"

                  That is funny coming from the man that constantly demonstrates a serious lack of imagination by slinging around the word CUNT at the drop of a hat? If I do insult you, at the very least I don't have to rely upon a constant barage of vulgar denigration.

                  <<I level back at then have no need to be polite

                  You mean like when I politely thanked you for your honesty, and you responded by calling me a "LYING SPINELESS SACK OF SHIT"? Wow, how imaginative!!!! LOL. What is next? Pooopie Head?
        • Re: "'Disgusting' Pro-Obama Media Coverage"

          Mon, November 24, 2008 - 2:25 PM
          "I never indicated any such thing. I am correctly pointing out that Cornel is latching on to any excuse he can as to why his candidate lost and how Obama won. He has no interest in giving any of the credit to Obama and no interest in crediting any of the failures to Hillary."

          Then how about addressing the issue and ignoring the person who posted it?
          • Re: "'Disgusting' Pro-Obama Media Coverage"

            Mon, November 24, 2008 - 2:34 PM
            "Then how about addressing the issue and ignoring the person who posted it?"


            BWAHAHAHAHA~!!!
            • Re: "'Disgusting' Pro-Obama Media Coverage"

              Mon, November 24, 2008 - 3:30 PM
              <<"Then how about addressing the issue and ignoring the person who posted it?"


              BWAHAHAHAHA~!!! <<

              And while you are trying to lecutre me for not responding to the substance of this thread (although I have), Dustin himself has not addressed the substance of this thread. Dustin, this is also commonly called hypocrisy. Hopefully you have learned something today.
              • Re: "'Disgusting' Pro-Obama Media Coverage"

                Mon, November 24, 2008 - 4:07 PM
                "Hopefully you have learned something today."


                No, I already knew you would deny your bad behavior when it was pointed out to you, and plainly seen by others
                • Re: "'Disgusting' Pro-Obama Media Coverage"

                  Mon, November 24, 2008 - 4:32 PM
                  <<No, I already knew you would deny your bad behavior when it was pointed out to you, and plainly seen by others

                  Take note that I admitted that I engaged in an Ad-HominEm. But as I said, the Ad-Hominem was a focus on the characteristic of Cornel's bitterness. Nowhere did Ron agree that I was engaging in personal attack Ad-HominEm. And yes, it is spelled with an E.

                  Now, have YOU addressed the subject of this thread yet? Or have you only addressed me?
  • Re: "'Disgusting' Pro-Obama Media Coverage"

    Mon, November 24, 2008 - 10:38 AM
    Read this Cornel....

    Greg Mitchell Takes On Mark Halperin's Claim Of "Pro-Obama" Press Bias

    Halperin himself couldn't be biased, could he? One recalls his remarkable letter to far right-wing radio host Hugh Hewitt last year when he declared, "I really enjoyed our radio talk and I appreciated the opportunity to appear with someone I respect so much....As I said on the show, you and I agree on almost everything we discussed." [...]

    It's the old false equivalency problem. In his "disgusting" remarks at the forum, Halperin cited as the most obvious flaw the NYT's late profiles of Cindy McCain and Michelle Obama. Why, the McCain profile was more negative! Well, come of think of it, Michelle did not have an affair with Barack during a previous marriage, did not steal money from her own charity and barely avoid jail, did not become a drug addict, did not lie about the the circumstances of adopting a baby abroad, and so on!

    www.eandppub.com/2008/11/m...grape.html

    P.S. Take note of the "sour-grape" in the web address.... LOL!
  • Re: "'Disgusting' Pro-Obama Media Coverage"

    Mon, November 24, 2008 - 1:32 PM
    Halperin was obviously right. When you see polls show that even a majority of Democrats believed that the media was pulling for Obama, you can't just accuse this of being right wing paranoia.
    • Re: "'Disgusting' Pro-Obama Media Coverage"

      Mon, November 24, 2008 - 1:43 PM
      <<When you see polls show that even a majority of Democrats believed that the media was pulling for Obama, you can't just accuse this of being right wing paranoia.

      Media bias is something that Republicans have been beating in to the heads of the public for sometime, so I am not surprised by the publics perception. I think that bullshit like Ayers and Reverend Wright indicates otherwise. I don't think that the media latched on to Ayers and Wright because they have a right wing bias, they latched on to it because it got them ratings. In regards to any perceieved differences in coverage, Obama ran a more positive campaign than McCain, so of course he is going to get more positive coverage. In addition, McCain got pissed at the media for a real or percieved diss, and as a consequence he gave them less access than they had previously been recieving. This resulted in an alienation of the press from what was once a friendly McCain camp.
  • Re: "'Disgusting' Pro-Obama Media Coverage"

    Mon, November 24, 2008 - 9:52 PM
    The blatant role of the media in handing Obama first the nomination and then the presidency has to be studied closely by anyone who is going to have any chance of understanding what will be going on for the next couple of decades.

    Does anyone (at least anyone to the left of David Brooks) deny that the media helped Bush win both times - primarily by ridiculous snarking against Gore and then Kerry? The pattern was exactly the same this time - except that the media supported Obama instead of that old Republican guy.
    • Media coverage is never neutral, so ......

      Mon, November 24, 2008 - 9:55 PM
      In fact, if you think about it, the idea that the media was "neutral" in 2008 (or any other election) is ridiculous. Were they neutral in 2000? In 2004? Why would they suddenly become neutral in 20008?

      Will anyone try to claim that the media supported McCain?
    • Re: "'Disgusting' Pro-Obama Media Coverage"

      Mon, November 24, 2008 - 10:32 PM
      I don't think it is something that is done by design. But more likely the media getting caught up in their own narrative, as they try to push a story
      • Re: "'Disgusting' Pro-Obama Media Coverage"

        Tue, November 25, 2008 - 1:27 PM
        >> I don't think it is something that is done by design. But more likely the media getting caught up in their own narrative, as they try to push a story <<

        Do you think that was the case when the NYT was running Judy Miller's crap on the front page? Were they just "getting caught up in their own narrative" then? Or were they helping to shove a war down the throats of the american public?

        It's not really an either/or situation, though. A major part of the media's "narrative" is that the entire universe of possible acceptable thought is completely exhausted by the "alternatives" presented by the Dems and Repubs. Obama is just the kind of fictional character needed to spice that increasingly dingy narrative up.
        • Re: "'Disgusting' Pro-Obama Media Coverage"

          Tue, November 25, 2008 - 1:59 PM
          "Do you think that was the case when the NYT was running Judy Miller's crap on the front page? Were they just "getting caught up in their own narrative" then? Or were they helping to shove a war down the throats of the american public?"


          Of course there were certain institutions pushing specific candidates. But your comment was in regards to the press, in it's entirety.


          "It's not really an either/or situation, though. A major part of the media's "narrative" is that the entire universe of possible acceptable thought is completely exhausted by the "alternatives" presented by the Dems and Repubs. Obama is just the kind of fictional character needed to spice that increasingly dingy narrative up. "

          I wouldn't argue with this. But it is something completely different then them pushing a specific candidate
    • Re: "'Disgusting' Pro-Obama Media Coverage"

      Tue, November 25, 2008 - 12:00 PM
      <<Does anyone (at least anyone to the left of David Brooks) deny that the media helped Bush win both times - primarily by ridiculous snarking against Gore and then Kerry?

      The direction the media takes with the campaigns is a product of what is the most controversial and subsequently better ratings. Bush and Co. used the media to promote their snarkiness, and it got the media ratings. Same thing with the media going after Obama on Ayer's and Reverend Wright. The difference being that Obama was able to respond more effectively than either Gore or Kerry.

      In addition Cornel, you are still ignoring that McCain had a falling out with the media. He started out as the media darling, but real or percieved, he thought he was dissed by the media and he reduced their access significantly. This allowed Obama better control of the narrative. He went even further in limiting media access in regards to Palin. The fault for this lies with McCain.

      In other words, you are simplifying something that does not translate in an honest manner when you say things such as "The blatant role of the media in handing Obama first the nomination and then the presidency". It ignores the mistakes that the McCain campaign made in handling its relationship with the media. Which we know of course is essential to a campaign. How does a candidate expect to have any effect on the narrative when they are limiting media access in such a significant manner? It not only makes it more difficult to get his message out, it also has the effect of spoiling the realationship he did have with the media.
      • Re: "'Disgusting' Pro-Obama Media Coverage"

        Tue, November 25, 2008 - 12:05 PM
        I am glad to see that our conversation, for lack of a better word, has had an impact on how you interact with those that disagree with you. I am sure it will make everyone's time in this forum more rewarding
        • Re: "'Disgusting' Pro-Obama Media Coverage"

          Tue, November 25, 2008 - 1:03 PM
          What the hell are you talking about? I addressed the subject of this thread starting with my 2nd post. Have you addressed it yet? It seems it is you that has something to learn.
          • Re: "'Disgusting' Pro-Obama Media Coverage"

            Tue, November 25, 2008 - 1:14 PM
            Jeff, I was just complimenting you on how you have been interacting with those that you disagree with. It was a compliment. Don't be so uptight


            If my compliment offended you, then I apologize
            • Re: "'Disgusting' Pro-Obama Media Coverage"

              Tue, November 25, 2008 - 2:00 PM
              You are pretending that you somehow had an impact on me in our discussions. I have a long history of debating politics on tribe, and this is how I have historically had discussions with people, in particular people like Ron who while we disagree, we have primarily always treated each other with respect. I respect Ron because he is intellectually and otherwise honest to the best of his abilities. Not so for others. The blatant hate bias of some against Obama putting them in the position of latching on to anything they can, true or not, logical or not, to sling at him and his supporters is something I don't have respect for. Thus, I can both point out Cornel's sour grapes AND address the issue directly.... as I did before you and I even began having this current discussion. In other words, our discussion had zero impact on how I discuss the issues.
              • Re: "'Disgusting' Pro-Obama Media Coverage"

                Tue, November 25, 2008 - 2:29 PM
                "You are pretending that you somehow had an impact on me in our discussions."

                No, I just noticed that there was a difference in how you iinterected with those that disagreed with you today, and how you interacted with these people yesterday. This is a good thing, and honestly could careless about what brought about this change


                "I have a long history of debating politics on tribe, and this is how I have historically had discussions with people, in particular people like Ron who while we disagree, we have primarily always treated each other with respect."


                Yes, and that all went out the window when you developed your infatuation for Obama. Either accept the compliment or don't. It really isn't that big of a deal


                "The blatant hate bias of some against Obama putting them in the position of latching on to anything they can, true or not, logical or not, to sling at him and his supporters is something I don't have respect for."


                Sure, there are some with irrational hatred for Obama. But there are others who blindly and irrationally defend anything the man does. In fact, to the point where they can not tolerate anyone having a negative opinion of the man, for what ever reason


                "Thus, I can both point out Cornel's sour grapes AND address the issue directly.... as I did before you and I even began having this current discussion. In other words, our discussion had zero impact on how I discuss the issues."


                Your general approach seemed different today. I chalked it up to the most obvious reason
                • Re: "'Disgusting' Pro-Obama Media Coverage"

                  Tue, November 25, 2008 - 2:34 PM
                  <<No, I just noticed that there was a difference in how you iinterected with those that disagreed with you today, and how you interacted with these people yesterday.

                  I logically discussed the subject of the thread yestereday and today.

                  <<Yes, and that all went out the window when you developed your infatuation for Obama.

                  Disrespect is going to breed disprespect. For instance, my falling out with you began when with your vulgar and vitriolic debate tactic was leveled at me when we disagreed. We had perfectly reasonable conversations before that.

                  <<But there are others who blindly and irrationally defend anything the man does. In fact, to the point where they can not tolerate anyone having a negative opinion of the man, for what ever reason

                  I see little of that here. I have been critical of his FISA vote for instance. I just happen to have little tolerance for irrational hatred.
                  • This is the maximum depth. Additional responses will not be threaded.

                    Re: "'Disgusting' Pro-Obama Media Coverage"

                    Tue, November 25, 2008 - 2:43 PM
                    "I logically discussed the subject of the thread yestereday and today."


                    And today you have managed, for the most part, to not attack those that disagree with you




                    "Disrespect is going to breed disprespect. For instance, my falling out with you began when with your vulgar and vitriolic debate tactic was leveled at me when we disagreed. We had perfectly reasonable conversations before that. "


                    Ha, as if following me around for weeks and verbally attacking me for not being "objective" was not vulgar.

                    Remember, it was you who has been warned twice, not me


                    "I see little of that here. I have been critical of his FISA vote for instance."


                    Ha +1


                    PS I find it amazing that a simple compliment can cause such controversy
                    • Re: "'Disgusting' Pro-Obama Media Coverage"

                      Tue, November 25, 2008 - 2:53 PM
                      <<And today you have managed, for the most part, to not attack those that disagree with you

                      And as I indicated yesterday, not all Ad-Hominem's are attacks. I was simply pointing out the characterisitic of his sour grapes motivation, something that is obvious to everyone.

                      The question STILL remains, when are you going to address the subject of this thread instead of me?

                      <<Ha, as if following me around for weeks and verbally attacking me for not being "objective" was not vulgar.

                      For one, you followed me to this threand and others yestereday, obsessing over me rather than addressing the subject of this thread. In addition, I never attacked you for being objective, not sure what exactly it is you are putting in quotes being that you are not quoting me. Second, how I debate does not even come close to your over-reliance on vulgar denigration and name calling toward those that disagree with you. As a matter of fact, you engaging in this regular practice of yours was the beginning of our falling out. It was not necessary and frankly a demonstration of your own assessment of your person when you called yourself an admitted asshole.
                    • Re: "'Disgusting' Pro-Obama Media Coverage"

                      Tue, November 25, 2008 - 2:56 PM
                      <<Remember, it was you who has been warned twice, not me

                      Remember, it is you that is a liar being that I have never been warned twice, as I explained yesterday. And the lack of current oversight of the rules allowing you to break them repeatedly speaks nothing about you somehow being better than me in regards to the rules. You break them almost every day.

                      <<PS I find it amazing that a simple compliment can cause such controversy

                      You were complimenting yourself Dustin, trying to somehow take credit for changing how I debate.
  • Re: "'Disgusting' Pro-Obama Media Coverage"

    Tue, November 25, 2008 - 12:33 PM
    Hillary lied, her campaign died. Slice it up, rearrange it, dress it up however you like - she told a bad fib, an indefensible one, and she suffered the consequences. Such is life. "Don't let your lie be discoverable when you're trying to become president" is the moral. McCain was smart to leave his lies in the nondisprovable realm - like that BS about the Christian torture-camp guard and the Xmas Day Miracle - and Obama did a great job of spinning a whole new brand of populist doublespeak in order to avoid saying anything true OR untrue.

    Hillary lied in an easily demonstrated way, though, and thus lost all those votes on her own merit.

    Don't worry; I'm sure Obama has an equal chance of becoming a lying murderer as she became in her career. Give him time. He may just give you a Clinton yet.
    • Re: "'Disgusting' Pro-Obama Media Coverage"

      Tue, November 25, 2008 - 9:24 PM
      I think it would be difficult to write a story about Cindy and Michelle and not have Michelle look better because, uh, Michelle is not a woman who slept with a married man with kids and broke up his marriage. Michelle never stole drugs from a charity and never cheated a sibling out of a huge fortune. Michelle worked her way up from a working class beginning and went to law school. I really don't have anything against Cindy, but she is not half the person Michelle is.

      Honestly, though, I believe that as far as the media was concerned this race was about Obama vs Palin. McCain and Biden were just too boring for any media coverage at all, apparently. Seems like the young and good looking were the ones the cameras and reporters followed. Biden was without a doubt the least reported on candidate of them all.

Recent topics in "! * POLITICS * !"

Topic Author Replies Last Post
Communists at heart? Erik 8 Today, 9:18 PM
Palin Guessgame is Over: 9 Today, 9:14 PM
Independence is not enough. . Lorenzo 5 Today, 9:08 PM
tribe morons preoccupied with bullshit TL 30 Today, 8:52 PM