Truth seems to be the first casualty of war -- and of political campaigns.

Posted by: William Anderson | September 16, 2008 5:05 PM

The mark of a truly good journalist is objectivity. They try, as best as one can, to not be biased. I too really like the network Sunday morning shows, as they seem to show more than one point of view, NPR, and Jim Lehrer. I don't listen to the other stuff so many on this blog gripe about. The point remains, if no one watches them, they will be pulled. If you let them rile you, they've won.

Unfortunately, our candidates have fallen for it hook, line and sinker. I heard Obama speak to McCain staying in Iraq for 100 years, and I've heard the McCain folks actually be offended by lipstick on a pig.

Posted by: frankie | September 16, 2008 5:29 PM

Sorry, but the casual linking of Fox and MSNBC just won't fly. Not that Fox is straight down the middle, but neither is any other network. Other than MSNBC most networks have a mild bias, Fox only stands out because its mild bias is to the right while most of the others tilt mildly to the left.

Fox is the conservative equivalent of CNN. MSNBC is the liberal equivalent of a 24-hour Ann Coulter channel.

LV

Posted by: Lord Voldemort | September 16, 2008 5:43 PM

"No, Obama did not support a bill in Illinois to teach sex education to kindergartners, but rather one to protect them from sexual predators."
--That may have been his intention (or one of his intentions) in supporting the bill (who knows?), but protection from sexual predators was not its main purpose...comprehensive sex ed was. Factcheck.org defends Obama by saying the bill called for "age appropriate" discussion and he was on record opposed to "explicit sex ed." But what is meant by these terms? How can STDs be discussed with kindergartners in a non-explicit, age-appropriate way? Parents can also pull their child out of any sex ed class...the opt out clause doesn't make this bill unique (and what if parents were wrongly told that the education would only be about inappropriate touching??)

Bottom line is McCain's ad was factually correct and the inappropriate touching aspect of the bill was just a minor side provision.

Posted by: jesse | September 16, 2008 6:01 PM

jesse,

I've seen no evidence supporting your assertion that "sex ed" bill in question was for anything other than to teach kids about "inappropriate touching." That's not to say you're wrong about it being "just a minor side provision,"--I confess I haven't read the bill itself--but since that's NEVER come up in any of the materials I've read (including the FactCheck.org article you cite), I'd appreciate more evidence if you're going to say that McCain's ad wasn't misleading.

Posted by: Mark Baker-Wright | September 16, 2008 6:27 PM

I would prefer that the media simply admit its bias. Then we could take their product with a grain of salt. It wouldn't be anything new to American journalism. Newspapers used to be owned and operated by party activists.

Britain's media operates under a similar system. Why not simply eschew the pretense of objectivity?

"And no, McCain didn't say we should keep the war going in Iraq for a hundred years if necessary, just that we might have to support troops there that long as we do in other places. "

Correct.

Posted by: kevin s. | September 16, 2008 7:37 PM

You want facts? How about this one. This Adminstration has bailed out more Wall Street failures that the last three presidents combined. And the cost will exceed the National budget of Jimmy Carter. But there ar eno provisions to recoop the money we are dishing out.

Posted by: Scruffy | September 16, 2008 8:07 PM

LV,

Bill O'Reilly is way worse than Olbermann. At least he manages to check his facts before he talks. The same can't be said for O'Reilly.

p

Posted by: Payshun | September 16, 2008 9:03 PM

ok all,

Lets get back to the purpose of this conversation:

We need to step back and call both sides to the facts. The reality is that the media is biased (how far left or right is not the point)... We have to realize that we are not getting all the facts and that in reality it is impossible to completely know everything... that is one of the problems with 24 hour news, we feel like we are more informed when we are not. This conversation has to be done through humility. I find it interesting that come election time everyone becomes an arm-chair economist, foreign-policy expert, and health care specialist. This is not to say that we should not have opinions but we need to have humility.

Anyways, i think what Jim is trying to say is that we need to try to step back and not assume that the monopoly of evil or good is on one side.

Posted by: jason | September 16, 2008 9:06 PM

"News" programs today are not about news, they are about luring as many eyeballs as possible to the screen. Scrolling banners, "Breaking News," "Developing Story" are all geared to catch your eye. So are teasing questions like "Is Obama losing control of the race?" News is a business and these organizations want ratings, period.

Posted by: Noodle Beach | September 16, 2008 9:27 PM

As someone in the media, I think I have a handle on some of the issues.

1) Media, including my own newspaper, are businesses that need to make a profit. In these days newspapers cut back because readership is down; that's a function of being able to be "informed" by sources you select. The trouble is that the information is often unreliable and doesn't stand up to scrutiny. Moreover, there's only so much time or space to go around, let alone the money to pay to cover them; just because you believe there is a story that needs to be covered doesn't actually mean it does, especially in comparison to others.

2) Cable TV news, which I almost never watch anymore, is more about entertainment than information; it all but requires bells and whistles that, in my view, detract and distract from the story and the food fights that keep people watching but don't address any issues. Give me network news any day.

3) As for bias, the charge is ridiculous -- because the inference is that people in the media are by definition apologists for a certain worldview, which may not be, and usually isn't, at all accurate. This goes back to the siege mentality that's prevalent in the U.S. today and which started full-bore with Nixon. Here's the question I have to ask: Are we willing to admit that, while we love to accuse the media of bias, that we are ourselves biased? And that such bias will color how we look at a story? Furthermore, media target markets -- I'm going to write a story differently for a black audience, a Christian audience or a general audience.

Posted by: Rick | September 16, 2008 10:27 PM

I agree that "just the facts" would be ideal, but I don't see how that could happen since we're all human. What would be great would be some genuine humility and honest self-disclosure from all news organizations and reporters.
I think the greatest bias I see in news reporting is not liberal or conservative--it is a bias of arrogance. Just about every news report is presented as if it is not only 100% accurate and complete, but as if it is also the most important thing I need to know about the most important topics that affect my life.
This is especially frustrating to me as an evangelical Christian. Faith is so central to life for so many, but stories reflecting this reality are rare. Stories without much useful information or valuable insight are not.
As you watch or read today's journalists, do you get the sense that they have a genuine desire to understand and accurately report on people whose views are different from their own? I don't.

Posted by: rick r | September 16, 2008 10:40 PM

As you watch or read today's journalists, do you get the sense that they have a genuine desire to understand and accurately report on people whose views are different from their own?

The question assumes that you know what their views are, which is a cynical way of looking at things -- most of the ones I know are well aware of other views (we talk about that quite a bit in the newsroom). As I was saying before, we as a culture look so much at the bias in reporters we don't look at our own; I myself have occasionally been accused of such.

New York Times columnist Thomas Friedman was in our office today, and he said that (in the contest of the Middle East, but I think this applies to everyone) you will have a fighting chance if you're willing to listen. Thing is, if you have your mind made up as to what the "truth" is and accept no other views you won't be taken seriously. And I'm not talking primarily about journalists, either.

I don't necessarily like everyone on Fox and they do lean strongly to the right, but after about twenty years of slant toward the left, I welcome the counterpoint. I've lived with the advocacy journalism of NBC, ABC, CBS, CNN and PBS long enough to know why FOX has caught on. Brit Hume is about the only anchor I consider to be a true journalist.

Hume is considerably more biased than the rest, truth be told.

Posted by: Rick | September 16, 2008 11:28 PM

cable news slants always toward the sensational, usually from the right, & almost always from the bottom. it is the nature of the beast(s): the need to fill 24 hours of programming with current events pinged out 90 seconds at a time, plus the innate human desire on the part of the consuming public to go for the dish, no matter how absurd or mindless (in fact, the more absurd & mindless, the better). it is pure entertainment, not journalism. obama giving oreilly an interview was the equivalent of giving ricky lake an interview. journalism is alive, but you won't find it on cable, & only rarely on the networks. it's like good chocolate, you won't find it at the grocery store where 95% of consumers are buying it. i often get mad at the press for not being better stewards of their trade, but i always end up back shaking my head at us, the collective consuming public.
i am a newby to factcheck, & i must say so far i find it useful as a decoder ring for parsing through the bs flying constantly from my television. the joke is on me, however, as the cnn, foxnews, & my local cable provider are laughing all the way to the bank to the tune of my 50 bucks a month.

Posted by: nad2 | September 17, 2008 12:23 AM

Talk Radio - don't think that would have gotten into the discussion if Air America had been able to attract an audience and actually be a viable commercial station.

And Carl Rove is not the only person that is on FOX. The former female VP canidate for the Dem Party G. Farro is one. One of Hillary's former advisors is a Fox contributer like Rove. And where is George S. - former Clinton Spokesman? He not just a contributer - he is 'the man' on his station.

And what was it that Obermann told someone to do? I believe he used a word that would get most of us kicked off of Sojo.

Frankin - the wanna-be Senator for MN. If I had said what he said on the job - the least that would happen is I would be fired, more likely - sued till there was no more 401 for big guy.

O'Rielly did an interview with Obama - did anyone here watch it? One of the better interviews I have seen Obama do off prompter. I enjoy watching Hannity and Combes as they take on issues and people and do not dare say Alan is a wimp like some have here in the past. He is as direct and to the point as anyone else on TV - network or cable.

For me - I like having more than the 3 networks giving me the news - and back then there was no 'fact check' to go to for Rather - Wallis and Cronkite. And there should have been because they played fast and loose with the facts.

Yes - the paradyme has changed and the old guard is PO'd - so what. You can either change and adjust with the times or be left in the dust and have no effect on the future.

Blessings to all -
.

Posted by: big guy | September 17, 2008 1:01 AM

The debate above about bias in media illustrates one of the major points in Farhad Manjoo's very important book, True Enough: Learning to Live in a Post-Fact Society. Manjoo demonstrates that in our current fragmented media and equally fragmented political landscape, one will always perceive bias in any media source that mentions even one negative thing about an issue that one is partisan about. It doesn't matter if the same media source waxes positive about the same issue, if one tiny little negative is mentioned, one will brand the media as biased.

Manjoo illustrates this point with partisans of Macintosh computers. In a glowingly positive review of an Apple product, Macintosh partisans still perceived that the reviewer was biased because he mentioned one very minor negative thing in the review.

In other words, the bias that is perceived as coming from the media is often actually coming from the individual who perceives it.

Manjoo's book come highly recommended. It is a real eye-opener.

Peace,

Posted by: Don | September 17, 2008 6:16 AM

rick r wrote: What would be great would be some genuine humility...I think the greatest bias I see in news reporting is not liberal or conservative - it is a bias of arrogance. Just about every news report is presented as if it is not only 100% accurate and complete...

Rick, the man who works for a newspaper, wrote later: Hume is considerably more biased than the rest, truth be told.

That's the thruth, by the way, not just his opinion. Is Rick trying to add supporting documentation to rick r's comments?

Posted by: Ricardo | September 17, 2008 8:36 AM

Just a note on the change in broadcast media -

The elimination of the Fairness Doctrine in 1987 promoted the rise of 'biased' broadcast media outlets, since broadcasters were no longer required to present all sides of an issue in return for a reasonable use of public property ( broadcast spectrum in the US).

One could argue that we are seeing a 'tragedy of the commons' effect in the media - so many competing entities that the overall utility of the media in informing the public on key matters, especially on viewpoints that they would not otherwise encounter, is diminished.

Plus the sense of community is decreased if everybody gets their own tailored version of 'reality'.

Posted by: Vince | September 17, 2008 8:50 AM

"Marie, Wow, did you come up with that "fact check" about Rove on your own? That's pretty insightful. Oh wait...it's not original; it's recycled. About 100 bloggers and reporters have already pointed that out. Maybe you should have given them a little credit before passing that idea off as your own.

Posted by: Ricardo | September 17, 2008 8:41 AM"

Ricardo,

I don't read the rantings of 100 bloggers and reporters and I don't have cable TV. But you are correct - I did not actually hear Karl Rove make his original statement so the idea is not really my own. (For your edification, I read his quote in the newspaper.)

Does the fact that I did not originate this idea make it any less relevant?

Posted by: Sister Marie | September 17, 2008 8:58 AM

Just the facts - LOL

OK - since the 'facts' are so important. Let us just see what the 40+ lawyers and newpeople that the Dem Party and their operatives find out about Gov. Palin and her family.

The Daily KOS which Obama and HR Clinton support have already told us that Palin's baby was her daughters - buzzz - NOT!

These people are even going after people who work on the oil fields to see what they can get on the 'First Dude'. Buzzz - so much for spouces being off limits Obama. Your wife has spoken more to the press than he has and will be treated better I am sure. (Obama - to bad that the Palin's aren't divorced - I understand that is one of your favorite subjects to go after you oponets about) I wish Rather was still on the news - no doubt he and his staff could 'find' (wink - wink) information about the Palin's that the world just had to know about. Then again - he more oftens saves that for just weeks prior to an election so there is time to bring him back to life.

Let's see what 'facts' the big four bring to us over the next few weeks.

Blessings to all -
.

Posted by: big guy | September 17, 2008 9:39 AM

"If (sucking) Air America had been able to be commercially viable - we would not be talking about this today."

big guy, you've said this twice. it has been sent around the echo chamber of right wing talk radio since AA had financial trouble at its outset & was rumored to be going under, at which point right wing radio stopped paying attention & must've assumed it just went under. air america is still a commercially viable, nationwide radio programming network. & it is aweful, just like hannity, rush, oreilly, & the gang are all aweful. the only time it is worth listening to on xm is when they feed in ed shultz from north dakota, a proud progressive, but at least he maintains his intergrity & doesn't speak in vociferous hyperbole like the AA & popular righty voices mentioned above.

Posted by: nad2 | September 17, 2008 10:11 AM

I watched a few minutes of Fox this morning and was stunned at their obvious preference for McCain over Obama. Here were three anchors, journalists, on a news network show pointing the finger of condemnation at celebrity hosts of the entertainment show "The View" for what they said was unfair treatment of McCain.

Posted by: Cheryl Spencer from Lewes, Delaware | September 17, 2008 10:29 AM

Posted by: nad2 | September 17, 2008 10:11 AM

But what I see as the big difference is that Rush - Hannity - O'Rielly take on the issues with the person for the most part. O'Rielly and Obama - great stuff. Hannity and Combs - both sides. Rush's books...See, I Told You So and The Way Things Ought To Be. Frankin and Air America, Rush Limbaugh is a Big Fat Liar.

In today info age I have never purchased the National Inquirer except for their articles on Bat Boy. It is hard to understand why the NI comes out with the story about Edwards but the Big Four and Times etc. They will not comment on it until they are forced to - do you see why some of us might look at mian stream and the Big Four with a little questioning...? Good grief - the Drudge Report has been more on point and truthful for the most part. (someone will have to make a comment on that one - whatever)

Blessings to all -
.

Posted by: big guy | September 17, 2008 10:30 AM

I don't watch The View because I work during the day, but the one who was a receptionist for one of the morning shows was on Larry King last week or so.

I realize she was just giving her take on Palin, but she was out of line, if we are talking about the issues. Most of her point was that Palin looks like the classic "Teacher that turns into a stripper" so why does she wear glasses and not contacts, etc.

That stuff was way worse than 'lipstick on a pig' and extremely sexist. I will also say that Charlie Gibson was much meaner to Palin that I've ever seen him be with either male candidate. I love it journalistically when he asked her, "what insight has being next to Russia given you" but he has not pressed the male candidates in that fashion. I would LOVE to hear the men being treated the same way by Gibson. The woman from The View just made it clear to me that I will read a book and not watch morning tv on my next day off.

Posted by: frankie | September 17, 2008 10:39 AM

someone explain to me why msnbc gets railed as being obviously biased other than having keith olbermann. cnn gave glen beck (& lou dobbs) his own show, but i don't think it is a right-wing channel. i certainly don't think msnbc is the liberal yin to foxnews' yang.

Posted by: nad2 | September 17, 2008 10:44 AM

I and I said:
"Palin was an irresponsible pick"

What bothers me is that when you say such a thing about Gov. Palin, who has actually run something and accomplished things, you are not willing to say the same about Obama. If you are scared about the possibility of Sarah Palin having to assume the presidency, then it is even MORE scary to think of Born Alive Barack assuming the presidency on January 20, 2009. Unless McCain does a William Henry Harrison and dies in his first few weeks (not too likely), Palin will have plenty of time to learn the job, and learn it from a master. Obama, on the other hand, will be doing on-the-job-training from Day 1. Vladimir Putin and Mahmoud Ahmadinejad will be very aware that the USA will be very weak at that time.

Posted by: AlN | September 17, 2008 11:02 AM

Posted by: I and I | September 17, 2008 10:43 AM

I believe that I wrote it before but if I remember my history correct. Palin's resume is about the same as Teddy Rosevelt's when he was tapped to be VP. So - it is the experience or the gender. She is doing what every (liberal) female would be high fiving each other for except she is a conservative. Can you spell - DOUBLE STANDARD?

I remember seeing a cartoon back in the 90's between a young woman and and older woman in the office of NOW. First window - the younger one runs in and tells the older one that 'I have been sexually molested', and the older one say 'we'll get him.' next window - the younger one says that 'he had his hands all over her', the older one says 'we'll jail him'. Third window, the younger one says 'he's was an animal' and the older one says 'we'll cane him'. Last window, the younger one says 'he's a Democrate', and the only one replys 'you s**t!'. I think the samething is happening here. You have a powerful, focused, smart, engaging woman who is a conservative and the liberal women are treating her like she is their personnal Monica L.

Back in the day - I was happy for G Ferro. I did not agree with her but she had put in the time and been selected for the VP position and I thought - shoot, the Rep's will be a little late to that table. We were a little late, but I believe that we will get a chair.

It is only going to get more interesting as the weeks go on.

Blessings to all -
.

Posted by: big guy | September 17, 2008 11:07 AM

AlN, 18 million people voted for obama to be where he is on the ticket, 1 voted for palin to be on the ticket. of course, that is the nature of the beast, but that is why it is different. your last sentence is completely baseless & is shameful politics of fear.

Posted by: nad2 | September 17, 2008 11:12 AM

"What bothers me is that when you say such a thing about Gov. Palin, who has actually run something and accomplished things..."

What did she do as mayor of the fair town, besides shepherd a bond issue through to pay for a skating rink?

What did she do as guv of Alaska in two years, except to replace Murkowski's cronies with her own?

Most importantly, why was she picked? Was there NOBODY more experienced?

"...you are not willing to say the same about Obama."

You do not know me and have no business assuming that. I actually did express those reservations here on this blog, several times during the primaries. It happens Biden or Richardson were my first picks, both of whom were far more experienced and knowledgeable than most of the Dem and Repub candidates.

Here's the rub: I would rather see obama as second on the ticket than first due to that reason. But there is a difference between him and Palin in terms of how much they know of foreign policy. Palin's interview with Gibson showed that she really is not proficient at all in it, and knows precious little about domestic policy either. Obama, on the other hand, has been doing his homework and frankly has a better education.

Read what conservatives like David Brooks and George Will have had to say about Palin's thin resume and qualifications. It's not just a "liberal" thing. Yesterday's NY Times Brooks column is a good place to start.

Posted by: I and I | September 17, 2008 11:17 AM

"Most importantly, why was she picked? Was there NOBODY more experienced?"

And this is the crux of the matter. As I and others have pointed out, it isn't her experience as compared to Obama, it is her experience compared to other veep candidates. I've seen few of her supporters try to tackle that question. Instead, they tend to answer by saying "well, she's more experienced than Obama." Which she isn't.

So, someone please answer the question how this little known Alaskan governor has more experience than the other Republican veep candidates who were passed over for her.

Posted by: squeaky | September 17, 2008 12:49 PM

"Here's the rub: I would rather see obama as second on the ticket than first due to that reason."

So would I. In fact, Biden/Clinton would have been a great ticket. But that ticket won't be on the ballot. At present, the Palin and Obama have equal foreign policy cred (which is to say, none) as do Biden and McCain.

If you are up in arms about the Palin pick on account of experience, you should feel the same way about Obama. All things being equal, it would be better to have inexperience at the bottom of the ticket than the top.

But there are ideological differences between the two. You agree with Obama's ideology, and not Palin's (or McCain's, presumably). That is a perfectly valid reason to support Obama's ticket, experience aside.

It is obvious to any reasonable person that her mayorship (is that the word?) of a small town in Alaska does not singularly qualify her for the role of VP. I think her actions as governor speak to a measure of political bravery, and a willingness to make some tough choices to resotr integrity to government.

In order to believe the above, I do not have to ascribe to the idea that Sarah Palin has ALWAYS made the right choice. In fact, in a two party system, I really only need to compare them to the actions of the Democratic ticket. Obama hasn't done anything courageous in office. At all.

Posted by: kevin s. | September 17, 2008 1:05 PM

Posted by: I and I | September 17, 2008 11:27 AM

But TR had a much better knowledge of how things work.

TR had no experience outside of riding rough and handling New York - so?

OK - then her resume is better when it comes to adm. as a Gov and a Mayor than Harry S Truman.

You're a lot smarter than that.

So are you! But your reg. in your face NOW member doesn't care. Back awhile ago when the hot topic was woman in the fire dept. The concern was that they could not carry a man my size down the stairs. There only option was to drag them down by their feet and risk the possibility of head tramam. Gloira Steinem said 'so what - move on'. It is those people that if Palin was a liberal would be high-five'n each other. There are more of them than you.

Blessings to all -
.

Posted by: big guy | September 17, 2008 2:04 PM

Big Guy: "I believe that I wrote it before but if I remember my history correct. Palin's resume is about the same as Teddy Rosevelt's when he was tapped to be VP."

Not even close: state legislator, head of U.S. Civil Service Commission, head of NYC Police, assistant secretary of U.S. navy, governor of New York, vice-president of USA. Prior to becomeing president, author of a number of books, including the 4-volume "Winning of the West" that is still consulted by historians.

Rick: " Cable TV news, which I almost never watch anymore, is more about entertainment than information."

I stopped watching any news on TV over 20 years ago (with the exception of a huge ongoing story like 9/11 attacks). It's amazing how informed one can stay by relying on newspapers, the Internet, and the radio.

Posted by: carl copas | September 17, 2008 2:27 PM

>>I love how worked up you libs get over the Palin pick even after several weeks. For that reason alone it is perhaps the greatest political decision of ALL TIME!

Party onn Wayne!! party on Peter S!! rock on dude!! Now its time fr aftternoon milk!!

Posted by: Bud Duncan | September 17, 2008 2:39 PM

Peter, Peter, Peter,

Even I know it's way too early to know if Palin is the 'greatest political decision of all time.' That reminds me of the day George Sr. said, "Read my lips," I could see the clip playing over and over, every time he raised our taxes.

Posted by: frankie | September 17, 2008 2:47 PM

Greatest pick of all time?

No, it's still each party's race to lose at this point. That's what will make the next 50 days so interesting.

Posted by: U TOO | September 17, 2008 2:53 PM

I and I,
I cannot help but wonder if race is the "elephant in the room." In very dangerous and complicated times we ought to consider McCain's age and cancer history. It seems that foreign affairs experience would have been more important than pandering to Dobson. Sarah Palin's education background does not impress me as a likely candidate for such a high office. Biden has extensive foreign affairs credentials and an excellent record for his work on behalf of women, (look up VAWA), he graduated from The University of Delaware and Syracuse Law and is where he is because he earned it, where Palin is where she is because McCain was desperate because those Religious Right powermongers kept snubbing him.
I am believing in the American public to choose inspiration, education, and intelligence over negativity, pandering, and manipulation.

Posted by: Cheryl Spencer from Lewes, Delaware | September 17, 2008 3:19 PM

"Well, no. My point was that even though both lack the experience we would want to see, Obama is much better versed in it than Palin, as evidenced by his many interviews and her one interview."

First of all, why not simply assess this after she has conducted many interviews, which will have happened by the time November rolls around. Second, I have seen little from Obama that indicates a nuanced understanding of foreign policy.

Truth be told, he doesn't have a foreign policy. Fault Palin all you will for her mediocre defense of McCain's policy, but at least it is a policy.

"And even in terms of experience, Obama has more than Palin: he has been in the U.S. Senate and has sat on the foreign Relations Committee. "

Has he sat on it? I'm pretty sure he was more absent than not for those committee meetings. Now, most Senators neglect their congressional duties when running for president. No biggie; the committee probably did just fine without him. But to use it as proof of his "experience"?

" The Bridge to Nowhere, the lobbying for federal pork, the selling of the plane on e-bay, etc.
"

But she did reduce pork to Alaska, did say no the Bridge to Nowhere, and did sell the plane. She also put the plane on e-bay. The fact that it didn't sell there is pretty irrelevant. You can make the case that her achievements in this regard are exaggerated. But we are still comparing her achievements (as a running mate) to the non-existent achievement of Obama (who is running for President).

"You won't be saying that after her upcoming meltdown; bank on that. And that will be the real story of this campaign."

She won't melt down. She'll mispronounce the name of the French secretary of war, or some ridiculous thing, and you'll call it a meltdown.

"And speaking of facts, Sarah Palin has held state office for two years. Barack Obama has held state and federal offices for 11 years."

But that's just a talking point. The role of Governor obviously trumps state legislature, and I think the role of Mayor is rougly on par.
Furthermore, it is worth considering what each candidate has done.

Posted by: kevin s. | September 17, 2008 4:00 PM

I don't even know where you live, but would you be excited if your mayor or Govenor, was up for VP? Why would Palin be any different than that choice?

These are rhetorical questions.

Posted by: frankie | September 17, 2008 4:10 PM

"You won't be sayin that after her upcoming meltdown"

"She won't melt down."

call it a meltdown or not, but that charlie gibson interview was a behind the woodshed kind of whoopin'. it was painful to watch ("so name three things...again, my question was name three things...ok, and the three things are..."), though it did get much better when he moved his questions back to the 30,000 feet level, which she never really wanted to leave. she was unprepared (she had zero specifics & charlie was demanding them) & she can only get more prepared from here on out, so i don't think she'll do any worse than that. either she is quickly moving to the center, or her main problem is going to be that she has been sold as something she really never was - the hard-right's dream. if she falters, i think it will be w/in the republican right's ranks (that, & she will almost certainly be outclassed by joe biden in the debate, as i think almost anyone would be).

as for obama's experience, i don't think you make it to be either major party's nominee w/o experience enough to be president (though that is an elusive measurement, you've passed the test of a major portion of the population to get there). it is the wisdom, judgment, vision & stances on the issues that matter & that i hope the remaining 47 days will be about.

Posted by: nad2 | September 17, 2008 4:25 PM

to follow up on my last point, i think we have 2 good candidates.

Posted by: nad2 | September 17, 2008 4:34 PM

"Truth be told, he doesn't have a foreign policy. Fault Palin all you will for her mediocre defense of McCain's policy, but at least it is a policy."

Apparently, we are allowed to say anything we want, so long as we precede it with "truth be told." Obama's website gives quite a bot of information about his foreign policy.

"I'm pretty sure he was more absent than not for those committee meetings."

I concede that point. However, for crucial votes he was there.

"But she did reduce pork to Alaska, did say no the Bridge to Nowhere..."

Pork was reduced to Alaska by Congress. Her "no" to the bridge was irrelevant; it was already taken away but she still was happy to get the money to use for something else.

"She won't melt down. She'll mispronounce the name of the French secretary of war, or some ridiculous thing, and you'll call it a meltdown."

I agree with you that mispronouncing of a name probably wouldn't be an electoral meltdown. Lord knows our last Republican candidate couldn't tell us the name of the President of Pakistan (which is a little more relevant to our security than, say, Togo) and he still got elected. And this is precisely the reason some of us are afraid of a Palin presidency--she seems similar to Bush in ideology AND intellect and bush has been such a disaster that McCain/Palin has been avoiding him as if he has leprosy.

Posted by: I and I | September 17, 2008 5:00 PM

Cheryl says, I cannot help but wonder if race is the "elephant in the room."

Kevin S says, You don't "wonder". That said, apparently, we are allowed to say anything we want, so long as we precede it with "I wonder if".

Cheryl, make sure you vet everything with Kevin S before you post it. You see, Kevin can read minds so he knows darn good and well what you really intend to say and he puts up with no guff by gol. There aint no problems with kevin, because he's a lot smarter than the rest of us and can cut through the crap. Yessiree, he's a no-nonsense kind of guy who calls a spade a spade and cuts through the phony like a knife through a room-temperature stick of butter.

Posted by: Loretta Mahan | September 17, 2008 5:08 PM

Kevin S says, Hillary decimated Obama on substance.

That is ridiculous. Look, you are a Republican, and are voting accordingly. It is dishonest to pretend otherwise.

Posted by: Loretta Mahan | September 17, 2008 5:17 PM

Kevin S says, I don't have to read minds. I am just aware of how people express themselves.

Of course you are, hon. Your parents must be very very proud.

Posted by: Loretta Mahan | September 17, 2008 5:19 PM

"Not even close: state legislator, head of U.S. Civil Service Commission, head of NYC Police, assistant secretary of U.S. navy, governor of New York, vice-president of USA. Prior to becomeing president, author of a number of books, including the 4-volume "Winning of the West" that is still consulted by historians.'

Carl Teddy started a war in Central Anerica , supplied the guys fighting for his purpose of securing Panama. Imperilaism under Teddy became part of his Adminstration legacy . So experience that meets your political litmus test means?

If Obama picked an outsider would you be advocating it was good because DC is bankrupt ?
Charles Rangel Ways and means , Rep Jefferson with money in his freezer. Delay with some shady dealings , whats his name tap dancing in bathrooms while advocating family values to get votes .

Could we speak about issues here ?

nevermind

What I find funny about politics is we take facts to support a view that normally we would never consider promoting .

Posted by: Michael | September 17, 2008 5:38 PM

P.S

Carl and getting back to Teddy , when he was assistant sec of the Navy he advocated policies that led to the war with Spain . He enlisted to fight in that war . San Juan Hill

Palen comes from a different cultural background then DC insiders . Its why McCain picked her . Political choice no doubt , strange politicians do this ?

Her culture shoots animals , guns are a cultural aspectof being good or bad , true they do not understand Obama's concern's and many states that see gun violence as a handicap to peoples lives in the same way paint her as cruel.

Just another reason I am against Big government , what is right is East LA or NY , may not be right in Montana or in rural Penn.. Different issues , those states should decide . Having politicians decide in DC where people hide their jewelery before they get on mass transit to go to work is a different culture then people who live in some areas where they leave their doors unlocked . Thats a cultural divide . In Illinoise they vote present on state issues , that sounds laim to me , but t works for them there . Republicans shoot Obama down for that , not fair , but it is politically effective to those out of that political culture.

Seems like their is a wave of God that starts many good things for God's people , then we form denominations to limit God because of that outporing of the Holy Spirit . man takes over and limits God into a Box. It seems the same can be said for politics. Good ideas get slimed by political prejudices and the boxes we put our ideas , and the people we are willing to give the benefit of doubt and those we don't..

I gues we are only human afterall .

Posted by: | September 17, 2008 6:08 PM

"Of course you are, hon. Your parents must be very very proud."

Is JamesM posting as a woman now? Between Bud, James, and whoever this is, the liberals here seem to be profoundly predictable. At any rate, James/Bud/Loretta, you have made no real argument.

"Our sitting president had far more "executive experience" as the governor of a much larger state for a longer period of time. He has been so bad as a president that John McCain has to distance himself. "

This is a fine argument against simply taking experience at face value, but a useless argument if you are trying to accuse Palin of lacking experience.

""And regarding why I'm comparing Obama to Palin... that would be because so many other people here seem to think there's a reasonable comparison. Remember, Palin has precisely 0.0% of Obama's experience in federal government."

And remember, Obama has done nothing of note as a member of the federal government. Remember too, that Palin is running for the executive branch of government.

But this is beside the point. If Obama had picked a similarly experienced liberal for his ticket, you would be defending his pick tooth and nail. Why simply state that you disagree with Palin, and state why?

Posted by: kevin s | September 17, 2008 6:55 PM

"This is a fine argument against simply taking experience at face value, but a useless argument if you are trying to accuse Palin of lacking experience."

Nice try, Kevin. But your crowd is trying to make something of the "executive experience." I AM telling you to take experience at face value. I just poked a hole in the "executive experience" argument.

"And remember, Obama has done nothing of note as a member of the federal government."

Bipartisan ethics reform. Nuclear non-proliferation. Searchable database of federal funds. Or do you mean besides that kind of stuff?

"Remember too, that Palin is running for the executive branch of government."

The executive branch of the federal government, which is a bit different from the Alaska state government.

"But this is beside the point. If Obama had picked a similarly experienced liberal for his ticket, you would be defending his pick tooth and nail."

You want to know what's arrogant? Presuming to know what I would do. Get over yourself, Kevin.

Posted by: Paul | September 17, 2008 7:23 PM

"I don't have to read minds. I am just aware of how people express themselves. It's amazing that people tend to "wonder" about that which would reinforce their existing viewpoint."

I already showed you this assumption was wrong in our exchange about the exact same thing. Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar.

Posted by: squeaky | September 17, 2008 7:43 PM

kevin: "Edited by ABC to reflect precisely such a result. Obama took a plenty hard whoopin' from Hillary in the primary debates. If you want to argue that this somehow makes him a better potential president (again remembering that he is running against John McCain) feel free. But he has definitely been taken to the woodshed."

enlighten me, kevin, as to where i argued anything about this.

i didn't see any editing going on during the exchanges where palin wouldn't answer questions. like i said, i thought it got much better toward the end. i don't think they would have left that in there if that was their intent, nor like rick, do i think you can back up what you've said.

i don't think there is any experience that can get someone truly ready to be president other than being president. every president i've heard speak on the matter attests to this. certainly familiarity with the workings of government from the inside, would seem to be important, but experience can only take you so far. gwb & clinton followed each other as governors with very different results. see also someone else's comment above about lincoln's experience.

we've got roughly 18 million people's collective judgment that someone is ready to be president. likewise for whatever the # is for mccain. there are no qualifications other than being a natural born citizen over 35 to run for president. we always trust that collective judgment as the primary indicator of whether or not someone is ready to be president, otherwise we wouldn't have the primary process. it is not ridiculous. i think that holds true for any candidate from either major party.

i don't really understand the hubris comment. because i plan to vote for one person over another disqualifies me from saying i think we have two good candidates? i like john mccain. should my vote for republican governor bob riley in the last election be considered an act of hubris or somehow to disqualified? i am not pretending to be anything. good grief. i've heard this from you before addressed to someone else - how is it that deciding on one candidate to vote for disqualifies someone from rendering objective opinions about any of them good or bad? many people, me included, hold the integrity of their judgment in much higher esteem than their party affiliation.

Posted by: nad2 | September 17, 2008 10:12 PM

ALN,

You are a hypocrite. Stop believing you are God or that somehow being a born-again evangelical is the only form of Christianity. There are churches way older and are just as Christian as evangelicals. Barack is a Christian and so is Sarah. I just find Sarah's policy to be far more destructive.

p

Posted by: Payshun | September 18, 2008 1:06 PM

Payshun,
You are a hypocrite. There, does that make you feel better?

I'll "Stop believing that somehow being a born-again evangelical is the only form of Christianity" when my Bible stops saying, in the words of Jesus, "You MUST be born again" (John 3:7). I guess "must" doesn't mean as much to you as the age of other "forms" of Christianity.

"Barack is a Christian" -- why because he says he is? I'm a camel -- does that make me one?

Posted by: AlN | September 18, 2008 2:44 PM

I truly don't believe anyone has the right or the miraculous insight necessary to say someone is or is not a "born again Christian". I have observed some very un-Christian-like behavior on the part of all four individuals on the ticket at times. It is a bitter fight, and it shows. I find it hard to conceive that Jesus would have been impressed with the nastiness of SP's speech at the convention, as just one example. As far as I know, all four claim to be Christians, and I accept those claims at face value, as I don't have the hubris to do otherwise.

There is not a "Christian ticket" or a "non-Christian ticket" here.

Posted by: Julia O | September 18, 2008 6:03 PM

Rick said:
"All the more reason why we should hold her to account. I for one will not vote for anyone just on that basis."
>> I didn't say you have to vote for her. But as your sister in Christ, please pray for her, and certainly stopping WISHING for bad things on her (a "meltdown").

Paul said:
"I defy you to listen when we do."
>> That is, you'll tell me why Obama is not a weak leader. Hmm, I'm listening! You haven't told me anything yet. Face it, he's weak. Then again, he's pretty tough on born alive abortion survivors. If he could only be as rough on terrorists.

JuliaO said:
"I find it hard to conceive that Jesus would have been impressed with the nastiness of SP's speech at the convention"
>> Julia, I mean this in all seriousness, but I really didn't see anything "nasty" in Palin's speech -- nothing! Sure, she cracked a joke about community organizers (and Jim Wallis wrote an article about it), but it was just as I described it, a J-O-K-E. In her interview with Shawn Hannity, she made it clear that she never meant to offend any community organizers out there, but only wanted to defend all the small-town mayors, whom the Obama team was disparaging.

I've actually done a lot of thinking about this, and I realize that this is just a core disagreement between conservatives and liberals. What are community organizers? Essentially they are "social workers" -- and like lawyers, that is a class of people whom you liberals look upon as heroic, while we conservatives think that, yes, there a few good ones out there, but most lawyers (and social workers) are causing more harm to the world than good. Certainly that's true of community organizers in Chicago, like Obama, who work directly with the evil organization ACORN. So how do we conservatives handle our dislike of lawyers? We tell jokes about them. I can imagine soon there might be lots of community organizer jokes:
Question: What do you call a bus full of community organizers at the bottom of the ocean?
Answer: A good start.

No, I don't mean that literally, but it's a funny joke. Laugh!

Posted by: AlN | September 19, 2008 12:24 AM

Aln

I would not be surprised if I were being hypocrite but in this situation but I am not. I have not questioned your Christianity but by questioning Barack's you question your own. You are my brother in Christ. If you actually read his conversion story you would see it to be genuine but for some reason you keep ignoring that. Why do you keep ignoring that?

"I'll "Stop believing that somehow being a born-again evangelical is the only form of Christianity" when my Bible stops saying, in the words of Jesus, "You MUST be born again" (John 3:7). I guess "must" doesn't mean as much to you as the age of other "forms" of Christianity."

In Luke it also says that if one is to inherit eternal life one must love God w/ all your heart, mind, body and soul and to love your neighbor as yourself. The bible has a lot to say about salvation and what it is but you seem stuck one branch of the Christian tree when the Orthodox and Catholics are Christians too. BTW Barack is not either of those ancient churches.

His denomination is the UCC and that's clearly protestant. So what the heck is your point?

Again since when are you God? Are you? can you see inside Barack's heart? Can you see inside your own?

p

Posted by: Payshun | September 19, 2008 3:28 PM