But on the other hand, he may have stayed at a Holiday Inn Express last night!
As the general election campaign heats up between Senator John McCain (R - AZ) and Senator Barack Obama (D - IL), the public can expect plenty of barbs to be traded and many promises to be made. Each candidate is likely toflip-flopexperience a sudden evolution in some of his core beliefs, causing confusion for many voters. Why, they might ask themselves, if we can't even trust a politician to be consistent and honest about what they intend to do once elected, just what has this world come to?…
Article comments
— go to most recent comments26 - Baritone
Clav,
I would suggest to you that the market for such "whining" is not cornered here in the U.S. Just about anywhere you go, you will find open dissent because of perceived failures of respective governments. They do it in Britain, Germany, France and other countries which are pretty much equal to the U.S. as regards quality of life. It often has a good deal to do with what is promissed during the election process.
Here in Indy we have a new mayor who campaigned largely on a law and order platform. He was, by god, going to rid the streets of violent crime, drugs, etc.
We have had no less than 12 murders in the city during the past 2 weeks plus a city officer shot in the head by an assailant, an old man beaten to death in his home by the same guy, another police officer physically dragged down the street by a guy trying to avoid arrest and any number of other violent occurrences.
I knew well enough that no mayor or any other individual was going to "rid our streets" of crime and violence, but that was the promise made. That is what the electorate expects. So they whine. The whining is NOT all about entitlements. There are a number of very legitimate things about which to bitch in this country, often owing to the failure of government. Are we not to expect ANYTHING of them? Can't we be pissed off when they so obviously fail to produce results they had specifically promissed? Hell, that's the way it all works, isn't it?
B-tone
27 - RJ Elliott
"They also don't understand that whites don't lynch any more."
The family of James Byrd Jr. would like to know the timeframe you mean?
So, the last lynching of a black person occurred ten years ago? And it was such an oddity that it made national news for years, a law was passed in the victim's name, and it even played a role in the 2000 presidential election campaign?
Wait - were you trying to argue against his point?
Wait again - what does lynching, or racism, or even race for that matter, have to do with the topic of my article?
Objective: Derail the discussion - Mission Accomplished!
28 - Ray Ellis
#5. "Of course, even using my more diverse criteria, Obama still comes up as the least qualified. In fact, he'd be the least qualified for almost 150 years, going back to Lincoln with his 2 years in the militia, 2 years in the House and 4 years as a state legislator."
And yet, Lincoln is widely regarded as the greatest of all American presidents.
Go figure.
29 - RJ Elliott
"And yet, Lincoln is widely regarded as the greatest of all American presidents."
He's widely regarded as among the top three, but that's solely because of the Civil War. And all it took to win the war was an unconstitutional income tax, the suspension of habeas corpus, the closing of antiwar newspapers, the ignoring Supreme Court rulings, and 600,000 dead! ;)
30 - whatzit
So what did w's experience get us.
I prefer judgment.
31 - RJ Elliott
"He's widely regarded as among the top three, but that's solely because of the Civil War."
Replying to myself here. Obviously, there was also the Emancipation Proclamation and the 13th Amendment (which was passed by both houses of Congress with his support while he was alive, but was only ratified by the requisite number of states some months after his death). But I consider those achievements to be linked to the Civil War. Sorry for any confusion.
Anyway, trying to get back on-topic here, I think it's fair to say that Lincoln was successful in spite of, not because of, his inexperience. For example, he's an excerpt from a column in the NYT, written by a history professor at Harvard:
Saying that someone who is greatly inexperienced can make a good President is like saying a blind man can climb Everest - sure, it's possible, and it's happened, but it certainly doesn't help.
32 - RJ Elliott
whatzit:
If you read the whole article (yes, I realize it's long), you'll see that Dubya was actually an example of an inexperienced candidate.
In 2000, if you exclude his service in the National Guard, Dubya had a grand total of six years of qualifying experience. Obama has four. McCain, on the other hand, has twenty-six (and that's excluding his military service).
33 - Baronius
RJ, back on point, I agree with Dave that you've got to weight experience differently. But that does complicate things, doesn't it? Military experience should count, but probably not Reserves experience, but then again in WWII the Reserves were as active as any Active Duty military has ever been. And while military service reveals character, probably only command experience prepares you for the presidency. But how do you rate McCain's leadership role as a POW?
I think Cabinet Secretary and judge should count toward preparation for the presidency. But there haven't been a lot of judges to become presidents, which is kind of odd when you think about it. Oh well. Keep up the covert racism.
34 - Cindy D
W as governor of Texas had limited executive powers compared to the president and the governors of 47 other states. So I think we should chop 2-3 years off of his 6.
*Policy Powers of Governors and the U.S. President
35 - RJ Elliott
Baronius:
Both you and Dave are correct that some types of experience are more valuable than others. For example, eight years as a President's VP should be worth more than eight years serving in the House of Representatives from Idaho. However, as I wrote in comment #12, once you get into weighting different kinds of experience differently, you necessarily enter the realm of subjectivity, which I was doing my best to avoid in this article.
As for McCain's military service, I think it qualifies him as a national hero and certainly gives him some added gravitas over a guy like Obama who never served. But I do think McCain kinda overdoes the whole "vote for me, I was a POW!" thing a bit. It's eerily reminiscent of John Kerry's "reporting for duty" shtick from four years ago.
Oh, and as for race affecting people's votes, here's the latest polling data from Rasmussen Reports:
Overall, McCain leads by nine among White Voters. Obama leads 94% to 3% among African-American voters ...
[snort]
36 - Jordan Richardson
Yeah, experience has really worked out well in the past.
America hasn't had a truly great president in over 200 years (give or take!) and the experience factor is more often a case of sticking a rotting Washington corpse in office than it is injecting someone with an understanding of the world and its people. Time for some new blood, I say.
37 - RJ Elliott
Off-topic, but interesting:
From that Rasmussen Reports link in comment #35, I found an interesting statistic:
"Twenty-four percent (24%) of the nation’s voters are both fiscally and socially conservative. Twenty percent (20%) are both fiscally and socially moderate. Fifteen percent (15%) of all voters are fiscally moderate and socially liberal. Two groups of voters each include 10% of the voting population"those who are fiscally conservative and socially moderate along with those who are fiscally moderate and socially conservative. Nine percent (9%) are fiscally and socially liberal."
So, being a numbers dork (can't you tell?), I mapped this out, and here's what I got:
Econ-Conservative + Soc-Conservative = 24%
Econ-Conservative + Soc-Moderate = 10%
Econ-Conservative + Soc-Liberal = ?
Econ-Moderate + Soc-Conservative = 10%
Econ-Moderate + Soc-Moderate = 20%
Econ-Moderate + Soc-Liberal = 15%
Econ-Liberal + Soc-Conservative = ?
Econ-Liberal + Soc-Moderate = ?
Econ-Liberal + Soc-Liberal = 9%
As you can see, three possible categories have been left blank, presumably because fewer than 9% of respondents chose that particular combination. (88% of respondents chose one of the other six categories.)
Breaking the numbers down further, we get the following:
Econ-Conservative = at least 34% (but no greater than 46%)
Econ-Moderate = 45%
Econ-Liberal = at least 9% (but no greater than 21%)
So, we can conclude that economic liberals (socialists?) comprise a small minority (between about one in ten and one in five) of the American voting population. A likely plurality of people are economic moderates, but economic conservatives make up more than a third of American voters.
We also get this result:
Soc-Conservative = at least 34% (but no greater than 46%)
Soc-Moderate = at least 30% (but no greater than 42%)
Soc-Liberal = at least 24% (but no greater than 36%)
This is considerably closer, but it still shows a likely numerical advantage for the "conservatives" over the "liberals."
Finally, let's compare the groups with conservative leanings with the groups with liberal leanings:
Econ-Conservative + Soc-Conservative = 24%
Econ-Conservative + Soc-Moderate = 10%
Econ-Moderate + Soc-Conservative = 10%
Total = 44%
Econ-Moderate + Soc-Liberal = 15%
Econ-Liberal + Soc-Moderate = ?
Econ-Liberal + Soc-Liberal = 9%
Total = at least 24% (but no greater than 36%)
The conservatives and conservative-leaners have a sizable numerical advantage here over liberals and liberal-leaners. However, three groups are missing:
Econ-Moderate + Soc-Moderate = 20% (moderates, the classic swing-vote)
Econ-Conservative + Soc-Liberal = ? (libertarians)
Econ-Liberal + Soc-Conservative = ? (populists)
I suppose the conclusion to be drawn from the above data (and my analysis of it) is that the United States remains a center-right country, but that a conservative (i.e. Republican) Presidential candidate needs to attract a good number of moderates in order to win. So, nothing we didn't already know. :-/
38 - Clavos
I don't know what to make of the fact that the category in which I consider myself to be is a question mark:
"Econ-Conservative + Soc-Liberal = ?"
Hmm.
39 - Jordan Richardson
Econ-Conservative + Soc-Liberal = NORMAL, Clav. Welcome to the real.
40 - RJ Elliott
Strictly speaking, Jordan, it's actually rather abnormal, since apparently fewer than 9% of Americans fall into that category...
41 - Baritone
I now feel assured that we can all rest easy as Baronius, in one swell foop, has eradicated racism in this country. What a relief!
As with all other "whiners" all you supposedly poor blacks (and presumably, and and all other minorities) are hereby on notice that racism is no longer an issue here so complaining about it will gain you no traction. A white, middle class male has made the definitive declaration.
Bar has also declared all so called bleeding heart liberals basically liars and no more than nostalgia buffs longing for the good old days. I picture Bar hanging with baited breath on every word Ann Coulter spews forth. They seem nothing less than true soul mates.
Every time anyone (especially me, it seems) even hints at the existence of racism in this country, particularly as regards Barack Obama, Baronius comes barreling off his high horse in self righteous sanctimony with a diatribe angrily dismissing the possibility and then artfully turning the argument against me (or whoever) deflecting any such feelings back onto the left side of the fence.
I suppose it serves the purpose of aiding him eradicate his long bottled up guilt for ever having uttered the "N" word or joining in and/or enjoying racial jokes and slurs as a kid. If it accomplishes something for him, then, I guess, in the end, it's okay.
Oh, I know, it's a cheap, probably inaccurate, shot, but I figured I should write something to really be ashamed of as I've now been told repeatedly that I have written shameful things.
B-tone
42 - Clavos
It's bated breath by the way.
You're not fishing with your breath; you're holding it.
"Main Entry:
1 bate
Pronunciation:
ˈbāt
Function:
verb
Inflected Form(s):
bat·ed; bat·ing
Etymology:
Middle English, short for abaten to abate
Date:
14th century
transitive verb 1: to reduce the force or intensity of : restrain [with bated breath] 2: to take away : deduct 3 archaic : to lower especially in amount or estimation4archaic : blunt"
regards,
Your lovable neighborhood grammar Nazi :>)
43 - daniel lynch
BUSH WAS IN THE NATIONAL GUARD BECAUSE HIS FATHER MOVED HIM TO THE TOP OF THE LIST TO AVOID BEING DRAFTED AND GOING TO VIET NAM. BUSH WAS AWOL WHEN HIS UNIT WAS TRANSFERRED TO ALABAMA. BUSH GOT INTO YALE BECAUSE HIS FATHER PAID THE TUITION AND HAD GRADUATED FROM YALE. BUSH LATER TRIED TO ENTER LAW SCHOOL IN TEXAS BUT DID NOT MEET THE ENTRANCE REQUIREMENTS. IN 2000 BUSH WAS ONE OF WEAKEST CANDIDATES FOR PRESIDENT IN RECENT HISTORY.
44 - muzito tom
Obama just rocks, infact his inexperience (if any ) is the change we can believe in.
45 - Baritone
Clav,
I knew that. I did. Really. I knew that. :<(
B
46 - Clavos
B-tone.
I knew you did.
One of my vices is I can't resist teasing; especially the people are obviously bright and informed.
Bad habit, i know, but I have so few of them...:>)
47 - Baronius
Bar, thanks for calling me artful. To be fair, though, do you consider watermelon references to be a mere hint of racism? And what in this article, which systematically quantifies relevent experience, compelled you to hint that race is a factor in the election? This article is the least racist thing you'll ever read: it sets up objective criteria, and compares people without reference to race. You can argue about the criteria (as I've done), but you can't find them racist.
48 - El Bicho
"So, the last lynching of a black person occurred ten years ago?"
RJ, I was trying to get Baronius to clarify his comment, "They also don't understand that whites don't lynch any more." To no surprise he couldn't, apparently believing he doesn't need to have any proof to back up his statements because his thinking something makes it true. His equating of the treatment of blacks and Poles in this country clearly shows he doesn't know what he's talking about in regards to this issue.
But before you strain yourself patting the white race on the back because you haven't heard of a lynching in 10 years, a number I find embarrassingly low, you might want to do a little research before jumping into areas you know nothing about, even though I understand that prerequisite would severely put a crimp into your participation here.
Jan 2006, five SC white teenagers, ages 17 to 18, pleaded guilty to the lynching of Isaiah Clyburn, a 17-year-old boy who didn't know them.
Maybe Baronius should change his statement to "They also don't understand that whites haven't lynched in months."
49 - RJ Elliott
"you might want to do a little research before jumping into areas you know nothing about, even though I understand that prerequisite would severely put a crimp into your participation here."
Did someone just hear a cat hiss?
BTW, the victim in the story you linked to lived. From the article:
"South Carolina legally defines lynching as a mob attack against an individual where the victim survives."
Hmmm. So I guess, using that rather broad definition of the term (the more common definition of lynching is a mob attack on an individual where the victim dies), the Jena Six were also an example (and a more recent one!) of a black-on-white lynching?
Too bad this is an area I know nothing about, two university degrees later... :-/
50 - Baritone
To offer a bit more clarity as regards lynching. Upon hearing the term, for me it always evoked an image of a hanging. But, the term is much broader than that.
The history of New Orleans includes a horrific incident which came to be known as the "Crescent City Lynchings." In 1891 eleven Italian immigrants were "lynched" by an angry mob after a jury found them innocent of the shooting death of the New Orleans police chief, David Hennessy the year before. However, none of the eleven were hanged, rather, they were all beaten to death in their cells from which they had not been released despite the verdict. All of the "lynchers" were subsequently exonerated.
B-tone
51 - Clavos
"Too bad this is an area I know nothing about, two university degrees later... :-/"
Yeah, but they're only from UCF. Now, if you'd gone to USF...
Go Bulls!
52 - Dave Nalle
He maintains Phil Graham as a policy staffer after his rather repugnant comments about our being a country of whiners and our supposed "psychological recession."
His name is spelled "Gramm" not "Graham". You may have him confused with McCain's pal Sen. Lindsey Graham.
And Gramm was an economic advisor, and has now apparently been exiled. Gramm, of course, is an actual economist with extensive private sector experience who actually knows something about the economy, unlike Obama or anyone he's working with.
BTW, I've just written up my thoughts on the silly Phil Gramm scandal in a new article.
Dave
53 - Baritone
Nope, no confusion. This is just my day to mis-spell things.
B-tone
54 - Baronius
No offense intended, Bicho. I honestly just missed your comment.
I think you missed the point about "John Kerry with a tan". The insult isn't about skin color; it's about being like John Kerry. The idea is that Obama is no different in policy than Kerry. He just looks a little different. The line would have worked just as well if he called Obama "John Kerry with a normally-proportioned head". Actually, it would have been a lot funnier that way.
No doubt there are lynchings. No doubt there are people decapitated by elevators, too. They're equally common events. The idea that either would have an impact on the presidential elections strikes me as laughable. I know, I know. Even one is one too many. But you're not going to find a country of 300 million people without any psychos.
The difference in the last few decades is that racism isn't respectable any more. That's why I mentioned Polish jokes. Racism used to be excusable in some circles. No longer. Even the Democratic Party has hardly any Klansmen in the Senate.
55 - Dr Dreadful
Yeah, but they're only from UCF. Now, if you'd gone to USF...
Go Bulls!
No, Clav...
Go Bulldogs!
56 - Clavos
Doc,
Saw 'em play (on TV). As I'm sure you know, U of Miami is one of the better collegiate ball clubs; past National champs, etc., so I was watching.
Those youngsters (Fresno State) are awesome!
BTW when did Fresno (the city) get promoted?
57 - Dr Dreadful
Promoted to and from what, Clav?
58 - Clavos
Promoted to state from city, of course.
59 - Clavos
Yo, Doc,
There's an open tag (mine, I think) on this thread...
60 - Jordan Richardson
Baronius, sorry to break the admirably optimistic cloud you have about racism and America, but things haven't particularly gotten better. It is alive and well.
The fact of the matter is that Americans remain uniquely confused about issues of race. Incidents of hate crimes have increased according to the FBI. The highest incidence of hate crimes are still anti-black by a considerable margin.
According to the Southern Poverty Law Center, there are actually 888 hate groups currently operating in the United States. That's a 48% increase from 2000's numbers. There are 20 chapters of the KKK in Texas alone and 21 skinhead groups in California. Of course, those are just the groups the Southern Poverty Law Center is aware of.
Now there's the possibility that the instances of hate crimes are up as reported because the definition of "hate crime" has been increased to include more criminal activities, but the reality is that there is still an increasingly disturbing trend of hate crimes, bigotry, racism, and prejudice of all kinds across America that many people try to sweep under the rug.
It is an issue that has not been dealt with effectively. Many Americans suffer from an ideology that imagines racism to be a part of their distant past, but it is interesting to assert that the first time a black person and is a serious candidate for office is 2008. And we still can't get away from media outlets continuing to point that out. Is that progress or simply the rumblings of a greasy machine not quite ready to roll on to the next station?
61 - Dr Dreadful
@ #58: Har-de-har-har.
62 - El Bicho
"BTW, the victim in the story you linked to lived."
Yes, I read the story. While the vast majority have, not every single person who has ever been lynched has died, although I am not clear how you think that helps your argument. They didn't use rope either, but what's the difference in the motivation for the attack?
The lawmakers in SC don't see any, but if you are unhappy with their use of the term, why don't you head north, run for office on that platform, and see if you can get it changed? It would no doubt be an interesting campaign.
I have no problem with equating what the Jena Six did with lynching, although it is curious you were so quick to find black-on-white crime, but not the other way around.
"Too bad this is an area I know nothing about, two university degrees later"
That we are in agreement on.
63 - El Bicho
Baronius, the insult is that he's a black John Kerry. I will give you that Grover thinks sharing Kerry's beliefs is bad, but you cannot really expect me to believe that you are think "tan" has nothing to do with skin color.
If you don't think race "would have an impact on the presidential elections" then why would Bush supporters in SC in 2000 make reference to McCain's illegitimate "black" baby?
What's laughable is that you equate the American experience of slavery; Jim Crow laws; and Selma, AL with someone foolishly being told they are so dumb they would bring a car door to the desert so they could roll down the window if it got too hot. The Poles unfortunately suffered greatly in Europe in the last century, so at least do them the courtesy of pointing to equitable atrocities they have suffered.
64 - Dan Miller
Jordan,
With all due respect, it strikes me that "racism" is racism regardless of by or against whom it is practiced. And no, racism seems not to be less pervasive now than a few years ago.
To some extent, of course, a lot depends on how one defines "racism." Is it no less racist to vote for someone because of his race than against him for the same reason? It strikes me that the percentage of Blacks who will vote for Senator Obama during the coming election (notwithstanding the recent remarks of the Reverend Mr. Jackson) will be remarkably higher than the percentage of Whites who will vote for Senator McCain. Is there perhaps just a tint of racism in this?
Dan
65 - Jordan Richardson
With all due respect, it strikes me that "racism" is racism regardless of by or against whom it is practiced.
Without question, this goes without saying. I merely meant to frame my remarks in the current context of this discussion and focus almost entirely on the black/white issue, as that is the current issue of discussion. There are several examples of hate crimes against other groups and races, including a fairly significant increase in the incidents involving Jews and a modest jump in anti-white hate crime incidents.
Is it no less racist to vote for someone because of his race than against him for the same reason?
I'm tempted to quote Jerry Seinfeld here ("If I like their race, how am I racist?"), but I do see your point. If somebody wins an achievement because of their blackness, their whiteness, their woman-ness, and so on, there is a lack of inherent fairness. It is the exact same thing as people voting for a candidate because he/she is the Christian candidate. Unfortunately, voting is done largely on image. Voters are more likely to vote for a candidate with whom they feel a sort of kinship or even personal closeness, which often equates to racial, religious, or other issues that are about as far from policy issues as you can get. That's just a democratic reality.
The racism discussion does depend largely on how we define it. The US Civil Rights Commission defines racism as:
...any action or attitude, conscious or unconscious, that subordinates an individual or group based on skin colour or race. It can be enacted individually or institutionally.
While the United Nations Convention defined it as:
the term "racial discrimination" shall mean any distinction, exclusion, restriction or preference based on race, colour, descent, or national or ethnic origin which has the purpose or effect of nullifying or impairing the recognition, enjoyment or exercise, on an equal footing, of human rights and fundamental freedoms in the political, economic, social, cultural or any other field of public life.
(Bold emphasis mine, of course).
I think the latter is a pretty good guidepost to start defining racism in our world.
As far as blacks voting for Obama and that argument, I think it has more to do with the party and less to do with the man and his skin colour, although there's no real general way to draw this out objectively other than to say that black people tend to not vote Republican.
66 - Dan Miller
Jordan,
I would only call your attention to the recent Democratic Party primaries.You say that without question, it goes without saying that "racism" is racism regardless of by or against whom it is practiced. That, I submit is the problem. It does go without saying, far too often.
Second, you say
Dan
67 - Jordan Richardson
At risk of sounding completely ridiculous, I flat-out don't know what you're getting at. Instead of floundering around aimlessly like I'm prone to do, I'll try and cut to the chase:
You say that without question, it goes without saying that "racism" is racism regardless of by or against whom it is practiced. That, I submit is the problem. It does go without saying, far too often.
What, specifically, is "the problem?" That it goes without saying? Racism, period, goes without saying? Or racism only seems to be an issue when it is against blacks and that other forms of racism "go without saying" and thus go unreported or under-reported? I'm having trouble simplifying what you're saying. I apologize.
I would only call your attention to the recent Democratic Party primaries.
And this will tell me that black people are more prone to vote Republican in federal elections? Once again, I have to plead ignorance. I'm not really sure what I'm going to be looking for here that refutes my point. Black people voted more for Obama in the primaries than they did for Clinton? Women voted more for Clinton than they did for Obama and, after Clinton lost, threatened to vote for McCain for spite?
I think we largely agree on the majority of this issue. Black people voting for candidates merely because the candidate is black isn't good, to put it rather simply. But I still posit that black people are more prone to identify with the VALUES of the Democratic Party than they are with those of the GOP. I'm not sure how looking at the Democratic Primaries are going to refute this, nor am I quite sure what, specifically, I'm looking for.
Sorry for not understanding, Dan.
68 - Dan Miller
Jordan,
First, permit me to apologize for any lack of clarity. What I meant to say too often goes without saying that it is just as bad to vote for a candidate because of his/her race or sex as it is to vote against a candidate for that reason. In a recent article, I touched on this. I consider it to have been pernicious to to have voted, during the Democratic Party primaries, for or against Senator Obama because of his race, or for or against Senator Clinton because of her sex. Yet many people did just that.
During the Democratic Party primaries, the Black vote seems to have been overwhelmingly in favor of Senator Obama, while the female voters tended (less strongly) to have supported Senator Clinton. Some White women who supported Senator Obama were castigated by other women as traitors to their sex. I hope that we agree that these are not helpful attitudes.
Dan
69 - Jordan Richardson
Thank you for clarifying. It seems we are entirely on the same page.
70 - Zedd
Moral of the story, there is a lot of military service among Democrats and a lot of reserve ACTION among Republicans.
Thanks for that stats kiddo.
RJ,
You are a kid just like I thought. Awe look at that baby face. OMG. LOL. IDK think we can be bffs LOL?
What youngster would be Republican in this era? L . . ser maybe?? I'm just say'n. Instead of "Yes We Can" it's a corny litany of irrelevant stats about fake military service while an imbecile sits in the White House. L . . serville
71 - Zedd
Doc,
While I post this with ears plugged, finger pinching nose and singing to drown out the gross nature of it all, the word kaka is also Zulu and a bunch of other languages. Probably comes from the sound babies make when trying to do "it".
Gosh I feel light headed. YUCK how could I. Boys are so gross. Think nice thoughts.... Sense and Sensibility, flowers, pink, Jane Austin, ruffles, la la la la laaaa. WWMMS. What would my mother say...!!!!
72 - Zedd
Can we use the word "gender" instead of "sex". It's sort of icky and awkward.
73 - Baronius
Words have gender - animals have sex. Hillary Clinton does not have a gender.
74 - Baronius
If memory serves, the lead character in Gogol's The Overcoat was named Akakei Akakeivich.
75 - Don Sanchez
The network media who, in concert, came up with the term "gravitas" in the last election have lost it from their lexicon. Moreover, the networks overlook Obama's "misstatements." They may not want people to get the idea.