Then, the very same media criticized itself for covering him too much, reporting that John McCain was jealous and unhappy. They have a lot to answer for. Especially with a new report out Tuesday that shows clear evidence of a bias against favorable reportage of Barack Obama by the three major television networks: CBS, NBC, and ABC.
Basically, the Center for Media and Public Affairs at George Mason University found that the three networks “were rougher on Obama than on Republican John McCain during the first six weeks of the general-election campaign.”
Conservatives are furiously screaming now, even though Robert Lichter, the head of the center, had been popular with them previously. Lichter is quoted as saying "This information should blow away this silly assumption that more coverage is always better coverage." Wonder how McCain feels about being called silly, as he and his camp spent most of the last week whining about Obama's press. And now, of course, since the evidence is against what they think it is, they’re yelling foul.
McCain is yelling very loudly and very nastily with a new attack ad you can see here. Beware, its ugly. But it does include additional commentary and fact checking by Keith Olbermann and an interview with Republican Senator Chuck Hagel who denounces the ad.
It's not so clear whether other television stations took as much time to dissect the ad, either before or after running it, as it has allegedly played well in swing states, and many voters on the fence seem to be buying it, according to pundits on last night's Rachel Maddow Show on Air America. Once again, Rick Shenkman is right: the American public will swallow anything, including the clear myth that Obama is an unknown.
If one goes to Obama’s website, reads a paper or two, and checks into the facts presented by commentators (for example, liberal radio host Randi Rhodes offers the research materials she consults for her shows for perusal by her listeners and admonishes them to “not believe anything I say” without checking her facts) there is plenty to read about Barack Obama. As for his lack of experience: he has more than Bush did when he was elected. Remember, before Bush became President he did not even own a passport and had never been out of the country, despite being a rich man's son.
Article comments
— go to most recent comments1 - Baritone
Lisa,
I know the "rock star" reference is not altogether apt, but, then, what is? I wouldn't as yet equate any Obama appearances to the March on Washington. The crowd in Berlin was largely people who were, in fact, just curious. Most had no idea what Obama was saying. It was an "event."
However, I do agree with you that most of the people who have gathered to see and hear him in the U.S. are looking for something new, looking for hope. Whether Obama can deliver is another question. Many doubt that he can. Some fear that he will. I simply hope we get the chance to find out.
Baritone
2 - Clavos
The race is narrowing. The latest USA Today/Gallup national poll, published by RCP, has McCain up by four points. Although it's the only one in the latest round with McCain actually ahead, the spread in most of the others is narrowing.
"USA Today/Gallup 07/25 - 07/27 791 LV [Obama]45 [McCain]49 McCain +4.0"
3 - Baritone
As far as American voters are concerned, Obama's trip abroad had more of a negative effect than positive. McCain's ads and statements worked to the extent that it put Obama's perceived arrogance and supposed lack of understanding of things military into play.
Obviously, I hate to see such poll figures, but they ultimately may serve to bolster the Obama camp into a more strident posture. They can't assume that Obama's elegance and eloquence will win this campaign. They are going to have to work for it. As I heard some pundit say this morning, Democratic arrogance has cost them several elections in the past. It could happen again. Given the Bush record, Obama and the Democrats should be a shoo-in (did I get that right?) this time around, but so far, that is not proving to be the case.
Frankly, while I most certainly want Obama to win, I hope McCain gives him a run for his money to the end. I want to see Obama fight tooth and nail and finish the damn deal.
B
4 - Dr Dreadful
The latest USA Today/Gallup national poll, published by RCP, has McCain up by four points.
Perhaps, Clav. But you can't read too much into national polls. I pay much closer attention to this site and also this one, which track the numbers that really count - the individual state polls, and thereby the projected electoral vote.
Both these sites still predict that Obama will be applying much vigorous Doc Marten to the McCainian buttocks. I've been following both* since '04: they had Kerry ahead at this stage then as well, but not by anything like as huge a margin.
Once the conventions are over and done with and the campaigning (and polling) starts in earnest, their accuracy increases. They've both predicted the last two elections to within a couple of electoral votes (or seats, depending on what was being predicted), so they seem to have their fingers on a pretty good pulse.
BTW, the webmaster of Electoral Vote leans Democratic and the guy who runs Election Projection is GOP to the core. That both their predictions correlate fairly well says a lot for the soundness and impartiality of their methodologies.**
* Websites, not buttocks.
** That was a bit of a mouthful, sorry. Deduct 10 style points.
5 - The Obnoxious American
Lisa,
If Obama was actually accomplishing something, then it would be history. But he is a candidate, not a leader. That's the point. To suggest that people go to be a part of history is to exaggerate a bit, people are going because Obamamania is a cult of personality.
Perhaps once the man gets elected, and gives a historic speech (no, Berlin, nor the race speech was it), then it will be as you describe. Until then, it's just a show.
Clav,
If McCain is now leading in the polls, I would be amazed. He's run perhaps the worst campaign I've ever experienced. He's allowed himself to be defined, he's accepted charges of old age, and has even proven such charges as potentially accurate. It's clear to me we will have at least 4 if not 8 years of Obama, along with a democratic house and senate to boot. Hide your wallets and fetus'!
6 - Clavos
But you can't read too much into national polls.
Agreed, Doc, and especially not this early; hence, my disclaimer.
Interesting, though, given the "enthusiasm" supposedly, for Obama...
7 - The Obnoxious American
I wanted to add, that I was thinking of writing a piece with almost the same title. But in my story, it was Obama who was the man behind the curtain.
After all, who is this guy? What is his position on anything? Is he all smoke and mirrors? Is he a mere vessel for peoples hopes, without getting too specific on purpose? It sure seems that way to me. Perhaps that is what the public wants, someone they can believe in, who doesn't confuse them with complicated policy. You have Obama the persona, then Obama the man standing behind the curtain.
8 - Dr Dreadful
After all, who is this guy? What is his position on anything?
You of all people should know, Obnox. You, who wrote 'The Official Obama Hit Piece' and have been one of his few critics to have actually examined his policies rather than claiming that he doesn't have any.
9 - The Obnoxious American
That was before the "changeup switchup" that he induldged in. Having analyzed his positions in the past, I can say with some certainty, that no one, even Obama's most ardent fans, really knows what he will do, what policies he will favor, once he gets into office.
If we get the pro-trade, pro-gun, pro-tax cut Obama of late, then I probably have a lot in common with his platforms. If, on the other hand, it's the NAFTA bashing, gun-banning, anti-rich rhetoric Obama that shows up to the white house, then not so much.
10 - Arch Conservative
Lisa:
Is it possible for you to climb any further up Obama's ass?
I mean I know he performed the miracle fo turning water into kool aid but aisde from that what else has he ever accomplished.
He's a one term Senator with no real political accomplishments who gives good teleprompted speech and I'm supposed to fall in love with him and vote for him?
Don't think so. He's just a run of the mill liberal with a meesiah complex that the media has spuninto something he's not.
11 - Lisa Solod Warren
Interesting comments, all. But mostly I beg to differ. McCain isn't a candidate at all; he's a tool and not a very good one. He can't stay on topic, he can't think on his feet, and he can't figure out what he means about anything. Conservatives don't like him, liberals are afraid he'll give us four more years of Bush war and neglect.... I can't figure out WHO he represents or why anyone is for him. He's changes his positions so many times (Please read his record) and is such a hypocrite when it comes to the troops,it's really horrifying, which is why, increasingly, soldiers' groups are supporting Obama.
Obama is, yes, just a candidate, not God or anyone like him. But I beg to differ; if you can't find substantive information about him then you aren't looking. Sure, he is trying to get elected, but then so is anyone running. The thing is that Obama seems to be 1) articulate, 2)intelligent, 3) thoughtful 4)educated and 5)willing to learn (which is what the trip was about in the first place). None of which describes McCain.
And, Arch Conservative, your remark qualifies as a personal attack, as far as I'm concerned. Does EVERYONE who supports Obama have his or her head up his or her ass? So much for political discourse.....
12 - Clavos
McCain isn't a candidate at all; he's a tool and not a very good one. He can't stay on topic, he can't think on his feet, and he can't figure out what he means about anything. Conservatives don't like him, liberals are afraid he'll give us four more years of Bush war and neglect.... I can't figure out WHO he represents or why anyone is for him.
And yet, millions of people support him...must be that great unwashed, semi-literate middle group, the stupid Americans.
13 - Lisa Solod Warren
Indeed, Clavos. Tell me why:)
14 - Dan Miller
Lisa,
You say that a principal purpose of Senator Obama's recent trip was to learn. From what I have read, his purpose seems to have been to talk rather than to listen, with an adoring cast of hundreds of thousands of well wishers -- not including the press. Perhaps I may have missed reading about something he learned, beyond that he got suckered by a youthful German reporter while working out. What else, pray tell, do you think he learned?
In a comment (#39) last month on another thread, I suggested:
I also commented, in response to a suggestion that Senator Obama had "questioned" Geneal Petraeus, (Comment #40), I would very much like to have seen meaningful dialogue of this sort. I didn't.
Dan
15 - The Obnoxious American
"Obama is, yes, just a candidate, not God or anyone like him. But I beg to differ; if you can't find substantive information about him then you aren't looking. Sure, he is trying to get elected, but then so is anyone running. The thing is that Obama seems to be 1) articulate, 2)intelligent, 3) thoughtful 4)educated and 5)willing to learn (which is what the trip was about in the first place). None of which describes McCain."
That's what we in the business call "rationalizing." Both candidates have these attributes, each is unique. I'm not thrilled with McCain's campaign, but let's not be churlish and suggest that he isn't a great American. He is just not as good of a politician and Obama. He has better more thought out and nuanced views on most as well.
By the same token, while Obama is better at politicking, he does not seem to have very good judgement and no experience. He is a wonderful speaker, and his meeting with Bernake was pure genius from a campaign standpoint. All the dems will love the idea of Obama setting Bernanke straight.
I know the point of your article is a straight anti-GOP piece, but let's truly be post partisan as your man fancies and actually put down the rhetoric for a second. Just like McCain won't steal food out of the mouths of the poor, Obama won't be able to fix the planet or cure all that ails either.
16 - Lisa Solod Warren
Actually the article was not an anti GOP piece at all....but rather a discussion of the way the media presented the trip and the way misleading information gets disseminated and helps people make up their minds, erroneously. If you read it that way, then so be it. Check out other posts on other sites and you will see the same critiques, especially the one about who is getting positive press.
No McCain won't steal food but he will make it much esier for the rich to get even richer. And he is taking a LOT from vets but not voting for any increase in their benefits. No doubt about that.
As for Obama fixing the planet....I never even implied that. I am a political sophisticate and know full well that whoever inherits the White Hosue will have problems galore, many of which cannot be fixed immediately, some of which may not even be fixed in two terms, and a few of which we will just have to live with.
It's the vision thing. Obama has it. McCain does not.
17 - Lisa Solod Warren
Dan,
From what I read and heard, Obama met with eight leaders in one day. I assume he did as much listening as talking. I don't assume we will get a full report on all he learned. That is for him to assimilate and use for decision making.
He also met with Petraeus and from the reports got along famously. I think he also got a good look at what is going on there. Which, despite the GOP propaganda, ain't good. The surge may have worked militarily, but even Maliki (spelling?) in an interview I heard yesterday said that it had not worked socially or politically. In other words, the surge quelled violence for a time, but no inroads into true peace have been made. Which is why they want us out and why we need to get out. And why, of course, we never should have been there in the first place.
If the American public has now been convinced that the war was wrong, deceptive, and dangerous, why would they vote for a hawk like McCain? I just don't get it.
18 - Dan Miller
Lisa,
"Obama met with eight leaders in one day. I assume he did as much listening as talking." (emphasis added) That's an interesting assumption but is not the sense that I got; even if he in fact did as "much listening as talking," when consulting with eight leaders in one day, I would submit that that's too much talking and too little listening for someone legitimately interested in learning from folks who presumably know substantially more than he does about what's happening in Iraq. Assuming a twelve hour day, with half an hour for photo opportunities per leader, that's eight hours of discussion; according to your assumption, and further assuming simultaneous translations during discussions with non-English speaking "leaders," that means thirty minutes of listening per leader. Do you really think that is adequate?
Still, it will be interesting to see whether and how he will "assimilate and use for decision making" whatever he may have learned. I haven't seen any sign of it yet, but then the elections are not immediately upon us so there is still time.
Dan
19 - Lisa Solod Warren
Dan, You expect far too much. What Obama has done is heads and tails above what McCain has done. And he is only a candidate. This was a first pass...to meet people who were eager to meet him and for each to get a sense of each other and his concerns. To expect concrete policy is completely unrealistic. It was fact-finding and intelligence gathering and that is what, I believe, it accomplished as much as it could. As soon as he is elected, if indeed he is, I assume there will be far more substantive meetings to figure out how to achieve what it is Barack and others wish to achieve re world cooperation and peace. Please don't forget the damage Bush has done to our relationships with foreign countries, real damage. Barack was trying to help repair that. He did that. Amerians who don't see it as a positive are putting their heads in the sand. This is a smaller world than we know and we simply must have allies and partners. Bush has done as much as possible to discourage that. And I don't see McCain changing that policy for now.
20 - Dan Miller
Lisa,
With all due respect, it came off pretty much as I had expected it would. I had hoped it might be different, and better, particularly from a candidate who claims to offer change we can believe in.
Between now and the general election, I shall have to decide -- and quite likely many others will as well -- against which candidate to vote. I need all the help I can get from both of them, and Senator Obama is not being all that helpful.
Dan
21 - Lisa Solod Warren
Well, Dan. I think you can choose right now if you look at their value systems and the way they both treat others and run their campaigns. But....it's your call, of course:)
22 - Baritone
Dan, I agree with Lisa in that I don't know what you would expect to hear from Obama at this point. Actually, for Obama to have done much more than essentially touching base with all of those leaders would have been presumptive of him. He is, afterall, still just a candidate. He was certainly in no position to lay down anything substantive as regards international policy. As a candidate he has not been privy to the kind of briefings and other information that only a sitting president has available.
Give the guy some props. His trip was not widely seen as a positive by a number of voters - thus the slip in his poll numbers. I'm sure he and his inner sanctum knew that was a possibility. Yet, I do believe that the trip may prove to be more useful to a new president than to a candidate seeking votes. Most of the criticism aimed at Obama regarding the trip really come from a jingoistic viewpoint.
Hell, I heard tell that a number of people in foreign countries with an interest in our election feel that they should be able to vote in it owing to the influence and impact American policies have on them and their respective countries.
B
23 - Baronius
I'm still reeling from the line "fact checking by Keith Olbermann".
24 - Lisa Solod Warren
Baronious
Clever but not funny. if you follow the link you will see that at the least Olbermann had the chutzpah to check the veracity of a mean-spirited ugly ad....and found it very lacking. Other media sources just ran with it. Which is why McCain gets away with what he does. You may not like Olbermann but in that case he was behaving like a journalist and not like a mouthpiece.
25 - The Obnoxious American
Baronius,
Youy hit it on the head. Keith is about as far from being a real journalist as can be. I'm sure he can check facts against his own views, but not necessarily against other facts :>
Lisa,
"Actually the article was not an anti GOP piece at all....but rather a discussion of the way the media presented the trip and the way misleading information gets disseminated and helps people make up their minds, erroneously. If you read it that way, then so be it. Check out other posts on other sites and you will see the same critiques, especially the one about who is getting positive press."
Perhaps it's the comments you made about McCain that make me feel that way. However, the point that Obama is somehow treated with more critisism is a bit disingenuous. Obama gets more news coverage period. Something in the area of about 3 to 1. Some of it is critical, but given how little is known about Obama, I would hope that this is the case.
I am willing to bet that there are at least a few Americans who probably don't even know the name of the GOP candidate. And the media has done nothing but further the notion that McCain is old, or that his health is in question. Earlier this week, the media line was about Obama's strain from playing basketball, and McCain's mole removal. You tell me which type of media coverage you'd rather get.
"No McCain won't steal food but he will make it much esier for the rich to get even richer. And he is taking a LOT from vets but not voting for any increase in their benefits. No doubt about that."
More disingenuity: The rich get richer because they work for it. Successful Americans should be rewarded and celebrated, not demonized as you've done.
Moreover, as has been universally agreed on this board, wealth isn't a zero sum game. Rich people getting richer is a good thing for everybody. I know that hard core lefties still think that the U.S.S.R. had it right, and can't agree that capitalism is a good thing. Yet it's this very concept that enabled you to buy a computer and have time to spend arguing politics on some board.
Do you really think this country would be better off if we stole from the rich to give to the poor? Think about that one for a minute. Even Obama has somewhat backed away from that position.
"I am a political sophisticate "
And a humble one at that.
"and know full well that whoever inherits the White Hosue will have problems galore, many of which cannot be fixed immediately, some of which may not even be fixed in two terms, and a few of which we will just have to live with."
This is more disingenuity. Basically you are saying that bush messed everything up and Obama will need to fix it. How about things are just messed up. period. I agree Bush has screwed the pooch on a few occassions, and I am just annoyed with his total lack of support of his own and mccain's platforms in recent times. That said, the reality is that not all problems are Bush's fault. The decision to go to Iraq, Bush's fault. The way the war was initially handled, Bush's fault. But now, it's on all of us to responsibly end the war in Iraq, meaning not leaving it on a timetable, not just doing what is expedient. Mortgage crisis? Decades in the making. 9/11 - same deal. Energy prices are more a result of left wing political correctness and environmentalist pandering than anything else. we can keep going on and on, but I'm not convinced that Obama can do much to resolve any of these issues. He does talk a good game though.
"It's the vision thing. Obama has it. McCain does not."
More accurate for you to say you share a vision with Obama. Both have their own visions, just because you don't agree with McCain's, you don't have to suggest that McCain doesn't have one.
"From what I read and heard, Obama met with eight leaders in one day. I assume he did as much listening as talking. "
Wow, eight leaders in one day? Can he leap tall buildings in a single bound too?
All hype aside, who cares how many leaders he can pack in a day. It's just not about that. It's amazing to me the total shallowness of the success criteria of Obama. He gets props for looking presidential, even though he really hasn't ever taken a hard stand on an issue. He is lauded for his reception by leaders OVERSEAS. He amazes with the sheer number of leaders he can meet with over a day. None of this is impressive. Leading is impressive. Passing tough legislation is impressive. I am not impressed with Obama.
"He also met with Petraeus and from the reports got along famously. I think he also got a good look at what is going on there. Which, despite the GOP propaganda, ain't good. The surge may have worked militarily, but even Maliki (spelling?) in an interview I heard yesterday said that it had not worked socially or politically. "
Not quite. His policy of withdrawing based on time is in direct contrast with Patreus. And the good general made that clear.
In terms of political reconcilliation, that's on the Iraqis. And they are making progress. It seems that only Dems have a problem seeing this. Is it perfect? No. but if you agree the situation on the ground isn't that great, why would we leave? So that full on genocide can take place? Time to read up on the current situation.
"If the American public has now been convinced that the war was wrong, deceptive, and dangerous, why would they vote for a hawk like McCain? I just don't get it.
"
First, while the American public thinks the reason to go to war was wrong, they also overwhelmingly want us to win there as well. Let's not confuse the decision to go to war, with the situation we have there now. They are two seperate issues.
I agree that the decision to go was suspect, although you should also acknowledge that removing Saddam was a policy started by Bill Clinton. Was the war handled correctly? Yes, initially. But who cares? We already made those decisions. Now we have to deal with the situation that is there today. You can gripe endlessly about how deceptive the decision to go to war was made, but it's irrelevant.
McCain showed more judgement than Obama in spearheading the effort to bring the surge. Obama to this day cannot bring himself to admit that the surge has made a tremendous difference in the number of troop deaths (reduction of 80%?). Has the surge fixed everything? No, of course not. But it's a great start. I don't get dems who say, well it's helped but there are still issues. This is such a defeatist argument, coming from people who purport to have an audacious hope. Pulleeeeeeze.
Despite the hyperbole, McCain offers a way to go forward in Iraq without simply leaving after 16 months. And he was right on the surge. Obama just wants to get us out in 16 months. Why would I vote for someone whose whole plan consists of leaving without ensuring that the whole place doesn't go to heck in a wicker basket? We don't need yet another "killing fields."