WOW!
There are some Americans that do value intelligence and not just shoppers!
Choice is clear: Obama for president
The Record, of Stockton, California, may not be the most well-known of newspapers, but they have been, for a number of decades, one of the most consistent. The last time the paper endorsed a Democrat for the White House, the year was 1936 and the lucky endorsee was Franklin Delano Roosevelt. Since then, the closest a Democrat has come was in 1992, when they endorsed neither Bill Clinton nor George H. W. Bush to send a message that "a larger role for the third-party candidate" was warranted.
That's all changed over the weekend, in a move the California paper describes as a turning of the "tide":
For the first time in 72 years, The Record is endorsing a Democrat for president.
Franklin D. Roosevelt got our nod in 1936.
The reasons for the endorsement of Barack Obama over John McCain are articulated in the editorial on this page.
The unanimous decision was made by our editorial board, which consists of Publisher Roger W. Coover, Managing Editor Donald W. Blount, Opinion Page Editor Eric Grunder, Human Resources Director Sandi Johnson and me.
There are many who will question - with some validity - the power or value of such an endorsement. Our decision is hardly going to tip the balance in a competitive presidential election.
September 28, 2008 6:00 AM
Barack Obama is our choice for president of the United States.
He has demonstrated time and again he can think on his feet. More importantly, he has demonstrated he will think things through, seek advice and actually listen to it.
Obama is a gifted speaker. But in addition to his smarts and energy, possibly his greatest gift is his ability to inspire.
For eight years, American politics has been marked by smears, fears and greed. For too long, we've practiced partisanship in Washington, not politics. The result is a cynicism every bit as deep as that which infected the nation when Richard Nixon was shamed from office and when Bill Clinton brought shame to the office.
This must end, but John McCain can't do it. He can't inspire, nor can he really break from a past that is breaking this nation.
McCain is an American hero, and he has served this country in the Senate with determination. He has gone against his party, but the fact is his ties to the Bush administration and its policies are deep. Americans know we cannot keep going down this path.
McCain, who has voted consistently for deregulation, started off two weeks ago declaring the U.S. economy fundamentally sound but ended the week sounding like a populist. Who is he really?
He tends to shoot from the hip and go on gut instinct. The nation cannot go through four more years of literally and figuratively shooting now and asking questions later.
But the fact is, we worry he won't have four years. If elected, at 72, he would be the oldest incoming president in U.S. history. He's in good health now, we're told, although he has withheld most of his medical records. That means Gov. Sarah Palin could very well become president.
And that brings us to McCain's most troubling trait: his judgment.
While praiseworthy for putting the first woman on a major-party presidential ticket since Geraldine Ferraro in 1984, his selection of Palin as a running mate was appalling. The first-term governor is clearly not experienced enough to serve as vice president or president if required. Her lack of knowledge is being covered up by keeping her away from questioning reporters and doing interviews only with those considered friendly to her views.
We're not suggesting Obama is without faults. He, like McCain, has demonstrated a marked lack of knowledge in recent days about the financial mess facing this nation.
But unlike McCain, who is trying to position himself as a born-again regulator, Obama would increase the oversight of our markets and demand accountability. He would actually put regulators in the oversight agencies that were systematically dismantled by the Bush administration.
While the blame doesn't all accrue to the Bush administration, the past eight years have been marked by looking the other way. McCain aided and abetted that behavior.
Republicans have tried repeatedly to paint Obama as an elitist. Hardly. He grew up in a single-parent home and, by the sheer force of his desire and cerebral horsepower, ended up at Harvard Law School, where he became the first African-American president of the Harvard Law Review.
He could have gone for the money. He didn't. He went to Chicago, where he worked to give a voice to those who didn't have one.
That's hardly the mark of an elitist.
He hasn't lost touch with regular people, whereas McCain doesn't even know how many homes he owns.
Obama rose quickly through the Illinois Legislature and propelled himself into the U.S. Senate.
After winning the Democratic nomination against a large and highly experienced field of candidates, Obama picked one of them, Joe Biden, as his running mate. Biden brings to the ticket the vast foreign affairs experience and knowledge that Obama lacks.
Obama has been accused of being an empty suit, all talk and no action. There's no "there" there, his detractors say.
The charge is no more credible than that of him being an elitist.
Obama can inspire, and our nation desperately needs an inspirational leader. And he does not carry the deep scars of Vietnam, as do many of McCain's generation.
He offers hope. A new way of doing business. And a belief that our system of government can be made to work.
He's the clear choice.
Showing posts with label Chris Matthews. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Chris Matthews. Show all posts
Monday, September 29, 2008
Wednesday, September 10, 2008
McCain, Are you sure you want to go there?
McCAin should try to learn how to use a computer, just so he can keep up with Osama Bin Laden.
McCain should be aware that there are many Russians that live in this country and are aware of his deceit with the Leader of Georgia and their lobbyists.
Out of bounds! McCain misstates Obama sex-ed record
By Margaret Talev | McClatchy Newspapers
WASHINGTON — Throw the flag against: The McCain-Palin campaign.
Call: Unsportsmanlike conduct.
What happened: A new 30-second TV ad attacks Barack Obama's record on education, saying that Obama backed legislation to teach "'comprehensive sex education' to kindergartners." The announcer then says, "Learning about sex before learning to read? Barack Obama. Wrong on education. Wrong for your family."
Why that's wrong: This is a deliberately misleading accusation. It came hours after the Obama campaign released a TV ad critical of McCain's votes on public education. As a state senator in Illinois, Obama did vote for but was not a sponsor of legislation dealing with sex ed for grades K-12.
But the legislation allowed local school boards to teach "age-appropriate" sex education, not comprehensive lessons to kindergartners, and it gave schools the ability to warn young children about inappropriate touching and sexual predators.
Republican Alan Keyes tried to use Obama's vote against him in the 2004 U.S. Senate race. At the time, Obama spoke about wanting to protect young children from abuse. He made clear then that he was not supporting teaching kindergartners about explicit details of sex.
Obama spokesman Bill Burton said Tuesday of McCain's ad: "It is shameful and downright perverse for the McCain campaign to use a bill that was written to protect young children from sexual predators as a recycled and discredited political attack against a father of two young girls."Penalty: 15 yards for the McCain campaign's deliberate low blow.
McCain should be aware that there are many Russians that live in this country and are aware of his deceit with the Leader of Georgia and their lobbyists.
Out of bounds! McCain misstates Obama sex-ed record
By Margaret Talev | McClatchy Newspapers
WASHINGTON — Throw the flag against: The McCain-Palin campaign.
Call: Unsportsmanlike conduct.
What happened: A new 30-second TV ad attacks Barack Obama's record on education, saying that Obama backed legislation to teach "'comprehensive sex education' to kindergartners." The announcer then says, "Learning about sex before learning to read? Barack Obama. Wrong on education. Wrong for your family."
Why that's wrong: This is a deliberately misleading accusation. It came hours after the Obama campaign released a TV ad critical of McCain's votes on public education. As a state senator in Illinois, Obama did vote for but was not a sponsor of legislation dealing with sex ed for grades K-12.
But the legislation allowed local school boards to teach "age-appropriate" sex education, not comprehensive lessons to kindergartners, and it gave schools the ability to warn young children about inappropriate touching and sexual predators.
Republican Alan Keyes tried to use Obama's vote against him in the 2004 U.S. Senate race. At the time, Obama spoke about wanting to protect young children from abuse. He made clear then that he was not supporting teaching kindergartners about explicit details of sex.
Obama spokesman Bill Burton said Tuesday of McCain's ad: "It is shameful and downright perverse for the McCain campaign to use a bill that was written to protect young children from sexual predators as a recycled and discredited political attack against a father of two young girls."Penalty: 15 yards for the McCain campaign's deliberate low blow.
Friday, September 5, 2008
Who wrote the 'MOM of the YEAR' speech?
The Man Behind Palin's Speech
Thursday, Sep. 04, 2008
By MASSIMO CALABRESI / WASHINGTON
As Democrats and Barack Obama's campaign scrambled to attack Sarah Palin's well-received acceptance speech at the Republican National Convention in St. Paul, Minn., on Wednesday night, they latched on early and hard to the fact that it was penned by former Bush speechwriter Matthew Scully. But the story is more complicated than just the recycling of a Bush staffer into John McCain's fold, and it tells you more about how McCain's camp intends to use Palin than it does about the continuing influence of the current White House.
The clues are in the text itself. Scully started working on the vice-presidential speech a week ago, before he or anyone else knew who the nominee would be, and it's not hard to pick out the parts that would have been the same regardless of who delivered it. Scully unspooled two centrist themes via Palin that have been key to the McCain message: the idea that the Republican nominee puts service to country ahead of career and the notion that he's the true representative of Middle America. Both themes implicitly push Obama and Biden to the left, and Scully made them explicit with lines accusing the Democrats of élitism and talking down to working-class voters.
Once Palin was chosen, Scully tailored the speech to the Alaska governor, highlighting her biography and using her PTA background and local political experience (contrasted so memorably with Obama's work as a community organizer) to bolster his two themes. Where much media attention in the wake of her surprise naming has focused on Palin's views on cultural issues like abortion, the speech carefully steered away from ideological touchstones. Palin was shown as an average mainstream American looking to bring change to Washington, further bolstering McCain's overarching message of reforming the wasteful Federal Government.
Scully was a good choice to help moderate Palin's right-wing image. A veteran of the early Bush White House, his specialty was crafting Bush's pro-life message in a way that would not offend soccer moms or mainstream Catholics who get nervous around some of the more extreme Evangelical rhetoric. A former protégé of the late pro-life Democratic governor of Pennsylvania, Bob Casey, Scully has a history of finding rhetorical unity for voters on the right and in the center.
The Palin-Scully pairing is anything but a guaranteed fit, though. Palin is known as an avid hunter; Scully is best known for his vigorous defense of animal rights. A vegetarian who is regularly critical of the NRA and much of the hunting community, he is a passionate advocate for doing away with the more brutal versions of blood-sport, including aerial hunting, which Palin supports.
Don't be surprised, though, if the combination continues. McCain wanted to pick a centrist Vice President not just because he liked candidates such as Joe Lieberman and Tom Ridge, but because he badly needs to close the gap in swing states like Ohio, Iowa and Wisconsin, where he trails Obama. But he had to pick a cultural conservative like Palin because he couldn't risk alienating an already demoralized base. If Palin was viewed as the most likely right winger to sell in the swing states, Scully is the right pick to help repackage her from a base pleaser into a bridge builder. (See photos of Sarah Palin here.)
http://www.time.com/time/politics/article/0,8599,1838808,00.html?xid=feed-cnn-topics
Thursday, Sep. 04, 2008
By MASSIMO CALABRESI / WASHINGTON
As Democrats and Barack Obama's campaign scrambled to attack Sarah Palin's well-received acceptance speech at the Republican National Convention in St. Paul, Minn., on Wednesday night, they latched on early and hard to the fact that it was penned by former Bush speechwriter Matthew Scully. But the story is more complicated than just the recycling of a Bush staffer into John McCain's fold, and it tells you more about how McCain's camp intends to use Palin than it does about the continuing influence of the current White House.
The clues are in the text itself. Scully started working on the vice-presidential speech a week ago, before he or anyone else knew who the nominee would be, and it's not hard to pick out the parts that would have been the same regardless of who delivered it. Scully unspooled two centrist themes via Palin that have been key to the McCain message: the idea that the Republican nominee puts service to country ahead of career and the notion that he's the true representative of Middle America. Both themes implicitly push Obama and Biden to the left, and Scully made them explicit with lines accusing the Democrats of élitism and talking down to working-class voters.
Once Palin was chosen, Scully tailored the speech to the Alaska governor, highlighting her biography and using her PTA background and local political experience (contrasted so memorably with Obama's work as a community organizer) to bolster his two themes. Where much media attention in the wake of her surprise naming has focused on Palin's views on cultural issues like abortion, the speech carefully steered away from ideological touchstones. Palin was shown as an average mainstream American looking to bring change to Washington, further bolstering McCain's overarching message of reforming the wasteful Federal Government.
Scully was a good choice to help moderate Palin's right-wing image. A veteran of the early Bush White House, his specialty was crafting Bush's pro-life message in a way that would not offend soccer moms or mainstream Catholics who get nervous around some of the more extreme Evangelical rhetoric. A former protégé of the late pro-life Democratic governor of Pennsylvania, Bob Casey, Scully has a history of finding rhetorical unity for voters on the right and in the center.
The Palin-Scully pairing is anything but a guaranteed fit, though. Palin is known as an avid hunter; Scully is best known for his vigorous defense of animal rights. A vegetarian who is regularly critical of the NRA and much of the hunting community, he is a passionate advocate for doing away with the more brutal versions of blood-sport, including aerial hunting, which Palin supports.
Don't be surprised, though, if the combination continues. McCain wanted to pick a centrist Vice President not just because he liked candidates such as Joe Lieberman and Tom Ridge, but because he badly needs to close the gap in swing states like Ohio, Iowa and Wisconsin, where he trails Obama. But he had to pick a cultural conservative like Palin because he couldn't risk alienating an already demoralized base. If Palin was viewed as the most likely right winger to sell in the swing states, Scully is the right pick to help repackage her from a base pleaser into a bridge builder. (See photos of Sarah Palin here.)
http://www.time.com/time/politics/article/0,8599,1838808,00.html?xid=feed-cnn-topics
Saturday, August 23, 2008
Comments to LOU DOBBS @ CNN
8-23-08
Isn't this interesting....
Oh and by the way, your concern for the EFFORTS in Iraq is REALLY, REALLY, about casualties...ARE YOU KIDDING?
Where in the hell were you when DEAD SOLDIERS, that we cannot view draped in the PROUD AMERICAN FLAG coming home to their final resting place, were receiving $6 000.00 Death Benefit. It was Don Imus, yes, DON IMUS, embarrassed you, (while promoting one of your books) , John Mc Cain , Rick Santorum and all the rest of you PHONIES! You only put up the FALLEN HEROES SITE on your CNN website to SHOW YOU CARE about the CASUALTIES in IRAQ! YOU PHONY!
It was DON IMUS, yes, DON IMUS that PUSHED the LEGISLATION to be CHANGED? And it was CHUCK HAGEL that would not accept the $12, 500.00
WHERE WERE YOU?
Another WHERE WERE YOU?
When the ROIBBERY the Fraudulent Financial institutes in this country that you are suppose to be the GURU.... ECONOMICS.... you LIAR!
Funny, troops MIGHT be out by 2011 but we won’t know until NOVEMBER, after the election, if this is agreeable!
Now, we attack PAKISTAN! WOW... PHONY! EDUCATE THE AMERICAN MIDDLE CLASS,, HOW YOU RPRESIDENT, I NEVER would have voted for such an IDIOT,, is playing POLITICS!! SPIN ON THIS LIAR! HELP YOURSELF!
Isn't this interesting....
Oh and by the way, your concern for the EFFORTS in Iraq is REALLY, REALLY, about casualties...ARE YOU KIDDING?
Where in the hell were you when DEAD SOLDIERS, that we cannot view draped in the PROUD AMERICAN FLAG coming home to their final resting place, were receiving $6 000.00 Death Benefit. It was Don Imus, yes, DON IMUS, embarrassed you, (while promoting one of your books) , John Mc Cain , Rick Santorum and all the rest of you PHONIES! You only put up the FALLEN HEROES SITE on your CNN website to SHOW YOU CARE about the CASUALTIES in IRAQ! YOU PHONY!
It was DON IMUS, yes, DON IMUS that PUSHED the LEGISLATION to be CHANGED? And it was CHUCK HAGEL that would not accept the $12, 500.00
WHERE WERE YOU?
Another WHERE WERE YOU?
When the ROIBBERY the Fraudulent Financial institutes in this country that you are suppose to be the GURU.... ECONOMICS.... you LIAR!
Funny, troops MIGHT be out by 2011 but we won’t know until NOVEMBER, after the election, if this is agreeable!
Now, we attack PAKISTAN! WOW... PHONY! EDUCATE THE AMERICAN MIDDLE CLASS,, HOW YOU RPRESIDENT, I NEVER would have voted for such an IDIOT,, is playing POLITICS!! SPIN ON THIS LIAR! HELP YOURSELF!
Tuesday, August 5, 2008
“Bush Buy SUVs” program
.....
Now the Federals are fighting dumb with dumber.
The Bush administration has proposed tripling a little-know tax deduction that dermatologists, real estate agents, accountants or business consultants can use to buy the biggest SUVs.
It’s a highly stimulating provision in the administration’s economic stimulus program. The loophole would allow someone who buys an $102,581 Hummer H1 for “business purposes” to deduct $87,135 from his taxes immediately. Seriously. Good deal if you can get it.
In December, The Detroit News first reported that lots of self-employed dentists and lawyers were gettin’ it. The auto industry’s hometown paper also was the first to figure out that the new Bush plan would turn the SUV loophole into a four-car garage in the tax code.
"Oh, you've got to be kidding," said Skip Barnett, a Hummer dealer in Atlanta when the News told him about the Bush tax plan's new SUV subsidy. "That would make a Hummer practically free." Bingo.
In case you were wondering, a businessman who wants to stimulate the economy by buying a Ford Taurus or a BMW convertible can’t get these big tax breaks.
That’s because in the 1980s, Congress put limits on how much small businesses and the self-employed could write-off for fancy cars. But they exempted vehicles that weighed more than 6,000 pounds because they didn’t want to discourage farmers and builders from buying pickup trucks and big vans. SUVs weren’t yet popular with soccer moms and football dads.
So now a chiropractor in Sausalito can buy a top of the line Hummer for that $102,581 and then claim a $75,000 deduction for capital equipment, an $8,274 post-Sep. 11 bonus capital equipment deduction and a first-year depreciation allowance of $3,861. The total deduction: $87,135. Assuming the driver is in the top income bracket, the federal tax savings for buying a Hummer is $33,634.
Bet you feel like a sucker for missing out, don’t you?
The Bush administration certainly thinks we’re suckers when it comes to SUVs.
As the administration’s right-hand writes big deductions for big vehicles into the tax code, the administration’s left-hand is grasping to make these road monsters safer. The country’s top road safety regulator, Dr. Jeffrey Runge, head of the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration recently told an auto industry group, “The fatality rate per 100,000 registered SUVs is about three times higher than it is for passenger cars. It doesn’t take a statistician to tell you something is wrong here.”
Runge also said that he wouldn’t let his family ride in rollover prone SUVs “if they were the last vehicles on earth.” That really sent Detroit into a tailspin.
The “Bush Buy SUVs” program also collides with the administration’s recent decision to force car companies to improve the fuel economy of SUVs, pickups and minivans by 7 percent over the next few years.
The bottom line is absurd: the government wants to increase its subsidy for buying vehicles it says are unsafe, gas-guzzling polluters.
That makes about as much sense as asking “What Would Jesus Drive?”
Dick Meyer, a veteran political and investigative producer for CBS News, is Editorial Director of CBSNews.com based in Washington.
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/01/23/opinion/meyer/main537649.shtml
Now the Federals are fighting dumb with dumber.
The Bush administration has proposed tripling a little-know tax deduction that dermatologists, real estate agents, accountants or business consultants can use to buy the biggest SUVs.
It’s a highly stimulating provision in the administration’s economic stimulus program. The loophole would allow someone who buys an $102,581 Hummer H1 for “business purposes” to deduct $87,135 from his taxes immediately. Seriously. Good deal if you can get it.
In December, The Detroit News first reported that lots of self-employed dentists and lawyers were gettin’ it. The auto industry’s hometown paper also was the first to figure out that the new Bush plan would turn the SUV loophole into a four-car garage in the tax code.
"Oh, you've got to be kidding," said Skip Barnett, a Hummer dealer in Atlanta when the News told him about the Bush tax plan's new SUV subsidy. "That would make a Hummer practically free." Bingo.
In case you were wondering, a businessman who wants to stimulate the economy by buying a Ford Taurus or a BMW convertible can’t get these big tax breaks.
That’s because in the 1980s, Congress put limits on how much small businesses and the self-employed could write-off for fancy cars. But they exempted vehicles that weighed more than 6,000 pounds because they didn’t want to discourage farmers and builders from buying pickup trucks and big vans. SUVs weren’t yet popular with soccer moms and football dads.
So now a chiropractor in Sausalito can buy a top of the line Hummer for that $102,581 and then claim a $75,000 deduction for capital equipment, an $8,274 post-Sep. 11 bonus capital equipment deduction and a first-year depreciation allowance of $3,861. The total deduction: $87,135. Assuming the driver is in the top income bracket, the federal tax savings for buying a Hummer is $33,634.
Bet you feel like a sucker for missing out, don’t you?
The Bush administration certainly thinks we’re suckers when it comes to SUVs.
As the administration’s right-hand writes big deductions for big vehicles into the tax code, the administration’s left-hand is grasping to make these road monsters safer. The country’s top road safety regulator, Dr. Jeffrey Runge, head of the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration recently told an auto industry group, “The fatality rate per 100,000 registered SUVs is about three times higher than it is for passenger cars. It doesn’t take a statistician to tell you something is wrong here.”
Runge also said that he wouldn’t let his family ride in rollover prone SUVs “if they were the last vehicles on earth.” That really sent Detroit into a tailspin.
The “Bush Buy SUVs” program also collides with the administration’s recent decision to force car companies to improve the fuel economy of SUVs, pickups and minivans by 7 percent over the next few years.
The bottom line is absurd: the government wants to increase its subsidy for buying vehicles it says are unsafe, gas-guzzling polluters.
That makes about as much sense as asking “What Would Jesus Drive?”
Dick Meyer, a veteran political and investigative producer for CBS News, is Editorial Director of CBSNews.com based in Washington.
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/01/23/opinion/meyer/main537649.shtml
Tuesday, April 29, 2008
Where is Paris, Brittany, or Hannah Montana?
isn't this is what is important in this country and for the news organizations?
probably , becuawe most of these "NEWS" people do not know anything about real issues that effect this country and will continue to do so!
So, Keep on keeping us STUPID!!!!!
What is our ranking in the United States for education? Yes, let's continue to speak about all the REAL ISSUES,,,,,,Like Lou Dobbs, talking about a fence at the border?
Does he really understand that the "FENCE" is OLD NEWS? ANY TECHNOLOGY in the country LOU? Or are you IGNORANT on what other countries are doing for border patrol that has a record of actually stopping illegal immigration.
Lou Dobbs should be concerned with who is going to clean up his daughter's equestrian riding stable's stalls!
On and on and on.....................
His entire show, and that is waht most of the media is, all show, no real SUBSTANCE, and all opinion....NO SOLUTIONS or NO FACTS!!!
JUST HIS OPINION>>>>>ANY THOUGHTS BIG MONEY MAN?
Bowling One, Health Care Zero
By Elizabeth Edwards
The New York Times
Sunday 27 April 2008
Chapel Hill, N.C. - For the last month, news media attention was focused on Pennsylvania and its Democratic primary. Given the gargantuan effort, what did we learn?
Well, the rancor of the campaign was covered. The amount of money spent was covered. But in Pennsylvania, as in the rest of the country this political season, the information about the candidates' priorities, policies and principles - information that voters will need to choose the next president - too often did not make the cut. After having spent more than a year on the campaign trail with my husband, John Edwards, I'm not surprised.
Why? Here's my guess: The vigorous press that was deemed an essential part of democracy at our country's inception is now consigned to smaller venues, to the Internet and, in the mainstream media, to occasional articles. I am not suggesting that every journalist for a mainstream media outlet is neglecting his or her duties to the public. And I know that serious newspapers and magazines run analytical articles, and public television broadcasts longer, more probing segments.
But I am saying that every analysis that is shortened, every corner that is cut, moves us further away from the truth until what is left is the Cliffs Notes of the news, or what I call strobe-light journalism, in which the outlines are accurate enough but we cannot really see the whole picture.
It is not a new phenomenon. In 1954, the Army-McCarthy hearings - an important if painful part of our history - were televised, but by only one network, ABC. NBC and CBS covered a few minutes, snippets on the evening news, but continued to broadcast soap operas in order, I suspect, not to invite complaints from those whose days centered on the drama of "The Guiding Light."
The problem today unfortunately is that voters who take their responsibility to be informed seriously enough to search out information about the candidates are finding it harder and harder to do so, particularly if they do not have access to the Internet.
Did you, for example, ever know a single fact about Joe Biden's health care plan? Anything at all? But let me guess, you know Barack Obama's bowling score. We are choosing a president, the next leader of the free world. We are not buying soap, and we are not choosing a court clerk with primarily administrative duties.
What's more, the news media cut candidates like Joe Biden out of the process even before they got started. Just to be clear: I'm not talking about my husband. I'm referring to other worthy Democratic contenders. Few people even had the chance to find out about Joe Biden's health care plan before he was literally forced from the race by the news blackout that depressed his poll numbers, which in turn depressed his fund-raising.
And it's not as if people didn't want this information. In focus groups that I attended or followed after debates, Joe Biden would regularly be the object of praise and interest: "I want to know more about Senator Biden," participants would say.
But it was not to be. Indeed, the Biden campaign was covered more for its missteps than anything else. Chris Dodd, also a serious candidate with a distinguished record, received much the same treatment. I suspect that there was more coverage of the burglary at his campaign office in Hartford than of any other single event during his run other than his entering and leaving the campaign.
Who is responsible for the veil of silence over Senator Biden? Or Senator Dodd? Or Gov. Tom Vilsack? Or Senator Sam Brownback on the Republican side?
The decision was probably made by the same people who decided that Fred Thompson was a serious candidate. Articles purporting to be news spent thousands upon thousands of words contemplating whether he would enter the race, to the point that before he even entered, he was running second in the national polls for the Republican nomination. Second place! And he had not done or said anything that would allow anyone to conclude he was a serious candidate. A major weekly news magazine put Mr. Thompson on its cover, asking - honestly! - whether the absence of a serious campaign and commitment to raising money or getting his policies out was itself a strategy.
I'm not the only one who noticed this shallow news coverage. A report by the Project for Excellence in Journalism and the Shorenstein Center on the Press, Politics and Public Policy found that during the early months of the 2008 presidential campaign, 63 percent of the campaign stories focused on political strategy while only 15 percent discussed the candidates' ideas and proposals.
Watching the campaign unfold, I saw how the press gravitated toward a narrative template for the campaign, searching out characters as if for a novel: on one side, a self-described 9/11 hero with a colorful personal life, a former senator who had played a president in the movies, a genuine war hero with a stunning wife and an intriguing temperament, and a handsome governor with a beautiful family and a high school sweetheart as his bride. And on the other side, a senator who had been first lady, a young African-American senator with an Ivy League diploma, a Hispanic governor with a self-deprecating sense of humor and even a former senator from the South standing loyally beside his ill wife. Issues that could make a difference in the lives of Americans didn't fit into the narrative template and, therefore, took a back seat to these superficialities.
News is different from other programming on television or other content in print. It is essential to an informed electorate. And an informed electorate is essential to freedom itself. But as long as corporations to which news gathering is not the primary source of income or expertise get to decide what information about the candidates "sells," we are not functioning as well as we could if we had the engaged, skeptical press we deserve.
And the future of news is not bright. Indeed, we've heard that CBS may cut its news division, and media consolidation is leading to one-size-fits-all journalism. The state of political campaigning is no better: without a press to push them, candidates whose proposals are not workable avoid the tough questions. All of this leaves voters uncertain about what approach makes the most sense for them. Worse still, it gives us permission to ignore issues and concentrate on things that don't matter. (Look, the press doesn't even think there is a difference!)
I was lucky enough for a time to have a front-row seat in this campaign - to see all this, to get my information firsthand. But most Americans are not so lucky. As we move the contest to my home state, North Carolina, I want my neighbors to know as much as they possibly can about what these men and this woman would do as president.
If voters want a vibrant, vigorous press, apparently we will have to demand it. Not by screaming out our windows as in the movie "Network" but by talking calmly, repeatedly, constantly in the ears of those in whom we have entrusted this enormous responsibility. Do your job, so we can - as voters - do ours.
--------
Elizabeth Edwards, a senior fellow at the Center for American Progress, is the author of "Saving Graces."
probably , becuawe most of these "NEWS" people do not know anything about real issues that effect this country and will continue to do so!
So, Keep on keeping us STUPID!!!!!
What is our ranking in the United States for education? Yes, let's continue to speak about all the REAL ISSUES,,,,,,Like Lou Dobbs, talking about a fence at the border?
Does he really understand that the "FENCE" is OLD NEWS? ANY TECHNOLOGY in the country LOU? Or are you IGNORANT on what other countries are doing for border patrol that has a record of actually stopping illegal immigration.
Lou Dobbs should be concerned with who is going to clean up his daughter's equestrian riding stable's stalls!
On and on and on.....................
His entire show, and that is waht most of the media is, all show, no real SUBSTANCE, and all opinion....NO SOLUTIONS or NO FACTS!!!
JUST HIS OPINION>>>>>ANY THOUGHTS BIG MONEY MAN?
Bowling One, Health Care Zero
By Elizabeth Edwards
The New York Times
Sunday 27 April 2008
Chapel Hill, N.C. - For the last month, news media attention was focused on Pennsylvania and its Democratic primary. Given the gargantuan effort, what did we learn?
Well, the rancor of the campaign was covered. The amount of money spent was covered. But in Pennsylvania, as in the rest of the country this political season, the information about the candidates' priorities, policies and principles - information that voters will need to choose the next president - too often did not make the cut. After having spent more than a year on the campaign trail with my husband, John Edwards, I'm not surprised.
Why? Here's my guess: The vigorous press that was deemed an essential part of democracy at our country's inception is now consigned to smaller venues, to the Internet and, in the mainstream media, to occasional articles. I am not suggesting that every journalist for a mainstream media outlet is neglecting his or her duties to the public. And I know that serious newspapers and magazines run analytical articles, and public television broadcasts longer, more probing segments.
But I am saying that every analysis that is shortened, every corner that is cut, moves us further away from the truth until what is left is the Cliffs Notes of the news, or what I call strobe-light journalism, in which the outlines are accurate enough but we cannot really see the whole picture.
It is not a new phenomenon. In 1954, the Army-McCarthy hearings - an important if painful part of our history - were televised, but by only one network, ABC. NBC and CBS covered a few minutes, snippets on the evening news, but continued to broadcast soap operas in order, I suspect, not to invite complaints from those whose days centered on the drama of "The Guiding Light."
The problem today unfortunately is that voters who take their responsibility to be informed seriously enough to search out information about the candidates are finding it harder and harder to do so, particularly if they do not have access to the Internet.
Did you, for example, ever know a single fact about Joe Biden's health care plan? Anything at all? But let me guess, you know Barack Obama's bowling score. We are choosing a president, the next leader of the free world. We are not buying soap, and we are not choosing a court clerk with primarily administrative duties.
What's more, the news media cut candidates like Joe Biden out of the process even before they got started. Just to be clear: I'm not talking about my husband. I'm referring to other worthy Democratic contenders. Few people even had the chance to find out about Joe Biden's health care plan before he was literally forced from the race by the news blackout that depressed his poll numbers, which in turn depressed his fund-raising.
And it's not as if people didn't want this information. In focus groups that I attended or followed after debates, Joe Biden would regularly be the object of praise and interest: "I want to know more about Senator Biden," participants would say.
But it was not to be. Indeed, the Biden campaign was covered more for its missteps than anything else. Chris Dodd, also a serious candidate with a distinguished record, received much the same treatment. I suspect that there was more coverage of the burglary at his campaign office in Hartford than of any other single event during his run other than his entering and leaving the campaign.
Who is responsible for the veil of silence over Senator Biden? Or Senator Dodd? Or Gov. Tom Vilsack? Or Senator Sam Brownback on the Republican side?
The decision was probably made by the same people who decided that Fred Thompson was a serious candidate. Articles purporting to be news spent thousands upon thousands of words contemplating whether he would enter the race, to the point that before he even entered, he was running second in the national polls for the Republican nomination. Second place! And he had not done or said anything that would allow anyone to conclude he was a serious candidate. A major weekly news magazine put Mr. Thompson on its cover, asking - honestly! - whether the absence of a serious campaign and commitment to raising money or getting his policies out was itself a strategy.
I'm not the only one who noticed this shallow news coverage. A report by the Project for Excellence in Journalism and the Shorenstein Center on the Press, Politics and Public Policy found that during the early months of the 2008 presidential campaign, 63 percent of the campaign stories focused on political strategy while only 15 percent discussed the candidates' ideas and proposals.
Watching the campaign unfold, I saw how the press gravitated toward a narrative template for the campaign, searching out characters as if for a novel: on one side, a self-described 9/11 hero with a colorful personal life, a former senator who had played a president in the movies, a genuine war hero with a stunning wife and an intriguing temperament, and a handsome governor with a beautiful family and a high school sweetheart as his bride. And on the other side, a senator who had been first lady, a young African-American senator with an Ivy League diploma, a Hispanic governor with a self-deprecating sense of humor and even a former senator from the South standing loyally beside his ill wife. Issues that could make a difference in the lives of Americans didn't fit into the narrative template and, therefore, took a back seat to these superficialities.
News is different from other programming on television or other content in print. It is essential to an informed electorate. And an informed electorate is essential to freedom itself. But as long as corporations to which news gathering is not the primary source of income or expertise get to decide what information about the candidates "sells," we are not functioning as well as we could if we had the engaged, skeptical press we deserve.
And the future of news is not bright. Indeed, we've heard that CBS may cut its news division, and media consolidation is leading to one-size-fits-all journalism. The state of political campaigning is no better: without a press to push them, candidates whose proposals are not workable avoid the tough questions. All of this leaves voters uncertain about what approach makes the most sense for them. Worse still, it gives us permission to ignore issues and concentrate on things that don't matter. (Look, the press doesn't even think there is a difference!)
I was lucky enough for a time to have a front-row seat in this campaign - to see all this, to get my information firsthand. But most Americans are not so lucky. As we move the contest to my home state, North Carolina, I want my neighbors to know as much as they possibly can about what these men and this woman would do as president.
If voters want a vibrant, vigorous press, apparently we will have to demand it. Not by screaming out our windows as in the movie "Network" but by talking calmly, repeatedly, constantly in the ears of those in whom we have entrusted this enormous responsibility. Do your job, so we can - as voters - do ours.
--------
Elizabeth Edwards, a senior fellow at the Center for American Progress, is the author of "Saving Graces."
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)