Reporters trying to hurt Palin, poll shows

[Beric]

From Rasmussen Reports:

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/election_20082/2008_presidential_election/daily_presidential_tracking_poll


So what do you guys here think? Is the media trying to hurt Palin?

[Peace]

I think Palin is hurting herself.

[Pittsax]

I think the media is doing its homework on a figure that has been plucked from relative obscurity and thrust into the spotlight. The fact that a lot of the findings have been negative is incidental. Palin didn't do herself any favors by distorting her record in every speech she's given either.

Is the media actively trying to bring her down? I don't think so. Facts sometimes hurt.

Remember, this is the same media that talked about Rev. Wright non-stop for over a week.

[leekohler]

She knew her dirty laundry would get aired. She should have kept a cleaner laundry room. The media will attack and scrutinize her like everyone else.

[BoyBach]

So what do you guys here think? Is the media trying to hurt Palin?


Some of the Fourth Estate are finally doing their jobs.

[ucfgrad93]

So what do you guys here think? Is the media trying to hurt Palin?

Yes.

[Beric]

What do you guys think about the issues with Palin's family? Both Obama and Biden have specifically said to leave her alone (anyone need links?), and yet the media keeps dwelling on it.

[TheAnswer]

No, I think for the large part the media is doing their job trying to discover who she is and what a potential Palin vice-presidency could mean for their readers and the general public. It's something the McCain team should have suspected would happen when they picked a relative unknown (and perhaps they counted on it, since they moved to characterized it as "the left wing media is picking on her" rather quickly).

[Thanatoast]

No, the media is trying to *report* on Palin. Whenever they find something unflattering - like putting her town $22 million in debt, firing cops for not being cronies, trying to ban books from the library, or having a pregnant teenage daughter despite being a fundamentalist christian who believes in abstinence and no copmrehensive sex education - it's called an "attack" and "sexist" by Republicans. It's utter BS, is what it is.

[Pittsax]

What do you guys think about the issues with Palin's family? Both Obama and Biden have specifically said to leave her alone (anyone need links?), and yet the media keeps dwelling on it.
Sensationalism.

And as far as I'm concerned, if she's going to parade them around for her benefit, she's opened the door for media scrutiny.

[obeygiant]

From Rasmussen Reports:

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/election_20082/2008_presidential_election/daily_presidential_tracking_poll


So what do you guys here think? Is the media trying to hurt Palin?

From the article:

Last night’s polling shows that, by a ten-to-one margin, voters believe reporters are trying to hurt Palin’s campaign rather than help. Republicans and unaffiliated voters strongly believe that a double standard is being applied to Palin because she is a woman. Democrats disagree. Perhaps most stunning is that, among unaffiliated voters, just 42% believe Obama has better experience than Palin to be President. Thirty-seven percent (37%) say Palin has the edge on experience. Again, most of the interviews for this survey were completed before Palin’s well-received speech last night.
Polling released yesterday showed that 12% of Americans now believe Palin is Very Likely to be the first woman elected President of the United States. Fourteen percent (14%) say the same about Hillary Clinton.
Fifty-two percent (52%) of Americans have a favorable opinion of Palin. A separate survey found that Obama is number one and Palin number two on the list of candidates people would like to meet.


The problem is what do people consider the "media". The internet blogosphere has been exceptionally harsh on Palin although I think the TV News outlets have been relatively fair.

[EricNau]

Republicans and unaffiliated voters strongly believe that a double standard is being applied to Palin because she is a woman.
Because there hasn't been a woman on the campaign trail recently. :rolleyes:

Up until this point I see no evidence that Palin is being treated differently by the media. Although after last night's speech, I wouldn't be surprised if that was about to change. :p

[Beric]

The problem is what do people consider the "media". The internet blogosphere has been exceptionally harsh on Palin although I think the TV News outlets have been relatively fair.

Yeah, good point. The internet blogosphere has been particularly harsh on her.

[bradl]

What do you guys think about the issues with Palin's family? Both Obama and Biden have specifically said to leave her alone (anyone need links?), and yet the media keeps dwelling on it.

I could care less about the issues with Palin's family, and quite honestly, Biden and Obama have it right. The media keeps feeding on this (like the vultures they are) because they think it's going to get them what they want (ratings). Unfortunately, they are getting it, because for some stupid reason, idiot commoners out there love a scandal.

Think about it.. Whitewater.. Chandra Levy.. W's kids caught drinking underage.. Prince William's on/off girlfriend.. It's like a car accident during rush hour with too many rubberneckers not minding their own damn business! :D

BL.

[BoyBach]

What do you guys think about the issues with Palin's family? Both Obama and Biden have specifically said to leave her alone (anyone need links?), and yet the media keeps dwelling on it.


My reading is that it's wrong for the media, sorry the Democratic-supporting woman-hating liberal media, to even mention the fact that that Palin has a family, but it's perfectly okay for the Republicans to use them ("My son is going to Iraq" and so on) if it means that she doesn't have to talk about policy.

[Pittsax]

My reading is that it's wrong for the media, sorry the Democratic-supporting woman-hating liberal media, to even mention the fact that that Palin has a family, but it's perfectly okay for the Republicans to use them ("My son is going to Iraq" and so on) if it means that she doesn't have to talk about policy.
Exactly right. Or the son with Down's syndrome. Or bringing Bristol's boyfriend along.

I wonder how many times Joe Biden's bragged about his son going to Iraq?

[TheAnswer]

What do you guys think about the issues with Palin's family? Both Obama and Biden have specifically said to leave her alone (anyone need links?), and yet the media keeps dwelling on it.

I personally think anyone's family is fair game insomuch as it can reflect the potential success/failure of one's personal beliefs as well as the extent that a candidate practices what he advocates.

For example: If Candidate X is advocating greater parental involvement in a child's education and we find out their children are being held back a grade, then that's fair game.

[obeygiant]

My reading is that it's wrong for the media, sorry the Democratic-supporting woman-hating liberal media, to even mention the fact that that Palin has a family, but it's perfectly okay for the Republicans to use them ("My son is going to Iraq" and so on) if it means that she doesn't have to talk about policy.

Obama and his family walked out on stage at the DNC. Michelle Obama talked about her daughters as the sun rise and set. Barack spoke of his daughters frequently. That doesn't open the door for republicans to rake the Obama family over the coals. Its okay for Palin to mention her family, there really isn't much political gain for mentioning them, only to paint a picture of her character.

[Aea]

What do you guys think about the issues with Palin's family? Both Obama and Biden have specifically said to leave her alone (anyone need links?), and yet the media keeps dwelling on it.


Of course Obama and Biden would say that even if it was counter to what they really want, they know it's going to be well received by the people but the media won't stop reporting on Palin's Family. Win-Win situation.

[Thanatoast]

I wonder how many times Joe Biden's bragged about his son going to Iraq?

Once, and indirectly, at the beginning of his speech.

[SMM]

What do you guys think about the issues with Palin's family? Both Obama and Biden have specifically said to leave her alone (anyone need links?), and yet the media keeps dwelling on it.

I did not approve of the medias slandering of Michelle Obama, so it would be hypocritical to excuse them for bringing the daughter into this. She is a 17 year old, who has many challenges ahead of her. Leave her alone. I would say the same about the husband, except he is involved with the oil companies (BP) and stands to profit from drilling in ANWR. I see that as a conflict of interest and it does bear scrutiny - not blind slander understand. All through the Clinton investigation and impeachment, the press left Chelsea alone. A couple media groups tried, but were immediately jumped on by the rest. I thought that was very professional of them.

[Pittsax]

Its okay for Palin to mention her family, there really isn't much political gain for mentioning them, only to paint a picture of her character.
I respectfully disagree. She mentions having a son going to Iraq, as though that makes her and McCain's attitude towards the troops more important that Obama/Biden's.

She points out her son with Down's syndrome and says that parents with special needs (who are a VERY tight-knit group, as was correctly pointed out on Morning Joe) will have a "friend and advocate" in the White House were she elected, even though she cut special needs funding in Alaska by 62% as governor.

These statements have nothing to do with her character and everything to do with political gain.

[Pittsax]

Once, and indirectly, at the beginning of his speech.
He said he was proud of him (and his other children) which was fair considering he (Beau) introduced him (Joe). But never once mentioned going to Iraq.

[bradl]

I personally think anyone's family is fair game insomuch as it can reflect the potential success/failure of one's personal beliefs as well as the extent that a candidate practices what he advocates.

For example: If Candidate X is advocating greater parental involvement in a child's education and we find out their children are being held back a grade, then that's fair game.

Fair enough, but with this we then slide down the road to hypocrisy. If it's fair game for them to advocate a view like this, and then lead that view off by example, it's a positive thing that they're showing. But something like a teen pregnancy out of wedlock is off limits?

We can't have it one way and not the other, ya know? I see where you're coming from, but there's no line in the sand to draw for what is what.

BL.

[Cleverboy]

So what do you guys here think? Is the media trying to hurt Palin?No.

~ CB

[Pittsax]

I did not approve of the medias slandering of Michelle Obama, so it would be hypocritical to excuse them for bringing the daughter into this.
But there's a difference between slander and stating facts. I'm not saying that they can't and haven't gone too far, but there's a difference.

[BoyBach]

Obama and his family walked out on stage at the DNC. Michelle Obama talked about her daughters as the sun rise and set. Barack spoke of his daughters frequently. That doesn't open the door for republicans to rake the Obama family over the coals. Its okay for Palin to mention her family, there really isn't much political gain for mentioning them, only to paint a picture of her character.


As a foreigner "looking in" the very fact that Obama and McCain's wives have spoken at their husbands respective party conventions is mind boggling. What have they got to do with politics?

[iShater]

As a foreigner "looking in" the very fact that Obama and McCain's wives have spoken at their husbands respective party conventions is mind boggling. What have they got to do with politics?

You know ... I haven't thought about that in a long time! :eek:

[Beric]

As a foreigner "looking in" the very fact that Obama and McCain's wives have spoken at their husbands respective party conventions is mind boggling. What have they got to do with politics?

Maybe to show the respective candidate is a "family man" who loves his wife?

[BoyBach]

Maybe to show the respective candidate is a "family man" who loves his wife?


But what has that got to do with politics?

[TheAnswer]

Fair enough, but with this we then slide down the road to hypocrisy. If it's fair game for them to advocate a view like this, and then lead that view off by example, it's a positive thing that they're showing. But something like a teen pregnancy out of wedlock is off limits?

We can't have it one way and not the other, ya know? I see where you're coming from, but there's no line in the sand to draw for what is what.

BL.

I don't think the teen pregnancy out of wedlock is off limits. I think any example of outright hypocrisy or more subtle disconnects between an officials public policies and the facts of their family life are fair game. If someone is advocating mandatory recycling and at the same time throwing their aluminum cans in the trash, I want to know about it.

[bradl]

Maybe to show the respective candidate is a "family man" who loves his wife?

That, and that one of them will end up being the First Lady of the country? A figurehead, like Sarkozy's wife, Rudd's wife, Brown's wife, or (bless her heart), Diana.

Keep in mind here that we have never had a standing President become a widow or widower.

BL.

[r.j.s]

While the media is attacking her policies legitimately - earmarks and such, I think they are also grabbing at straws trying to sensationalize some of the stuff, like the daughter's pregnancy, and the husband's DUI 22 years ago, making a much bigger deal out of everything than it really is.

[iShater]

But what has that got to do with politics?

I guess to show their "character"?

Who are we kidding, it is a show like any on Broadway.

[Beric]

But what has that got to do with politics?

People tend to respect and value that as having good character. At least, I do.

[iShater]

People tend to respect and value that as having good character. At least, I do.

Ok, I HAVE to ask this. So if the candidate cheated on a previous spouse and has the new one or a new one on the stage... that says what about good character? :confused:

[Beric]

While the media is attacking her policies legitimately - earmarks and such, I think they are also grabbing at straws trying to sensationalize some of the stuff, like the daughter's pregnancy, and the husband's DUI 22 years ago, making a much bigger deal out of everything than it really is.

Good point. Legitimate concerns are OK.

However, has the media really investigated and publicized Biden's personal life and stance on the issues as well as they have Palin? Biden doesn't have a perfect record either (both private and public). But we've heard very little of that.

[Beric]

Ok, I HAVE to ask this. So if the candidate cheated on a previous spouse and has the new one or a new one on the stage... that says what about good character? :confused:

Perhaps that means they don't have good character? I don't understand your question. :confused:

[bradl]

Good point. Legitimate concerns are OK.

However, has the media really investigated and publicized Biden's personal life and stance on the issues as well as they have Palin? Biden doesn't have a perfect record either (both private and public). But we've heard very little of that.

This could possibly be because they have already dug out all the dirt they could on Biden.. Unfortunately, Palin is fresh meat (no pun intended).

BL.

[iShater]

Perhaps that means they don't have good character? I don't understand your question. :confused:

Then just showing up on a stage doesn't really say anything about the character does it? :)

i.e. It is all a show.

[SactoGuy18]

I agree with the poll, and last night's speech by Governor Palin made the mainstream media look silly and ridiculous.

[BoyBach]

People tend to respect and value that as having good character. At least, I do.

Far enough. In the UK politicians don't use their families, and especially their children for political gain. Recently David Cameron, the leader of The Opposition, released a web broadcast which included his children and was heavily criticised for it by the media and politicians.

It must be one of those "potato" "potaytoh" things.


Ok, I HAVE to ask this. So if the candidate cheated on a previous spouse and has the new one or a new one on the stage... that says what about good character? :confused:

Ah, but what if the hypothetical candidate has extenuating circumstances? Imagine if the hypothetical candidate was a POW or something. Purely a hypothetical question, you understand?

[Beric]

Then just showing up on a stage doesn't really say anything about the character does it? :)

i.e. It is all a show.

Well, clearly so. Calling them up on stage is meant to remind the audience of their character and make them more attracted to the candidate, by seeing their family. The act in itself means nothing.

[r.j.s]

This could possibly be because they have already dug out all the dirt they could on Biden.. Unfortunately, Palin is fresh meat (no pun intended).

BL.

True, but on some of the stuff they are really reaching - or not checking any facts, as in the case of the blog claim that Trig was Bristol's baby ... They just jumped on it because it seemed to be a scandal.

Link (http://www.nationalpost.com/opinion/columnists/story.html?id=767602)

[mactastic]

Good point. Legitimate concerns are OK.

However, has the media really investigated and publicized Biden's personal life and stance on the issues as well as they have Palin? Biden doesn't have a perfect record either (both private and public). But we've heard very little of that.
Conservatives have been teeing off on Biden for years. Senator Windbag ring a bell?

Also, Biden ran for president. Recently. The media has been digging into his record and past for a long time now.

Palin is an unknown. That works to her advantage in some ways, in that she gets the ability to define herself, and the public vetting of her past will necessarily be the abridged version because of the compressed time frame. But it also means that unless she gets all her dirty laundry out in the open up front, new revelations will trickle out day by day, potentially hurting her in the long run. It means that the public's first impression of her will be hard to overcome in approximately 60 days time.

[atszyman]

I don't think the teen pregnancy out of wedlock is off limits. I think any example of outright hypocrisy or more subtle disconnects between an officials public policies and the facts of their family life are fair game. If someone is advocating mandatory recycling and at the same time throwing their aluminum cans in the trash, I want to know about it.

I think the family issues should be mostly off limits. The extent of the pregnancy should only be used when the candidate, or a pundit has gone on record about another high profile teen pregnancy like O'Reilly did with Jamie Lynn Spears, calling her parents "pinheads" for not being able to control their daughter, and now calling for the media to lay off Bristol Palin.

I agree with the laying off Palin on this issue (never thought I'd agree with O'Reilly) but when you're trying to act like a credible information source and influence people your hypocrisy is fair game.

I love this Daily Show clip (http://ccinsider.comedycentral.com/cc_insider/2008/09/jon-stewart-ann.html) where they get Rove belittling Governor Kaine's experience (only the mayor of Richmond and governor for three years), O'Reilly's previously mentioned bit, and a couple others talking about Clinton whining about sexism and turning around to play the sexism card with Palin.

I don't necessarily think that the media has been particularly hard on Palin, I think however that the skeletons are getting flushed out more quickly due to the compressed time frame at this point just due to the fact that she's relatively unknown to most of the United States. Had she been announced months ago these issues probably would have rolled out more slowly.

[GorillaPaws]

If Palin becomes VP, there is a very significant chance that she would become the President. Palin hasn't really been "run through the wringer of scrutiny" so-to-speak like McCain, Obama, Biden and any of the other people who have been campaigning in the national spotlight for all of this time. I think the people have the right to know just who this woman is, what does she stand for, what has she done in the past, and how well do her behavior and statements being made as part of the McCain campaign measure up with her history and personal life.

[seenew]

If you don't like hearing the truth brought up about Palin, you could always just ignore it and tune in to the state-sponsored Fox "News" channel. They seem to think she's totally rad.

[Beric]

I've hear rumblings that if the Democrats or the media appear to act too sexist toward Palin, that Hillary will emerge and defend her. Anyone else heard something of the sort?

[mactastic]

I've hear rumblings that if the Democrats or the media appear to act too sexist toward Palin, that Hillary will emerge and defend her. Anyone else heard something of the sort?
Problem is, Palin herself said this about charges of sexism being leveled against Hillary Clinton detractors:
PALIN: . . . [F]air or unfair and I do think it is a more concentrated criticism that Hillary gets on so many fronts, and I think that is unfortunate, she does herself a disservice to even mention it. You have to plow through that and you have to know what you are getting into - I say that with all due respect to Hillary Clinton and to her experience and to her passion for changing the status quo - when I hear a statement like that coming from a woman candidate, with any kind of perceived whine about that excess criticism, you know a sharper microscope put on her, I think that doesn't do us any good - women in politics, women in general wanting to progress this country. I do not think it bodes well for her a statement like that because, again, fair or unfair, it is there that's reality I think it is a given - people can just accept the she is going to be under that sharper microscope So be it. Work harder prove yourself to an even greater degree that you are capable that you are going to be the best candidate and that of course is what she wants us to believe at this point. So it bothers me a little bit hearing her bring that attention to herself on that level.
Also, if you believe that the attacks on Palin are sexist, you must also believe that the attacks on Obama are racist.

And no, I don't think Hillary Clinton will be out defending Palin. Some of Clinton's PUMA supporters will probably get themselves into the spotlight by making those claims, but Clinton herself would not be so stupid as to assist the McCain team.

Rule #1 of politics: When you opponent is drowning (metaphorically of course), you throw them an anvil, not a life preserver.

[ZiggyPastorius]

A recently conducted poll suggested that 100% of myself believes Palin is a whackjob

I was curious about the part of the article that said people thought she was gonna become the first woman president...Don't they mean vice-president? Is someone intending to assassinate McCain or am I missing something here? :confused:

[Beric]

Also, if you believe that the attacks on Palin are sexist, you must also believe that the attacks on Obama are racist.

Well, I don't believe the attacks on Palin are particularly sexist at this point, but neither do I see any correlation on why this is related to attacks on Obama being racist. It's perfectly possible for attacks on Palin to be just sexist, while attacks on Obama are not racist, is it not? :confused:

I was curious about the part of the article that said people thought she was gonna become the first woman president...Don't they mean vice-president? Is someone intending to assassinate McCain or am I missing something here? :confused:

Perhaps the article was suggesting Palin might be running for 2012?

[ZiggyPastorius]

Perhaps the article was suggesting Palin might be running for 2012?

I guess so, but I'm not entirely sure why that really matters for anything right now. Not that whether it matters really it matters.

Man, I hope not, though.

[Thomas Veil]

I agree with the poll, and last night's speech by Governor Palin made the mainstream media look silly and ridiculous.The media looked fine to me; it was Palin that was silly and ridiculous.

People, there's eight weeks in which to get to know Palin. Eight short weeks. Unlike Biden, she's an unknown. Expect a big frenzy of fact-finding as to whether her high-falutin' attitude matches her real-life actions. Expect people to want to know what she's accomplished, both good and bad. And if she's gonna bring her family into this, expect them to be fair game.

Or are we supposed to blindly accept that she's just a peachy-keen wonderful person, and go with that?

[iShater]

I was curious about the part of the article that said people thought she was gonna become the first woman president...Don't they mean vice-president? Is someone intending to assassinate McCain or am I missing something here? :confused:

Just that since she is next in line, if ANYTHING happens to McCain, she would become president. That is a fact that people have to evaluate when looking at a VP.

[Beric]

I guess so, but I'm not entirely sure why that really matters for anything right now. Not that whether it matters really it matters.

Man, I hope not, though.

I cannot help getting excited at the thought of Palin running for 2012. That's beside the point of the topic, however. :D

[atszyman]

Well, I don't believe the attacks on Palin are particularly sexist at this point, but neither do I see any correlation on why this is related to attacks on Obama being racist. It's perfectly possible for attacks on Palin to be just sexist, while attacks on Obama are not racist, is it not? :confused:



Perhaps the article was suggesting Palin might be running for 2012?

It's possible but if they start using sexism as a defense before anything really sexist comes out they lower the bar on what you can perceive as being prejudiced in any way opening the door to claim racism/sexism at a point that a point of attack is neither.

[NT1440]

Well, I don't believe the attacks on Palin are particularly sexist at this point, but neither do I see any correlation on why this is related to attacks on Obama being racist. It's perfectly possible for attacks on Palin to be just sexist, while attacks on Obama are not racist, is it not? :confused:



Perhaps the article was suggesting Palin might be running for 2012?

the thing is, there has been absolutly no evidence that any criticisms are based upon her gender. Asking the tough questions isnt sexist or racist, its your duty when u are looking at who is going to be among the most powerful people in the world.

[bradl]

This talk about character has me chuckling inside about the definition of it and misinterpretation of it. Not that people have character all wrong, but that the general meaning of it isn't what it truly is.

Most people think of character as similar to one's reputation, which in a sense, it is, but really isn't.

Honesty, integrity, courage, absolute principles, faith, patience, discipline, commitment, and self mastery all pretty much make up the concept of character. It could be safe to say that if someone didn't have one of these, that they didn't have character, no? All of these are pretty much pieces to character.

Good example of character is if you were in school, and you see a gang of boys picking on a girl or a younger boy. Integrity is if you don't join in on picking on them. Character is not only not joining in, but at risk of getting beaten up yourself, you step in to defend the girl, because it's right.

Leadership is Character in motion. I cringe everytime a certain someone in our government says that someone is a great leader or something isn't being done because of our democratic leaders.. Without character being in motion, leadership is simply management.

In short, don't listen to what people say, watch what they do. there's a saying that goes something like "What you do speaks so loudly; what you say I can not hear." So the test would be to see what Palin, the Bidens, the McCains, and the Obamas do when the media does the wrong thing, such as what they're doing now with raking the whole pregnancy bit and Palin's husband's marijuana thing through the coals.

BL.

[Don't panic]

Ah, but what if the hypothetical candidate has extenuating circumstances? Imagine if the hypothetical candidate was a POW or something. Purely a hypothetical question, you understand?

Or, hypothetically, if the first wife barely survives a tragic accident that makes her undesirable?

I was curious about the part of the article that said people thought she was gonna become the first woman president...Don't they mean vice-president? Is someone intending to assassinate McCain or am I missing something here?
cheney is a quail hunter, she is a moose hunter. different calibers, different damage to your buddies.... :)

i think it simply mean that they see her as a political rising star who could likely become president at some point, just like hillary.

[ZiggyPastorius]

Just that since she is next in line, if ANYTHING happens to McCain, she would become president. That is a fact that people have to evaluate when looking at a VP.

Yeah, I understand that. I was merely wondering how it had any relevance to an article about whether the media was attacking her and such. Just seems like an out-there statement. "Oh, and I think McCain's going to die and she'll be the first woman president, too."

I cannot help getting excited at the thought of Palin running for 2012. That's beside the point of the topic, however. :D

Well, as I said before, I'm afraid the polls are in, my friend.

A recently conducted poll suggested that 100% of myself knows Palin is a whackjob

Can't argue with 100% :p

cheney is a quail hunter, she is a moose hunter. different calibers, different damage to your buddies....

Ha! Thanks for the laugh :D

[mactastic]

Well, I don't believe the attacks on Palin are particularly sexist at this point, but neither do I see any correlation on why this is related to attacks on Obama being racist. It's perfectly possible for attacks on Palin to be just sexist, while attacks on Obama are not racist, is it not? :confused:
No, because the charge here is that any criticism of a minority candidate perceived to be unfair is XXX-ist. If you're going to claim that your favored candidate being treated in what you view as an unfair manner is sexism, it's just as valid for someone else to claim that the treatment of their favored candidate is racist.

Consider what John Kerry endured from the media during the 2004 campaign. What Palin is going through is no harsher than what Kerry went through. Viewed through that lens, it's hard to call Palin's treatment sexist. The same thing would have happened if Obama had chosen a political neophyte from the left, man or woman of any race.

Also, consider that a case could be made that a white candidate would never have had to defend their crazy pastor the way Obama did. McCain was never called to task for statements by John Hagee or Rod Parsely the way Obama was ripped for statements made my Jeremiah Wright. That could just as easily be spun as racism as the Palin stuff can be spun as sexist.

And for the record, I don't think sexism or racism is playing much of a role here. But we sure are hearing a lot of hue and cry about sexism from a certain political party these days, aren't we?

[bitfactory]

Exactly right. Or the son with Down's syndrome. Or bringing Bristol's boyfriend along.

I wonder how many times Joe Biden's bragged about his son going to Iraq?

Joe bragged about it all the time during the 9/11 hearings. I don't begrudge him for doing it - even though he was trying to show up a witness who also had a kid in Iraq (Joe wasn't aware of that at the time).

Another classic foot-in-mouth moment for Joe.

[bradl]

I cannot help getting excited at the thought of Palin running for 2012. That's beside the point of the topic, however. :D

Out with it. You just want to see her hitting on Merkel instead of Dubya, don't ya? :p

BL.

[Don't panic]

Out with it. You just want to see her hitting on Merkel instead of Dubya, don't ya? :p

BL.

eeewww

[bradl]

Yeah, I understand that. I was merely wondering how it had any relevance to an article about whether the media was attacking her and such. Just seems like an out-there statement. "Oh, and I think McCain's going to die and she'll be the first woman president, too."


For the record, President Harrison was only in office for one month before Taylor took over. Pres. Taylor died 16 months into his term before Fillmore took over. Both died of natural causes.

So conceivably, it is possible.

BL.

[Cleverboy]

Simply put, if Palin was a substantially handsome man (a pretty boy who'd particpated in muscle competitions in younger years and served a rough couple of terms as mayor in Alaska leaving his city in debt it never had, before moving onto being a very popular Governor for a short stretch), he'd be getting the same type of scrutiny on EVERY issue... INCLUDING his daughter's pregnancy (just assume he was travelling with his wife, and flew her back to Alaska many hours after her water broke). Without the shield of "sexism" charges, the Dan Quayle charges would automatically become STRONGER and HARSHER. Being a woman is the ONLY thing that keeps Palin afloat. By the same token, being black certainly helped Obama last long enough to put his message out there, although he's an exceptional politician as well who hasn't benefited from the wearing his difference on his sleeve. Palin can belong to all the "feminist" organizations she wants, but God forbid Obama goes to a church that's "unashamedly black". Look out! Scandal! Double-standard. Plain and simple.

~ CB

[Aranince]

but God forbid Obama goes to a church that's "unashamedly black".

Whose pastor said "God damn America"...sure is the same thing.

[mactastic]

Whose pastor said "God damn America"...sure is the same thing.
Palin's stand-in pastor said that terrorism against Jews was God's punishment for their unbelief.

Just sayin...

[NT1440]

Whose pastor said "God damn America"...sure is the same thing.

wooo someone unhappy with the way americas been running is a problem? funny, last polls i saw i think it was 60+% of americans are unhappy about the countries direction. So he chose words that would rile his fanbase, sounds pretty much like any other speech giver ive ever heard of....

[atszyman]

Whose pastor said "God damn America"...sure is the same thing.

In one sermon that Obama wasn't at, after he had already been a member of that church for 13+ years. As opposed to courting the endorsement of a controversial preacher who you don't even know who has a history of controversy going back to the 80's?

[Aranince]

wooo someone unhappy with the way americas been running is a problem? funny, last polls i saw i think it was 60+% of americans are unhappy about the countries direction. So he chose words that would rile his fanbase, sounds pretty much like any other speech giver ive ever heard of....

Yes...you want God to send America to hell(the definition of damn) because it hasn't been well off lately? Sound more than just being unhappy with the government.

Palin's stand-in pastor said that terrorism against Jews was God's punishment for their unbelief.

Just sayin...

Where did you pull that out of?

[ZiggyPastorius]

Whose pastor said "God damn America"...sure is the same thing.

This is so sensationalist. Who cares? I'm sure there were things about that church besides his pastor's racist rantings and "anti-American" attitude that made him want to be there. Here, I have one for you:

**** America! America is the worst country in the world!

I still like America and the things it's supposed to stand for.

It doesn't matter to me if you don't like Obama. I don't. But to base your voting decision on something like this alone; something that isn't even him, even if it is someone close...is more ignorant than those people who vote for Democrats or Republicans simply because they're Democrats or Republicans.

Out of curiosity, would you punish the pastor for his words? Personally, I enjoy being able to say things like "God damn America," or "Americans are fat and stupid" (whether I actually believe that or not, and I don't...I am one) without consequence.

Rant over.

[mactastic]

Yes...you want God to send America to hell(the definition of damn) because it hasn't been well off lately? Sound more than just being unhappy with the government.



Where did you pull that out of?
As opposed to cursing America with natural disasters? Which we hear continually from right-wing preachers. Katrina was God's judgement yadda yadda yadda...

In fact, wasn't some jerk-off from Focus on the Family out there trying to get the faithful to pray up some rain to ruin Obama's convention speech? Not a very Christian thing to do...

Oh, and here (http://www.phxnews.com/fullstory.php?article=62421).

Why didn't Palin get up and denounce this guy immediately? I know I would have.

[.Andy]

Yes...you want God to send America to hell
I'm not sure this can actually happen can it? It wouldn't fit on the ferry across the river styx.

[NT1440]

Yes...you want God to send America to hell(the definition of damn) because it hasn't been well off lately? Sound more than just being unhappy with the government.



Where did you pull that out of?
athiest here. couldnt give a damn less about wherever god wants to send the country, because its our leaders that control where we go.

also, if mccain does get in , then ill be spouting a certain pastors slogan as well. could we really be that stupid? (again.....)

[Aranince]

In fact, wasn't some jerk-off from Focus on the Family out there trying to get the faithful to pray up some rain to ruin Obama's convention speech? Not a very Christian thing to do...

I do agree that was not a good thing at all...but I doubt it was someone from focus on the family.

EDIT: I guess it was...

[és:]

What do you guys think about the issues with Palin's family? Both Obama and Biden have specifically said to leave her alone (anyone need links?), and yet the media keeps dwelling on it.

I think that it's their job to report news. The unmarried teenage daughter of the new Republican VP, that takes a hard line on abstinence, becoming pregnant... that's news. Whether you, I or Obama like it or not.

As for the original post; if the reporters just printed a transcript of what she said, they'd be 'hurting Palin'.

[freeny]

Here's this from the daily show on the subject-
http://www.thedailyshow.com/video/index.jhtml?videoId=184086&title=sarah-palin-gender-card

[Don't panic]

Here's this from the daily show on the subject-
http://www.thedailyshow.com/video/index.jhtml?videoId=184086&title=sarah-palin-gender-card

day in and day out it remains the best source of news in the country.

[és:]

day in and day out it remains the best source of news in the country.

Alarming that it's meant to be satire :D

I do like him, I know others don't but when all he's doing is comparing what they are saying now, to what they said then... it's the purest form of information that you can get.

[Beric]

I just watched the speech live on http://www.gopconvention2008.com/videos/. I don't much care for TV commentary, and prefer to make my own opinions about the speech. Quality wasn't terrible, either.

[solvs]

What do you guys think about the issues with Palin's family? Both Obama and Biden have specifically said to leave her alone (anyone need links?), and yet the media keeps dwelling on it.
I could care less about the issues with Palin's family, and quite honestly, Biden and Obama have it right. The media keeps feeding on this (like the vultures they are) because they think it's going to get them what they want (ratings). Unfortunately, they are getting it, because for some stupid reason, idiot commoners out there love a scandal.
As I keep pointing out, and wish I could find that Time article I keep referencing that I posted once but now can't find, the media is biased toward controversy. Just as they focused on Obama's pastor (not noting he was a marine though, still) and Clinton's indescressions, while sometimes ignoring other religious figures and those who cheat on their significant others. Palin is an unknown. She has some skeletons. They're interesting and get ratings. When they don't anymore, they'll focus on something else. But to cry about sexism after everything that was thrown at Hillary, and everything they've tried to hit Obama with (see above), after the media (who he once called his base) almost completely ignored McCain's negatives, is a little hypocritical and I just don't think it'll do much more than preach to the choir. No pun intended.

However, has the media really investigated and publicized Biden's personal life and stance on the issues as well as they have Palin? Biden doesn't have a perfect record either (both private and public). But we've heard very little of that.
This could possibly be because they have already dug out all the dirt they could on Biden.
That, and he doesn't really have the same types of skeletons, especially seeing as how Palin is running on a family values platform. What do they have? His Wife and Daughter were killed in a car accident? Who's going to touch that one? That he didn't attribute a quote during a speech he had previously attributed correctly? Not as interesting as someone who talks about what Palin has, supports the positions she does, the has done what she has, family aside.

I've hear rumblings that if the Democrats or the media appear to act too sexist toward Palin, that Hillary will emerge and defend her. Anyone else heard something of the sort?
Not going to happen. She's out there campaigning against her. There are some PUMAs who were never Dems, and some pro-life women who might be "turned", but women aren't going to vote for someone just because she's a woman. Some are actually kinda insulted the GOP thinks they would. Obama has actually defended her, especially more than McCain has about the attacks against Obama, but look for someone to say "I know Hillary Clinton, and you ma'am are no Hillary":

Hillary to Step Up Campaigning for Obama (http://www.talkleft.com/story/2008/9/1/12841/25190)
Obama Camp Turns to Clinton to Counter Palin (http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/05/us/politics/05dems.html?_r=1&adxnnl=1&oref=slogin&partner=rssnyt&emc=rss&adxnnlx=1220771011-l/oHNQFABk+hSPrQVRLulQ)
The Real ’08 Fight: Clinton v. Palin? (http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/06/us/politics/06web-healy.html?adxnnl=1&partner=rssnyt&emc=rss&adxnnlx=1220771009-SwyOfkg3VAO2D9O6tit6dw)

Make no mistake about it, Hillary won't be supporting Palin no matter what, and actually, I've heard some prominent women who have specifically spoken out against her (http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/commentary/la-oe-steinem4-2008sep04,0,7915118.story) because they don't like how she represents them.

Whose pastor said "God damn America"...sure is the same thing.
Still completely missing the point of 1 of former marine Rev. Wright's speech, her pastor has pretty much said the same thing:

Palin's Pastor: God "Is Gonna Strike Out His Hand Against" America (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/max-blumenthal/palins-pastor-god-is-gonn_b_124417.html)

Not to mention everything else preachers who lean right have said, but I guess IOIYAR.

last polls i saw i think it was 60+% of americans are unhappy about the countries direction.
80%+ (http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/04/us/04poll.html).

I noted in another thread how they're playing the media bias card, which isn't doing much better than preaching to the choir, and comes off as the opposite of what they seem to want. As kind of whining. As if she didn't have enough to defend herself with legitimately. I heard one commenter saying if she can't stand up to this, how is she supposed to stand up to people like Putin and Ahmadinejad. Throwing one of their own lines back at them. While some do think the media is out to get her, see above, that doesn't mean the necessarily like her, as I pointed out that before the speech 60% didn't know whether the liked her or knew enough about her, and afterwards 60% said the same thing. Didn't seem to help her much, even if it didn't hurt her either. Another on how the McCain camp is martyring her against the press:

The Messiah and St Joan (http://digbysblog.blogspot.com/2008/09/messiah-and-st-joan-by-digby-yesterday.html)

[Beric]

I noted in another thread how they're playing the media bias card

I watched the Republican National Convention, and yeah, the media bias accusation was everywhere. Of course, I do happen to agree. ;)

[solvs]

I watched the Republican National Convention, and yeah, the media bias accusation was everywhere. Of course, I do happen to agree. ;)

Did you feel that way when Obama was being criticized over nothing and McCain was being ignored, no matter what he did wrong?

[Pittsax]

If the media is biased, why aren't we constantly seeing clips of Palin's "God's will" speech on news?

If the Reverend Wright thing (a preacher giving a sermon that wasn't attended by Obama) got so much heat, why not the actual candidate saying something obviously dubious regarding religion?

Why did "Bittergate" receive so much attention in a leftist media? And "Presentgate?" This stuff isn't "right-wing biased" or "left-wing biased." If anything it's "New person biased" As in...hmm...we don't know ANYTHING about this person, maybe we should look into their history a bit.

Hopefully the ABC interview (if it is legit) will actually get some of the real issues out there about Palin without treading into her personal life. Because there is enough evidence regarding her actual policies (Bridge to Nowhere, more earmarks per person than any other state, all the earmarks for Wasilla, attempts at bookbanning, etc). I don't know much about Gibson's interviewing style, but I doubt it's going to be like being on Meet the Press for 30 minutes.

[Thomas Veil]

I've hear rumblings that if the Democrats or the media appear to act too sexist toward Palin, that Hillary will emerge and defend her. Anyone else heard something of the sort?Yes. I've also heard that Hillary is going to take over the Democratic convention.

Here's this from the daily show on the subject-
http://www.thedailyshow.com/video/index.jhtml?videoId=184086&title=sarah-palin-gender-cardThat is dead-on accurate! Thanks for posting.

[SMM]

As I keep pointing out, and wish I could find that Time article I keep referencing that I posted once but now can't find, the media is biased toward controversy. Just as they focused on Obama's pastor (not noting he was a marine though, still) and Clinton's indescressions, while sometimes ignoring other religious figures and those who cheat on their significant others. Palin is an unknown. She has some skeletons. They're interesting and get ratings. [ ... ]


Not going to happen. She's out there campaigning against her. There are some PUMAs who were never Dems, and some pro-life women who might be "turned", but women aren't going to vote for someone just because she's a woman. [ ... ]

Make no mistake about it, Hillary won't be supporting Palin no matter what, and actually, I've heard some prominent women who have specifically spoken out against her because they don't like how she represents them.

I noted in another thread how they're playing the media bias card, which isn't doing much better than preaching to the choir, and comes off as the opposite of what they seem to want. As kind of whining. As if she didn't have enough to defend herself with legitimately. I heard one commenter saying if she can't stand up to this, how is she supposed to stand up to people like Putin and Ahmadinejad. [ ... ]



As usual solvs, you have done your homework and your opinions are spot on.

You could almost take your statement " ... the media is biased toward controversy." and say, "The media is biased toward entertainment value (which would include controversy, shock value, messy personal relationships, loss of human life, etc.). There is a fairly well established list of 'what sells' copy. That is what these folk want. Your other point is also well-taken - it is not applied equally to every candidate. During this campaign season, McCain has been treated with 'kid-gloves' and given a free ride on many things, Barack would get hammered over.

Recently, the media has been giving McCain fewer free trips and been pressing him harder, as he tries to duck answering the question. Hell, even FOX's Chris Wallace was finally pressing Rick Davis when he attempted his usual double-talking, pretzel logic, to side-track a question (Sunday's show - linked @ C&L (http://www.crooksandliars.com/2008/09/07/fns-davis-defends-palins-massive-earmarks/). So, now the strategy is to claim foul, and media bias. As I am sure you know, this is one of the standard arsenal of tactics in Atwater-Rove's playbook. The more vetting and pressuring the media does, the louder the whining will become. Do you recall the elaborate ploy Spiro Agnew engaged in during Nixon's third presidential campaign? It is amusing to watch him burn at the media stake, after he was forced to resign and plead 'no contest', on an avalanche of corruption charges. I remember WaPo's Ben Bradlee saying something like, "I must have died and went to heaven." after he heard the news. Agnew had been furiously attacking the Post, and Bradlee, for months.

Finally, I also notice you and I have been reading much of the same source material, concerning women embracing Palin. Pro-Choice women and women's groups are generally pretty sharp. There is no way in hell they will embrace a militant pro-lifer. Politically, Palin is a carbon copy of Kay Bailey Hutchison. She would be a big hit with conservative women, of course. But, they were going to vote McCain anyway. Selecting Palin just adds Ketchup to a *****-sandwich. I would be very surprised if any liberal to moderate women voters would be lured to the republican ticket, just because a woman is on it.

[solvs]

As usual solvs, you have done your homework and your opinions are spot on.

Finally, I also notice you and I have been reading much of the same source material
Thank you, and we probably have been since they all seem to quote each other. :p

As for your other point, I'm sure some women (and men) might if they don't know much about her, and don't care enough to learn, but I'm wondering if there aren't more who won't vote for her because she's a woman. As we saw, while there is racism out there, there's also a lot of misogyny. While Palin won't get the Hillary treatment from conservatives, I don't think it's going to help with people as much as everyone seems to think it will.

If the media is biased, why aren't we constantly seeing clips of Palin's "God's will" speech on news?
Because it isn't as interesting as Obama's was. We already know she's an evangelical. Dog bites man isn't news, but man bites dog is. We're used to that kind of crazy. Just like we barely heard about Obama being called "uppity" (http://thehill.com/leading-the-news/westmoreland-calls-obama-uppity-2008-09-04.html), but the lipstick comment goes on for days no matter how ridiculous (http://marcambinder.theatlantic.com/archives/2008/09/obama_did_not_call_sarah_palin.php). Then the media can go back and call the controversy silly (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/09/10/while-rome-burnedthey-dis_n_125473.html), even though they're the ones pushing it.