[chris v]

If you've been reading the polls, you've seen that the majority of Americans feel that they've heard too much about Obama, and not enough about McCain. They're suffering from Obama fatigue. McCain's campaign has complained about the unfair amount of press coverage. Is that starting to turn around, and is it in McCain's favor?

http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/08/...ain/index.html

I dunno. Jack Cafferty -- LIE-beral moonbat, or is McCain finally getting the kind of coverage he deserves?

[vmarks]

False dichotomy.

Is there some reason why it can't be both or neither?

[chris v]

Originally Posted by vmarks 

False dichotomy.

Is there some reason why it can't be both or neither?

IE Jack Cafferty is a LIE-beral moonbat AND McCain is getting the attention he deserves? I could maybe go with that, but I'm thinking this kind of attention isn't going to do McCain any good, and Cafferty isn't exactly a PETA-joining, America-hating Tree-hugger, from what of his stuff I've read in the past.

Edit: I think it might be a case of "careful what you ask for..."

[besson3c]

vmarks: what did you think of Cafferty's article?

[vmarks]

I see where Cafferty's disappointments lie, and I'm not entirely in disagreement with them. I, too, am sick of American Presidents embarrassing the nation. I was sick of it in 1998, too.

At the same time, it's a little silly to blame Bush for attending the Olympics when Russia decided to attack. What's he to do, fly back to DC to address a war zone we haven't committed to get involved in, or speak to Putin directly when he was also in China? I never did like the "I got a sense of his soul" remark, and feel it makes for a bad impression as a judge of character.

As for the Saddleback forum, McCain's short answers served him very well. He answered in short, coherent sentences that left no room for confusion of the answer, and then followed up with some elaboration on those answers. Mr. Obama seemed unable to answer any question at that forum directly, and instead used every answer as a long-winded opportunity to waffle.

I'm very glad that McCain is able to express himself with brevity and clarity, where Mr. Obama seems unable to do so.

I agree, Mr. McCain should have considered attending the forum in Pennsylvania, but I don't know with any certainty why he was unable to attend.

[Helmling]

Originally Posted by chris v 

If you've been reading the polls, you've seen that the majority of Americans feel that they've heard too much about Obama, and not enough about McCain. They're suffering from Obama fatigue. McCain's campaign has complained about the unfair amount of press coverage. Is that starting to turn around, and is it in McCain's favor?

http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/08/...ain/index.html

I dunno. Jack Cafferty -- LIE-beral moonbat, or is McCain finally getting the kind of coverage he deserves?

You don't seem to have anything to say about Cafferty's argument. Simply dismissing him as a liberal is hardly an effective way to dismiss his argument, which I found awfully compelling.

[Helmling]

Originally Posted by vmarks 

I see where Cafferty's disappointments lie, and I'm not entirely in disagreement with them. I, too, am sick of American Presidents embarrassing the nation. I was sick of it in 1998, too.

At the same time, it's a little silly to blame Bush for attending the Olympics when Russia decided to attack. What's he to do, fly back to DC to address a war zone we haven't committed to get involved in, or speak to Putin directly when he was also in China? I never did like the "I got a sense of his soul" remark, and feel it makes for a bad impression as a judge of character.

As for the Saddleback forum, McCain's short answers served him very well. He answered in short, coherent sentences that left no room for confusion of the answer, and then followed up with some elaboration on those answers. Mr. Obama seemed unable to answer any question at that forum directly, and instead used every answer as a long-winded opportunity to waffle.

I'm very glad that McCain is able to express himself with brevity and clarity, where Mr. Obama seems unable to do so.

I agree, Mr. McCain should have considered attending the forum in Pennsylvania, but I don't know with any certainty why he was unable to attend.

I'll admit I didn't see or read transcripts of this town hall thingy, but these answers don't seem to serve him well. We are talking about complex ideas here. Shouldn't we have a president capable of appreciating the nuances of such complexities? I think the point about the end of the straight-talk express days is particularly telling. McCain just isn't the man he was 8 years ago. I hate to admit it, but there really seems to be something to the age complaint. This is a man I would've voted for without hesitation in 2000, but now I'm not even considering him. Even if every other candidate in the field died (I obviously don't limit myself to the two dominant parties), I could not give McCain my vote today.

Edit:

I looked back at your veneration of "brevity and clarity." My gut reaction is that those two qualities in politics are invariably oversimplifications.

[vmarks]

Cafftery cited the answer to "Is there evil in the world?" but he didn't quote the answer.

McCain's answer was yes. And then he followed up by explaining that enemies that wish to kill Americans are without question evil, and yes he would pursue and bring Bin Ladin to justice.

I don't have a problem with that answer. It's not a complex question requiring nuance at all. Mr. Obama began well enough by stating "Evil does exist." Then he chose to talk about how flawed America is. In the context of whether or not evil exists, essentially stating that America is evil is an answer that doesn't serve Mr. Obama well at all.

Obama: “… Now, the one thing that I think is very important is for us to have some humility in how we approach the issue of confronting evil. You know a lot of evil has been perpetrated based on the claim that we were trying to confront evil… In the name of good and I think one thing that’s very important is having some humility in recognizing that. You know, just because we think our intentions are good doesn’t mean that we’re going to be doing good.”

[chris v]

Originally Posted by Helmling 

You don't seem to have anything to say about Cafferty's argument. Simply dismissing him as a liberal is hardly an effective way to dismiss his argument, which I found awfully compelling.

I was trying to open it for discussion without throwing my bias too obviously behind it. Sorry if I veiled my contempt for McCain too well. I totally agree with the premise of the article, and I think the McCain staff trying to build a media wall around the "Maverick" is going to backfire, and piss the media off, who will then lash out at him. I think this might be the tip of that iceberg. Thus the "careful what you ask for" remark. McCain is finally getting his press, and it's not all good press, either.

Cake.
1. Have?
2. Eat?

discuss

Edit; Typos. Safari spellcheck done brokeded on me.

[vmarks]

I don't imagine for a minute that the Liberal Mainstream Drive-By media is going to treat McCain as favorably as they did in years past when he was their maverick, the lone good Republican in-name-only they could write about.

After all, why would they want to be kind to a liberal Republican when they have a liberal far-left Democrat they can lavish praise on?

If McCain's campaign thought they were going to get good press, I believe they were dreaming. The reality is that they need press, period. Good, bad, otherwise. Ain't nothing wrong with some bad press, it jes' lets you declare that you're the underdog being mistreated by Big Media oligarchs. Unfortunately, no one really wants to spend time on people whining about big media oligarchs either, so this complaint has to be balanced.

America, remember, does love an underdog, and does love the notion of a maverick who stands by what he believes in, even if it means voting against his own party. America also likes a person who knows what he believes and isn't afraid to say it plainly ( brief answers are good) rather than waffle on about nuance.

[dcmacdaddy]

Originally Posted by vmarks 

Cafftery cited the answer to "Is there evil in the world?" but he didn't quote the answer.

McCain's answer was yes. And then he followed up by explaining that enemies that wish to kill Americans are without question evil, and yes he would pursue and bring Bin Ladin to justice.

I don't have a problem with that answer. It's not a complex question requiring nuance at all. Mr. Obama began well enough by stating "Evil does exist." Then he chose to talk about how flawed America is. In the context of whether or not evil exists, essentially stating that America is evil is an answer that doesn't serve Mr. Obama well at all.

Obama: “… Now, the one thing that I think is very important is for us to have some humility in how we approach the issue of confronting evil. You know a lot of evil has been perpetrated based on the claim that we were trying to confront evil… In the name of good and I think one thing that’s very important is having some humility in recognizing that. You know, just because we think our intentions are good doesn’t mean that we’re going to be doing good.”

A question regarding one's thoughts on the existence of evil is "not a complex question requiring nuance at all"? Really??? The concepts of Good and Evil are two of the most contested, contentious ideas in the history of human thought and all McCain can come up with is that evil equates to wanting to kill Americans? That's a rather simplistic approach to the matter, don't you think? He didn't say evil is the desire to inflict deliberate harm on another human being or evil is an absence of any real/potential compassion for one's fellow human beings? He defines it within the context of being an American and being the target of evil acts from al Qaeda. That is a disappointing and narrow-minded reply if you ask me. Are the North Vietnamese to be labeled as evil because they wanted to kill Americans after we entered the war against them? what about Iraqis who fought against the American "liberation" of their country, are they to be labeled as evil as well? They wanted to kill Americans.

I am glad Barack Obama's reply was generalized and tending towards the philosophical. I don't want a leader who has simple, cut-and-dried answers to such a thorny philosophical question.

edited to add an example of what I mean about needing a philosophical answer to the question of evil (sorry for invoking Godwin's Law):
So, almost everyone can agree that what the Nazis did in WWII constitutes evil actions. But the question is what makes their actions evil? Is it the slaughter of the Jews, homosexuals, and anyone else considered deviant and un-pure? Or is it the attitude that there is such a thing as racial purity or racial superiority? Or is it the attitude that completely disavows compassion and concern for one's fellow humans from having an influence on one's actions? I would argue it is the latter that is the root cause of the other two circumstances. I would argue that evil is not simply killing those who you think are racially un-pure but rather evil is the attitude that allows for and approves of dehumanizing one's fellow human beings to the point whereby they can be considered sub-human (untermenschen). I would argue evil is the respect/admiration given to the idea that a desire to kill all of those un-like you is considered acceptable. (That same attitude about considering certain groups of people as inherently sub-human was on display in the US in regards to our use of internment camps for US citizens of Japanese descent in WWII.) I would argue that complete loss of compassion and concern for one's fellow humans was the greatest evil of WWII. Because, to me, that attitude seems to underlay everything else that comes out of the horrors of WWII.

[besson3c]

Sorry vmarks, I couldn't disagree with you more. I'm sick of addressing complex issues with simple, watered down, terse remarks designed for Joe Sixpack. I'm lusting after a president that can tackle the complexities of these sorts of issues, and articulate them to people such as us who have the capacity to comprehend them. I'm sick of feeling that our president is no smarter than any one of us.

It could be that McCain has a magnificent capacity for thinking through all of this stuff privately, but he, like Bush, certainly haven't demonstrated this publicly. It bothers me that some people are considering this a virtue. Intellect is at the very top of my list of what I want in a president, and I don't give a rat's ass about the whole idiotic "elitist" label...

[dcmacdaddy]

Originally Posted by vmarks 

America also likes a person who knows what he believes and isn't afraid to say it plainly ( brief answers are good) rather than waffle on about nuance.

Yes, that is true. Americans do like brevity and little nuance in their political discourse. But this desire for simple, un-nuanced political rhetoric is very damaging to the country when the problems we face don't have simple, un-nuanced solutions. And for a political leader to act like our major problems do have simple, un-nuanced answers strikes me as disingenuous at best or willful ignorance at worst.

[finboy]

Originally Posted by Helmling 

You don't seem to have anything to say about Cafferty's argument. Simply dismissing him as a liberal is hardly an effective way to dismiss his argument, which I found awfully compelling.

Cafferty is generally very disappointing these days. This is no different. I'm not a fan of McCain, but it's pretty obvious that if he were to ramble on as Obama does, with generalities, the press would continue to have a field day, Cafferty leading the charge. So to expect McCain to provide them with a "target-rich environment" is stupid.

So, I'm not dismissing Cafferty as a liberal, although I could I guess, but unmasking him as a blather-bater.

As for the "forum" over the weekend, McCain whipped Obama like a redheaded stepbaby. "Reading the transcript" won't do it -- please find the video and watch Obama hem and haw his way through it. And see for yourself whether McCain was prepped for it, or if he just had answers (not all of them were great, BTW). This shows why Obama can't afford a town meeting format. Oh, the debates are going to be something!

[Chongo]

CNN and MSNBC are both in the tank for Obama, especially Chris "I got a tingle up my leg" Mathews

[chris v]

Originally Posted by Chongo 

CNN and MSNBC are both in the tank for Obama, especially Chris "I got a tingle up my leg" Mathews

I sure hope so!

[Helmling]

Originally Posted by vmarks 

I don't imagine for a minute that the Liberal Mainstream Drive-By media is going to treat McCain as favorably as they did in years past when he was their maverick, the lone good Republican in-name-only they could write about.

After all, why would they want to be kind to a liberal Republican when they have a liberal far-left Democrat they can lavish praise on?

If McCain's campaign thought they were going to get good press, I believe they were dreaming. The reality is that they need press, period. Good, bad, otherwise. Ain't nothing wrong with some bad press, it jes' lets you declare that you're the underdog being mistreated by Big Media oligarchs. Unfortunately, no one really wants to spend time on people whining about big media oligarchs either, so this complaint has to be balanced.

America, remember, does love an underdog, and does love the notion of a maverick who stands by what he believes in, even if it means voting against his own party. America also likes a person who knows what he believes and isn't afraid to say it plainly ( brief answers are good) rather than waffle on about nuance.

I'm sorry, but I don't see how anyone can toss around this old lament of the "liberal media" in this day and age. I mean, Right-wing punditry has their own dedicated network that opening jabs at Obama for having a "baby mamma" and executing "terrorist fist jabs" and such. Honestly, show me anything on CNN or the other networks that even approaches that level of bias.

Liberal media? Please, they're owned by a tiny cabal of corporate interests, and in case you haven't noticed corporations tend to favor supply-side, read "conservative" politics.

[Helmling]

Originally Posted by finboy 

Cafferty is generally very disappointing these days. This is no different. I'm not a fan of McCain, but it's pretty obvious that if he were to ramble on as Obama does, with generalities, the press would continue to have a field day, Cafferty leading the charge. So to expect McCain to provide them with a "target-rich environment" is stupid.

So, I'm not dismissing Cafferty as a liberal, although I could I guess, but unmasking him as a blather-bater.

As for the "forum" over the weekend, McCain whipped Obama like a redheaded stepbaby. "Reading the transcript" won't do it -- please find the video and watch Obama hem and haw his way through it. And see for yourself whether McCain was prepped for it, or if he just had answers (not all of them were great, BTW). This shows why Obama can't afford a town meeting format. Oh, the debates are going to be something!

McCain may not ramble on vaguely but he stumbles over himself and contradicts himself rather frequently. He is almost literally a shell of the man who ran in 2000. It's shocking.

And as to this accusation that Obama rambles on--I mean, honestly people, must everything be in sound bite for in order for you to be able to process it? Give me a break. God forbid the man use a few complex sentences.

[OldManMac]

Originally Posted by vmarks 

America, remember, does love an underdog, and does love the notion of a maverick who stands by what he believes in, even if it means voting against his own party. America also likes a person who knows what he believes and isn't afraid to say it plainly ( brief answers are good) rather than waffle on about nuance.

Yes, even if what he believes in changes regularly, like McCain.

[vmarks]

Yes, that too is a problem.

I welcome changing opinions in the face of new information, but principle is supposed to be more firm, more permanent, and applicable across multiple situations.

I prefer candidates who have principles and stand firm on them.

[OldManMac]

Then you would obviously still have a problem with McCain.

[vmarks]

Originally Posted by OldManMac 

Then you would obviously still have a problem with McCain.

That is correct. I also have a problem with Mr. Obama.

[D. S. Troyer]

McCain keeps his answers short so he won't say something stupid.

[Big Mac]

Obama is clearly a relatively deep thinker, but deep thinking doesn't necessarily make for a good president. It would be fine if his deep thinking led him to sensible policy recommendations, but that's not what happens in Obama's case. I prefer the Deep Thoughts of Jack Handey myself. One definitely gets the impression that B.H.O loves the sound of his own voice - and why not, he thinks he's the one we've all been waiting for. Does anyone disagree with the notion that Obama has more than a slight Messianic Complex?

McCain addresses questions much more directly, but that doesn't mean his judgments lack depth or wisdom. It's shallow and ignorant to think otherwise. As for Jack Cafferty, WTF did he do with his life until becoming an elderly, mildly annoying, marginal talking head on CNN? I think the first time I ever heard his name was back in January of this year.