Politics

Oct 08, 2008 12:20

I am a political junkie. This is a new development for me; I have mostly ignored politics as a bad business filled with bad people ( Read more... )

Leave a comment

Comments 8

robbbbbb October 8 2008, 20:32:09 UTC
I'll take issue with one general point in your analysis:

"Naturally, it doesn't help that McCain aggressively alienated the media..."

This is not true. As soon as John McCain stepped out to any sort of lead, the media turned to sniping at him. The clear indicator, of course, is that nasty hit piece that the NY Times ran in January, claiming that McCain had an affair based entirely on rumor and innuendo.

The media had it out for McCain long before he turned on them. Frankly, he recognized them for what they are: An enemy. The major media's in the tank for Obama, and has been for a year now. Treating the networks and the NY Times as anything other than hostile opponents would be a failure to recognize the territory.

Reply

isildur October 8 2008, 20:48:11 UTC
And yet the 2000 narrative for McCain was that he was the media 'darling'. If he'd been able to get that kind of support in 2008, and hold on to it, I think we'd have seen both a closer race and a friendlier reception to Palin. It's not like the media is totally unwilling to work with goofy candidates; look at Biden, who (until Palin) defined 'goofy candidate'.

Reply

robbbbbb October 8 2008, 20:52:55 UTC
The media liked McCain in 2000 because he was running against George W. Bush, and he was more acceptable in their eyes. They'd have turned on him in the general against Al Gore, too.

Eight years is a long time for things to change.

Reply

wtblifepst October 8 2008, 22:02:59 UTC
It's a common story among conservatives to claim that the press is liberal.

What's odd about this is that Bill O'Reilly usually says it right before talking about how stratospheric his ratings are.

It's like every time anyone says that you're supposed to supply your own "except FOX news, which is of course the most popular news channel on TV or Rush Limbaugh which is the most popular pundit on talk radio."

Reply


xleste October 8 2008, 21:44:23 UTC
Palin...would...have...been...a..better..choice?!
My brain is incapable of wrapping around that concept.

And I wrap my brain around a lot of incomprehensible things.

And ditto to the blaming McCain for Palin - and using her as his attack dog of late to attack Obama for "palling around with terrorists".

Reply

isildur October 9 2008, 01:19:17 UTC
The problem I have with McCain here is that Palin shows signs of eventually developing into a reasonable politician. She has good instincts and she has 'star potential' in the way that Obama did at the 2004 Democratic Convention.

But I suspect that this entire sorry episode will seriously damage the possibility of her ever moving beyond local Alaskan politics and onto a national stage. McCain has basically sabotaged her before she had a chance to get off the ground.

For those of us who vigorously disagree with her, that's a good thing, because a competent Palin would be very difficult to beat. But it's a loss for the GOP, and one they should be more cognizant of.

Reply


jminnis October 9 2008, 21:48:40 UTC
I think the true tragedy in this coming election is that I can't name a single political leader from either party that I'd actually support as President. I'm a McCain "supporter" mostly because I don't want control of both houses of Congress and the Presidency in the same party.

Also, I believe that Obama will be a train wreck as President where McCain will only be bad. I'm in the camp of people who believe that Senators generally make awful Presidents if they don't have Gubernatorial experience. In this century, I can't think of a single Senator who became a good President (yes, that includes JFK, who would not be considered a good President if he hadn't been assassinated).

Reply


Leave a comment

Up