by nextgen, Sun Apr 20, 2008 at 12:38:07 PM EDT
Often perceptions are repeated over and over until they seem to become reality. A good example would be the 9/11=Iraq=War meme which lead to your current situation in Iraq. After the fact some curious fact finder will uncover the truth, much to everyones surprise. There has been a often repeated perception that Sen. Clinton has been the recipient of unfair, even biased questions during the debates against Sen. Obama. Despite my feelings that those perceptions were incorrect I never did the work to find out the truth, so could not defend my perception. luckily someone has decided to find truth. In a interesting article posted at the Huffington Post the 1v1 debates are broken down and analyzed.
Here is a quick teaser.
ABC asked the most scandal questions, and both ABC and NBC devoted only half of their questions to policy issues. The CNN debates were dramatically more policy-focused
More interesting observations;
Clinton actually had it much rougher at CNN's earlier one-on-one debate in Hollywood. That was the only debate of the four where Clinton was asked a scandal question while Obama was not. Moreover, Clinton faced three questions on her initial support for the Iraq war ("Why can't you just say right now that that vote was a mistake?"), one question about Sen. Ted Kennedy's endorsement of Obama, and another on the perception of a Bush-Clinton dynasty ("How can you be an agent of change when we have had the same two families in the White House for the last 30 years?").
And finally this observation..
Barack Obama has received the overwhelming majority of scandal questions over the course of the four debates, by a margin of 17 to 4
So what do you think, does the perception match reality?
by WWGWD, Sun Apr 20, 2008 at 10:50:17 AM EDT
Tucker Carlson response:
This morning I saw This Week with George Stephenoupolus and Sam Donaldson said something that highlighted a great point. He said that Obama supporters weren't angry over the questions, they were angry because the moderators asked hard questions, questions, about issues Obama thought weren't going to bite him. He also said that it's funny how the Obama camp didn't complain about keeping on topic of the issues or that the media was dragging the story too long when it was Hillary's Bosnia gaff. And I'd like to add something to Donaldson's point. The Obama camp didn't have a problem bringing up Geraldine Ferraro's comments either.
So I've asked many Obama supporters this and I want to ask again. If you're mad at the fact that they asked him hard questions during the debate and he couldn't answer them in a legit manner then why don't you come out and say it. Why are you pretending that it's the questions you had a problem with? It's obvious you guys reacted the way you did because Barack was off his game, therefore he got exposed in the debate. And, it wasn't just those questions about flag pins or his pastor that upended him mind you. He also slipped on the issue of a gun control survey, his stance on gun rights, and his answer when asked about whether or not he would raise the capitol gains tax in which he conceded he would raise it. By the way raising the capitol gains tax effects everyone, not just the upper class. Just a side note.
So I have a few questions for the Obama supporters:
1.Do words only matter when Obama's not making misstatements?
2.If no one in America knows Barack Obama all that well, is it not appropriate to find out exactly who he is and who he dealt with in the past if we did that to many candidates prior?
3. When Hillary or John McCain have shady people backing them and when they commit a slip of the tongue it's ok to pile on them?
4.Yet when Barack Obama slips up or has some shady characters in his life and people bring it up all the sudden it's "politics as usual"?
What I'm trying to get at is, if Obama is suppose to be a new politician then why is he using the same old tactics he condemns and blames Senator Clinton for using? Doesn't that pretty much eat away at his central message? Of new politics and change? Can you only represent change externally and be the same old, same old on the inside? It seems that way. If Barack Obama wants to end divisive politics in Washington and in America then why has he parsed and exploited almost every misstep John McCain and Hillry Clinton committed in this campaign? For example John McCain's economic plan and his 100 years comment. Why are his supporters threatening to dismantle the party if he's not the nominee if this is a new campaign? Is bending the rules the new era of politics? Hiding behind a strong message all the while cutting from the same old deck of cards? If so then maybe Barack Obama is the best politician we've seen in American history. He managed to get us to believe what he said while playing with a trick hand. Honestly, that's quite brilliant. Getting people to buy change without actually giving them change.
So explain to me. What was so criminal about the debate?
by FOB92, Sat Apr 19, 2008 at 10:32:25 AM EDT
I just saw this leaked footage of McCain's interview set to air tomorrow :
by Populista, Thu Apr 17, 2008 at 07:00:42 PM EDT
Last night I posted a call to action after one of the most unfair and uninformative debates ever. It got a overwhelming response and tons of donations poured in. But we can't just do that for one night. We have primaries to win still and we need to keep the focus on action up. We still need to be taking action. Calling voters in PA. Traveling to PA for GOTV. Donating to the campaign so they have the resources to win. Doing whatever you can. And so I bring you the third day of Obama Action Week.
by LindaSFNM, Thu Apr 17, 2008 at 03:50:59 PM EDT
"Thou shalt not question Barack"
This was a practice the Obama bloggers and followers were used to. And apparently assumed a practice accepted by all. Not entirely their fault being the media had been pushing and giving a pass to Obama during the entire Democratic Primary election. Giving him a pass when he didn't answer a question or when he countered his own previous positions. They never even challenged him on known false statements he made about Rezko at the Nevada Debate.
And again, when the Pastor Wright revelations came to light, the media pretty much ignored it, until FOX started disclosing and covering it. However, they worked equally as fast to brush the contraversy under the carpet, as Obama did, and heralded Obama's speech as the final chapter on the mess, quickly closing the book.