The 2008 Presidential Campaign: What Happened and Why?

[River]

[Maria]

Eru... what newspaper you read, and how you got into Harvard are hardly the same thing.

And yet, we still don't know why it took Palin 5 different universities to get a simple journalism degree....

[TheEllipticalDisillusion]

Let's start a petition: release Palin's grades now! We need to see them!

[sauronsfinger]

Maria

And yet, we still don't know why it took Palin 5 different universities to get a simple journalism degree....

is it fair to refer to a community college as a "university"?

I believe Ms. Palin attended at least two community colleges, one actual college, and the same university twice...

[halplm]

Eru... what newspaper you read, and how you got into Harvard are hardly the same thing.

And yet, we still don't know why it took Palin 5 different universities to get a simple journalism degree....

And it took Obama 2 to get a simple political science degree.

This is not the issue that is important. What is relevant, is that Palin wasn't aiming for a political career and thus carefully planning everything to make herself look the best for said political career. She was just living her life, and then went into politics because she saw a need. Obama was building his political career from the moment one of his chicago community organizer buddies convinced him to. First step, was hide those grades.

TED, feel free. Again, not as relevant as Obama's, mostly because he's the presidential nominee, and she's the VP nominee, but why should that matter?

[Padme]

Oh, dear. Boston fan, are we?

Well, so is my Tay. The gnashing of the teeth! The whining!!! The broken heart!!!!

So, I sez to him: "Suck it up, buttercup."

[Primula Baggins]

The reason I think this is important, is because people seem to see what they want to see in Obama, rather than actually know about him. This is not accidental, but very deliberate.

Do you see any irony here, Hal?

You see what you want to see in Obama: a scary stealth candidate. You can't prove it, but it's what you want to believe, so you do. That allows you to discount, as faked, every shred of the considerable pile of evidence that this is not so; to deplore, as duped, every intelligent and reputable person who has endorsed or supports Obama; and to dismiss, as worthless, everything he's ever accomplished.

You're the one who's deceived here, I think.

[halplm]

I hope so, Prim.

But every suspicion I have had that actually comes to be proven or not... has been proven, although it's still denied (Ayers for example).

And this is not what I wanted out of Obama. If you recall, I was originally intrigued and excited by Obama about 10 months ago, but it was quickly evident, that that excitement was based on a completely false image. Since then... I've only seen more and more reasons to believe the image is false.

[sauronsfinger]

from Hal

But every suspicion I have had that actually comes to be proven or not... has been proven, although it's still denied (Ayers for example).

[Ellienor]

Hey, I'm changing the subject slightly but wondered if anyone had any comments about why Obama is preferred 4:1 over McCain in all countries other than Georgia and the Phillippines

http://caffertyfile.blogs.cnn.com/2008/ ... to-mccain/

I think some think it proves that Obama is anti-American. Others, like me, find it really encouraging and makes me support him more.

[halplm]

It mean they don't have access to less liberally biased media like we do.

[Ellienor]

So Hal, the entire world media is liberally biased, except for Fox News? Just to clarify your point.

Or do they reflect the world's dissatisfaction with the U.S. foreign policy as has been run under the Republican party? News Flash: the world was against the Iraq War from the get-go.

[halplm]

That's totally incorrect. The world went to Iraq WITH us.

And yes, the entire world's media is liberally biased. Studies prove this, unless they are controlled by the government, and then they simply lie, but in most of those places they'd favor Obama because they think him weaker.

[JewelSong]

And yes, the entire world's media is liberally biased. Studies prove this, .

What studies?

[halplm]

Well, here's a US one: http://newsroom.ucla.edu/portal/ucla/Me ... -6664.aspx

I know I've seen one on worldwide, I'll keep looking for it.

[Ellienor]

In early 2003, the U.S., UK, and Spain proposed the so-called "eighteenth resolution" to give Iraq a deadline for compliance with previous resolutions enforced by the threat of military action. This proposed resolution was subsequently withdrawn due to lack of support on the UN Security Council. In particular, North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) members France, Germany and Canada together with Russia, were opposed to military intervention in Iraq due to the high level of risk to the international community's security and defended disarmament through diplomacy.[92][93]


Opposition to invasion
Further information: criticism of the Iraq War, legitimacy of the 2003 invasion of Iraq, and legality of the Iraq War
On January 20, 2003, French Foreign Minister Dominique de Villepin declared "we believe that military intervention would be the worst solution."[94] Meanwhile anti-war groups across the world organised public protests. According to French academic Dominique Reynié between January 3 and April 12, 2003, 36 million people across the globe took part in almost 3,000 protests against war in Iraq, the demonstrations on February 15, 2003 being the largest and most prolific.[95]

In February 2003, the U.S. Army's top general, Eric Shinseki, told the Senate Armed Services Committee that it would take "several hundred thousand soldiers" to secure Iraq.[96] Two days later, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld said the post-war troop commitment would be less than the number of troops required to win the war and, "the idea that it would take several hundred thousand U.S. forces is far from the mark." Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz said Shineski's estimate was "way off the mark," because other countries would take part in an occupying force.[97]

In March 2003, Hans Blix reported that, "No evidence of proscribed activities have so far been found," in Iraq, saying that progress was made in inspections which would continue.[40] But the U.S. government announced that "diplomacy has failed" and that it would proceed with a coalition of allied countries, named the "coalition of the willing", to rid Iraq of its alleged weapons of mass destruction. The U.S. government abruptly advised U.N. weapons inspectors to immediately pull out of Baghdad.

There were also serious legal questions surrounding the launching of the war against Iraq and the Bush Doctrine of preemptive war. On September 16, 2004 Kofi Annan, the Secretary General of the United Nations, said of the invasion, "I have indicated it was not in conformity with the U.N. charter. From our point of view, from the charter point of view, it was illegal."[98]

An excerpt from Wikipedia entry The Iraq War ( a locked topic)

Hal, you might also consider watching something other than Fox news. A study showed that 80% of people who identified Fox as their main information source had at least one misperception of facts about the Iraq War, higher by far than any other network.

http://www.worldpublicopinion.org/pipa/ ... 2&lb=brusc

[sauronsfinger]

JewelSong

the study done by Hannity, Limbaugh and O'Reilly Research Inc.. Its very well known.

[Ellienor]

What about the conservative endorsements of Obama? 4 newspapers that backed Bush are now backing Obama.

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/the-tr ... id=topnews

Thanks SF for the explanation. I couldn't figure it out but when I saw that Fox was considered "most centrist" I knew it had to be wrong. I mean, Fox, centrist??? Come on. No way.

[JewelSong]

Thanks for the link, Hal. I would definitely be interested in seeing any worldwide study about the media. Living in the UK (and by extension, Europe) has given me a new appreciation for the world view...and the place of the US in the global community.

I found this interesting from the article:

The most centrist outlet proved to be the "NewsHour With Jim Lehrer." CNN's "NewsNight With Aaron Brown" and ABC's "Good Morning America" were a close second and third.

My father never missed Jim Lehrer. He said he thought it was the most unbiased reporting he had ever seen. My Dad tended towards the liberal side, but he was one of the fairest people I have ever known. He liked his news as centrist as possible, so he could draw his own conclusions.

On another note...here's a beginning of the latest piece in the New Yorker Magazine by David Sedaris. It's from their "Shouts and Murmurs" section.

I don’t know that it was always this way, but, for as long as I can remember, just as we move into the final weeks of the Presidential campaign the focus shifts to the undecided voters. “Who are they?” the news anchors ask. “And how might they determine the outcome of this election?”

Then you’ll see this man or woman— someone, I always think, who looks very happy to be on TV. “Well, Charlie,” they say, “I’ve gone back and forth on the issues and whatnot, but I just can’t seem to make up my mind!” Some insist that there’s very little difference between candidate A and candidate B. Others claim that they’re with A on defense and health care but are leaning toward B when it comes to the economy.

I look at these people and can’t quite believe that they exist. Are they professional actors? I wonder. Or are they simply laymen who want a lot of attention?

To put them in perspective, I think of being on an airplane. The flight attendant comes down the aisle with her food cart and, eventually, parks it beside my seat. “Can I interest you in the chicken?” she asks. “Or would you prefer the platter of shit with bits of broken glass in it?”

To be undecided in this election is to pause for a moment and then ask how the chicken is cooked.

I mean, really, what’s to be confused about?

The entire article can be found HERE

[halplm]

Why would I watch news I know is presenting me a biased point of view?

I prefer truth to lies, thanks.