MSM Political Reporting Smoke Bombs
When foraging at various news sources and scanning the occasional report that is complete with public comments the observation from this blog notes most instances are dominated by comments from the liberal fringe. Today, one notable exception from Trail Blazers Blog at the Dallas Morning News is at least one reason to move to Texas. The blog post offers a brief review of the troubles facing Barack Obama, you know, the celebrity who wants to be President, and puts the question to readers of what he should do to revive some momentum.
The first response mentions Obama’s lead in the polls with the ‘young vote’ and a quote from James Carville, the man largely credited with getting Bill Clinton elected, ‘there is a word for a candidate that relies on the young vote — loser.’ From here it is not known if either item is true but there is no reason to suspect they are not. The point that was a surprise is the first comment read was not a rant from the liberal fringe. The rest of this person’s commentary would not suggest a left leaning political persuasion although their political affiliation is not known.
The next comment questions Obama’s VP selection mentioning his rejection of Hillary for VP and the expectation that Biden will not fare well against Palin in the upcoming debates.
The third comment suggests the left fabricated Obama’s experience and qualifications argument, is disappointed that so many have fallen for ‘this slick phony’ with questionable alliances and generally disapproves of Obama.
The commentary goes on and was quite refreshing given all the examples of MSM adulation for Obama and the expressions of those who claim the Democratic party nominee is something special. No impression like that resides on this blog.
There is an interview from a CBS News page called Political Players featuring none other than Clinton ’strategist’ Mark Penn. The first thought that comes to mind is ‘hey, Mr Numbers, how’d that Clinton campaign work out for you?’ Eighteen million votes and what, a losing campaign that Mark Penn said had to be centrist and he is again suggesting Obama cannot focus on the D’s base but must remain centrist. According to Penn, Obama did or does well talking about the economy and other issues indicatig by extrapolation that these are not the concern of the most liberal Senator in Congress or his followers. If Mark Penn’s ‘centrist’ strategy for liberal candidates is not lost on Obama it is likely his fate will be the same as that of Hillary Clinton.
The funny part of the Penn interview centers on his criticism of the media and unfair treatment of Clinton. He also mentions their treatment of Palin and that that MSM has lost credibility with voters. The MSM is getting it from all sides. But perhaps Penn just saw that as a good angle to take explaining away is failures.
The fact that Obama bashed Hillary Clinton and then rejected her as a VP nominee yet just spent more time getting Bill Clinton to work for his campaign. Bill “Obama is a big fairy tale’ Clinton now claims Obama is the One. What possible reason could Bill Clinton have for supporting Barack Obama? Is it as obvious to you as it should be? This is no more than Bill Clinton’s personal campaign to keep himself viable in Democratic Party politics. Is he trying to help his wife in a future run for President? No, because he is aware that probability is miniscule. But he’ll keep his options open. Anyway back to the White House is fine with Bill. Which by the way would be possible with Barack if not Hillary. Bill could care less about Hillary. He only cozied up publicly for his last shot at a White House return. Now that Hillary’s race is over, Bill is setting up his next attempt to wield power in the White House as a Barack adviser. Look out interns.
Oh boy, now for some more MSM misleading about what they say is misleading. No doubt political campaigns provide television ads and other marketing strategies that rather than answering questions about candidates further require the voter to perform their own due diligence on what is factual and what is not. Here is an excerpt from a CNN report that candidates are accusing each other of ‘gutter politics’, there words not anyone else’s. A John McCain ad leads the initial presentation in this report and they offer a link to the ad. It would have been hice if they had offered a link to a Joe Biden video like this blog does when they claim ‘
Biden has repeatedly said on the campaign trail that he respected Palin and that he thought she was qualified for the vice presidency.’
Here is a YouTube link featuring Joe Biden on the ‘campaign trail’ and it is not what CNN describes above. There is nothing wrong with what Joe Biden says in the video. The wrong is what CNN suggests then fails to support with video when they had offered video for another item. They should support the claim that Biden has repeatedly said he thought she was qualified to be VP. In the video link provided Joe Biden says something entirely different. It is more like he says he doesn’t know and has no reason to believe she is not qualified. Small point? Not exactly. Because small points morph into larger assumed points that alter views and facts as people ‘view’ them. Thanks CNN, for all you do to screw up the news.
Sarah Palin Qualified Says Joe Biden
The title of the video may be a little misleading when taken out of context. The viewpoint on the video from this blog is that if CNN’s claim of Joe Biden saying Palin is qualified to be VP and this video’s stump excerpt of Biden is typical of his other remarks on the question then Joe Biden seems to be attempting to avoid the question. It is more him saying he doesn’t know Sarah Palin but has no reason to assume she is not qualified. The real point is CNN makes a statement or draws a conclusion without offering the supporting evidence in detail.
More of these stories and headlines will continue in the next post on this topic.
Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com