« Sarah Palin On Bush Doctrine: Homina, Homina, Homina | Home | New Ads: Obama Presses "Change"; McCain Spot Says Obama's "Star Is Fading" »
AP Turns On McCain
It looks like the Associated Press, which has generally had a serious pro-McCain and anti-Obama slant this cycle, has turned on their former hero McCain in the face of mounting evidence that he's a shameless liar running a dirty campaign.
I was looking through TPM's AP wire feed tonight, and here are just three stories I found:
Analysis: McCain's Claims Skirt Facts, Test Voters
As a special bonus, here's the lead sentence from the analysis piece: "The 'Straight Talk Express' has detoured into doublespeak."
Et tu, Fournier?
Advertisement















the fact that everyone on the ABC website is claiming the Charlie Gibson is a sexist has to be one of the funniest things I have read...
September 11, 2008 10:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
Wingnutz crying "sexism!"
LOL
September 12, 2008 12:05 AM | Reply | Permalink
The McCain campaign is trying to inoculate Palin from ANY criticism by crying "sexism" so that when any tough questions are asked of her, they have already created their frame. Their newest commercial has directly linked Obama & Biden to the charges, saying they disrespected her.
It remains to be seen if the MSM will actually do its job. The mistake they may have made was shielding her from actual questions for so long. It has become a joke and every single interaction with reporters will now be scrutinized much more carefully. Hopefully Gibson will be tougher in Day 2.
The bloom is off the rose.
September 12, 2008 1:29 AM | Reply | Permalink
Sweet Jesus! Has the AP found religion??
I'm lovin' it!
September 11, 2008 10:54 PM | Reply | Permalink
But CNN is still kissing Palin's ass: Palin takes tough stance on Russia
September 11, 2008 10:55 PM | Reply | Permalink
One of CNN's headlines is also: "Palin killed bridge but kept the money" ... She didn't kill it. It was already dead.
The video piece they have is actually pretty good: http://www.cnn.com/video/#/video/politics/2008/09/11/kaye.palin.honest.cnn
Until they conclude that "She killed the bridge but kept the dollars" -- a twisting of the facts.
Apparently, they asked the McCain campaign about her reputation as the earmark queen, and they only said, "she has used her veto pen to cut wasteful spending."
Pathetic.
September 11, 2008 11:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
Eric, I think you're completely misreading this. If AP is on a side, it's on the side of keeping this race as close as possible. They'll start hitting Obama again as soon as he's up in the polls. They have zero integrity and zero credibility. For them, news is a commodity--nothing more. Their job is to spin things in a way that raises the value of the product they're selling.
September 11, 2008 11:00 PM | Reply | Permalink
Bingo!
September 11, 2008 11:11 PM | Reply | Permalink
Exactly. It is all a chess game to the AP, CNN, ABC, NBC, CBS and FOX. Screw the citizens, it's just a money maker for the media.
September 11, 2008 11:19 PM | Reply | Permalink
Double Bingo!
September 12, 2008 11:25 AM | Reply | Permalink
Now might be a good time to quote Will Rogers:
"You have to be an optimist to be a Democrat and a humorist to stay one"...
September 11, 2008 11:24 PM | Reply | Permalink
As I mentioned earlier, the 538 polling says McCain wins electoral vote. I am trying to get through this, but OMG, what a dumb shit country we live in.
September 11, 2008 11:26 PM | Reply | Permalink
Hey, guys, I'll take a couple of decent stories where I can get 'em.
Also, if Palin crashes and burns in this interview, that's not just temporary setback. Narratives can take shape pretty rapidly, and the way the McCain people have restricted access to Palin has really turned this into a super-high-stakes occasion.
If the spin coming out of this is "Palin tries to defend qualifications; struggles with foreign policy questions," they've got a real problem on their hands.
September 11, 2008 11:27 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'm praying to the voodoo gods that you are correct...
September 11, 2008 11:30 PM | Reply | Permalink
Alex: I agree with your premise, and I know you are a smart guy. But I watched the interview, and I am telling you, dumb shit America that doesn't follow politics will think she did just fine. It is up to the media to bring her and McCain down, show the ridiculous and recklessness, but I don't have much faith in that anymore either.
September 11, 2008 11:30 PM | Reply | Permalink
And it's up to Obama surrogates to push the media in the right direction. It looks like there will be enough of an opening (press ambivalence) to do this if they want to.
September 11, 2008 11:34 PM | Reply | Permalink
I basically agree. That interview by itself isn't going to hurt her much; media interpretation is necessary. I'm hoping that the "Bush doctrine" clip will be on the morning shows tomorrow.
But, anyway, my confidence doesn't come a belief the next news cycle is going to kill them.
It comes from seeing that she's worse than I expected. I expected slick -- but she's not even slick. She's making a lot of rookie errors -- overcommitting herself by answering hypotheticals that she should have ducked, ratcheting up the rhetoric in ways that make her look fanatical. (Part of this comes from reading The Corner, and seeing that even the crazy wingnuts over there are feeling apologetic about this interview.) The next news cycle may or may not damage her. But over the long run, I think she's going to be a liability for their campaign.
September 11, 2008 11:44 PM | Reply | Permalink
confidence doesn't come *from* a belief *that* the next news cycle is going to kill them -- sorry
September 11, 2008 11:45 PM | Reply | Permalink
This reminds me of an old saying I once heard:
It's one thing to be thought a fool. It's another thing to speak up and remove all doubt.
She could have scored high points if she had admitted she did not know the answers to the questions and be thought fool. With this first interview, the answers she gave removes all doubt.
September 12, 2008 7:53 AM | Reply | Permalink
But will they not 'get it' if she's equally as dumb on domestic issues?
September 11, 2008 11:58 PM | Reply | Permalink
But will they not 'get it' if she's equally as dumb on domestic issues?
September 11, 2008 11:58 PM | Reply | Permalink
By the way, she thinks Iraq was behind 9/11.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/09/11/AR2008091103789.html?hpid=topnews
September 11, 2008 11:31 PM | Reply | Permalink
They let her out on her too soon. In their haste to capitalize on her son's departure to Iraq, they rushed her preparation. She definitely isn't ready for primetime and frankly lacks the GRAVITAS to be VP or POTUS.
But let's not get complacent again.
September 11, 2008 11:42 PM | Reply | Permalink
Thanks for that catch. Amusing story in several ways. She really out-Bushes Bush with the Iraq-9/11 stuff, and I expect we're going to hear some pushback on that tomorrow.
But it's also amusing to hear the McCain flacks come up with BS reasons why they have to keep her and McCain together, when the real reason is that he'll look pathetic if his crowds are smaller than hers. I particularly like "Sometimes something magical happens, and these pairings just really click." Ah yes. Soulmates.
September 11, 2008 11:53 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'm sorry, but her linking Iraq and 9/11 cannot be a mistake.
You can't tell me that someone from the McCain campaign didn't either write the speech or at least review it. So, either someone really f'd up, or they left that in intentionally.
September 12, 2008 12:00 AM | Reply | Permalink
Anyone who thinks the media likes a close race because it sells papers or drives up ratings just doesn't understand reporters. Publishers may care about sales; reporters don't. The reporters' interest in a close race is purely selfish: They prefer a close race because it makes for a better and more interesting story to cover. Who wants to report on something that has no drama? That's dull? You gin things up because it makes for a better story, not because it sells more papers.
I'm not saying that that's a more noble reason. Frankly, it's just as bad. But trust me. I've worked for newspapers for 40 years. That's the way it is.
As for Fournier, this is not a change for him. I've known Ron a long time. He's not a partisan. He's not an idealogue. His articles have a slant to them, but it's a slant based on his perception, not a Democratic or Republican slant, not a conservative or liberal slant. So he calls bullshit on Obama when he thinks Obama deserves it, and he calls bullshit on McCain when he thinks McCain deserves it. You may not agree with his calls (and Lord knows I often don't), and you may think that he should stay away from analysis, and that's legit criticism. But anyone who thinks Fournier's a shill for one party or the other just doesn't know him at all.
September 11, 2008 11:32 PM | Reply | Permalink
Fred: I don't know him at all, yet I have walked away with the view he is totally in the tank for McCain. That is not the impression I have had from many other reporters. No, I think you cannot defend Fournier on this one. He, with his writing as proof, sold out long ago.
September 11, 2008 11:36 PM | Reply | Permalink
So when he began negotiations to join McCain's campaign, he was doing it in a non-partisan way?
Are you sure you really want to peddle that bullshit here? We read this site.
September 11, 2008 11:37 PM | Reply | Permalink
Then why did he consider going to work as McCain's press flack? Why would he consider it even for three consecutive seconds?
September 11, 2008 11:39 PM | Reply | Permalink
I've also worked in the newpaper business, and my observation has been that reporters, while perhaps not having personal bias or direct concern for circulation numbers and, by extension, ad sales, they do know they'll be pitching their stories to a editor. And they do come to internalize what the general biases and current leanings of that editor are. And they do write--sometimes consciously, sometimes unconsciously--to those biases and leanings, because their interests are in having their pieces/bylines published and given prominent play. And newsroom editors answer to managing editors. And managing editors answer to publishers.
So reporters are not as free and clear of management's interests as you seem to suggest.
I certainly have no personal knowledge of Fournier or how susceptible, relatively speaking, he would be to these pressures.
September 11, 2008 11:50 PM | Reply | Permalink
Fournier to Karl Rove: "Keep up the good fight!"
Yeah, that's a real non-partisan there.
September 11, 2008 11:52 PM | Reply | Permalink
Who gives a shit about reporters? There are about three currently working in the industry who have the spine or the intelligence to serve as anything but towel boys for their editors and publishers. Most reporters are clueless nitwits with the IQs of clams. They're more concerned with swag than they are with doing their jobs.
And besides, everyone knows that anyone with any integrity or talent is working for McClatchy these days--not AP.
September 12, 2008 12:02 AM | Reply | Permalink
PS: If you've worked in the business then you know the primary business every newspaper in the country is in: selling ad space. And that, my idealistic friend, is what drives the news. Not the news. Ad sales. Subscription revenue. The news is entirely secondary.
September 12, 2008 12:08 AM | Reply | Permalink
While you may be right... after almost a year of practically nonstop anti-Obama reporting from most news sources on top of pro-McCain reporting from the same, I'm not going to bitch and moan the one time AP actually starts getting it right.
September 12, 2008 12:15 AM | Reply | Permalink
It's unclear whether Washington Bureau chief Ron Fournier had anything to do with any of these three stories.
One is bylined "AP staff," one is by a reporter I'm unfamiliar with, and the third -- the hardest-hitting one -- is by Charles Babington.
Babington, if I recall, wrote a rather negative analysis of Obama's convention speech. He was widely criticized for that, so he may be trying to make amends.
I have yet to read anything truly critical of Palin-McCain from Fournier or his right-thinking acolytes, Liz Sidoti and Nedra Pickler.
If we do, it may mean AP HQ got tired of the accusations of bias and sent out a memo.
I don't think Fournier is a neocon ideologue; he's just a workaday journalist who recast himself as a Maureen Dowd/Robert Novak wannabe.
September 12, 2008 4:17 AM | Reply | Permalink
Personally, I'm beginning to realize why the McCain people kept Palin bottled up so long.
She doesn't project "presidential" well. People who liked her on the convention stage may not be comfortable once they see her in this context, where she's answering questions like "As President, would you go to war with Russia?" or covering desperately for her lack of basic current-events knowledge. Her zeal is not very reassuring.
I'm feeling a lot better than I felt on Monday.
September 11, 2008 11:34 PM | Reply | Permalink
I agree. And it's useful to keep in mind that Palin doesn't have to be destroyed. She just has to fall enough to be a wash. I don't think McCain has what it takes to win this by himself.
September 11, 2008 11:39 PM | Reply | Permalink
"Personally, I'm beginning to realize why the McCain people kept Palin bottled up so long."
Was it really unclear why they were doing that until tonight?
September 11, 2008 11:48 PM | Reply | Permalink
Well, I thought they were worried about isolated gaffes, or worried that she would have to answer questions about Troopergate. But I figured that once she had finished cramming, she'd be able to recite her memorized lines with panache.
In reality, she's just not very good off teleprompter. But then, maybe the subject matter made her nervous. She might be better tomorrow, on more familiar terrain.
September 12, 2008 12:00 AM | Reply | Permalink
She came across more as a soccer/hockey mom than as Presidential.
September 12, 2008 7:58 AM | Reply | Permalink
Is anyone keeping a list of every mainstream headline and quote that explicitly call out the McCain camp for lying?
It might be useful to see them all together in one place.
September 11, 2008 11:49 PM | Reply | Permalink
HuffPo started it: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/09/10/gutter-politics-mccain-ca_n_125291.html
September 12, 2008 12:28 AM | Reply | Permalink
We'll know if AP turned there back on McCain if they stop giving him sprinkled donuts.
September 11, 2008 11:51 PM | Reply | Permalink
Saw a news blurb in the last day or two claiming that AP reporters were being excluded from the press seats on Sarah's new jet.
...maybe there's an atheist/treehugger/librul on AP's BoD?
LK
September 12, 2008 12:18 AM | Reply | Permalink
Ron must have had the day off, i'm sure he'll fix it all when he gets back in the morning.
September 11, 2008 11:52 PM | Reply | Permalink
It's nice to see a little objectivity finally percolating into their reporting....but is it too little too late?
Don't get me wrong, I'm glad to see this, but really...I still hate our media.
September 11, 2008 11:55 PM | Reply | Permalink
That's the best attitude to take. Understand that, for the most part, idiots. But you have to give them props when they get it right.
September 12, 2008 12:44 AM | Reply | Permalink
I like this one:
http://www.politico.com/arena/
"She had me at hello Charley-- had me scared to death. Not a single doubt that she is ready to be president-- everyone, no matter how experienced, should have doubts about the ability to take that job. A combination of utter inexperience and utter arrogance is about the worst possible combination I can imagine. Not knowing what the Bush Doctrine is would be bad enough, but saying unequivocally that Georgia should be in NATO-- meaning we would now perhaps be in a state of war with Russia-- and then without a beat saying that military action should be the last resort-- shows a series of knowledge and logic gaps that ought to shake every foreign policy specialist, liberal or conservative, Democrat or Republican, to his or her roots. Maybe they can force feed her enough facts to skate through a debate, and maybe her self-confidence will still play well with many voters, but this first cut performance underscores our worst fears."
Norman Ornstein, Resident scholar at the American Enterprise Institute
September 11, 2008 11:56 PM | Reply | Permalink
Heh - well guess what, Norm - you helped create that monster. This is what you (and perhaps all of us) will now have to live with thanks to your own braindead support of a president who can't explain his way out of a wet paper bag. Palin is Shrub's political offspring, a direct descendent of his brand of overly-coached cult-of-personality style of governance driven more by personal vendetta than interest in the common welfare. And you were one his proudest enablers.
So this Palin joker makes you scared and worried? Now you know what the last 7 years have been like for the rest of us. So go choke on it, dirtbag.
September 12, 2008 12:35 AM | Reply | Permalink
If all that you know about Norman Ornstein is that he's at the American Enterprise Institute, you don't know anything about him. Read the book he wrote with Thomas Mann, "The Broken Branch."
He's no more to blame for the Bush administration than you are.
September 12, 2008 1:16 AM | Reply | Permalink
norm's usually one to tell it like it is. when i find i disagree with ornstein i at least know that it's an honest disagreement.
makes me long for the old days and the al franken show with regular guests joshua micah marshall and norman ornstein.
September 12, 2008 12:41 AM | Reply | Permalink
I'll take this as well:
http://voices.washingtonpost.com/the-trail/2008/09/11/palin_endorses_idea_mccain_cal.html?sid=ST2008091103925&s_pos=list
She thought she was ducking the Pakistan question, but she didn't duck well enough.
September 12, 2008 12:10 AM | Reply | Permalink
I'm with Bill. Obama will win handily. The wheels are about to come off of Palin. 29% of the population may still go apeshit over her, but serious indies are going to be turned off by a war on all fronts with everyone coupled with social policies out of the 1800s.
And a COMPLETE neophyte, with no interest in affairs outside her own tiny mind, a heartbeat away from aiming nukes back at Russia, as she intends to enforce agreements that do not, in fact, exist.
Perlilous!
September 12, 2008 12:29 AM | Reply | Permalink
Yay!
She did it - she destroyed what was left of the Repug party.
I'm enjoying the hell out of it, too.
September 12, 2008 12:36 AM | Reply | Permalink
I sense a Gathering...jujitsu requires patience. The opponent must make a full-throated attack with real might, and must be allowed to follow-through to that critical point....
...where the momentum is now free for the taking. Obama is the master at this, and I believe this interview tells us the critical point has arrived.
September 12, 2008 1:00 AM | Reply | Permalink
I hope you are right - I'll wait and see how the Tao moves.
;)
Good night.
I feel good about things.
September 12, 2008 1:20 AM | Reply | Permalink
Well, let's not forget that the US still has nukes pointed at Russia - lots of them. It's (if you'll excuse the expression) one of several elephants in the room, that a good proportion of our nuclear forces are still on a footing developed during the Cold War.
September 12, 2008 8:16 AM | Reply | Permalink
I'll believe it they keep it up . At this point it'll be weeks before i believe anyone has "turned" on anyone else. They can always go back.
Let's really hope they dont though!!
September 12, 2008 12:43 AM | Reply | Permalink
I'll believe it they keep it up . At this point it'll be weeks before i believe anyone has "turned" on anyone else. They can always go back.
Let's really hope they dont though!!
September 12, 2008 12:45 AM | Reply | Permalink
They won't.'
Look - even if she did a better job of looking prepared - and she's doing a terrible of job of that - but even she was, she would still only appeal to a very narrow part of the Repug base - the fundies. Her views are too extreme for most indie voters.
The media, IMO, is just as terrified as everyone but James Dobson and the religious right are about the possibility of her taking over this country.
September 12, 2008 1:01 AM | Reply | Permalink
What clued me in was Pat Buchanan's reaction to Palin's interview. He was veeeeeeeery quiet, nothing to cheerlead, knowing the feather had just been plucked out of McCain's cap. I detest Buchanan's politics, but his raw political predicitive powers are uncanny.
It's when we get to Solution Time that Pat and Sarah go hand in hand.
Her support of his presidential campaign renders his silence deafening.
That, and I think some GOP operatives were really ill they had to go out with a fucking pig with lipstick in these terrible times.
That, and the bloody AP turned on McCain tonight!
whheeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee!
September 12, 2008 1:43 AM | Reply | Permalink
Ballot snafu endangers votes
About one-third of the absentee ballot applications received at the Hamilton
County Board of Elections have been ruled invalid because Republican Sen. John McCain’s presidential campaign printed a version of the form with an extra, unneeded box on it.
In a narrow interpretation of Ohio law, Democratic Secretary of State Jennifer Brunner says many of the McCain forms have not been completed properly. If the box stating the person is an eligible elector -- or qualified voter – is not checked, Brunner said, the application is no good.
Even though the box is unneeded, by not checking it voters are essentially admitting they’re not eligible, Brunner said.
“I have not seen a ruling that indirectly impacts voters to the enormity of this since I’ve been here,’’ Hamilton County Board of Elections Deputy Director John Williams said of his nearly five-year tenure at the board.
More than 750 absentee ballot requests in Hamilton County have been invalidated because of Brunner’s ruling, Williams said.
Absentee voting begins in 19 days, or on Sept. 30.
If a registered Ohio voter’s application is rejected, Brunner said, “We said you have to notify them within 48 hours and we also suggest that (Board of Elections) send them a new application.”
That means county Boards of Election must contact tens of thousands of voters and ask them to fill out a new, valid form in time to vote for the Nov. 4 election.
The McCain campaign says it mailed out about 1 million of the faulty forms.
"The form contains the necessary requirements and has been accepted in past elections, so this election should be no different,’’ Jon Seaton, McCain’s regional campaign manager,’ said today. "Qualified voters who request absentee ballots should receive them.’’
“If I were a voter, I wouldn’t be very happy,” Brunner said. “I’m stuck with the law. You shouldn’t have to check a box.
http://news.cincinnati.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/AB/20080911/NEWS0108/309110032/
September 12, 2008 1:54 AM | Reply | Permalink
SQUAWK!!!
Dear Chickens! Welcome Home! Thy Roost Awaits!
September 12, 2008 2:00 AM | Reply | Permalink
I see the shift with AP but I find it underwhelming. I think we have to keep up the pressure on the media!!
September 12, 2008 3:49 AM | Reply | Permalink
To me the tell came in that pause before she gave her ham-handed response to Gibson:
GIBSON: Do you agree with the Bush doctrine?
[I]>>uncomfortable, pregnant pause so brief, but seemingly so terribly long PALIN: In what respect, Charlie?
You could almost hear the gulp.
Also interesting that McCain and Palin are now pushing their new claim that Alaska produces 20% of the US [U]energy supply[/U]. From McCain's news conference:
MCCAIN: She knows more about energy than probably anybody else in the Unites States. She is governor of a state [pause] that [B]20 percent of America's energy supply comes from there.
[/B]
And from the Palin/Gibson interview:
PALIN: But it is about reform of government and it's about putting government back on the side of the people, and that has much to do with foreign policy and national security issues Let me speak specifically about a credential that I do bring to this table, Charlie, and that's with the energy independence that I've been working on for these years [B]as the governor of this state that produces nearly 20 percent of the U.S. domestic supply of energy[/B], that I worked on as chairman of the Alaska Oil and Gas Conservation Commission, overseeing the oil and gas development in our state to produce more for the United States.
Seth Colter Walls said this about McCain's use of the figure, "In 2005, Alaska produced 3.5 percent of America's energy supply. Presumably McCain meant to say that Alaska is responsible for 20 percent of America's domestic energy production (which is true)."
With Palin repeating it, I think it's safe to say it's not a gaffe.
September 12, 2008 4:59 AM | Reply | Permalink
Hear it hell! You could see Charlie gulp as he was mentally reformatting the question as if he were interviewing a 10 year old.
September 12, 2008 8:07 AM | Reply | Permalink
LOL.
September 12, 2008 8:21 AM | Reply | Permalink
You see THIS is what the AP should be doing when they are being accused of bias. Play the other side a bit and people like Eric will eat it up lol.
September 12, 2008 7:38 AM | Reply | Permalink
I agree with Amelie. The repug base doesn't follow politics and thinks she doing just fine. She said exactly what they wanted to hear. And the media needs a close horse race right up to election day. If McCain's campaign implodes and the election becomes a done deal week before November 4, what news can they report keep their rating high?
September 12, 2008 7:46 AM | Reply | Permalink
"Liar, Krugman of NYT, blasts McCain With the Truth"
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2008/9/12/01115/6334/278/595686
Republicans Hijacked 911, by Keith Olberman, Courage to Speak Truth!
http://www.jedreport.com/2008/09/special-commen...
How many more Journalists & Reporters will show courage and begin to do their duty and Inform the public as to truth and falsity? We should never again be lied into a False & Phony war by a President you want to have a beer with! Republicans strong on National Security? I don't think so, after all 911 happened on their watch, but they have been allowed to distort the facts and public perception that it is the Democrats who are weak on national security! They have failed to properly enact the 911 Commissions recommendations which would make us a lot safer! Politicans who willfully and intentionally lie to the public are engaged in a betrayal of the public trust and such distortion should be deemed unethical and in some cases, criminal! We need a Media to be the third-wheel of democracy again and not a parrot of those who are corrupt, unless they are corrupt too!
Republicans are just as dismal on economics. It is an outrage or should be that the government can give millions of dollars to CEO’s from the failed Fannie Mae & Freddie Mac and yet, cannot give a second stimulus check to American citizens in these hard economic times? Republicans say No to a second stimulus while the Democrats say Yes to a second stimulus! Is the Republican Congress working for CEO’s or are they working for you, the people? We need a Government and a Congress to work for the People, not lie to the people, not bail out their own special interest groups and leave the people hanging. We need a government to put the burden of taxes on the rich where they belong and stop putting the tax burdens on the middle class and poor, those who can least afford it. We need a government who will put money into education and make that a national priority again, both lower and higher education and give more Pell Grants and less loans so that young people can once again achieve a higher education, get a good job and lift everybody up out of poverty. We need action and not more spin, talk and lies. We need a Congress who will vote Yes to bridges, roads, schools, health care. Who will invest in America and not in Iraq and in themselves and their special interest groups. America is dying. We need Change!
September 12, 2008 7:54 AM | Reply | Permalink
From the comments I've read from repug$, they don't think Palin did too bad. They consider the interview a victory because she was able to walk away from it. Seems that her delivery was what was ordered. Which makes we wonder. Has the US become a bipolar nation? Two diametrically opposed government philosophy; one black and one white? There's no common ground between the two anymore.
September 12, 2008 8:18 AM | Reply | Permalink
Was it an Anti-Obama slant, or a Pro-underdog slant? Obama was getting the most attention for a long time, both positive and negative. Now McCain is getting it. It is still slant, but it would appear to be interest-driven rather than ideology-driven.
September 12, 2008 9:46 AM | Reply | Permalink