I took the week off last week - mostly because it was my birthday and I felt like paying attention to other things - but a lot happened while I was contemplating my advancing age.
Barack Obama chose not to opt into the public financing system for his campaign and to continue to rely on individual donors to help him win the election. McCain is screaming that this means Obama is untrustworthy and a flip-flopper and therefore shouldn't be allowed to become president. Considering that no one has fip-flopped more than McCain - on the Bush tax cuts, on statements about Iraq, on illegal immigration, etc. - the flip-flopping charge is silly. As for the meaning of Obama's decision - it means one thing: he wants to win, and the more money he has the better his chances. If McCain had the donors Obama does, he would do the same thing. And considering how the Republicans are so fond of smear campaigns, and are threatening an "October surprise," Obama will need all the cash he can get to counter their atacks. He's doing the only thing a responsible Democrat can do - be prepared for the lies, distortions, and smears by having the kind of war chest that will go to battle in every media outlet to defeat these tactics.
Newsweek has Obama up by fifteen points over John McCain. No other poll has him up by this much and as everyone says, it's still a long time until November. But this is a good indication of the mood of the country, and barring another terrorist attack, an effective swiftboating of Obama, or some other unforeseen event that changes the public's mind, it looks like the country wants the change candidate, the younger candidate, the candidate who knows how to use a computer. Of course, the press still isn't focusing a great deal on McCain's mistakes and gaffes, but as the campaign goes on and the stress builds, we are likely to see more of them. The election could be a Democratic blow out.
Large sections of the Midwest are under water and I wonder if scientists believe global warming has something to do with it, as they determined with Katrina and the disaster in New Orleans. Some of the areas that flooded are considered to be prone to flooding every 100 years, but the last time there was severe flooding along the Mississippi was in 1993, just 15 years ago. I heard that new levees are being built each year along the Mississippi, and considering how frequently the river rises in this era of climate change, and how often these levees fail, this seems absurd. When will we humans stop living in areas that are prone to flooding, and stop thinking levees - or God - will protect us?
The House of Representatives passed the "FISA Compromise," Barack Obama released a statement saying he would support it, and the progressive community is pissed. I haven't read the bill and wonder how many in Congress have. I do know that it gives immunity to telecom companies for their cooperation with the Bush administration in its illegal wiretapping program, portions of which the Congress has now agreed to make legal. It does, apparently, give Bush most of what he wants, which to progressives is always a bad thing, as progressives do not think this president does anything unless it helps his buddies or himself, and believe most of what he does violates the spirit if not the letter of the Constitution. I agree, and I wish Obama would have stood up to the president. More than that, I wish the Congress would stand up to the president. Maybe someday we will know the real reason why they didn't. But progressives shouldn't condemn Obama for this decision. As a legislator, he sees the writing on the wall, and knows the bill will most likely pass. As a presidential candidate, he doesn't want to give the Republicans ammunition to call him "soft on terrorism," and as a future president, he wants to have sufficient powers to fight terrorism. We can hope, however, that as a president he won't abuse those powers. The way I see it, the passage of this bill is even more reason to support Obama. Can you imagine a President McCain with these powers?
Tim Russert was buried. I had mixed feelings about Tim Russert as moderator of Meet the Press. Sometimes (mostly when he was grilling someone I didn't respect) I liked him. Other times (when he grilled one of my guys) I didn't. I stopped watching him for a while, especially when he spent a full hour with each of the primary candidates, as I just couldn't listen to an entire hour of spin and deception. When he died a week ago, unexpectedly at the age of 58, while working at the NBC studios, I felt sadness for his family, and after days of tribute, for his colleagues as well. But what struck me most about the tributes I heard is that they painted a picture of a really good man, a man who was always available for his friends, always there to lend a hand, always ready to offer encouragement. More than a great bureau chief, or host of a popular television program, Tim Russert was an example of a really good and decent person, a devout Irish Catholic with a great sense of humor, who loved sports as much as he loved work, but who mostly just loved the people around him, all of whom he considered family. MSNBC was criticized for its non-stop coverage of his death and funeral - which lasted from Friday afternoon until the funeral on Wednesday - but after hearing the stories about how he was always the first to help a friend in need, I can understand why they couldn't stop talking about him. NBC will find a new Washington bureau chief, and a new moderator of Meet the Press - no one is indispensable in that respect - but those close to him will not find a replacement for the great role model and friend they lost.
Showing posts with label Tim Russert. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Tim Russert. Show all posts
Sunday, June 22, 2008
Sunday, April 20, 2008
"Liberal media" update
It may seem a trivial point, but it is not.
On Meet the Press today, Tim Russert was asking Obama campaign chairman David Axelrod about how Obama was going to overcome the various slams on his "patriotism." He listed Obama's "offenses":
Even the way this question was phrased was offering misinformation and a biased perspective to the viewers. Michelle Obama did not say she never had pride in America until the campaign. She said "For the first time in my adult life I am really proud of my country." There's quite a bit of nuanced difference between those two statements. Michelle was talking about her adult life, not her entire life, and she was talkking about being REALLY proud. She didn't say she never had pride, just that this was the first time she felt, as an adult, REALLY proud. It was kind of like someone saying "this is the happiest day of my life" when it is obvious the person is simply caught up in the moment and probably had many happy days in their life. But the Republicans, the Clintons, and the MSM apparently are incapable of doing nuance.
Also, Barack Obama did not have a "meeting" with Bill Ayers, currently a college professor, but formerly a radical in the sixties. He sat on a board with him, and attended a fund raiser at his home. Barack Obama has, at most, a passing acquaintance with him, but Timmy and the ABC debate moderators and Hillary Clinton seem to think anyone you have ever met is fair game to tarnish you with. Well for that matter, who is the person Hillary has had the closest relationship with for the past forty years? Bill Clinton - liar, philanderer, and impeached president. Doesn't that tarnish her a bit? And while we're at it, Obama could never say it, but I will: If Obama was supposed to walk out on Rev. Wright because of some radical words in a sermon, why didn't Hillary walk out on her husband, who cheated on her time and again, lied to her and to the American people about it, broke the law by lying under oath, and humiliated her publicly?
As for Barack Obama not "holding his heart" during the "pledge of allegience," this is a lie and Russert knows better. This was either sloppy questionning or a deliberate attempt to falsely smear Obama. Barack Obama, on one occasion that was photographed, kept his hands at his sides during the Star Spangled Banner, not during the pledge of allegience. I never put my hand over my heart during the Star Spangled Banner, and neither do most people. On the other hand, most people put their hands over their heart during the pledge of allegience. The fact that some in the picture had their hands over their hearts indicates to me they were posing as fake patriots during the anthem, not that Obama wasn't being patriotic. Maybe he didn't get the memo that said you have to do these silly things to prove how patriotic you are, even though most ordinary people don't do them and don't really expect you to. But if you can lump this lack of a phony "patriotic" display with his not wearing a flag pin, bingo! You can say he is unpatriotic.
Now for the flag pin. No one on that debate stage was wearing a flag pin. Obama has explained why he no longer wears one, and points out that for a while after 9/11 he, like many Americans did, but that he no longer considered it necessary. "Shortly after 9/11," he said, "particularly because as we're talking about the Iraq War, that became a substitute for I think true patriotism, which is speaking out on issues that are of importance to our national security, I decided I won't wear that pin on my chest. Instead, I'm going to try to tell the American people what I believe will make this country great, and hopefully that will be a testimony to my patriotism." In other words, Obama was pointing out that he had other ways of showing patriotism and was going to rely on those rather than wearing a pin, which had become a de facto symbol for supporting the Iraq War. He had the courage to be a leader, to recognize the flag pin on the members of the administration and most republicans as false patriotism, not real patriotism, and like many democrats who did the same, decided he didn't want to be part of that charade.
Even more interesting to me, though, is that no one questionned why Hillary Clinton does not wear a flag pin. If, as the original questionner some months ago asked Obama, "politicians have been wearing these since 9/11," why was it not appropriate for Hillary to wear one? Is she not a politician? Is she exempt because she's a woman? I thought it was important to her to be part of the boys club, to be treated the same as the male candidates for the presidency. I thought that's what feminists wanted. And what about all the other candidates, like John McCain, who no longer wear them?
I've been bitching for a long time now about Hillary Clinton doing the Republican's dirty work for them (as if they need any help) but it is obvious that the main stream media is doing the same.
Liberal media, my ass!
On Meet the Press today, Tim Russert was asking Obama campaign chairman David Axelrod about how Obama was going to overcome the various slams on his "patriotism." He listed Obama's "offenses":
"Michelle Obama saying that she really never had pride in America until this campaign when Barack Obama was running, Barack Obama with his hands clasped in front of him rather than holding his heart during the pledge of allegiance, Barack Obama not wearing a flag pin....Barack Obama meeting with Bill Ayers, a former Weather ground under—Weatherman underground figure."
Even the way this question was phrased was offering misinformation and a biased perspective to the viewers. Michelle Obama did not say she never had pride in America until the campaign. She said "For the first time in my adult life I am really proud of my country." There's quite a bit of nuanced difference between those two statements. Michelle was talking about her adult life, not her entire life, and she was talkking about being REALLY proud. She didn't say she never had pride, just that this was the first time she felt, as an adult, REALLY proud. It was kind of like someone saying "this is the happiest day of my life" when it is obvious the person is simply caught up in the moment and probably had many happy days in their life. But the Republicans, the Clintons, and the MSM apparently are incapable of doing nuance.
Also, Barack Obama did not have a "meeting" with Bill Ayers, currently a college professor, but formerly a radical in the sixties. He sat on a board with him, and attended a fund raiser at his home. Barack Obama has, at most, a passing acquaintance with him, but Timmy and the ABC debate moderators and Hillary Clinton seem to think anyone you have ever met is fair game to tarnish you with. Well for that matter, who is the person Hillary has had the closest relationship with for the past forty years? Bill Clinton - liar, philanderer, and impeached president. Doesn't that tarnish her a bit? And while we're at it, Obama could never say it, but I will: If Obama was supposed to walk out on Rev. Wright because of some radical words in a sermon, why didn't Hillary walk out on her husband, who cheated on her time and again, lied to her and to the American people about it, broke the law by lying under oath, and humiliated her publicly?
As for Barack Obama not "holding his heart" during the "pledge of allegience," this is a lie and Russert knows better. This was either sloppy questionning or a deliberate attempt to falsely smear Obama. Barack Obama, on one occasion that was photographed, kept his hands at his sides during the Star Spangled Banner, not during the pledge of allegience. I never put my hand over my heart during the Star Spangled Banner, and neither do most people. On the other hand, most people put their hands over their heart during the pledge of allegience. The fact that some in the picture had their hands over their hearts indicates to me they were posing as fake patriots during the anthem, not that Obama wasn't being patriotic. Maybe he didn't get the memo that said you have to do these silly things to prove how patriotic you are, even though most ordinary people don't do them and don't really expect you to. But if you can lump this lack of a phony "patriotic" display with his not wearing a flag pin, bingo! You can say he is unpatriotic.
Now for the flag pin. No one on that debate stage was wearing a flag pin. Obama has explained why he no longer wears one, and points out that for a while after 9/11 he, like many Americans did, but that he no longer considered it necessary. "Shortly after 9/11," he said, "particularly because as we're talking about the Iraq War, that became a substitute for I think true patriotism, which is speaking out on issues that are of importance to our national security, I decided I won't wear that pin on my chest. Instead, I'm going to try to tell the American people what I believe will make this country great, and hopefully that will be a testimony to my patriotism." In other words, Obama was pointing out that he had other ways of showing patriotism and was going to rely on those rather than wearing a pin, which had become a de facto symbol for supporting the Iraq War. He had the courage to be a leader, to recognize the flag pin on the members of the administration and most republicans as false patriotism, not real patriotism, and like many democrats who did the same, decided he didn't want to be part of that charade.
Even more interesting to me, though, is that no one questionned why Hillary Clinton does not wear a flag pin. If, as the original questionner some months ago asked Obama, "politicians have been wearing these since 9/11," why was it not appropriate for Hillary to wear one? Is she not a politician? Is she exempt because she's a woman? I thought it was important to her to be part of the boys club, to be treated the same as the male candidates for the presidency. I thought that's what feminists wanted. And what about all the other candidates, like John McCain, who no longer wear them?
I've been bitching for a long time now about Hillary Clinton doing the Republican's dirty work for them (as if they need any help) but it is obvious that the main stream media is doing the same.
Liberal media, my ass!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)