So I see Obama is going to be on Bill O’Reilly’s show tonight at 8 est. McCain canceled his appearance on Larry King because they felt Cambell Brown’s comments crossed the line in an interview with Tucker Bounds.
Will Bill go after him hard or will he play nice? Will Obama being seen on Fox News during the RNC be a good thing for him? Will McCain continue to avoid the media for awhile, and will it hurt his campaign if he does?
I guess it’s interesting that in oder for Obama to be interviewed by O’Reilly, he has to be inside the RNC, and will be taking away attention away from the RNC.
Hold on a second. The Palins put out a press release on McCain’s website about their daughters pregnancy. When you send out a press release you can hardly rip on the press for reporting it.
Sure there was a dumb story on Kos about the conspiracy, but if we’re considering Kos as MSM now then something is seriously wrong.
Some MSM mentioned that there were rumours in the lefty blogs about the parentage of Trig but so what. I’ve heard every MSM outlet mention the rumours on the web about Obama being a Muslim many times over the past few months.
As soon as KOS posted, the biker forum (with 100,000 members) I visit had 20 people posting it and making disparaging comments.
The press came along shortly after with all kinds of “speculation.” It was linked from many other sites besides KOS.
McCains group even stated they released the information because of the level of gossip surrounding this “non-story.” I have to say, the Liberals on that forum make Bartink look like GW Bush.
They have been attacking her on every front for everything, and when you point that out, they start bringing up how the Clintons were attacked, or rationalizing it some other way. They called Bristol a slut, whore and a few other names, same with mom.
Likewise, Biden is a horrible pick for VP, because he supported the original Iraq resolution while Obama is running on the fact that he is the only candidate who was against it from the beginning (despite not being in the Senate at the time).
Seriously, Bart, if McCain’s VP must never have pursued an earmark, then only McCain can be his own runningmate. When snapping the other party, be sure you don’t pull the rubber band back so far you leave a welt on your own face.
The difference is obvious. I wasn’t attacking her, just pointing out possible problems. Sorry if this hurt your feelings.
But the idiots at dailykos, party lackeys like bart and the MEdia made the daughter’s pregnancy an issue by implementing irresponsible journalism. They closed the barn door after the horse had left the barnyard. There’s no denying that and there’s no denying that news MEdia like NPR spent a large portion of the last two days justifying their indecent reporting. It’s a fact.
Its a fact that I made the daughter’s pregnancy an issue by implementing irresponsible journalism? I’m a reporter now?
Hold on a second. The Palins put out a press release on McCain’s website about their daughters pregnancy. When you send out a press release you can hardly rip on the press for reporting it.
Sure there was a dumb story on Kos about the conspiracy, but if we’re considering Kos as MSM now then something is seriously wrong.
Some MSM mentioned that there were rumours in the lefty blogs about the parentage of Trig but so what. I’ve heard every MSM outlet mention the rumours on the web about Obama being a Muslim many times over the past few months.
As soon as KOS posted, the biker forum (with 100,000 members) I visit had 20 people posting it and making disparaging comments.
The press came along shortly after with all kinds of “speculation.” It was linked from many other sites besides KOS.
I didn’t see a mainstream media outlet delve into the rumour in any detail other than to mention it was out there (unlike Kos who provided a lot of details, many of them bullshit or meaningless)
Plenty of other kook websites out there coppied Kos or ran their own versions of it but again, we can’t be calling those MSM. Are there idiots out there spreading the story? Sure, and there are still folks spreading that Obama is a stealth Muslim planning to convert us all, or that he’s actually the antichrist. You can’t blame the MSM because there are some nutjobs out there posting nonsense.
Rapid R - 04 September 2008 02:12 PM
McCains group even stated they released the information because of the level of gossip surrounding this “non-story.” I have to say, the Liberals on that forum make Bartink look like GW Bush.
I think there is a degree of spin to this. Clearly it is partly true but I think they also saw a perfect chance to break the news. If we believe the story that McCain knew in advance, which I do, then we know that they would be looking for a chance to break the story at some point. It would be nice to think the story of Bristols pregnancy wouldn’t get out but it would, either by her being on stage with the fam while pregnant, or because she was never on stage with the fam at which point the press will of course ask why she wasn’t. They had to at least mention it. This gave them the perfect chance to do it. They could break it on labor day, on a day when the weather was the main story and knock out the conspiracy rumour all in one go. It was actually a very smart decision but to suggest their only motivation was because there were nasty rumours online (and referenced in the press) would be false IMO.
FWIW I had heard nothing at all about Bristol being pregnant currently from any news organization before McCain released it on his site.
Rapid R - 04 September 2008 02:12 PM
[They have been attacking her on every front for everything, and when you point that out, they start bringing up how the Clintons were attacked, or rationalizing it some other way. They called Bristol a slut, whore and a few other names, same with mom.
I’ll get my politics fill here, thanks.
Yeah, there’s no excuse for that. I’d be willing to bet that the same people calling her a slut probably know a girl who is now or was in the same situation and I doubt they’d stand for somebody else calling the girl they know a slut or anything like it. It’s disgusting.
Likewise, Biden is a horrible pick for VP, because he supported the original Iraq resolution while Obama is running on the fact that he is the only candidate who was against it from the beginning (despite not being in the Senate at the time).
Seriously, Bart, if McCain’s VP must never have pursued an earmark, then only McCain can be his own runningmate. When snapping the other party, be sure you don’t pull the rubber band back so far you leave a welt on your own face.
The difference is obvious. I wasn’t attacking her, just pointing out possible problems. Sorry if this hurt your feelings.
Feelings schmeelings. This is about your ability to pick at the specks in McCain/Palin’s eye while ignoring the logs in Obama/Biden’s.
Likewise, Biden is a horrible pick for VP, because he supported the original Iraq resolution while Obama is running on the fact that he is the only candidate who was against it from the beginning (despite not being in the Senate at the time).
Seriously, Bart, if McCain’s VP must never have pursued an earmark, then only McCain can be his own runningmate. When snapping the other party, be sure you don’t pull the rubber band back so far you leave a welt on your own face.
The difference is obvious. I wasn’t attacking her, just pointing out possible problems. Sorry if this hurt your feelings.
Feelings schmeelings. This is about your ability to pick at the specks in McCain/Palin’s eye while ignoring the logs in Obama/Biden’s.
Look at the thread title. That story is out there. I think its going to be an issue. If you don’t, say so. The Biden comparison doesn’t make sense at all to me.
I think there is a degree of spin to this. Clearly it is partly true but I think they also saw a perfect chance to break the news. If we believe the story that McCain knew in advance, which I do, then we know that they would be looking for a chance to break the story at some point. It would be nice to think the story of Bristols pregnancy wouldn’t get out but it would, either by her being on stage with the fam while pregnant, or because she was never on stage with the fam at which point the press will of course ask why she wasn’t. They had to at least mention it. This gave them the perfect chance to do it. They could break it on labor day, on a day when the weather was the main story and knock out the conspiracy rumour all in one go. It was actually a very smart decision but to suggest their only motivation was because there were nasty rumours online (and referenced in the press) would be false IMO.
That may be and you are entitled to your opinion. My opinion is that the story was leaked to non-msm sources to damage her, and McCain and Co knew that would happen, and they were ready.
Tripper - 04 September 2008 02:43 PM
FWIW I had heard nothing at all about Bristol being pregnant currently from any news organization before McCain released it on his site.
I don’t know where the Libs on the other forum got their info on Bristol, but I am betting it was not from McCain’s site.
To tell you the truth, I am not sure who aired it first.
I think there is a degree of spin to this. Clearly it is partly true but I think they also saw a perfect chance to break the news. If we believe the story that McCain knew in advance, which I do, then we know that they would be looking for a chance to break the story at some point. It would be nice to think the story of Bristols pregnancy wouldn’t get out but it would, either by her being on stage with the fam while pregnant, or because she was never on stage with the fam at which point the press will of course ask why she wasn’t. They had to at least mention it. This gave them the perfect chance to do it. They could break it on labor day, on a day when the weather was the main story and knock out the conspiracy rumour all in one go. It was actually a very smart decision but to suggest their only motivation was because there were nasty rumours online (and referenced in the press) would be false IMO.
That may be and you are entitled to your opinion. My opinion is that the story was leaked to non-msm sources to damage her, and McCain and Co knew that would happen, and they were ready.
Who leaked what?
It wasn’t a true story, it was some made up bull. I doubt that McCain and Co knew there was going to be a nasty made up conspiracy about her baby son and her teenage daughter having given birth.
Rapid R - 04 September 2008 03:06 PM
Tripper - 04 September 2008 02:43 PM
FWIW I had heard nothing at all about Bristol being pregnant currently from any news organization before McCain released it on his site.
I don’t know where the Libs on the other forum got their info on Bristol, but I am betting it was not from McCain’s site.
To tell you the truth, I am not sure who aired it first.
It would be interesting if you have the time to look back and see when the first post about her being pregnant was made. (I mean the real pregnancy, not the rumour that she had been pregnant and given birth 5 months ago)
The first post about it on here was by me, after I read it on the website of the independant and shortly after read the press release on McCain’s site (from which the Independant report was written, as it quotes the press release)
This forum has looked at a lot of stuff about Palin in the past week, these threads have been growing faster than almost any other moorewatch threads I’ve seen. If the MSM had reported her pregnancy before the McCain website did, I think we’d have seen it on here.
Likewise, Biden is a horrible pick for VP, because he supported the original Iraq resolution while Obama is running on the fact that he is the only candidate who was against it from the beginning (despite not being in the Senate at the time).
Seriously, Bart, if McCain’s VP must never have pursued an earmark, then only McCain can be his own runningmate. When snapping the other party, be sure you don’t pull the rubber band back so far you leave a welt on your own face.
The difference is obvious. I wasn’t attacking her, just pointing out possible problems. Sorry if this hurt your feelings.
Feelings schmeelings. This is about your ability to pick at the specks in McCain/Palin’s eye while ignoring the logs in Obama/Biden’s.
Look at the thread title. That story is out there. I think its going to be an issue. If you don’t, say so. The Biden comparison doesn’t make sense at all to me.
It might very well be an issue, but the two are comparable. McCain stands against earmarks, Palin requested a few as mayor but now seems to be against them. Obama stands against the Iraq War, Biden voted in favor of it and now says he’s against it. I can’t tell if you’re being too nuanced or too black-and-white to not understand the comparison.
In fact, I’d argue that Biden’s disparity from Obama is more severe. It involves war instead of earmarks.
If you’re right that the McCain/Palin disparity will be an issue but that the Obama/Biden disparity won’t, well then there might just be some media bias.
With sass and wit, sarcasm and sincerity, courage and strength, Sarah Palin last night showed us a new model of female politician.
Her family stories were genuine and real. Her commitment to special-needs children was moving. Her contempt for special interests was obvious.
And her putdowns of Barack Obama’s rhetoric and her praise of John McCain’s character and achievements were welcome and well delivered.
Many women look bad when they attack their opponents, too often seeming strident and shrill. But Palin was funny and irreverant, with a biting wit and a joy of combat that was exhilarating to watch.
Sometimes she reminded us of the hockey mom she is. Other times, she was an American Margaret Thatcher - mobilizing humor and biting satire to mock the opposition.
Where Hillary Clinton has but two speeds - full forward and stop - Palin displayed a range of rhetoric, emotion and language that sometimes evoked moving patriotism, at other times hilarious irony - and, frequently, a strong dose of common sense.
If her style in attacking and mocking her opponent was Thatcher-esque, her range of rhetorical style was Rooseveltian. She is, in fact, one of the best public speakers in our politics today.
Now the Democrats are stuck in a trap. They’ve demeaned, patronized and smeared a woman who’s well on her way to becoming very, very popular. Her speech will create legions of fans; the Democratic smears of the last few days will create, for Obama, legions of enemies.
This man who dedicated two years to stopping a woman from being president now has to answer for spending two months stopping one from becoming vice president - a task he hopes to accomplish using women’s votes.
Remember: The swing vote in this election are single moms. Just as the soccer moms dominated in 1996 and security moms in 2004, now unmarried women, mostly with children, will determine the outcome of the 2008 race. And they’re finding in Sarah Palin an advocate whose life isn’t far different from their own and whose priorities mirror theirs’.
As withering in her contempt for the country-club elites of the Republican establishment as for the pandering of the Democrats, Palin stands in stark contrast to the inherited elitism of the Bushes, the Romneys and the Kennedys. She’s a woman of the people.
Was this a Republican attacking big oil? Was it the nominee for vice president of a major party who laced into earmarks and lobbyists and PACs? Yes it was - and how refreshing!
In her sincere embrace of her family and her nonjudgmental introduction of her pregnant daughter, Palin won the hearts of many single moms. By evoking life in a modest, middle-class town, she established an empathy with voters akin to what Bill Clinton built when he ate at McDonalds’.
How are the Democrats to live down their assaults on Sarah? How not to seem the enemies of the very voters they have to get?
Strategically, Palin achieved the convention’s core goal - to show how McCain is not a clone of George Bush, but a man of the people eager for change and demanding of reforms.
Now the gap between Obama and McCain is not so wide. Now it is clear that they both stand for change.
So now the fear of a naive and untried Obama leading the nation through perilous times at home and abroad can work to drive voters over the narrower synapse and get them to vote for McCain.
Mission accomplished, Sarah.
Followed by a teaser:
DEMS POUNCE TOO SOON
By DICK MORRIS
Published on TheHill.com on September 3, 2008
When you are smearing a politician, make sure you wait until after they have given their introductory speech to the nation. If you strike before, she will wipe you out with her speech and you will be embarrassed by your accusations. That’s the lesson the Democrats are likely learning this morning.
The two other attempts to destroy a vice presidential candidate — Eagleton in ‘72 and Ferraro in ‘84 — both revved up after they had spoken at their convention. Revelations of Eagleton’s psychiatric treatment, in patient, at a mental hospital surfaced after the convention was over as did charges against Geraldine Ferraro’s husband and the demand for a release of their tax returns. But Palin’s accusers struck too soon — right after her candidacy was announced. Their hair trigger response was to throw everything they could at the nominee as fast as they could dish it out.
Go to DickMorris.com to read the rest of this column!
_______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
PLEASE FORWARD THIS E-MAIL TO FRIENDS AND FAMILY AND TELL THEM THEY CAN GET THESE COLUMNS E-MAILED TO THEM FOR FREE BY SUBSCRIBING AT http://WWW.DICKMORRIS.COM!
THANK YOU!
***COPYRIGHT EILEEN MCGANN AND DICK MORRIS 2008. REPRINTS WITH PERMISSION ONLY***
Likewise, Biden is a horrible pick for VP, because he supported the original Iraq resolution while Obama is running on the fact that he is the only candidate who was against it from the beginning (despite not being in the Senate at the time).
Seriously, Bart, if McCain’s VP must never have pursued an earmark, then only McCain can be his own runningmate. When snapping the other party, be sure you don’t pull the rubber band back so far you leave a welt on your own face.
The difference is obvious. I wasn’t attacking her, just pointing out possible problems. Sorry if this hurt your feelings.
Feelings schmeelings. This is about your ability to pick at the specks in McCain/Palin eye while ignoring the logs in Obama/Biden’s.
Look at the thread title. That story is out there. I think its going to be an issue. If you don’t, say so. The Biden comparison doesn’t make sense at all to me.
It might very well be an issue, but the two are comparable. McCain stands against earmarks, Palin requested a few as mayor but now seems to be against them. Obama stands against the Iraq War, Biden voted in favor of it and now says he’s against it. I can’t tell if you’re being too nuanced or too black-and-white to not understand the comparison.
In fact, I’d argue that Biden’s disparity from Obama is more severe. It involves war instead of earmarks.
If you’re right that the McCain/Palin disparity will be an issue but that the Obama/Biden disparity won’t, well then there might just be some media bias.
Also, just to add, Obama was for the war… when it was going well (before the golden dome mosque was bombed setting off the mini civil war).
In Schmidt’s interview with Kurtz, which Kurtz described as “extraordinary” and “emotional,” Schmidt explained what it was like to be on the receiving end such an attack.
”The campaign has been inundated by hundreds and hundreds of calls from some of the most respected reporters and news organizations,” Schmidt said. “Many reporters have called the campaign and have apologized for asking the questions and said, `Our editors are making us do this, and I am ashamed.‘“
What Schmidt went on to relate explains why. The questions have come in, wave after wave, asking, as Kurtz wrote, “whether (Sarah) Palin is really the mother of a 4-month-old baby, whether her amniotic fluid has been tested, and whether she would submit to a DNA test to establish the child’s parentage.”
More questions: Is Sarah Palin the grandmother of Trig Palin, the 4-month-old born with Downs syndrome, and is her 17-year-old daughter Bristol the mother? Will Trig Palin’s birth certificate be made available to the media? Exactly when last April did Sarah Palin go into labor, and did her contractions increase or decrease as she traveled home from Texas to an Alaskan hospital to give birth? And about eldest son, Track Palin, who serves in the Army and is about to deploy to Iraq: Is he a drug addict?
I call BS. As discussed there is nutcase conspiracy theories out there but I don’t believe for one second that hundreds and hundreds of the most respected reporters and news organizations have called about this. Schmidt makes this claim but fails to back it up with any names, nothing at all in fact.
I think there is a degree of spin to this. Clearly it is partly true but I think they also saw a perfect chance to break the news. If we believe the story that McCain knew in advance, which I do, then we know that they would be looking for a chance to break the story at some point. It would be nice to think the story of Bristols pregnancy wouldn’t get out but it would, either by her being on stage with the fam while pregnant, or because she was never on stage with the fam at which point the press will of course ask why she wasn’t. They had to at least mention it. This gave them the perfect chance to do it. They could break it on labor day, on a day when the weather was the main story and knock out the conspiracy rumour all in one go. It was actually a very smart decision but to suggest their only motivation was because there were nasty rumours online (and referenced in the press) would be false IMO.
That may be and you are entitled to your opinion. My opinion is that the story was leaked to non-msm sources to damage her, and McCain and Co knew that would happen, and they were ready.
Who leaked what?
It wasn’t a true story, it was some made up bull. I doubt that McCain and Co knew there was going to be a nasty made up conspiracy about her baby son and her teenage daughter having given birth.
Rapid R - 04 September 2008 03:06 PM
Tripper - 04 September 2008 02:43 PM
FWIW I had heard nothing at all about Bristol being pregnant currently from any news organization before McCain released it on his site.
I don’t know where the Libs on the other forum got their info on Bristol, but I am betting it was not from McCain’s site.
To tell you the truth, I am not sure who aired it first.
It would be interesting if you have the time to look back and see when the first post about her being pregnant was made. (I mean the real pregnancy, not the rumour that she had been pregnant and given birth 5 months ago)
The first post about it on here was by me, after I read it on the website of the independant and shortly after read the press release on McCain’s site (from which the Independant report was written, as it quotes the press release)
This forum has looked at a lot of stuff about Palin in the past week, these threads have been growing faster than almost any other moorewatch threads I’ve seen. If the MSM had reported her pregnancy before the McCain website did, I think we’d have seen it on here.
I am not sure what you are saying Tripper. That they shouldn’t have released the info on McCains Site?
I don’t get the spin, Trip. He may very well be telling the truth about getting calls about Track and alleged drug use. That doesn’t mean any story has been written about it. Also, I think your search criteria is flawed. “Track Palin” may not appear in an article. It may say something like “Sarah Palin’s son Track” thereby not showing up in an explicit search.
I am not sure what you are saying Tripper. That they shouldn’t have released the info on McCains Site?
No, what I’m saying is, the story seems to be re-written as if the MSM went after Palin’s daughter and “outed” her pregnancy.
However in my experience I had not heard a thing about her pregnancy in the MSM until after McCain had released it on his site. I also had not even heard a rumour about her current pregnancy anywhere including the wacko left blogs, not that I read many, but I had been on Kos over the weekend and a couple of other forums with a lefty slant.
I don’t really have a view either way if McCain should have released it on his site or not. That said, I would have if I was him as like I say, this would eventually have come out and it’s always better to have putt he story out yourself. The point I’m making is, let’s not say that the media went after the daughter and exposed her, the story was broken by the campaign on their terms and the media reported it as told to them in the press release.
LD, I certainly can’t prove that it’s spin, nor was my google search the most scientific ever done, but I’m guessing that Schmit is spinning the media to try and hype up this suposed attack on Palin. In reality it is the media trying to report as much info as they can about an unknown candidate quickly while the nutcase blogs try to tear her apart as they would do anyway, and as would have happened on a righty blog if Obama had pulled a similer stunt.
I just tried another search “Sarah Palin Drug Addict” (no ““‘s in the search) and got a bunch of results but as you can expect with the terms used, not all were what we were looking for, in fact after a quick look on the front page, only one story discusses her son being a drug addict. Here are the results:
http://news.google.com/news?client=opera&rls;=en&q;=sarah%20palin%20drug%20addict&sourceid;=opera&ie;=UTF-8&oe;=utf-8&um;=1&sa;=N&tab;=wn
It looks like there is some fallout from the premature skewering of Palin.
ST. PAUL, Minn. - Three celebrity weeklies — OK!, People and Us Weekly — featured Sarah Palin on their cover, but one of those magazines is reportedly losing subscribers because of it.
Us Weekly, which unlike People and OK!, chose a rather caustic cover line (“Babies, Lies and Scandal”) is said to have lost thousands of subscribers in just the first 24 hours following the printing of the issue.
“I’m hearing it’s 5,000, maybe more,” says one well-placed source in the industry. Another source claimed that as many as 10,000 readers have already cancelled their subscriptions. A spokesperson for Wenner Media, which publishes Us, says “it is completely false that we are losing 10,000 subscribers.” As for the 5,000 estimate, the spokesperson only said “that is false, too,” but wouldn’t comment further.
Five thousand might not seem like a large number at first glance, but it’s significant in the context of Us’s printing schedule. The magazine goes to press Monday night, which means subscribers don’t receive their issues until Friday or Saturday. In other words, the cancellations are coming from subscribers who, in many cases, haven’t even gotten their hands on the actual issue.
“When Us went to print Monday night, it looked like the ticket was falling apart,” says one magazine editor. “They went to print thinking Palin was dead in the water, and their mistake was thinking everyone who reads Us is a Democrat, when they’re not. Readers are loyal, but the base of a political party is more loyal. They don’t need to read the maga
