• Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.

PoliGAF Interim Thread of USA General Elections (DAWN OF THE VEEP)

Status
Not open for further replies.

mckmas8808

Mckmaster uses MasterCard to buy Slave drives
Gaborn said:
Absolutely, but the media hasn't typically given the front runner so much more positive coverage to go along with negative coverage. Seriously, you don't think Obama's coverage has been much more positive than negative? I'm NOT by the way arguing Obama's coverage should be majority negative, but the coverage has certainly not been 50-50.

Another question for you. Why should the coverage of Obama be 50-50? Did he really warrant it? Why pick 50-50? What if 50% of all the coverage that the media has about a canadiate isn't negative? Do you want the media to make stories up just to meet your 50% number?
 

Zeed

Banned
mckmas8808 said:
Do you want the media to make stories up just to meet your 50% number?
The Government should regulate the number of stories so that they can be fair and equal.
 

guess

Member
Gaborn said:
... because I recognize that if you're voting for Obama based solely on this information that's probably a bad decision? As I said, it's impressive. I also pointed out that I care more about his positions on the issues than his IQ. Is that somehow a problem for you? Seriously now, just because I'm not in love with Obama doesn't mean I'm "downplaying" something, it means I don't think something is as important as you do.

I don't care if you are not in love with Obama. I just said that you were downplaying his IQ. That doesn't mean that I think IQ is what someone should base their vote. Is that somehow a problem for you?
 

ShOcKwAvE

Member
Zeed said:
Thank you sir.

She's not fired yet is she?

I just heard this through my parent's friend. From what I gathered, she's still there. I don't think it would look good to fire her over a YouTube video.
 

Kaeru

Banned
Tyrone Slothrop said:
to be honest i think the only networks that made it out as some horrible ordeal was fox. the other networks were simply covering it and discussing the rammifications of the issue with voters

Media no longer report news, they create them and market them to their audience in a way they believe their audience wants them. They are today selling a product like any other company, and if the product makes the customer feel uneasy then they just repackage it in a way that suits the buyer. It's capitalistic thinking in it's worst form, and FOX revolutionized this in a way that has made it impossible for other networks not to follow.
Pundits does the thinking for you, you don't have to have your own opinion about what goes on in the world anymore.

It's a Brave new world!
 
mckmas8808 said:
Honest question Gaborn. Do you know who this guy is beside Obama?

obama-rezko.JPG

MSNBC had a thirty minute segment about Obama's rise to the nomination after he got it and they mentioned that guy. Obama gave all of that money to charity.
 

mckmas8808

Mckmaster uses MasterCard to buy Slave drives
Gaborn said:
edit - Yeah, isn't he that guy who was involved in some shady real estate deal and Obama had some vague tangential involvement? If so the media isn't covering it much (some, but not much). I mostly heard about it since I'm a political junkie.

That's the point. But many people (seems like you may be one of these people) act as if Obama had a free ride this whole time when it's just not true.

Rezko was a bad thing media wise for Obama, but he overcame it.
 

Gaborn

Member
mckmas8808 said:
Another question for you. Why should the coverage of Obama be 50-50? Did he really warrant it? Why pick 50-50? What if 50% of all the coverage that the media has about a canadiate isn't negative? Do you want the media to make stories up just to meet your 50% number?

Well, 50-50 is obviously an ideal. No, the media shouldn't "make stories up" or ignore stories either. If anything in retrospect I'd say most candidates running should have slightly positive coverage rather than neutral just because it's good to give people the reasons why people support a candidate. I guess what I'm saying though is that Obama has yet to be really dissected and have a lot of his positions and life examined in the media, he mostly either gets a negative story with tangential coverage (wright) a total fluff piece (IQ, JFK comparisons, historic candidate) or a very minimal comparison to McCain (such as the contrast in the speeches, which was perfectly fair). There's no weight to the media with Obama. It's not just that they're not doing negative stories much, they're not covering his CAMPAIGN, they're covering his IMAGE in the campaign.

Guess - I'm not downplaying it.
 

Zeed

Banned
Gaborn said:
I guess what I'm saying though is that Obama has yet to be really dissected and have a lot of his positions and life examined in the media.
That's...that's just factually incorrect. MSNBC even did a documentary on his life from start to finish. We know everything from his childhood in Hawaii and Indonesia to that tour of the Middle East he took with his friends after college.

This parody comes to mind:
 

Gaborn

Member
Zeed said:
That's...that's just factually incorrect. MSNBC even did a documentary on his life from start to finish. We know everything from his childhood in Hawaii and Indonesia to that tour of the Middle East he took with his friends after college.

This parody comes to mind:

You know what I mean. People do things, good and bad in their life. For the most part we hear about the good much more than the bad. But, for example, since mkmas brought it up, the Rezko story would have been looked at a LOT closer by the media for most candidates, and fairly or not the media would've gone through the details and the candidate would LOOK guilty. Hell, look what they did to the Clintons over whitewater.
 

mckmas8808

Mckmaster uses MasterCard to buy Slave drives
Kaeru said:
Media no longer report news, they create them and market them to their audience in a way they believe their audience wants them. They are today selling a product like any other company, and if the product makes the customer feel uneasy then they just repackage it in a way that suits the buyer. It's capitalistic thinking in it's worst form, and FOX revolutionized this in a way that has made it impossible for other networks not to follow.
Pundits does the thinking for you, you don't have to have your own opinion about what goes on in the world anymore.

It's a Brave new world!

Exactly point! For example....

Media: "Working class people don't vote for Obama."

Me at home: "That's crazy because I could have sworn that as a race black people make the least amount of money per household. And I could have sworn that Obama was getting 85+% of the black vote."

Media 2: "White working class people aren't voting for Obama."

Me at home: "Hmmm...Obama won....
1. Montana - 7th poorest state - 92% white
2. Nevada - 4th poorest state - 95% white
3. Idaho - 6th poorest state - 97% white
4. Maine - 15th poorest state - 98% white



So bottom line is you're right. The media saying that he can't win the working class white vote isn't totally true. There was/is more to the story than just that won sentence. But of course the MSM really hate to investigate and do real reporting at times.
 

demon

I don't mean to alarm you but you have dogs on your face
Gaborn said:
You know what I mean. People do things, good and bad in their life. For the most part we hear about the good much more than the bad. But, for example, since mkmas brought it up, the Rezko story would have been looked at a LOT closer by the media for most candidates, and fairly or not the media would've gone through the details and the candidate would LOOK guilty. Hell, look what they did to the Clintons over whitewater.
Just because the media WOULD HAVE looked at the Rezko thing more closely if it were anyone else who handled it just as Obama did (can you prove that?), does that mean they SHOULD have wasted time looking at it more closely? You seem to have a "the media has shitty sensationalist coverage of all other candidates, so they might as well do the same for Obama" attitude. And personally, I don't like it.
 

mckmas8808

Mckmaster uses MasterCard to buy Slave drives
Gaborn said:
You know what I mean. People do things, good and bad in their life. For the most part we hear about the good much more than the bad. But, for example, since mkmas brought it up, the Rezko story would have been looked at a LOT closer by the media for most candidates, and fairly or not the media would've gone through the details and the candidate would LOOK guilty. Hell, look what they did to the Clintons over whitewater.

Clinton was the actual President for one. And two everybody looked into the Rezko case. There just wasn't much there.

I think the Chicago Tribune did a huge artical on the Rezko case that completely explain everything. It was a total open interview with Obama where he admitted to more information than that was out in the public domain at the time.

It was talked about as much as it needed to be.
 

Dan

No longer boycotting the Wolfenstein franchise
Gaborn said:
You know what I mean. People do things, good and bad in their life. For the most part we hear about the good much more than the bad. But, for example, since mkmas brought it up, the Rezko story would have been looked at a LOT closer by the media for most candidates, and fairly or not the media would've gone through the details and the candidate would LOOK guilty. Hell, look what they did to the Clintons over whitewater.
I assume you're upset that the story of McCain potentially skirting if not breaking his own campaign finance laws haven't been explored, right? Or how McCain's economic policy was crafted by a lobbyist being paid by a bank to push its agendas only received a day or two of half-hearted coverage?
 
MoveOn media. Hannity has a new tard talking point.

Hannity is scared of Obama and now that he is the guy H&C has become hell holier than ever. Whole show is Obama sliming. I think even the idiots who watch this everyday will feel their inteligence insulted so much they will turn it off in a month.
 

Gaborn

Member
demon said:
Just because the media WOULD HAVE looked at the Rezko thing more closely if it were anyone else who handled it just as Obama did (can you prove that?), does that mean they SHOULD have wasted time looking at it more closely? You seem to have a "the media has shitty sensationalist coverage of all other candidates, so they might as well do the same for Obama" attitude. And personally, I don't like it.

Well, no, not necessarily they shouldn't have over covered the story. But I do think it probably deserved slightly more coverage than it got. (my opinion that most candidates with a similar scandal would've gotten more coverage is based primarily on white water, but also numerous other stupid or small stories that got more air time, such as Bush's DUI from the 70s, the swift boat vets for truth smear campaign, etc.) Any time a presidential candidate has ties to a criminal like that, and has claims being made about him it deserves a fair share of coverage even if it turns out there was nothing there (the Clintons for example were almost completely exonerated in the white water probe). Not that it has to be every headline for months and months or anything, but 20% of the coverage? hell, an average of an hour a day? Not exactly a radical concept.

Dan - absolutely, McCain has been mostly ignored by the media, he should be torn into as well. I think there's a difference though between not covering a candidate, and having overwhelmingly positive coverage. McCain's been mostly swept under the rug on most of the networks (or given minimalist coverage), partially due to the lengthy Democratic primary. I hope you realize I'm NOT a McCain supporter.
 

Tamanon

Banned
Gaborn said:
Well, no, not necessarily they shouldn't have over covered the story. But I do think it probably deserved slightly more coverage than it got. (my opinion that most candidates with a similar scandal would've gotten more coverage is based primarily on white water, but also numerous other stupid or small stories that got more air time, such as Bush's DUI from the 70s, the swift boat vets for truth smear campaign, etc.) Any time a presidential candidate has ties to a criminal like that, and has claims being made about him it deserves a fair share of coverage even if it turns out there was nothing there (the Clintons for example were almost completely exonerated in the white water probe). Not that it has to be every headline for months and months or anything, but 20% of the coverage? hell, an average of an hour a day? Not exactly a radical concept.

And in the coverage that Obama got, he was completely exonerated. Since it had no merits, there was no reason for too much coverage. Are you going to complain about Hsu not getting coverage next? Or about Roger Tamraz not being discussed?
 

Gaborn

Member
Tamanon said:
And in the coverage that Obama got, he was completely exonerated. Since it had no merits, there was no reason for too much coverage. Are you going to complain about Hsu not getting coverage next? Or about Roger Tamraz not being discussed?

I actually think Hsu got a decent amount of coverage. I have to admit though I've got no clue about who Tamraz is.
 

StoOgE

First tragedy, then farce.
So, got back from day 1 of the state convention.

1) Because the convention is in Austin, we are the "host" delegation and got to sit right up front. I was like 10 feet from the speakers, it was pretty cool.

2) Chelsea Clinton spoke.. hard sell on Obama and getting a Democrat in the whitehouse. They are going to fall in line guys, Ive seen it with my own eyes. She looked not so good in person in my opinion and isnt much of a speaker. I still would have had wild crazy sex with her.

3) Most Clinton people were very positive about Obama. They were still chearing for Hillary, but not anti-Obama. The unity message of most of the speakers recieved thunderous applause.

4) I got to meet Rick Noriega (Senate candidate) a few times. I went to a BBQ fund raiser for him, saw him again at the young democrats caucus and then he spoke in front of the entire delegation. He has a real chance at this, his military record reminds me of a Jim Webb. Cornyn isnt well liked, he could take him out.

All in all a fun day, but I didnt get to nail any hot Clinton supporters for party unity.

The governor of Virginia is scheduled to speak too, but I am really tired so I left. Obama using him in this way could be a test to see if he would make a good Veep.
 
What Jewish problem? I'm pretty sure the sermon at temple tonight was vieled pro-bama. After remembering Bobby Kenedy and MLK Jr, and saying to stand up and be counted, the service leader (rabbi was out) ended with "Be the hope you desire."

Of course, there was barely a minion to hear it :lol :lol

(yes I know this isn't scientific data, but it was fun to see)
 

Agent Icebeezy

Welcome beautful toddler, Madison Elizabeth, to the horde!
StoOgE said:
So, got back from day 1 of the state convention.

1) Because the convention is in Austin, we are the "host" delegation and got to sit right up front. I was like 10 feet from the speakers, it was pretty cool.

2) Chelsea Clinton spoke.. hard sell on Obama and getting a Democrat in the whitehouse. They are going to fall in line guys, Ive seen it with my own eyes. She looked not so good in person in my opinion and isnt much of a speaker. I still would have had wild crazy sex with her.

3) Most Clinton people were very positive about Obama. They were still chearing for Hillary, but not anti-Obama. The unity message of most of the speakers recieved thunderous applause.

4) I got to meet Rick Noriega (Senate candidate) a few times. I went to a BBQ fund raiser for him, saw him again at the young democrats caucus and then he spoke in front of the entire delegation. He has a real chance at this, his military record reminds me of a Jim Webb. Cornyn isnt well liked, he could take him out.

All in all a fun day, but I didnt get to nail any hot Clinton supporters for party unity.

The governor of Virginia is scheduled to speak too, but I am really tired so I left. Obama using him in this way could be a test to see if he would make a good Veep.

Thanks, you are doing a good job.
 
Gaborn said:
You know what I mean. People do things, good and bad in their life. For the most part we hear about the good much more than the bad. But, for example, since mkmas brought it up, the Rezko story would have been looked at a LOT closer by the media for most candidates, and fairly or not the media would've gone through the details and the candidate would LOOK guilty. Hell, look what they did to the Clintons over whitewater.

On the other hand, Obama was extremely open and forthright about the issue from the very start. Near Ohio/Texas they were making a big deal out of it, and he sat down with the media, answered every single question, and left no questions in the mind of a conservative editorial board that had been harsh on him(Chicago sun times? Not sure, conservative chicago paper).

The fact was, there was maybe a minor story there, and Obama handled it PERFECTLY.
 

Tamanon

Banned
Gaborn said:
I actually think Hsu got a decent amount of coverage. I have to admit though I've got no clue about who Tamraz is.

Having have just completed a series of extraordinary business deals, but wasting most of the profits on government bribes, Tamraz was left with no choice but to seek the approval of the U.S. again to swing Aliyev towards accepting the pipeline. His return to the United States was marked with a frenzy of campaign finance for the 1996 Clinton-Gore campaign. The total sum of donations from the end of 1995 to 1996 is $300,000, all to the Democratic Party. President Bill Clinton finally did give his approval of the pipeline, by now estimated to be a $2.5 billion project.[1]

The tacit approval of Clinton led to a senior White House aide, Thomas McLarty, contacting a U.S. Department of Energy official. Sheila Heslin responded with a formal protest and a request of investigation on Don Fowler, who accepted Tamraz's donations, as well as Robert Baer, a mid-level CIA operative in charge of South Eurasia Group, the man who originally drafted the CIA report on Tamraz.[1]

Robert Baer, in an attempt to clear his name, began an in-depth investigation on the holdings of Tamraz. In the United States Senate Judiciary committee, Tamraz had claimed that the $300,000 given to the Democrats were the liquefied holdings of his company, Aviscapital, based out of New York. Aviscapital proved to be a company run out of a Lawyer's office. Tamraz's additional claim, that a portion of Aviscapital's assets had been transferred to Oil Capital Limited proved to also be untrue after the Panamanian government sued Oil Capital Limited and had their settlement deferred by the verification of three independent finance groups that Oil Capital Limited's holdings were priced at 23 cents.[1]

Wondering where Tamraz had spent all of his money and where he had come up with the money to fund the Democratic Party if he was broke, Baer followed Tamraz's trail of 1995. There he found the Lapis incident, through intelligence at the embassy in Ankara and independent confirmation from the office of Alexander Lebed with whom he was personally acquainted during his tour in Dushanbe. The campaign money had come from two of Boris Yeltsin's aides, whose reasons for funding the Clinton-Gore campaign are unknown.[1]

Basically an oil magnate that funneled money from Yeltsin and Russia to the Clinton-Gore campaign and DNC.
 

Gaborn

Member
electricpirate said:
On the other hand, Obama was extremely open and forthright about the issue from the very start. Near Ohio/Texas they were making a big deal out of it, and he sat down with the media, answered every single question, and left no questions in the mind of a conservative editorial board that had been harsh on him(Chicago sun times? Not sure, conservative chicago paper).

The fact was, there was maybe a minor story there, and Obama handled it PERFECTLY.

That could very well be so, it does seem like a minor story now.

Tamanon - Interesting. It's kind of hard to think back 8 years to how the media covered it, but you're right, I didn't hear much about Tamraz back then.
 

grandjedi6

Master of the Google Search
Zaptruder said:
Military Kensyenism doesn't work!

Your country simply can't afford to continue to spend that much on a military... worldwide security has been to an extent, already regulated with the advent of nuclear weapons... and yet, America continues to spend as much as they did back in WW2. It's military imperialism... and quickly, it'll all come undone as the economy can no longer support such an overpriced army.

The opportunity cost for such an advanced army is massive... nearly a trillion dollars annually.

Enough Solar powerstations to replace the nation's powergrid is rated at about $500 billion dollars.

Imagine how much more employment, economic growth, and how much more advances you'd make into that sort of technology; you'd regain tech leadership, and make it a viable product around the rest of the world. The initial sunk costs could be recuperated by selling the technology elsewhere.

Of course a military is still necessary... but as a proportion of GDP, America's spending on the military is simply not viable for the continued success of the country.

What country do you live in?
 
StoOgE said:
So, got back from day 1 of the state convention.

1) Because the convention is in Austin, we are the "host" delegation and got to sit right up front. I was like 10 feet from the speakers, it was pretty cool.

2) Chelsea Clinton spoke.. hard sell on Obama and getting a Democrat in the whitehouse. They are going to fall in line guys, Ive seen it with my own eyes. She looked not so good in person in my opinion and isnt much of a speaker. I still would have had wild crazy sex with her.

3) Most Clinton people were very positive about Obama. They were still chearing for Hillary, but not anti-Obama. The unity message of most of the speakers recieved thunderous applause.

4) I got to meet Rick Noriega (Senate candidate) a few times. I went to a BBQ fund raiser for him, saw him again at the young democrats caucus and then he spoke in front of the entire delegation. He has a real chance at this, his military record reminds me of a Jim Webb. Cornyn isnt well liked, he could take him out.

All in all a fun day, but I didnt get to nail any hot Clinton supporters for party unity.

The governor of Virginia is scheduled to speak too, but I am really tired so I left. Obama using him in this way could be a test to see if he would make a good Veep.
good news all around
 
Gaborn said:
No, I'm not ignoring it. What I'm saying is that yes, Obama's taken a little flack for the Reverend Wright situation, and I mean, every candidate is going to take their knocks. STILL, even with negative stories popping up, what other candidate has been compared by the media to JFK, MLK, had his IQ mentioned, I mean... come on. I'm saying that no other candidate has received as MUCH positive coverage without a huge amount of negative coverage, not that he hasn't had negative coverage, but compared to the other candidates? Please.

McCain is mostly being ignored by the media while they cover Obama, the last time they really took a serious look at him was when the story about his rumored romantic relationship with the lobbyist was revealed.

Guess - I'm downplaying nothing about Obama's IQ. It's impressive if it's accurate but it's just a number, and we usually don't get a candidate's IQ either way. I care more about what a candidate has done and will do (policy wise) than how intelligent they are.

You can't be serious. That's the most incorrect statement I've read in a while.
 

Cyan

Banned
Gaborn said:
Still, it's amazing the coverage he's getting, I mean, seriously, has any other candidate received THIS MUCH favorable coverage for this long? (yes, I know the smear campaign by the Republicans, but there is really no comparison to the media love fest)
That's the free market for ya. Good stories sell, and the good story right now is how awesome Obama is. When that changes, so will the media coverage.
 

StoOgE

First tragedy, then farce.
Smiles and Cries said:
good news all around

There were some pissy Clinton people.

One person was arguing that Obama decided to take his name off the ballot in Michigan, so Hillary should have gotten all of them. She was really stupid. Literally, she was just dumb.

There was a guy wearing a shirt that said "Rural gun owning Christian BITTER at Obama" Whatever, fuck that guy, he's probably from Big Spring or some other shithole no one wants to be from.

And there were some people that were floating petitions to "count every vote"..

but they were far and away the minority.
 
:lol Gaborn, I dunno what your angle is but who are you kidding claiming the media ignored Rezko? Even a quicky Google search shows over 1500 media hits. Every media organization covered that trial pretty aggressively until it became obvious Obama's name wasn't going to come up in any meaningful way.
 

Gaborn

Member
typhonsentra said:
:lol Gaborn, I dunno what your angle is but who are you kidding claiming the media ignored Rezko? Even a quicky Google search shows over 1500 media hits. Every media organization covered that trial pretty aggressively until it became obvious Obama's name wasn't going to come up in any meaningful way.

1500... really isn't much coverage, when most of that is the AP carrying the same story 500 times.

And no, the media didn't cover the trial "pretty aggressively" they barely mentioned it on the periphery of their coverage. They mentioned that his name was mentioned one day, they mentioned his conviction,and they mentioned that Rezko had some tie to Obama (that I don't specifically remember) that's... not aggressive coverage.
 

GhaleonEB

Member
The press is so pissed Obama and Clinton dodged them. They staked out all the wrong places.

http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/06/06/btsc.welch.obama.press/index.html

In their indignation, CNN is sounding like the paparazzi. :lol

By that point, a number of television outlets had already made their way to Obama's house, about a half-hour from downtown Chicago, to begin a stakeout process that remained under way late Friday afternoon and, pending any unexpected appearance from the senator, was likely to continue until he heads out on the campaign trail again Monday morning.
 

Hitokage

Setec Astronomer
I'm going to guess that Gaborn has trouble understanding why Obama isn't exposed as the dangerous communist he is.
 

demon

I don't mean to alarm you but you have dogs on your face
Gaborn just wants more negative Obama coverage, deserved or not, that's all it comes down to. Starting to get ignore list-worthy.
 

Tamanon

Banned
OMG! In all the media puzzlement at the new phenomenon known as "daps", they missed Obama slapping his wife on the ass!

obafistbump.gif
 

Gaborn

Member
Hitokage said:
I'm going to guess that Gaborn has trouble understanding why Obama isn't exposed as the dangerous communist he is.

... what on earth are you talking about? There is a rather large difference between saying "the media is being overwhelmingly positive on Obama"and "why isn't the fact he's some secret muslim communist america hating scum bag getting more coverage." The media is fawning over Obama, I think most people could pretty obviously see that.
 

Agent Icebeezy

Welcome beautful toddler, Madison Elizabeth, to the horde!
typhonsentra said:
:lol Gaborn, I dunno what your angle is but who are you kidding claiming the media ignored Rezko? Even a quicky Google search shows over 1500 media hits. Every media organization covered that trial pretty aggressively until it became obvious Obama's name wasn't going to come up in any meaningful way.

Living in the Chicagoland area, I saw this everyday. Obama was cleared a long time ago.
 

Gaborn

Member
Agent Icebeezy said:
Living in the Chicagoland area, I saw this everyday. Obama was cleared a long time ago.

I can believe Chicago's media covered the trial taking place in Illinois, I didn't particularly see much on it from the National media, did you?
 

Tamanon

Banned
Gaborn said:
I can believe Chicago's media covered the trial taking place in Illinois, I didn't particularly see much on it from the National media, did you?

Why would you? It didn't involve Obama and it didn't involve anything outside of Illinois, also there were no white girls involved.
 

AniHawk

Member
Tamanon said:
OMG! In all the media puzzlement at the new phenomenon known as "daps", they missed Obama slapping his wife on the ass!

obafistbump.gif

Holy crap, I didn't see that until you mentioned it.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom