Presidential debates on ABC right now-both parties

Since this latest besmirching of the candidates, am I the only one that thinks McCain looks like a deer caught in the headlights or does he always look that way?  I haven't paid any attention to his campaign because his remarks about keeping our forces in Iraq was the end for me.  It will probably be his end also.

I watched the debates, democratic ones, and made my choice and voted it.  I did exactly what the pollsters said I'd do, voted for Hillary.  I've been waiting for a woman to break the glass ceiling and not just poke at it.  No matter what happens, she better take her fight to the convention floor.   I'm looking forward to a raucous summer.

Susie, McCain is fighting cancer?  I didn't know that.  Or was that many years ago?   I think the money issue of printing and spending that's been going on will keep the dem's from trying to give away the bank in the near future.  We don't want a bank anymore, but I will take the blender... it's worth more.  

Susie, I'm with you on Keith Olbermann but I think Chris Matthews has to be the worst one on MSNBC.  Then there's the whole CNN crew....  

Dotti, what's interesting with this election is that it was the 'fake' news shows and the comics who were the first to pick up on the fact that the 'serious' media has been so biased towards Obama (and against Clinton).  With Clinton's recent suggestions of bias in her speeches and during the debate, this has become a hot topic with the 'serious' news organizations and finally some (though certainly not all) are acknowledging that there has been bias.  But it was the fake news anchors and late night comedians who've been pointing out the bias for weeks now. 

This recently released study by the Center for Media and Public Affairs talks to this issue:  http://www.cmpa.com/election%20news%202_1_08.htm   Here's a quote:

"Hillary Pilloried?

Since mid-December, when the presidential candidates turned their full attention to the Iowa caucuses, Sen. Barack Obama has led the race for good press and Sen. Hillary Clinton has lagged the farthest behind. From Dec 16 through Jan 27 five out of six on-air evaluations of Obama (84%) have been favorable, compared to a bare majority (51%) of evaluations of Mrs. Clinton."  

What's interesting is that these findings of bias were from the period before Super Tuesday, so it can't be said that the press was merely following or interpreting the sentiments of the voters.  In fact during the time that this analysis was done, every single poll had Clinton leading Obama, in some cases by 15 points or more.  So it seems that the media was neither neutral nor were they reflecting the views of the electorate; the media was in fact steering the direction of the election.  Well, that's a shocker!! 

Just to clarify, I wasn't talking about Leno,et all, but the ones who are comedians who have become something else, like Bill Myher (don't know how to spell his name)

I agree about the late night ones being first to identify the bias.

Beesie--I can't even talk about it any more as it makes me so angry. I can't remember ever seeing anything like what we're seeing during this campaign.  I've completely stopped watching the Cable shows as a result.  My husband says that as soon as Obama wins the nomination, and the Cable folks have had their fun (his words), they'll turn on Obama in the same way they've turned on Clinton.  For sure it's true of Chris Matthews.  If you measure his delight in a candidate by the amount of drooling he does, then his favorite is McCain. I wonder how many others will follow suit.

I can't say I don't have a dog in this race, but I only chose my dog after my favorite dropped out, in this case John Edwards.  I chose Edwards (and contributed to his campaign) primarily because he was the first viable candidate to add mandated universal health care to his platform (before Hillary).  For selfish reasons, I also picked Edwards because I liked his wife Elizabeth and also because if he were president it would have meant a greater focus on BC (admittedly, a very selfish reason). Until Edwards dropped out, I only watched the debates but never watched the Cable networks or their reviews of the debates.

Because I always vote platform (and after that pick the candidate) I frequently vote for people I don't like.  I absolutely can't stand Schumer (Bob Doyle said once that the most dangerous place in Washington is between Schumer and a camera) but I vote for him each time he runs.  And because platform is always my primary interest, I don't invest that much of myself into my chosen candidate's winning or losing.  As such, I believe my objectivity in judging bias is reliable. (If Obama came out today and made mandated health care part of his platform, I'd never said another bad word about him.) 

The bias against Hillary Clinton is almost absolute; it's also disgusting.  And I can't come up with any reason other than gender bias.  I noticed it immediately when I began watching the Cable networks.  The regular networks are not so bad, with the exception, I think, of Tim Russert.  But I've disliked Russert for years now, long before Hillary was a candidate, so with him I have little objectivity. 

Amy--Neither Shirley Chisholm nor Geraldine Ferraro were treated like Barack Obama.  Just the opposite.  I remember very clearly the gender bias against them (and racial bias against Chisholm).  

I have only watched Abrams fact check about five times. As I remember:  twice the panel said tie; twice Obama had more misstatements; once Hillary had more misstatements.  Perhaps it was the luck of the draw.  I saw no bias by Abrams directed towards either candidate, just a desire to prove his journalistic credentials by at least appearing to be objective.  I suppose all journalists have their favorites.  But one would hope they'd at least try to have some objectivity.

I think the comedy shows have it about right, which makes sense.  Comedy works best when it's making fun of human foibles, and in this case it's the bias of the Cable networks.  If the comedy itself were biased, it wouldn't be funny.

With absolutely no proof whatsoever, I belive that Clinton is getting the shaft because of her husband and her own personality not because of gender.

Of course, Ferrero and Chisom took hits because of gender and race. 

I cannot help but wonder if the media, both print and TV, were truly ethical, unbiased, journalists where these candidates would actually stand in the eyes of the public. 

I don't usually look back, but I miss Cronchite (sp), et all who checked their personal views at the door and REPORTED NEWS, and when they had commentary, it was preceeded by an anouncement that its was commig.

I detest the raised eyebrows, question marks at the end of a declaritive statement, and all the other techniques to slant the"news".  "Senator, have you stopped beating your wife?"  I never beat my wife.  "Senator denies beating his wife!!!!!?????".

That same ole saw.

Iodine,

I don't know whether it's good or bad that we both remember Walter (not sure myself how to spell last name), but I agree on his objectivity.  I watched him every night for years and years and can never remember even once that he let his own "personal" views interfere with his reporting of the news. There were many others like him, but he was the master.  

The issue about McCain's right to run as president is just plain silly!

Beesie

You're right there, about NAFTA.  I read that Obama a few years back said that NAFTA brought hope.   Another of his inconsistencies that escape journalistic scrutiny.  If Abrams hit Clinton on that one and didn't examine Obama's statements, then there is bias there.  Too bad, I thought one of them might actually be a journalist. 

I just received the following from a friend who lives in Canada--not Beesie, on the NAFTA issue: (Not that you're not a friend, Beesie)

Taken from www.CTV.ca (This story made headlines across Canada tonight).

Barack Obama has ratcheted up his attacks on NAFTA, but a senior member of his campaign team told a Canadian official not to take his criticisms seriously, CTV News has learned.

Both Obama and Hillary Clinton have been critical of the long-standing North American Free Trade Agreement over the course of the Democratic primaries, saying that the deal has cost U.S. workers' jobs.

Within the last month, a top staff member for Obama's campaign telephoned Michael Wilson, Canada's ambassador to the United States, and warned him that Obama would speak out against NAFTA, according to Canadian sources.

The staff member reassured Wilson that the criticisms would only be campaign rhetoric, and should not be taken at face value.

But Tuesday night in Ohio, where NAFTA is blamed for massive job losses, Obama said he would tell Canada and Mexico "that we will opt out unless we renegotiate the core labour and environmental standards.
 

To be fair to Obama, his campaign says the story is not accurate.  The reporter for CTV, even despite the denial, says he's sticking with the story.

Obviously, more is to come. 

Some of the bias against Ferrarro was not simply gender; much of it had to do with the "illegal" activities her husband was involved in--inferred his bad character must have rubbed off on her.



Personally, I think the same is happening to Clinton. His bad acts when he was president means to some that her values and ethics are questionable.



The same can be said for Obama. There has been much press about his wife's comment about being not being proud to be an American until now. the press pushed on this in the media, but because there was little reaction they dropped it.



If Hillary ignored some of what is being said or inferred about her by the press, and we didn't buy all those "speculative" trashy celebrity type empty papers the marginal press & papparazzi would lose their market and perhaps some of these trashy journalists would be out of a job.



It seems to me that history keeps repeating itself. Now that we have such extensive and intrusive technology and the "instantly see it on TV the same day" news programs, we are much more aware and apprised of political and other figures bad behavior. Historical research is just bringing out some of the "shame on you" behavior of famous political figures. And is has been said that in those days there was much more of a mutual respect and hands off personal lives as far as the journalists reporting on political people in the news. The silence has been broken and we are subjected to the mud slinging.



I too am sick of it. I think the people doing the slinging should look at cleaning up their own acts first!



As far as researching our ancestors entry into the United States via Ellis Island, we of European descent are privileged to find it relatively easy to locate when and how our ancestors arrived.



However, I learned not too long ago when I was attending UC Santa Cruz' Feminist Studies program that African Ancestry people whose relatives came to the United States when slavery flourished; that their relatives were listed on the ship's manifest by whether they were male or female and hardly every with a first name; and literally almost never with a last name. We should consider ourselves very lucky to be so privileged.



I ran into a woman who was doing her doctorate on slave womens' rebellion on slave ships. She ended up finding her first hand historical research at New York public libraries. What she learned is that most of the rebellions that took place on slave ships and that were documented; were started by female slaves. Women at that time were considered to be "weak" and not any danger to the crew or ship. They were most often not chained and were allowed ample time on the open deck and could talk to one another. These women bravely fought the ships' crews with any weapons they could find. They were the ones who gained access to keys to unlock their fellow male slaves.



So I think it is important to remember that as women, we have often had to fight harder, be more knowledgeable, and appear better than our male counterparts. We European descent women have mainly one "ism" to fight--sexism. Our women of color in this country have not only sexism, but racism and classism added to their list.



I think to many in this country (who would never say they feel this way), Obama is less threatening than Clinton is. JMHO!



grace

We have so many diverse views on this thread but it appears that we all agreed that the McCain story (not a natural born American) was silly, and it sounded as though, perhaps, the Democrats were making hay.  It turns out that it was McCain's staff that asked attorney Olsen (remember from the Florida recount or don't recount fiasco) to research the issue which apparently is how the issue was raised in the first place.  McCain also had it researched in 2000.  I always understood that a child born of parents living abroad was a U.S. citizen and that all the parents had to do was register the birth at the local embassy.  Seems we all could have saved McCain some money! I bet he paid Olsen a lot more than Clinton spent on donuts to feed her volunteers. LOL

Also, heard the dispute about NAFTA (discussed above) repeated on the Abrams show tonight.  Hillary had one over the top (her campaign repeated the story from the Canadian press without verifying its truth--Obama denies it!) and Obama had two (can't remember what they were).  Chemo brain!