Presidential debates on ABC right now-both parties

probably gonna step in doo-do0...that's ok!  But--I thought Ferrarro's downfall and withdrawal from the race was because of her son's drug activity???   I could be remembering way wrong.

Damn--wish I could pay closer attention to stuff on TV--but early tonight I caught the tail end of an evangilist (don't have a clue who or where he was going with it or who he was bashing or for what...but this guy was preaching something about someone trying to do a  "coom by YAY"...    (trying to spell so you can "hear")

I asked DH--WHO is that?  its--"coom by YAH"   That man doesn't ghave a clue what he's talking about.   I so regret being so slow on the uptake these days...a few seconds later one of the announcers made the same comment I did.   I have no idea who he was trying to bash.

I agree--it is getting more interesting as the days pass and, unfortunately, will become more so--the mud slinging is just beginning!   Ohhhh, I'll have fun tomorrow--DH is leaning toward McCain--DH has never voted other than Dem in his life--just wait 'til I tell him McCain might not be eligible because of where he was born!   I'll have hours of quiet tomorrow as he net researches all that out!

But, seriously--how friggin' ludicrous is THAT!!  First I've heard of that was here, and didn't know whether to laugh or throw up!

Way back, someone questioned who I was for.   I'm still on the fence.  I think the final show down will be between Obama and McCain--and I think that even though Obama can inspire and "speechify" over anyone--McCain will manage to shred him to pieces in any debate.

I love this thread--and the other one--to see what people are thinking and why.

I can't always express myself rationally or expressively  (chemo brain, whatever)...but, I spent almost 35 yrs working for the fed govt.   I would get calls from our WDC staff--I've got to present such asnd such on the hill in an hour--what should I say......

....you're asking ME????.....jeeze.....

I don't really much care who gets the nomination or who is elected to be Pres.    In my mind, it is the lower level of govt--the reps and sens who truly have control and the decision making power.   Yes, the Pres can veto bills, but how often does that happen?  

Does this subject need to be a  different thread?   Sorry to have runs of the mouth (can't spell that other word!)  but, to me, bottom line--doesn't matter WHO is elected--Dem or Rep--they are only a figurehead in the overall scheme of things.

ok--I'll be quiet now!!!

hugggsssssssss

The McCain story is absolutely ridiculous, anyone who's studied government and/or civics knows that 1) children born to american parents are american and 2)military bases are considered US soil . Don't people who are concerned about his ethnicity believe someone else would have figured our he wasn't american in the past 71 years of his life before them?

Beesie-- I'm starting to think that anyone in the media who questions Hillary's spin on the facts is anti Hillary. Abrams was one of the first in the media to say she was being treated unfairly. About Nafta-- Hillary has never voted against Nafta, yet to hear her speak to Ohioans-- you're think she was leading the pack against it. She's made her anti Nafta an issue when her votes say otherwise.  The issue discussed on Abrams was whether she was being honest and if she was being honest she voted otherwise. True that Obama has voted the same as her, but what was examined was HER words on that point. You probably have to watch it every night to see this. Last night for example she got one X to Obama's 2 (one of which I disagreed with). Abrams pointed out that this was one of the few time Hillary won the match up. Night after night he is harder on Obama during this phase of the program- -yet Hillary keeps coming out the loser in veracity. For those who don't know, the scoring is like golf, the lower the better.

Comparisons to Geraldine Ferarro aren't equitable, because she was the VEEP candidate with a Mondale, a weak presidential candidate, running against the popular Reagan. Shirley Chisom was never a serious candidate and both she and Ferarro ran before the popularity of the internet, 24 hr a day news etc.

I firmly believe that Hillary's negative press is because of who she is and has been since she was first lady-  and in part that's a hypocrite. Remember the 60 minutes interview when she claimed, "I'm not a Tammy Wynette stand by your man kind of woman." I don't know what went on with their marriage and why she stayed, but she clearly dissed women who made that choice before it happened to her. She dissed stay at home moms by saying she's not the type to stay home and bake brownies in a tone that she later had to apologize for. In 1975, as a court appointed defense attorney for an accused rapist, she used her child development background to claim that 12 year olds can seduce adult men and that the 12 year old had fantasies about this man. Great advocate. She could have defended the case without those claims against the 12 year old. Some champion of women and girls, back in 1975. This she touts as part of her 35 years of experience.

I think the whole-- women are treated unfairly is a huge step backwards for those who want women treated fairly. Whining seems to be the exact opposite approach--it turns people off. I don't think the majority of people took either Jackson's or Chisolm's candidacy's seriously because neither had mainstream support at the time, even though Jackson won some primaries. Race equality has come a long way since the seventies and eighties. I cheered when Ferarro was chosen as the veep candidate- even though the odds of Mondale being elected seemed slim.

When groups of people are pioneers-- such as Chisolm, Obama, Jackson and Hillary, there will be skeptism and scrutiny- it's human nature for firsts. There are people who would never vote for a woman or an african american, whether or not they'll admit it or not. Forunately those numbers seem to have shrunk a lot. I have read accounts of blacks who were pioneers in their professions or schools and they talked about how they had to be twice as good to be considered half as good. Is that fair? No. Did they whine? No, they quietly perservered to change things and led by example.  They didn't call attention to their racial difference and whine-- they proved themselves.

Whining about unfairness in the media goes against the strong image Hillary is trying to present. She's a contrast in what she says and what she does in that way.

I've heard a lot of women say-- they want a woman president, just not this one and I agree.

You're showing your own bias against MSNBC-- there are plently of conservative correspondents on that show to balance out Oberman. Anne, I think you're too quick to jump on someone being biased against Hillary if they aren't gung ho for her.

Amy--I object strongly to your use of the word "whining." It's an ugly word as it is always applied to women and children (as though we are the same). Feminists have "whined" against its use for ages. The word  "bitter" is also, and always, applied to women. The biggest put down, of course, is when we're called, "bitter whining bitches."  The women at the forefront of the feminist movement in the 60's were also called whiners, but it didn't stop them (or me).  Thank goodness for younger women that we were there, "whining."  And the women who got us the vote at the turn of the last century were also called whiners.  

Hillary Clinton is being treated unfairly and she and other women, those who care about women's rights obviously, should shout it out from the house tops, write it across the sky, whatever, to call attention to it and not accept it stoically as you suggest.  Even women who prefer Obama or McCain as candidates, for whatever reason, can and should fight the obvious gender bias against Hillary, not sit back and enjoy it. 

Did I mention Oberman?  Don't think I did.  Perhaps you're inserting your own thoughts here.  I find all the correspondents on MS-NBC to be biased against Clinton, including my two favorites Matthews and Carlson, and lots others.  Why would I care if they're liberal or conservative if they're biased?  It's just disappointing to find it true of those who should know better.

To paraphrase, I heard a lot of women in the sixties say they wanted equal rights, just not now.  Don't rock the boat they said or we may lose the little we now have.  They were the "settlers." Lots of us did rock the boat.  We were the "whiners."

It's been a very long time since I've been 'gung ho' for any politician. As I've said before, on this thread, they all suppress their principles when they colide with their ambitions. Some just start earlier than others.  I'm a feminist and I'll continue to speak out against gender discrimination whether it's against Clinton, or heaven forbid, Ann Coulter. 

I don't think there's a whole lot more I can say on this subject.  We're not going to agree and very shortly, probably next Wednesday, the discussion will have no practical value. After that, we'll have to wait for history to judge.   

Amy, I object to the use of the word "whining" as well. 

The fact is that the media has been strongly biased in favor of Obama throughout the campaign.  That's not the opinion of Clinton or Clinton's supporters; it's fact.  This has been determined empirically by The Center for Media and Public Affairs (CMPA), a "nonpartisan research and educational organization which conducts scientific studies of the news and entertainment media".   Here again is the link that I provided earlier with information about the findings:  http://www.cmpa.com/election%20news%202_1_08.htm  

So, if these are the facts, why is raising these facts for discussion considered to be whining?  Aren't people concerned that the media has been so manipulative?  Shouldn't it be discussed? 

I think when all is said and done, this situation with the media is going to end up being like the Iraq war.  The media now hang their collective heads in shame and admit that they did not do the job required or expected of them in the days and months prior to the Iraq war.   The media blindly accepted what was being said by the Bush administration and became the cheering section for the administration.  I think after the election is done, or maybe only years from now, when the Obama change hasn't happened the way everyone expects that it will, the media will reassess their role in this election and will again hang their heads in shame. 

And no, I don't think "that anyone in the media who questions Hillary's spin on the facts is anti Hillary".  All candidates try to spin the facts, and it is the job of a reporter to challenge what they are being told.  I simply would like to see the same questions go to Obama.  Amy, I know you don't see it, but the fact is that his spin on the facts is as great or greater than Clinton's.  That's not being seen or reported by the press in the U.S., but believe me, it's being noticed by the press here in Canada.  The opinion pages of newspapers here are filled with articles voicing concern about Obama's lack of experience, naive view of the world, and inconsistency on issues. 

Thanks Shirley. It helps even more if you don't like her and can see what's happening.  There are days when I wonder if I'm imagining it all.

Beesie, I reviewed the fairness in media report. I can't think of anything sadder than the finding that Fox News is reporting more on the actual news, policies, and platforms than the major networks and, of course, the Cable networks.   

"Beesie, I reviewed the fairness in media report. I can't think of anything sadder than the finding that Fox News is reporting more on the actual news, policies, and platforms than the major networks and, of course, the Cable networks."  

Anneshirley, why do you find that sad?  What I find sad is that the mainstream media distorts and/or is biased.

I do not have the education you ladies have, nor the writing skills.  I only have common sense.

Shirley 

Shirley--Common sense is good. I suppose because I lean left in my politics I have a bias against Fox News, but it appears from the fairness in media site that Fox is doing a better job than the others, so I'll try to be less biased in the future when I write about Fox.  Good point. 

Amy--You may use "whine" to refer to men; the world in general does not.  If I were to vote for personality (but I won't), I'd vote for Mike Huckabee.  He has a great personality, far better than Hillary's, Obama's, or McCain's.  Very funny, cute dimples, and a nice down-to-earth wife, who probably bakes great cookies, one of the problems you seem to have with Hillary.   Not sure what you mean by campaign, but whether Clinton has a great grass roots organization (probably not) is no justification for gender bias in the media.

I should let it go, I suppose, but as my husband always says: when do you ever?  But honestly, Amy, your own gender bias against Clinton jumps off the page. I saw that debate when she was asked about her likeability.  She handled it beautifully and sincerely.  She said, it hurt her feelings. It sure would hurt mine, but I doubt I could have responded with such sincerity or openness.  That she didn't get defensive is to her credit, except, of course, to you.  And the person who asked that question (wasn't even a question--just a gottcha) is an ugly human being in my view.  Why would any decent person, journalist or not, enjoy watching another person squirm, and in public?  it's like watching someone pulling the wings off a fly.

In the same way, the reporter who read the New York Times endorsement of McCain to Giuliani on stage during a debate (it didn't just endorse McCain, it villified Giuliani) is an ugly human being.  Of all the politicians in the world, Giuliani is the one I most dislike, yet I felt so bad for him in that moment.  It was so unnecessary and cruel, and for what.  Everyone knew he was dropping out of the race.  So I do occasionally see men treated in a similar way to Hillary, but not very often. Perhaps you remember that moment in New Hampshire so well, because it's probably the one that lost Obama New Hampshire.  His response, "likeable enough" was also ugly.
 

I also think the press treatment of Larry Craig and his family (and I sure don't like his politics) has been ugly. There's a certain humanity that we all owe to one another, and lately I regret to say I don't see it happening in the media.

I see a difference between whining and making a valid point.  When Hillary turned red as she was complaining about being asked the first question and invoking SNL she sounded like a martyr, yet when Tim Russert threw out questions that either could answer first, Hillary jumped in to answer first.

Hillary has the opinion that she is more qualified that her competitor, that's not fact. Hillary has some unique experiences that were afforded to her because she was the governor's and president's wife, but I don't think any of her experiences make her more qualified than Obama other than perhaps she's 15 years older. Hillary's so called experience is not the type of change a lot of people are looking for. Hillary has a built in excuse for negativity, by claiming the gender card.

If Hillary was a male candidate, acting the same way she is she's probably already be written off after losing 11 straight primaries and caucuses. If anything I think she's getting a lot of votes because of being female-- particularly from women of her generation who watched women fight from reproductive rights, ERA fail and encountered the glass ceiling when more women  came into the work force.

Hillary has been crying foul since her husband's administration. Enough with the Clinton drama and the questionable ethics-- this country needs a fresh start.

I would love to see Obama choose a (different) women for VP if there is one who would help the ticket. I heard some rumblings about McCain chosing Kay Bailey Hutchinson, although she said she wasn't interested. I see nothing wrong with rejecting this woman's candidacy and claims.

There is nothing wrong with the way that she has come out swinging in what may be her last chance to survive the campaign.  This is politics. 

I care about a civil campaign and not the games she's playing. Obama and McCain will likely have a dignified presidential campaign. They'll disagree on the issues but not throw the mud that Hillary has been throwing. I strongly disagree that there is nothing wrong with campaigning in this way. That's old school to me-- it's ok to throw mud because everyone else is throwing mud? If that was the case in society women would still not be voting and blacks would still be enslaved and gays would be shoved back into the closet.

For me Anne-Shirley-- I want a president that I respect, particularly after 8 of the loooooongest years of my life with Bush. I do not respect Hillary and I did not respect the last years of Bill's presidency and I would like not to feel the same about the next US president.

"I want a president that I respect, particularly after 8 of the loooooongest years of my life with Bush. I do not respect Hillary and I did not respect the last years of Bill's presidency..."

Amy, no one is saying that you should vote for Hillary Clinton.  And not respecting her is a good reason to not give her your vote.  I don't happen to feel the same way, but I respect your feelings.  The problem I have is that your dislike for Clinton is so strong that it has completely blinded you to the reality of the campaign.  You see everything wrong that Clinton does.  Even the things she does right, you see as being wrong.  And you see nothing wrong in what Obama does.  Even the things that he does wrong, you see as being right (or you justify them by saying he didn't really mean it or he means it in a different way).   Over the past week or so a lot of women here, Clinton supporters, McCain supporters, those undecided and even an occasional Obama supporter, have all posted to say that it's true that Clinton has been treated with bias by the media.  Independent, non-partisan sources have confirmed this.  Even much of the media is now saying this.  But to you, it's not true. 

Dislike Clinton, don't vote for her.  But don't disrespect her by casting a negative light on anything and everything she says and does.  Or at least don't expect others to see Clinton with the same bias that you see her.   

Well, I was flipping through the channels tonight to see what was on CNN, Fox News, & MSNBC. CNN had Larry King with a 4-some of political strategists/journalists, etc. commenting on the upcoming Tuesday primaries & who is ahead of who. There was no Clinton bashing, nor were they talking trash about Clinton, whether she was gender biased by the media or whatever. MSNBC had "Lockdown RAW" so I skipped that one. Also checked out Fox News and lo and behold there was a discussion going on about the good campaign Clinton was working at, and that she might just pull out Texas and Ohio although she only has single digit leads right now. There was no media bias, no one said she was going to lose, that she was too aggressive, etc. In fact, there was an equal time & discussion given to Clinton's latest ad where she says she will be by the phone at 3 am. Obama has countered. Both have a good message. The only reference to Clinton that I saw was possibly negative that her ad was based on fear.



Gender bias has not ended in this country just as the breaking of the glass ceiling still needs to happen. I would love to see a woman President in office, I just don't think Hillary is the one I will vote for. For me personally, she is polarizing and divisive. I agree that there are times when she is given short shrift. That's what happens in politics. She knows by now I'm sure that when you play the game on the white guy's court you are open to all kinds of comments being made and being misrepresented.



I think it's high time the public stopped relying on the media to make decisions for them about who they are going to vote for, and concentrate on the issues and what each candidate says. If that had happened in 2000 & 2004 we might not be where we are today. If that had happened when the media were included in military scrimages and not "imbedded w/our troops," and told what they could report and not report, and had their work checked before it was put on the air; I am convinced we wouldn't be fighting a lost cause in Iraq.



I'm not convinced this surge is working. I'm not seeing real proof this surge is working. As long as we have who we have in the White House, I'm not believing anything that comes out of anyone's mouth who speaks in front of a press conference. I am just sick and tired of all the lies we have been told. I am sick and tired of having people in the White House who can't tell the truth, and when we find out they are lying, they can't even admit they made a mistake. This is the government I see that needs to change. It's time for this country to have a President who inspires us. Oh yes, I read the comment about "inspire" means no work. Well, come on ladies, we have a president who goes to bed at 9 pm every night and freely admits it. I'm sure he has also given orders not to be disturbed, and Cheney is probably sitting up at night for him!



If someone as young as Dubya has to go to bed at 9 pm in order to survive as president, I want someone much younger than 70+ years old as the Commander-in-Chief of this Country.



The news isn't the news anymore, it's a circus, and frankly it disgusts me. I think the "evil" of all this is the 24/7 technology. Plus, the media always seem to look to who's winning--and frankly all the stations or papers care about is the bottom line--soooooo, the best selling news is the nastier, dirtier, beat up on the one who's down type of report. Our journalists generally manage to get their opinion worked into the story. They want to sell papers, sell advertising and that's what it's all about.



grace

Grace--I agree and disagree. I'm happy if tonight there was no bashing of Hillary and perhaps all the complaints are finally having an effect. But then CNN and Fox are much fairer to Clinton than MS-NBC. I can't speak for others on this thread, but when I refer to gender bashing I'm speaking to references that focus on Clinton as a woman (cookie baking, little girl voice, coy, bitch, fat ankles, power suits, whiny, manipulative), and not to her as a candidate.  Her platform, voting record, and work ethic, which should be open to scrutiny, never seem to come up in so many of the discussions of her as a candidate, both here and in the media.

Almost always the two words used together to describe Clinton are "polarizing and divisive."  It's now become a self-fulfilling prophecy, yet there are rarely examples given of what she's done to polarize or divide. In the senate, where she's now been for eight years, she's demonstrated that she works well with Republicans, better than many Democrats (sounds like an elementary report card--works well with her peers) and also that she has a strong work ethic.  She's been a good senator for New York, which is also a plus. I could never understand why the Republicans hated Bill Clinton so much; he tacked way too far to the right in my view in trying to appease them--an impossible task, apparently.  Like Amy, I didn't vote for him the second time around but because he wasn't liberal enough. But I've never blamed his wife for his faults.  She's not his appendage and, in fact, is far more liberal than he ever was.

I thought my comment about Obama was more than fair. He's the one who said his job was to inspire; I'm just playing off it.  He's not held a single committee meeting since he started his run for President.  He missed the major vote on the Middle East (the Iran resolution) while he was campaigning.  Clinton has not only fulfilled her committee obligations while running, but she also returned to vote on the Iran resolution. It's not a vote I like, but I admire her courage in not sitting it out.  I can't imagine any employer giving any of us a pass if we said we've been missing work, because we're out looking for another, better job, which is basically the excuse Obama has given for not holding committee meetings.

Of course, you're kidding about finding someone younger than 70+ since Dubya goes to bed at 9:00. Bush is ten years younger than John McCain, and he was 54 when he entered the White House.  His bedtime has not changed. I've read when he was governor of Texas that he spent a good deal of time in his office playing Free Cell. I have no intention of voting for McCain, but it has nothing to do with his age.  I don't like his war policy or his social policies, but I believe he has an excellent work ethic.   

One of the reasons George Bush won in 2000, and with very little relevant experience, is because of his personal charm (hard to believe people got taken in by that one) and his pledge to bring the country together.  He was the inspirer of 2000, not Gore.  

I certainly agree that the media has more to do with who gets elected than the people.  But that's not necessarily the media's fault. The public seems to like the dirt dishing, the circus atmosphere, and the emotional ups and downs far more than serious discussions of voting records or platform. If the public is told that one candidate has more momentum than the other, the public flocks to that candidate.  What momentum has to do with which health plan is better for a particular voter, which position a voter prefers on the war, or which candidate's experience is more relevant to the presidency is beyond me, although it certainly seems to push the public to one side or the other.   

It's hard to believe that the end is not yet in sight. We have eight more months of this and, for sure, it's going to get worse not better.  If there's one thing I'd like to see come out of this election it's legislation to give us a shorter campaign.  Three months for the nomination process and three months for the general election and the money saved would go towards a national health plan.   

Bush's personal charm was all people talked about in 2000 (certainly couldn't talk about his experience or his habit of playing internet games in the office).  I believe it was during the 2000 campaign that the press started using the "likeability" factor to rate the candidates. Ugh! This is not an opinion, it's a fact--not that he has personal charm (I wouldn't know as I don't know him)--but that's what everyone said of him.  In fact, it's why the Republican machine decided to run him. And the press actively participated in this adoration, reminding the voters constantly that Bush was a good guy and Gore, stiff necked and sullen. Have you forgotten how cute the press thought it that Bush had a nickname for everyone?  Gore actually had to prove he was human by giving Tipper a huge Hollywood kiss at the convention.  As Beesie said earlier, this campaign will be dissected many times over (and quickly I suspect) and although it won't do Clinton much good, it will all come out in the end.  I'm reminded of Bob Woodward's love of Bush (his books helped Bush get elected the second time around) and now Woodward does his mea culpas all over the place. The mantra of Bush's campaign was that he was the guy to have a beer with!  I'm shocked that you've forgotten.  I hate beer.

As an aside, when Bill Clinton left office he had a very high approval rating despite his personal scandals.  He has continued to have a high approval rating in the eight years he's been out of office.  And if he were the nominee (Constitution permitting), I'm quite sure he would win again.  It's rather unfair, I think, to make his wife suffer for his scandals while he walks away free, but that also is part of the whole gender thing.  Blame the wife if the husband strays. Nonsense!

I'm also shocked that you're shocked that analysts are shocked to find that Obama's campaign is throwing mud (to use your metaphor)--lots of it. Did you yet read "The New Republic" story on this issue?   It's most definitely not a right wing magazine, just the opposite, so in that respect it fulfills both our requirements in terms of point of view.  Both Democratic campaigns are guilty, and McCain is doing the same thing.  He lied about Romney's position and record in Florida and got away with it.  It's disgusting, but that's the way one wins campaigns in this country.  Who's to blame?  Us, I think.

Legislative experience in the Illinois senate has little if any relationship to experience in the U.S. congress, senate or house. 

I don't remember people talking about Bush's personal charm. I do remember him claiming that he could work well with democrats and that was strongly disputed. I also remember much talk in 2000 and 2004 that there was talk about his lack of being the brightest bulb on the xmas tree and that many average people seemed to like the idea of having a president who wasn't smarter than them.

Over and over Clinton has tried to distract people from the issues of the campaign by throwing mud towards Obama. It's been a mainstay of the Clintons since Bill's run for office. Hillary was the first one who called whined about a "republican attack machine" during Bill's administration. I have heard almost no one infer that Obama has been slinging mud towards Hillary, but I have heard analysists say that she has, repeatedly-- or it that one of those things you might discount because you say she's being treated unfairly for being a woman?

I find it interesting that you would discount Obama's experience in the Illinois legistator, yet tout Hillary's so called experience as first lady. A doctor's wife or husband can't claim to be qualified to be a physician because of her husband's job any more than a lawyer's wife or husband can. I sure wouldn't have wanted an oncologist's spouse treating me with the qualifications of being a spouse, yet you're willing to give Hillary credit for her time as first lady.

Hillary has never held any executive position where she was the decision maker. She is no more qualified than Obama, unless one thinks being older makes her more qualified.