Thread: MSNBC Retracts False Palin Story; Others Duped

Originally Posted by kmiller1610

And Obama hasn't even tried.... yet, but was still elected. In fact, I think that is one of the keys to Obama's election: no record of having taken any significant risks. He has not challenged the powerful, invested money in an enterprise, attached his name to a bill. So far, he is the return of max headroom. Yet, he was still elected. Why? I think I know the answer. Do you have one?

I think the key to the election is that Obama made it far and away apparent he was the brightest of the bunch. He is one of the few presidents elected who actually has the sort of cedentials a president should have. Not a movie star from CA or a peanut farmer from GA or a cowboy who's father paved the way for him, somebody who actually has proven his intelligence. The guy has a doctorate in law from arguably the best school in the country, taught constitutional law and has political experience at the state and national levels so he knows what the hell is going on. Whether or not you care to classify it as such, it IS experience and it's one hell of alot more of it than being the governor of Alaska for a year and a half. Palin has no such credentials backing her up, she's an empty shell that does not have a clue what is going on on the world stage. To try and claim she has anywhere near the intelligence or experience as Obama for the position of president is wholly ignorant.

Bush was a governor and he sucked, Clinton was a governor and you would say he sucked, Carter was a governor and you say he sucked. What the hell is such a big deal about being a governor? Being an "executive" for awhile does not make up for not having the intelligence necessary or desirable in the first place. No, he wasn't elected because of "max headroom", he was elected because he was obviously the smartest of the bunch and America was fed up with having an idiot for president.

Originally Posted by kmiller1610

So what? We are in the age of television. Television got Obama elected. It loves its own power to make and break. I can sit around and mope about the fact that Guliani should be President or try to anticipate someone that meets TV's requirements. TV loves the story line. "Ditz gets smart!" ,even though it is not true, makes for good TV.

This is a very practical matter. Let me repeat my point. If Palin can rally her party and get Republicans elected, all that has passed will not matter. I am not attached to Palin. But clearly, my party needs an attractive, compelling candidate with a "historical" story line.

If I might remind you, the governor of California is a movie actor and bodybuilder.

If TV got Obama elected it's because whenever he was on it he was showing the country what a smart guy looked like and says, whenever Palin was on it she was showing the country what a clueless airhead looks like and says. I would not blame that on the media. The media was not putting words in Obama's or McCain's or Palin's mouths, they were their words, and they spoke volumes.

Originally Posted by Pragmatist

The media was not putting words in Obama's or McCain's or Palin's mouths, they were their words, and they spoke volumes.

Well gee, the thread is about the media putting words in the mouths of other people, so I guess you're wrong about that as well. Some lamo suggests that the slip of the tounge was reported by a McCain aide and the possibility of making the McCain campaign look stupid is SOOOO juicy, they don't even double check.

Originally Posted by kmiller1610

Well gee, the thread is about the media putting words in the mouths of other people, so I guess you're wrong about that as well. Some lamo suggests that the slip of the tounge was reported by a McCain aide and the possibility of making the McCain campaign look stupid is SOOOO juicy, they don't even double check.

If you had watched FOX the past six months you would have seen the same sort of outright bullshit spoken about Obama. I think the country saw through most of it and voted for who they thought was the best guy. Not what MSNBC said about Palin, not what Hannity said about Obama, but what Obama was saying and what McCain was saying and what Palin was saying. You are sitting there saying people like MSNBC favored the democrats and thats why they won, it was the media. Well FOX did their damndest to paint Obama as some friggin racist terrorist, how come he did not lose? FOX is supposed to be the number one news station, how come everybody ignored what FOX was saying about Obama yet they all listened to MSNBC, swallowed their bullshit and thats why Obama won. Fucking ridiculous!

Only the ignorant believed what was coming from the media, most listened to what the candidates were saying and McCain made an ass out of himself, Palin made an ass out of herself and Obama came off cool and collected. Thats why he won, not because of the media.

To say Obama won because MSNBC or the media made up stupid claims is ridiculous, FOX made a million of them about Obama.

Originally Posted by Pragmatist

Only the ignorant believed what was coming from the media, most listened to what the candidates were saying and McCain made an ass out of himself, Palin made an ass out of herself and Obama came off cool and collected. Thats why he won, not because of the media. To say Obama won because MSNBC or the media made up stupid claims is ridiculous, FOX made a million of them about Obama.

Well I certainly didn't say that. I said that television as a medium got him elected, not that biased coverage got him elected.

But the media must make a choice what to run and what to leave out. The point of this thread is the death of journalistic standards EVERYWHERE. The press was so in the tank for Obama it was totally obvious to anyone with half a brain. That does not mean that McCain would have won with different coverage. It does mean that half the threads here are based on BS sources and need to be confronted by all of us for what they are.

Originally Posted by kmiller1610

Well I certainly didn't say that. I said that television as a medium got him elected, not that biased coverage got him elected.

But the media must make a choice what to run and what to leave out. The point of this thread is the death of journalistic standards EVERYWHERE. The press was so in the tank for Obama it was totally obvious to anyone with half a brain. That does not mean that McCain would have won with different coverage. It does mean that half the threads here are based on BS sources and need to be confronted by all of us for what they are.

I disagree and don't believe the media was in the tank for Obama. FOX is part of the media and said to be the biggest, they certainly were not in the tank for Obama. I do agree that most of the threads here are based on bullshit sources but the majority of those were against, not for, Obama.

Originally Posted by kmiller1610

So what? We are in the age of television. Television got Obama elected.

So George W. Bush became president in 2000, then got re-elected in 2004, yet when Obama gets elected it's because of TV? Something sounds deeply partisan here.

With the logic that has been presented here, why didn't Kerry win in 2004? Did the MSM just not feel like getting him elected that year?

TV loves the story line. "Ditz gets smart!" ,even though it is not true, makes for good TV.

You are right. That is not true. She's still a box of rocks.

This is a very practical matter. Let me repeat my point. If Palin can rally her party and get Republicans elected, all that has passed will not matter.

That is why the Republican party is where it is in the first place. It's just about winning. You are correct about the party when you state everything she has done does not matter.

I am not attached to Palin. But clearly, my party needs an attractive, compelling candidate with a "historical" story line.

This is why they are where they are.

Originally Posted by Bluegrass

So George W. Bush became president in 2000, then got re-elected in 2004, yet when Obama gets elected it's because of TV? Something sounds deeply partisan here.

With the logic that has been presented here, why didn't Kerry win in 2004? Did the MSM just not feel like getting him elected that year?

Yes. Clinton was so good on TV and so immoral that the country had a temporary lapse of TV centered thinking and went the opposite way and picked a mumble mouth.

Kerry has zero TV appeal. He was scary, elitist and a droaner. The MSM tried to elect Kerry, but people preferred the mumble mouth to Lurch.

We are now far removed from Clinton and people can go back to trusting TV to serve up good programming. Obama has all the ingredients: looks, historical, slick speech. If he keeps his pants on outside Michelle, he may have a long run.