Media on the Palin Attack as Obama loses Traction

Those who watched the first part of Charlie Gibson’s (ABC) News interview with Palin were treated to an unusually aggressive and agitated Gibson faced with a calm and commanding Palin. The print media’s version of events vis a vis the first part of the interview were also as expected – sticking to a central theme – one which, ultimately contrasts Palin and Obama, not Palin and Biden as one would expect. The hardest question thrown at Obama to date has been “Are you comfortable, Senator?” and that was from a parody from Saturday Night Live on CNN media bias during the primary debates. Compare and contrast the Democrat Presidential Candidate to the Republican Vice-Presidential Candidate and Palin, it could be argued, is in a better position to lead than Obama.

Additionally, those regular folks - so derided by the elite - watching Gibson are already immune to the attacks on Palin and are looking for any sign that a media outlet is taking things a bit to left of center. In news articles on Palin in this mornings press, the main focus is on her lack of foreign policy experience, the fact that she did not understand the “Bush Doctrine” and her faith. The hammering on foreign policy experience does little to further the Progressive-Democrat cause especially due to the fact that the only foreign policy experience Mr. Obama had prior to the nomination was an ill-conceived attempt to upset an election in Kenya when a relative of his was running for President - the word “Stooge” was appropriately applied to Obama by the sitting Kenyan Government. (2006 CBS Video here)There has been no questions regarding that particular exploit. The issue regarding the “Bush Doctrine” and her lack of understanding, should also come as no surprise to those of us who understand that it is a term developed and deployed by “media experts”, in their less than complementary analysis of the sitting Presidents policies on the “War on Terror”. This serves Palin in that most in Middle America are now looking up “Bush Doctrine” as defined by the media and feeling comfortable with the follow-up answers given by Palin regarding Georgia and Israel specifically. Finally, the attack on her faith was blatant - he took a quote she gave at a Church, not only out of context, but deliberately left off the beginning; which began with “we have to keep praying that there is a plan, and it is God’s plan”. (You Tube Video below). To anyone in this country that is of any Christian Denomination the theme that God has a plan is central to the faith. Gibson apparently assumes that there aren’t that many Christian’s watching that would notice. Sarah Palin’s church experiences emphasizes a faith in God, a faith that God has a plan and hope that Gods plan is good for the country, the people and the state. This is, after all, a woman whose son has just been deployed to Iraq. Contrast the media attention paid to Obama’s affiliation and participation in a church (with the exception of Talk Radio), where racism and anti-American sentiments ran high, and well, one begins to get the big picture.


Some of those getting the big picture are Democrats who are worrying that aligning themselves with Obama is not in their best interest. Those attempting to stay in their seats are becoming increasingly concerned (Financial Times)that being a Democrat might not be good for job security. They've been watching the polls and the backlash from ordinary people (otherwise known as "constituents). The gloves are coming off, and Obama is going to start to fight back (apparently another form of damage control over what his campaign, supporters and the media have already done)

The Press Turns a Blind Eye - Lest We Forget – September 11, 2001

On September 11, 2001, our great nation experienced the unthinkable - a vicious attack on both our first capital, New York City as well as our present – Washington DC. Today, a mere 7 years later, there is little or no mention or memorial from a media obsessed with winning an election – something which our founding fathers agonized over when initially granting freedom of the press lo those many years ago – (Reference: The Federalist Papers #84 “From the Federalist Papers: #8, Hamilton


"I go further and affirm that bills of rights, in the sense and to the extent in which they are contended for, are not only unnecessary in the proposed Constitution but would even be dangerous. They would contain various exceptions to powers which are not granted; and, on this very account, would afford a colorable pretext to claim more than we granted. Fro why declare that things shall not be done which there is no power to do Why for instance, should it be said that the liberty of the press shallot be retrained, when no power is given by which restrictions may be imposed? I will not contend that such a provision would confer a regulating power, but it is evident that it would furnish, to men disposed to usurp, a plausible pretense for claiming that power.")

Regardless of the politics of the day, or party, ethnicity or gender – it behooves us to remember,(and yes, even pray to God), that all American’s lives were touched on 11-September-2001, lest we forget and find ourselves overly complacent in a world that harbors and fosters individuals and nations who would visit our country with unjustified violence in order to further a twisted politically motivated religion.

Addendum: Apparrently I am up well before the natioanl media updates their on-line editions. Kudo's to those that have taken the time to remember this date. Local editions are still woeful in their coverage: example Springfield, MA Republican

McCain Ad Blasts Obama’s Sexist Remark

The McCain campaign released an ad today regarding Senator Obama’s remarks at a recent campaign stop. In these remarks, the young Obama made the following statement: “You can put lipstick on a pig, but it’ still a pig”. This type of reference in a political statement aimed at the opposition reminds one of the 2006 Alaska Gubernatorial Debate: Palin to the two male contenders: Gentlemen, the citizens deserve better discourse than this.”

If one is remotely involved or invested in Sarah Palin’s fortunes or the fortunes of the GOP for that matter, it can only be hoped that the Obama campaign and all of its media cohorts continue this trend – and the chances are – given their ridiculous history of sexist reporting and campaign lingo towards Hillary Clinton – they have yet to learn a lesson.

Those on the left – those who are read the Daily Kos or Huffington Post or refuse to move one or two up on the cable new run and stick like glue to the likes of Oberman and Matthews; they will find no fault in Obama – however, those outlets are hardly playing well in the heartland – states such as Ohio, Michigan, Pennsylvania – will find fault with the party that has not or is not willing to step back and change their game plan.

As a woman, as a feminist, as a conservative, this, and other remarks, all made in the name of Obama, are found to be utterly despicable. This is exactly the type of remark women faced 30 and 40 years ago when entering the workforce, it is the remarks made by the “good old boys”. Sarah Palin does not have my approval because she is a woman; my approval is based upon her record in Alaska, a take-charge, get things done, no-nonsense common sense approach to governing. That said, she is becoming dearer to my inner Femi Nazi with each and every attack on her, be it her choice of religion, her choice to have children, her parenting, her hairstyle, or the brand of glasses that she wears. Obama is no more dignified than a school yard bully who is clearly backed into a corner.


Addendum, September 11, 2008: CBS has had the ad featured below removed from YouTube claiming copyright violations. One can bet the house, with that networks history, copyright violation has little to do with the removal of this particular political ad: Freedom of the Press - Federalist Paper #84

When All Else Fails – Democrats on the Offence

Barack Obama’s campaign strategy, so far, has been to compare John McCain to George Bush. This has been the go-to tactic since the primary process began to wind down. It does nothing to contrast and compare policy – the charge that one man is so like another, when evidence strongly suggests otherwise, is fairly transparent. Playing off the fears of the base, many of whom have been in therapy for the past 8 years, is the biggest card that the DNC has to play – one has to ask, if it did not work in 2004, then how can they expect it to work in 2008? There are a finite number of elitists who are airing concerns to their steadfast followers on the standard issues that the DNC holds: abortion, Republicans who go to church and war – adding lack of experience into the mix when it appears that the general public isn’t engaged, is fine on both a state and national level. Obama, and Democrats in general, were supposed to have run away with the 2008 election, yet polls appear to indicate otherwise. The problem stems from a disconnect between the general public and those who feel entitled to hold office – the tantrums of children who have lost a turn – so to speak – to rule the playground. What’s a politician to do? Dispatch lawyers and journalists to Wasilla Alaska and go after every single shred of what might be a scandal or a negative against an increasing popular Republican Vice Presidential nominee.

The latest test appears to be Palin’s religion – her affiliation six years ago with an Assembly of God church – complete with You-Tube videos and in-depth analysis by CNN – all warning of extreme faith in God – or “Christian”, a cry that appears fine when referring to Obama (lest someone refer to him as a Muslim), but worrisome when it applies to someone with conservative values. The danger – abortion may be at risk, or worse, someone with faith may pray when faced with a serious decision.

On abortion, the issue has not given Democrats the traction they need to win over Independents; apparently all that is left is a candidates Religion as well as comparisons and ties to the current Bush administration. What is truly important to those caught in middle America – security, the economy, the dismal state of public education – are barely discussed – there is no contrast to be had simply because nothing has been done in Washington over the past two years – and Republicans and Democrats alike spent like there was no end is sight – making it difficult to tell the difference. The exception has been those committed either right or left – the right calling for reform, the left calling for investigations of the Bush administration. It is Us vs. Them -and although they should realize that the general public is tired of this tune, they just can’t seem to help themselves.

Now, in a heated campaign, the left is left holding the bag – so to speak. They must attack – but lacking any real substance, they turn to the old standbys – even when the players are on the same team. A group called Dems For Kerry, in defense of Senator John Kerry and his campaign for Senate (Kerry is facing his first challenger from inside the party.) is going YouTube. As Ed O’Reilly, Democrat challenger appears to be more serious than first thought and with a primary less than one week away, a video charging that O’Reilly is best friends with Jeff Beatty, Republican challenger is up on YouTube. The fact that O’Reilly and Beatty are both pleasant and reasonable men is used in this ridiculous video as an “attack”.



Actual campaign ads for Kerry (all two of them), are downright boring – one rehashes his ties to Veterans and the other his ties to Al Gore. They may do well in certain areas within Massachusetts, but one has to factor that the majority of voters are Independents or Unenrolled – (not unlike the entire country) or the wild card in the state and national races. People in general want to hear about the issues, not about what church someone belongs to, or if they actually are pleasant when speaking to someone with opposing political views. Should the trend continue Obama and Kerry may find themselves in similar situations as Matthews and Oberman - allowed to play to a point, but left out of the main event.

As John McCain Leads in the Polls – Obereman and Matthews downgraded by NBC

There is an interesting piece of data in the USA Today/Gallop poll that gives John McCain a decent bounce from the RNC Convention – who was polled. The article notes the following: “In the new poll, taken Friday through Sunday, McCain leads Obama by 54%-44% among those seen as most likely to vote. The survey of 1,022 adults, including 959 registered voters, has a margin of error of +/— 3 points for both samples.” One has to wonder, why those 63 unregistered voters were included in the poll in the first place and how it might affect the results – it begs the question: How then can this particular poll have an error of margin of plus/minus 3 points? One has no doubt that McCain received a considerable jump in the polls and that Palin has served to stimulate that fact, however, any data and or “news” article coming from a media that is so clearly biased, has to be viewed with a bit of skepticism.

The news that MSNBC is reigning in Oberman and Matthews after their antics during both conventions, should come as no surprise. The article appearing in the New York Times, noted that the “experiment” of placing two “incendiary” hosts in an anchor position appears to have failed. The fact that the experiment was allowed to continue while the ratings for this network tanked, not the fact that the two became an “embarrassment” (also true), may have had more to do with NBC’s decision. Additionally, the article notes that this move came after Sarah Palin harpooned the media for bias, chants of "NBC” were heard coming from the RNC Delegates. Considering that anyone with minimal knowledge of the electoral makeup knows that 50% of the country leans right and 50% leans left (based on the last two elections), ramming a progressive, inexperienced democrat (Obama) down the throats of Middle American night and night can only lead to one thing: losing that half of their ratings. Apparently, NBS understands that it has to appear to be a bit more fair in it’s coverage – note: remove Michael Moore from your speakers list, and/or add someone to the extreme right (if there is someone as extreme right as Moore is extreme left), but what about the rest of the media?

Sarah Palin: from the LA Times another sexist hit piece.
Sarah Palin: from the NY Times another hit piece on Palins motherhood (containing a few discrepancies if one has read or seen other stories from the Alaskan Press regarding Palin’s pregnancy - as if it is an issue at all).

As John McCain and Palin’s numbers continue to climb in the polls, regardless of the fact that unregistered voters are used to bump numbers up for some candidate (considering USA today may also be biased – which candidate received the benefit of 63 additional votes?) , The Times show their true colors through antiquated sexist attacks on Palin, and even local newspapers reports are on the verge of incredulous reporting (Berkshire Eagle) viewers flee and subscriptions are lost – will they never learn? (The list could fill pages, from local ABC, NBC and CBS affiliates to the smallest daily newspaper.)

The elite media stopped reporting long ago and began to “guide” and “pontificate” so that the masses (us) would be swayed to their point of view. Talk radio has taken a bit of wind out of their sails, as well as the blogs, but that said, instead of blaming the Internet for their woes, or like MSNBC, throwing two anchors under the bus hoping that will suffice, it would behoove those who claim to be news sources to consider taking the op-ed out of reporting. The facts may not favor one candidate more than the other – but the results may improve readership and viewership overall. If one is losing half of its market due to bias, even if it is perceived bias (which would be a stretch), then it makes for a sound business decision.