The Dangers of Getting What you wish for

Posted By: Peter DavidPosted On:

So John McCain lampooned Obama for his lack of foreign diplomatic experience. Obama promptly scheduled a fact finding tour, and the press and foreign countries ate it up. Visuals of Obama sinking hoops with the armed forces while McCain looked decrepit riding around in a golf cart made the rounds of the media. The result? McCain is now bìŧçhìņg about the media’s love affair with Obama.
Sorry, Senator McCain. What you should have done was keep your mouth shut and not talk about Obama’s not visiting Iraq in several years until September, when it would have been too late for Obama to arrange a foreign sweep. Instead you enabled him to turn a liability into a plus. And since it was all your idea, I don’t really see where you get to complain about it.
PAD

136 comments on “The Dangers of Getting What you wish for”

  1. Peter, We’ll since our political views are world apart I know we’re not going to agree here, but I just can’t help but point out that McCain’s problem is not that Obama went on his world tour, but that the news media is so obviously biased that he was treated like a rock star on tour. Of course our culture has evolved to the point where the status of celebrity is treated as a desirable character trait. High school politics has finally made it to the Federal government.

  3. The whole “Obama is a celebrity” meme is ridiculous. McCain was the one responsible for hyping Obama’s overseas trip, and now conservatives complain that it got too much coverage or that Obama was shown with too many adoring crowds. I guess this is another one of those situations where reality has a liberal bias. Complaints about media coverage are also overblown considering the recent Center for Media and Public Affairs study that showed 72% of the coverage of Obama since the end of the primaries has had a negative slant. (http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-onthemedia27-2008jul27,0,2066363,full.story) What exactly should the media be doing to ensure a less biased coverage of the election? When Obama is in Europe being cheered by 200,000 Germans and McCain is back in the U.S. doddering around supermarkets and knocking over jars of apple sauce, you just have to accept that your guy’s not having a good week.
    A president is supposed to be popular. He’s the person we’re electing to run the country. President Bush has been operating with a 27% approval rating for a while now and it hasn’t exactly had a positive impact on his administration.

  4. I agree with you on McCain getting his demands that Obama go to Iraq slammed back into his face. The world is loving Obama and McCain has a whole new problem to deal with.
    I’m also sick of hearing of the media bias towards Obama. He’s new and exciting and basically it’s what draws viewers to the news. Even though it’s reporting the news, it’s still a business. If McCain becomes exciting, perhaps they’ll focus more on him.

  5. But now it may bite Obama on the ášš because he decided NOT to visit some soldiers.

  6. Peter, well since our political views are world apart I know we’re not going to agree here, but I just can’t help but point out that McCain’s problem is not that Obama went on his world tour, but that the news media is so obviously biased that he was treated like a rock star on tour
    Yeah, yeah, yeah, McCain can cry me a river on that topic. I didn’t hear any winging on McCain’s part eight years ago when HE was the new hot thing, wrapping reporters around his little finger while tooling around the country in his Straight Talk Express. More recently, after initially balking at discussing Jeremiah Wright, McCain took the press’s lead and piled on to Obama about Wright when it seemed politically expedient.
    So don’t tell me that the press has beeng giving Obama a free pass, because it isn’t true. And don’t tell me that McCain is torqued about the level of adoration Obama’s allegedly receiving, when what’s really got him pìššëd øff is just that he isn’t on the receiving end of that press adoration anymore.
    PAD

  7. …I just can’t help but point out that McCain’s problem is not that Obama went on his world tour, but that the news media is so obviously biased that he was treated like a rock star on tour.

    The reason Obama has earned a rock star portrayal is because when McCain challenged his diplomacy experience, Obama simply went overseas, and Disney Birds more or less flew to him and dropped diplomacy cred into his hands. Obama was masterful taking the democratic nomination from its “inevitable” candidate, and now he’s demonstrating his mastery as reports of McCain snapping at reporters are rolling in. Awesome.

    But now it may bite Obama on the ášš because he decided NOT to visit some soldiers.

    Yeah, that’s a talking point for those who are determined to not vote for Obama, no matter what. For everyone else, the explanation that the Pentagon discouraged him from showing up — even when, as the NYT and others reported, he was showing up without cameras — is explanation enough.

  8. McCain is complaining about how little media attention HE is receiving. I have to say that reeks of self pity. I would believe his concerns were real if he would have complained about how little media attention ALL of the other candidates for President are receiving. People like to forget that there are other candidates who get ignored all the time. For 2008 – Libertarian: Bob Barr, Independent: Ralph Nader, Green Party: Cynthia McKinney, Constitution Party: Chuck Baldwin, etc.
    If you include all individuals running for President in 2008 you have a total of 13 — give or take one. The additional one would be Ron Paul. Technically, he is still in the race for the Republican nomination.
    So, you’ll have to forgive me for not crying for McCain. At least he gets SOME coverage from the media. Most people aren’t aware that on average you have 6 different people on your Presidential ballot every four years. Then we wonder why we get the same old answers from Washington year after year.

  9. Give me a break with this whole “the media favors Obama” BS. The media has treated McCain with nothing but kid gloves since this whole thing began. Discussion of McCain’s age? Forbidden. Discussion of the fact that he is violating the campaign finance reform that his very name is on? Forbidden. Discussion about him calling his wife a “c**t”? Forbidden. Discussion of his volatile temper outbursts? Forbidden. Discussion of his complete (and admitted) ignorance of foreign policy? Forbidden. As a matter of fact, please name one… JUST ONE McCain scandal / issue that has received as much media attention as Reverend Wright or Michelle Obama’s supposedly (but never proven true outside of Republican rumormongering) racist statements.
    In other news, the McCain campaign has released an ad comparing Obama to Paris Hilton and Britney Spears, claiming that just like them he’s a “media darling,” but that doesn’t make him qualified to run the country. Great job, McCain… how long did it take you to break your pledge to not run this type of campaign? Of course I guess I can understand how the McCain people could get more than just a little desperate right now.

  10. Dave W, better check snopes. That email being circulated saying Obama snubbed troops is an admitted lie by it’s author, Porter. In said email Porter even got his facts wrong about where Obama visited. Pure propaganda.
    McCain is, I suspect, cooking his own goose. Best reply thus far to the same ole politics McCain has unleashed? Comment from Obama yesterday. “Someone needs to ask john McCain what he’s FOR rather than just what he’s AGAINST.”
    Loved it. Even as a republican, I want to see us make history this November. If McCain is same ole same ole – and I believe he is – then let’s change the face of politics by voting for our first black president and voting for someone who, thus far, has not sunk to the smears of past politicans.

  11. McCain is tired. Obama can (and will) run circles around him. Obama spent a week on taking McCain’s trip dare and took no damage other than he’s “too popular”. Wait until you see these two side by side.
    I loved the old McCain, but this Bush tax cut, drill offshore, go negative, don’t think I’d vote for my own immgration bill, be in Iraq for 100 years unless we get out in 18 months, “economics isn’t my strong suit” turncoat is gonna look like a hollowed out shell next to the latter-day JFK that is Obama.
    It’s a dámņ shame. If McCain was gonna get a shot, why couldn’t it have been McCain 2000 and not his shuffling shadow? If he’s elected I don’t think things would change one whit in the Administration. And since it’s likely that the Democrats will keep if not expand their Congressional majorities, it would just be 2-4 more years of gridlock and suck in DC. NOT what we need.

  12. I DON’T THINK YOU GUYS ARE GETTING IT.
    Obama speaks before 200,000 Germans, McCain speaks at a German restaurant before a handful of dozing seniors.
    IT’S BRILLAINT PARODY!!!!!!!!!!!!
    You guys just aren’t getting it.
    (Or maybe I am just getting too much.)

  13. Rudy: High school politics has finally made it to the Federal government.
    Luigi Novi: Finally??

  15. Right now, McCain comes across as nothing more than a whiner because he isn’t getting his way. Almost every day now, he goes out and complains about trivial things with Obama rather than discuss something of substance that doesn’t involve attacks.
    The latest? Obama is nothing more than a celebrity.
    Give me a @#$%’ing break. That didn’t stop the GOP from actually getting a celebrity voted to the job in Reagan. As somebody else pointed out earlier, you WANT your president to be popular.
    And some wonder why Americans don’t vote nor do they want to even get involved in politics.

  17. Pretty much everything about McCain’s campaign has been ridiculous. He’s making himself look like a jáçkášš.
    It seems like he should shut up and take it easy and hope that American’s innate racism and tendency for ignorance will win him the election.

  18. I’ve posted here on occasion (though infrequently enough as to be more properly termed “rarely”) and I don’t think I’ve ever posted on any of the political threads. Such topics invariably end up being much too heated and declarative of “facts” for my taste, laced with the usual obvious personal biases which most commenters (alas, maybe even sometimes PAD) do not even attempt to tone down.
    That’s not intended as a criticism so much as a simple observation of the way things seem to typically work here—as well as in the real world—when politics is the discussion point. And in fairness to PAD I have seen him give “the other side” credit where credit is due once in a while, so it’s not a 100% thing. I do appreciate his opinions and those of various commenters, but I take them for just that… opinions, despite declarative statements which may make them seem factual on the surface.
    If I disagree with PAD’s or anyone else’s political views (and I often do) I never feel any great urge to jump on here and try to “win” a debate convincing everyone to come over to “my side.” That’s just not for me and anyway I recognize the futility of such an exercise. More often, I just get a world-weary feeling of “Oh no, more mindless Bush-bashing.” Believe me, I’m no Bush fan, but I do get tired of the massive amounts of picayune piling on which occurs over minor random occurrences (speech impediments and “misprounciations”) when there are obviously so many major things of which to be critical.
    Regardless of anyone’s party affiliations or even just mere political/philosophical leanings I simply would like to encourage everyone to NOT forward emails, web page links, or any sort of mass distributed—uh, let’s call it what it usually amounts to—propaganda without making an effort to verify the nature of the item(s). It usually only takes 5 minutes or so, if that.
    Personally, I have an iGoogle page tab (you can use other news readers/aggregators of your choice) set up with RSS feeds from various sites dedicated to investigating and verfiying or debunking political claims.
    Far too many claims passed around are simply not true at all or wildly spun. Before I get to listing a few good investigative sources, I want to point everyone to this FactCheck.org essay by Lori Robertson, That Chain E-mail Your Friend Sent to You Is (Likely) Bogus. Seriously. She’s saying pretty much what I’m saying here, but much better.
    And now some decent investigative sources (imo), ones which I think try to keep things focused on facts and the truth, not insinuation and rumor (not to mention lying) regardless of the party affiliation of the candidate. You can easily find useful RSS feeds for each of these sites…
    — FactCheck.org
    — Capital Eye blog (which focuses on the finances of campaigns/politics; from OpenSecrets.org)
    — Politifact.com (A “Truth-O-Meter” from The St. Petersburg Times and Congressional Quarterly) They have a page for mere statements made and one for more general stories/articles, each with a corresponding RSS feed.
    — And Snopes.com’s “What’s New” page occasionally features political stuff during these pre-election times. Here’s one about Obama’s plane which they find to be true, but you can judge for yourself based on the visual evidence presented.
    And last but certainly not least (as “they” say)… let’s not forget Google and their generally useful Google News page.
    I’m sure there must be others (and I’d be interested to learn of more), but those usually satisfy me. Too often I’ve seen someone espouse a particular viewpoint on a politician or political issue and give a link or two to evidential articles only to find those items to be harbored on websites with obvious left or right tendencies and agendas. (Even if not immediately obvious, sometimes a check of the “About Us” link is quite helpful in determining a left/right focus.)
    Obviously, the more credible major sources that corroborate a story, the better. And again, it usually doesn’t take too long to find multiple verifications of fact or “liar-liar-pants-on-fire”. If something checks out, only then might I actually forward the email or post the link anywhere for others to peruse.
    Thank you for taking the time to read this. I honestly hope that most people already take such measures with regard to political rumors and spin, but I just felt I wanted/needed to say that much. What prompted me to do so was the reference(s) to Obama spurning the troops. That one has already been dealt with and basically disproved (though of course it’s possible you might disagree with the finding and the reasoning that led to that finding, but that’s OK too so long as you at least make an effort to look into it).
    I also received an email twice from different folks smearing Obama for Muslim tendencies and other nonsense. The email stated that Snopes verified the claims therein and urged readers to click the link to see for themselves. Apparently a lot of folks don’t bother to click it, because if they did they would have found the link just leads to Snopes’ main page, not a sub-page dealing with the issues at hand. And when I searched there specifically on the issues the result was that Snopes thoroughly debunked the email rather than supporting it.
    Anybody can claim something and make it sound authoritative, but that doesn’t actually make it so.

  19. Um? Hello?
    Obama is the first black man to run for US President? Now, my journalism training is three decades ago, but “firsts” and “prominence” are like manna from heaven for journalists. You’d be an idiot to think that the press WOULDN’T cover Obama like a wet blanket over a fire during the campaign.
    Of course, given the American electorate….

  20. Daddy G.,
    Very well said. This is the season where rumor and innuendo (on all sides) get even more out of control than usual, and it’s important to keep an eye on it.
    That said, here’s a FactCheck piece on the “Obama snubs the troops” comment made early in this very thread. I hope putting it up as a link here works; if not, cut and paste.
    http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/snubbing_wounded_troops.html
    TWL

  21. As a matter of fact, please name one… JUST ONE McCain scandal / issue that has received as much media attention as Reverend Wright or Michelle Obama’s supposedly (but never proven true outside of Republican rumormongering) racist statements.
    Actually, if you are referring to Michelle Obama’s supposed “whitey” comment, this was mostly pushed as true by Democrats who were supporting Hillary. Specifically, that nut Larry Johnson, once a progressive darling when he was blustering over Valarie Plame, now not so much. Why normally intelligent Democrats like Bob Beckel gave this story any credence, given its source, is beyond me.
    At any rate, although the polls are much closer than I’d expect, all things considered, the only thing that I thought Obama might do that would give McCain any edge would be to pick a really bad choice for vice president. Since John Edwards is now highly unlikely to be on the short list, this scenario seems less possible.
    100 days can be a lifetime in politics but Obama would have to really screw up at this point to lose. Granted, the same could have been said of Kerry and Dukakis but he seems a lot sharper than those two geniuses.

  22. As a right-leaning libertarian, I’m no fan of Obama. But I’m so sick of Republicans griping about the media, because it’s a useless tactic. If you go around telling TIME magazine that you don’t like them, it’s not exactly going to encourage them to give you a positive spin in the future.
    My biggest gripe with the Bush administration has always been their inability to get their message across. Forty years after Kennedy showed Nixon the value of being telegenic, the Republicans still don’t get it! Stop griping about the game, and learn how to play!

  23. The latest bit of stupidity:
    Obama makes a comment that he “doesn’t look like all those other presidents on the dollar bills.”
    McCain’s camp jumps all over it that Obama is playing the race card.
    Obama’s camp responds by saying that he’s much younger and doesn’t have the history that those men did.
    *insert eye roll at how pathetic this all is*

  25. I’d never vote for McCain so I’m not upset that his campaign’s going poorly, but when Obama votes to support the administration on FISA and when he took this position:
    http://www.prospect.org/csnc/blogs/ezraklein_archive?month=06&year=2008&base_name=law_and_the_political_order
    That particular pro death penalty position is the same as McCain’s, btw. I still plan to vote for him in November, but if he keeps on taking conservative or centrist positions I might decide not to vote for either man.

  27. Sorry, I meant to say “when he took this position (link)…it makes me wonder about him.”

  28. Here I thought it meant he wasn’t green and made of paper. Although, pointing out that you’re not two-dimensional could be an advantage….

  29. Daddy G., I would also like to thank you for the post above. I do have a question, though:
    Without having yet checked out those sites, is there any information as to who sponsors or funds them, and what, if any, allegiances or biases they may have (industrial, political, ideological) etc? An organization that calls itself Fair and Accuracy in Reporting, to name a different example, sounds fine until you learn that their stated mission is not mere “fairness” or “accuracy”, but to promote a liberal viewpoints.
    I noticed that the sponsors of the sources you mentioned included OpenSecrets.org, The St. Petersburg Times, and Congressional Quarterly. Are they politically non-aligned or non-profit?
    The one I am familiar with that you mentioned is Snopes, and I have their What’s New page bookmarked. I check it every day.

  30. Obama makes a comment that he “doesn’t look like all those other presidents on the dollar bills.”
    McCain’s camp jumps all over it that Obama is playing the race card.

    Those kind of tactics work because privileged classes establish taboos to deny their privileges even exist. It’s like when rich people tell you it’s rude to talk about money. Poor people have no reservation against talking about money. Now the McCain camp is trying to raise a flag that the taboo against talking about race is endangered simply from the most casual remarks by a black running for president.
    In his recent Onion interview, Jules Feiffer predicted Obama will need to lead by 15% mid-October just to squeak by with 3%, and it’s chickensh*t like this that provides the examples why.

  31. Hey, the last time 200,000 Germans got that excited it didn’t end well… Then again, David Hasselhoff concerts seldom do…
    Obama didn’t get quite such a rapturous welcome in the UK, partly because “We can do it” is the motto for pre-school kiddy show “Bob the Builder” over here, partly because we’re a cynical bunch who want to know he’s got more going for him that the “Anyone but Bush” factor.
    Chers.

  32. I noticed that the sponsors of the sources you mentioned included OpenSecrets.org, The St. Petersburg Times, and Congressional Quarterly. Are they politically non-aligned or non-profit?

    CRQ is avowedly non-partisan. OpenSecrets is the #2 source for political donations used by fundraising researchers across the country.

  33. Please understand… I’m not saying those sites are the definitive last word on political issues, only that I find them to be good places to check out rumors and anything I hear that just sounds suspicious. And by setting up their feeds in one handy-dandy spot that makes it very easy for me to be aware of certain rumors and shady accusations, sometimes even before they may come to my inbox or I come across them myself in my daily surfing.
    Here are links to their “About Us” pages (with excerpts provided too) for anyone who cares to look into them (any bold emphasis is mine)…
    — FactCheck.org
    “We are a nonpartisan, nonprofit, “consumer advocate” for voters that aims to reduce the level of deception and confusion in U.S. politics. We monitor the factual accuracy of what is said by major U.S. political players in the form of TV ads, debates, speeches, interviews, and news releases. Our goal is to apply the best practices of both journalism and scholarship, and to increase public knowledge and understanding.
    “The Annenberg Political Fact Check is a project of the Annenberg Public Policy Center of the University of Pennsylvania. The APPC was established by publisher and philanthropist Walter Annenberg in 1994 to create a community of scholars within the University of Pennsylvania that would address public policy issues at the local, state, and federal levels.
    “The APPC accepts NO funding from business corporations, labor unions, political parties, lobbying organizations or individuals. It is funded primarily by the Annenberg Foundation.”
    — OpenSecrets.org
    “Celebrating our 25th anniversary in 2008, the Center for Responsive Politics is the nation’s premier research group tracking money in U.S. politics and its effect on elections and public policy. Nonpartisan, independent and nonprofit, the organization aims to create a more educated voter, an involved citizenry and a more responsive government. In short, CRP’s mission is to:
    * Inform citizens about how money in politics affects their lives
    * Empower voters and activists by providing unbiased information
    * Advocate for a transparent and responsive government
    “We pursue our mission largely through our award-winning website, OpenSecrets.org, which is the most comprehensive resource for campaign contributions, lobbying data and analysis available anywhere. And for other organizations and news media, CRP’s exclusive data powers their online features tracking money in politics—counting cash to make change.
    “CRP relies on financial support from a combination of foundation grants and individual contributions. The Center accepts no contributions from businesses, labor unions or trade associations. You can support the work of the Center directly by contributing through OpenSecrets.org.”
    — Politifact.com
    “Each election year we hear this lament from our readers suffering the barrage of campaign rhetoric: ‘just gimme the truth.’
    “That’s the mission of PolitiFact. The St. Petersburg Times of Florida and Congressional Quarterly of Washington, D.C. – two of America’s most trusted, independent newsrooms – have created the site to help voters separate fact from falsehood in the 2008 presidential campaign.
    “Journalists and researchers from the Times and CQ will fact-check the accuracy of speeches, TV ads, interviews and other campaign communications. We’ll publish new findings every day on PolitiFact.com, and list our sources for all to see.
    “PolitiFact (pronounced puh-lit’-eh-fact) is bolder than previous journalistic fact-checking efforts because we’ll make a call, declaring whether a claim is True, Mostly True, Half True, Barely True or False. We even have a special category for the most ridiculous claims that we call ‘Pants on Fire.’
    “The St. Petersburg Times is Florida’s largest newspaper and the winner of six Pulitzer Prizes. Washington-based Congressional Quarterly is the authoritative news source for coverage of Congress and politics. CQ and the Times are affiliates of the Times Publishing Company, which is owned by the Poynter Institute, a center for journalism education in St. Petersburg.
    “PolitiFact will offer readers the choice of quick scorecards or longer stories explaining the issues and our rulings. It is a vibrant database that allows users to search for candidates’ records of accuracy based on their names, issues, or the rulings on our Truth-O-Meter. The site will include video of campaign ads and candidates’ speeches.
    “We’ll also publish an ‘attack file’ – a home for fact-checking the attacks candidates make against each other. We recognize that in a world of political bloggers and ‘independent’ political action committees, attacks don’t just come from the candidates themselves. So we will also check out many claims that enter the public discourse via a talk show host, a blogger or even a fictional character in a YouTube video.
    “We think PolitiFact breaks new ground in political journalism. As voters get bombarded with confusing claims and counter-claims, they can turn to PolitiFact to find out what’s right and what’s not.”
    . . . . [There’s more to it if you click here]
    ______________________
    …So you be the judge. I confess I haven’t necessarily read through those “About Us” pages in detail myself. I can only say that based on having used FactCheck.org and Capital Eye (from OpenSecrets.org) for a few months now, they seem to be fair enough and impartial to my way of thinking. They seem to find that certain claims stand up to scrutiny and others fall apart when you look more closely (regardless of the party affiliation or person that the findings end up benefitting).
    Politifact.com is a much more recent discovery for me, so I don’t have much personal track record to go on yet, but so far I’ve seen no reason to doubt their findings which often seem to agree with the other sites.
    They all cite numerous sources backing their findings too. Now, have I ever delved into any of those specific sources for myself to verify that they, uh… well, verify the findings. No. At some point you gotta trust somebody and you can only put so much effort into digging for yourself. As long as two or more seem to basically agree on findings for the same or similar issues, I’m willing to accept them at their word.
    Now of course, their “About Us” pages could in theory be a bunch of malarkey designed to fool people into thinking they’re something they’re not. That’s why I go more by what they report day to day and how they say it, including the citing of seemingly official sources and in-depth analysis.
    As I originally said, those sites usually satisfy my needs in such areas. They seem to meet my own personal standards when it comes to such things. That being said, your standards may differ. Your opinions of their analyses and/or impartiality (or lack thereof) may differ.
    If anyone finds compelling evidence of potential partisanship at any of those sites, I’d be interested to hear of it. If anyone knows of better (or equal) sites for such political investigation, I’d be interested to hear of those too. For now, they (and their feeds) will remain my online tools of choice for informing me as to which side is telling the biggest whoppers of late.
    The bottom line for me is that these sites at least appear to try to present significant and compelling evidence to either support or refute various claims made by both sides. They do the leg work and I can decide for myself whether or not their interpretation of the “facts” coincides with my own way of thinking. I don’t see it so much as them trying to convince me of their findings as much as it is they’re presenting the case and a finding which I can then choose to accept or remain skeptical depending on the quality of the evidence. Honestly, I usually just accept their findings.
    Sorry to go on so, but I assume folks can scroll quickly through if they’re not interested in all the gory details and my associated two-bit opinions.

  34. (Huh? I HAVE posted here before and just earlier today, but for some reason this one told me my comment entered a moderation phase waiting for approval because I was a first-time commenter. Weird. Even though it said NOT to re-post, I’m going to try it anyway as I don’t know why it wasn’t accepted. I think I just took way too long composing this mish-mash and my typekey ID login timed out or something. Anyway, here’s what I tried to post…)
    Please understand… I’m not saying those sites are the definitive last word on political issues, only that I find them to be good places to check out rumors and anything I hear that just sounds suspicious. And by setting up their feeds in one handy-dandy spot that makes it very easy for me to be aware of certain rumors and shady accusations, sometimes even before they may come to my inbox or I come across them myself in my daily surfing.
    Here are links to their “About Us” pages (with excerpts provided too) for anyone who cares to look into them (any bold emphasis is mine)…
    — FactCheck.org
    “We are a nonpartisan, nonprofit, “consumer advocate” for voters that aims to reduce the level of deception and confusion in U.S. politics. We monitor the factual accuracy of what is said by major U.S. political players in the form of TV ads, debates, speeches, interviews, and news releases. Our goal is to apply the best practices of both journalism and scholarship, and to increase public knowledge and understanding.
    “The Annenberg Political Fact Check is a project of the Annenberg Public Policy Center of the University of Pennsylvania. The APPC was established by publisher and philanthropist Walter Annenberg in 1994 to create a community of scholars within the University of Pennsylvania that would address public policy issues at the local, state, and federal levels.
    “The APPC accepts NO funding from business corporations, labor unions, political parties, lobbying organizations or individuals. It is funded primarily by the Annenberg Foundation.”
    — OpenSecrets.org
    “Celebrating our 25th anniversary in 2008, the Center for Responsive Politics is the nation’s premier research group tracking money in U.S. politics and its effect on elections and public policy. Nonpartisan, independent and nonprofit, the organization aims to create a more educated voter, an involved citizenry and a more responsive government. In short, CRP’s mission is to:
    * Inform citizens about how money in politics affects their lives
    * Empower voters and activists by providing unbiased information
    * Advocate for a transparent and responsive government
    “We pursue our mission largely through our award-winning website, OpenSecrets.org, which is the most comprehensive resource for campaign contributions, lobbying data and analysis available anywhere. And for other organizations and news media, CRP’s exclusive data powers their online features tracking money in politics—counting cash to make change.
    “CRP relies on financial support from a combination of foundation grants and individual contributions. The Center accepts no contributions from businesses, labor unions or trade associations. You can support the work of the Center directly by contributing through OpenSecrets.org.”
    — Politifact.com
    “Each election year we hear this lament from our readers suffering the barrage of campaign rhetoric: ‘just gimme the truth.’
    “That’s the mission of PolitiFact. The St. Petersburg Times of Florida and Congressional Quarterly of Washington, D.C. – two of America’s most trusted, independent newsrooms – have created the site to help voters separate fact from falsehood in the 2008 presidential campaign.
    “Journalists and researchers from the Times and CQ will fact-check the accuracy of speeches, TV ads, interviews and other campaign communications. We’ll publish new findings every day on PolitiFact.com, and list our sources for all to see.
    “PolitiFact (pronounced puh-lit’-eh-fact) is bolder than previous journalistic fact-checking efforts because we’ll make a call, declaring whether a claim is True, Mostly True, Half True, Barely True or False. We even have a special category for the most ridiculous claims that we call ‘Pants on Fire.’
    “The St. Petersburg Times is Florida’s largest newspaper and the winner of six Pulitzer Prizes. Washington-based Congressional Quarterly is the authoritative news source for coverage of Congress and politics. CQ and the Times are affiliates of the Times Publishing Company, which is owned by the Poynter Institute, a center for journalism education in St. Petersburg.
    “PolitiFact will offer readers the choice of quick scorecards or longer stories explaining the issues and our rulings. It is a vibrant database that allows users to search for candidates’ records of accuracy based on their names, issues, or the rulings on our Truth-O-Meter. The site will include video of campaign ads and candidates’ speeches.
    “We’ll also publish an ‘attack file’ – a home for fact-checking the attacks candidates make against each other. We recognize that in a world of political bloggers and ‘independent’ political action committees, attacks don’t just come from the candidates themselves. So we will also check out many claims that enter the public discourse via a talk show host, a blogger or even a fictional character in a YouTube video.
    “We think PolitiFact breaks new ground in political journalism. As voters get bombarded with confusing claims and counter-claims, they can turn to PolitiFact to find out what’s right and what’s not.”
    . . . . [There’s more to it if you click here]
    ______________________
    …So you be the judge. I confess I haven’t necessarily read through those “About Us” pages in detail myself. I can only say that based on having used FactCheck.org and Capital Eye (from OpenSecrets.org) for a few months now, they seem to be fair enough and impartial to my way of thinking. They seem to find that certain claims stand up to scrutiny and others fall apart when you look more closely (regardless of the party affiliation or person that the findings end up benefitting).
    Politifact.com is a much more recent discovery for me, so I don’t have much personal track record to go on yet, but so far I’ve seen no reason to doubt their findings which often seem to agree with the other sites.
    They all cite numerous sources backing their findings too. Now, have I ever delved into any of those specific sources for myself to verify that they, uh… well, verify the findings. No. At some point you gotta trust somebody and you can only put so much effort into digging for yourself. As long as two or more seem to basically agree on findings for the same or similar issues, I’m willing to accept them at their word.
    Now of course, their “About Us” pages could in theory be a bunch of malarkey designed to fool people into thinking they’re something they’re not. That’s why I go more by what they report day to day and how they say it, including the citing of seemingly official sources and in-depth analysis.
    As I originally said, those sites usually satisfy my needs in such areas. They seem to meet my own personal standards when it comes to such things. That being said, your standards may differ. Your opinions of their analyses and/or impartiality (or lack thereof) may differ.
    If anyone finds compelling evidence of potential partisanship at any of those sites, I’d be interested to hear of it. If anyone knows of better (or equal) sites for such political investigation, I’d be interested to hear of those too. For now, they (and their feeds) will remain my online tools of choice for informing me as to which side is telling the biggest whoppers of late.
    The bottom line for me is that these sites at least appear to try to present significant and compelling evidence to either support or refute various claims made by both sides. They do the leg work and I can decide for myself whether or not their interpretation of the “facts” coincides with my own way of thinking. I don’t see it so much as them trying to convince me of their findings as much as it is they’re presenting the case and a finding which I can then choose to accept or remain skeptical depending on the quality of the evidence. Honestly, I usually just accept their findings.
    Sorry to go on so, but I assume folks can scroll quickly through if they’re not interested in all the gory details and my associated two-bit opinions.

  35. “Obama makes a comment that he “doesn’t look like all those other presidents on the dollar bills.”
    McCain’s camp jumps all over it that Obama is playing the race card.”
    …which is a real ironic argument to make, since wasn’t it McCain who was still calling Asians ‘gooks’ merely a few years ago?
    KET

  36. answers dot yahoo dot com says that Shirley Chisolm is the first black person to run for President.
    wiki dot answers dot com says—“Shirley Chisholm was the first black person to run for president.”
    jocoleman dot com says—“Charlene Mitchell was the first African-American to run for President, at the head of the 1968 Communist Party ticket.”
    So not only is Obama NOT the first black man to run for President, he is also not the first black to run for President.

  37. Just checking back in and in looking back at my first post today I happened to notice that I apparently messed up the link for the Lori Robertson piece at Factcheck.org. Here’s the correct link…
    That Chain E-mail Your Friend Sent to You Is (Likely) Bogus. Seriously.
    by Lori Robertson at FactCheck.org
    (What she says there is kind of the gist of my original point and reason for posting today, so I wanted to at least provide a working link. Apologies for screwing it up in the first place even if no one noticed.)

  39. Yeah but he’s the first to have a good shot at winning. Let’s not split hairs here. Chisholm and Jackson were never going to win. Mitchell never even won in Mitchell’s own dreams.
    I suppose I should add the caution, when I say that I think that Obama is going to win, that the debates could change things. But I doubt that he would give a weird performance like Gore and if he screws up a question big time like Dukakis he has shown a good ability to recognize the mistake and act on it, not let it fester.
    He was merely ok in most of the Democratic debates…but McCain was pretty much the same. I wouldn’t expect much of a blow out either way, which will work to Obama’s advantage.
    There’s always the danger of some of his supporters screwing things up but again, he has shown the ability to take them to task (Just today he declared Ludacris should be ashamed of himself for his recent anti-McCain anti-Hillary song). It’s a problem having idiots with high profiles as supporters but he’s handling it well.
    It’s far from a flawless campaign–he has a problem closing the deal, as evidenced by Hillary’s survival to the bitter end and the current close polls but it should be more than enough for the win.

  40. Now McCain’s stooped to working the ol’ ‘reverse racism’ trick. His latest distractions from the issues have almost become like a surreal Monty Python sketch:
    “Ah! Now we see the violence inherent in the system…”
    “Shut up!”
    “Come and see the violence inherent in the system. Help, help, I’m being repressed!”
    “Bloody peasant!”
    “Oooooh! Did you see that? What a give-away…”
    It also makes me think that his campaign is doing all these silly attack ads on purpose just to give them more airplay, without having to pay for the airtime.
    ET

  41. All I can say, is that both of these guys will make the next president look like a genius.
    Both of these guy’s policies are going to further bankrupt the federal government, giving the next guy or gal the real opportunity.
    If things keep going the way they are going don’t be surprised if the economy takes a big tank. And both of these guys are proposing policies that will further exasperate the situation.

  42. McCain’s camp jumps all over it that Obama is playing the race card.”
    …which is a real ironic argument to make, since wasn’t it McCain who was still calling Asians ‘gooks’ merely a few years ago?

  43. Obama didn’t get quite such a rapturous welcome in the UK, partly because “We can do it” is the motto for pre-school kiddy show “Bob the Builder” over here
    I thought the motto was Bob saying, “Can we do it?” and the response from his crew being, “Yes, we can.”
    As for Obama being the first black to run for president, I think technically that’s correct. Jackson, Chilsolm, Al Sharpton…they ran for the nomination. He’s the first to actually run for the office.
    As for Obama’s comments about not looking like the other guys on the money…well…he doesn’t. Is anyone arguing that he does? What he was doing in the comment was lampooning the things that others say about him–about his name and purportedly being Muslim and, let’s face it, to a lot of voters, race remains an issue. If it didn’t, the Wright comments wouldn’t have had such legs. McCain has made jokes about his age; I don’t see people crying that he’s playing the senior citizen card.
    PAD

  44. To be fair it’s apples and oranges. McCain was being racist while Obama was playing the race card.
    One is ignorance and the other is underhanded.

    What is his supposed underhandedness getting away with? That doesn’t even make sense in the “I’m not touching you” school of antagonism.

  45. I have to stop reading stuff about this election cycle. Every time I do, I just get more depressed. Neither of these candidates is a man that I want as the Commander-in-chief, and as much as I wish that third party candidates were viable, I know they aren’t.
    Still, to be fair, Obama wasn’t joking about his race, he was specifically saying that the other guys were using it against him. That’s a little different. Being perceived as racist is a very bad thing in today’s society (which is good), and it’s not at all surprising that McCain’s campaign immediately attempted to defend itself by returning fire.

  46. In the beginning I was torn between Obama and Clinton (when it looked like Romney was going to be the Republican candidate). Then when I read Obama’s Blueprint for Change I was firmly behind Clinton. With Clinton out of the race that left the choice between Obama and McCain. The fact that even doing half of what Obama’s blueprint says he would do would bankrupt the nation I had no choice but to back McCain. Had Romney still been around I have no clue what I would have done because I couldn’t see myself voting for either Obama or Romney under any circumstance.
    Obama comes off as the Pied Piper to me with people blindly following his message of “change” without really having any idea of what the details of the changes are. I was shocked when I found out that not one of the Obama supporters that I know at work had read his Blueprint and couldn’t give any details about what he would actually do while in office other than vague generalizations like “stop the war” or “national healthcare” without knowing exactly what it would entail.
    I’m guessing PAD has read the entire Blueprint and still backs Obama. So I respect his reasons for backing him, even if I don’t agree with them. I just can’t understand the blind devotion he gets from the people who have no clue what he’s really about or the people who vote for him (or don’t vote for him) purely based on his race.
    McCain has flaws, lots of them. But so does Obama. I happily admit McCains flaws but it’s next to impossible to find an Obama supporter who doesn’t think Obama can walk on water (not literally, lol). It really makes me scratch my head.
    Vote for who you want. Support who you want, but please, at least have a clue why you are supporting the person you are supporting other than some fluffy feel good notion of “change.”
    Okay. Stepping off the soapbox. 😛

  47. Still, to be fair, Obama wasn’t joking about his race, he was specifically saying that the other guys were using it against him.

    No he didn’t. Looking like a dude on a dollar bill isn’t an ethnicity. No matter how much you and the McCain campaign want it to be.

    Obama comes off as the Pied Piper to me with people blindly following his message of “change” without really having any idea of what the details of the changes are. I was shocked when I found out that not one of the Obama supporters that I know at work had read his Blueprint and couldn’t give any details about what he would actually do while in office other than vague generalizations like “stop the war” or “national healthcare” without knowing exactly what it would entail….
    Vote for who you want. Support who you want, but please, at least have a clue why you are supporting the person you are supporting other than some fluffy feel good notion of “change.”

    I’m voting for the master politician who body-checked the inevitable democratic candidate out of the nomination, and is resolved to end the war, sign the healthcare bill that will wait for him when he enters office, and who’s going to dilute the mostly-Bush-appointed supreme court who can’t parse the commas in the draft of the second amendment approved by congress. There is no mystery.

  48. There may be many who are up in arms over Obama’s comment that he doesn’t look like the other presidents, but folks, you’d have to have your head totally in the sand to NOT understand race is playing a role in this.
    No, it’s not polite to be outright racist in todays society so it’s masked with whispers that he’s muslem, or that he’s a celebrity, or that he’s elitist but in much, MUCH (and I feel comfortable saying that coming from a small southern town) of rural, southern America they will cling to any excuse not to vote for a black man. We have a LONG way to go to overcome racism.
    I have actually heard people say they agree with Obama on issues yet will vote for McCain.
    I don’t agree with McCain’s position on social security. In my state is a perfect example of why it won’t work. 20 years ago our teachers were offered an investment type retirement instead of the defined contributions and payouts. It was a disaster. Some made money but most didn’t have enough to retire on. Our state had to return them to the older system to allow them to retire – at a hefty cost to the teachers. Changing SS would be disasterous and McCain walks in lock step with Bush on this issue.
    I’ve seen Obama’s positions. His plans are actually part of the ads. McCain is just smearing.
    The best line about this election imo? Obama’s comment that someone needs to ask John McCain what he’s FOR rather than just what he’s AGAINST. I’ve yet to hear much out of McCain.
    Alan, with all due respect, Obama is the first black to win a major political party’s primary. You truly are trying to split hairs, as has been said.

Comments are closed.