BlackBerry Politics and the Campaign Ecosystem

Maybe what Bobo really wanted to talk about was Blackberry Punditry

"In a weak attempt at disparaging Barack Obama, New York Times columnist David Brooks said on MSNBC: "Obama's problem is he doesn't seem like a guy who can go into an Applebee's salad bar and people think he fits in naturally there. He has to change to be more like that Applebee's guy and as he's done that he's become much more transactional -- much more 'I'm going to deliver this and this and this to you on policy.'" I hate to correct Mr. Brooks, but Applebee's doesn't have salad bars. Maybe he needs to get out more and eat with the great unwashed."

http://www.startribune.com/opinion/commentary/19546364.html?page=3&c=y

Yeah, except –

If a candidate uses specific claims to support a larger argument, it matters whether the claims are true. If there's no concern for the truth, there's no substance to the larger argument, and it's pretty close to outright fraud when a candidate makes an unsupported – or unsupportable – assertion on a big-picture matter.

Facts are indeed inconvenient things, but the last eight years illustrate their importance. Rationalizing away their materiality to a candidate's arguments is another way easily compliant media do a serious disservice to the country.

Careful, Michael. You're in extreme danger of Speaking Truth to Powermad.

Mike:

You seem to equate the commenters here with the party hacks clamoring for your attention via your inbox.

This is incorrect. The agenda of the party hacks/lobbyists is that they want you to help them retain their status and power in the Beltway.

The agenda of the commenters here is that they want a return to the Constitution, the system of checks and balances, transparency in government, and an honourable foreign policy.

Can you not see the difference?

Speaking of never admitting you were WRONG Michael, how about the responsibility of causing OR enabling hundreds of thousands of deaths?

For McCain has HUGGED that mistake with a death grip:

http://www.mcclatchydc.com/227/v-print/story/39963.html

Senate committee: Bush knew Iraq statements were untrue

last updated: June 05, 2008 10:31:24 AM

WASHINGTON— A long-awaited Senate Select Intelligence Committee report made public Thursday concludes that President Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney made public statements to promote an invasion of Iraq that they knew at the time were not supported by available intelligence.

A companion report found that a special office set up by then Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld undertook "sensitive intelligence activities" that were inappropriate "without the knowledge of the Intelligence Community or the State Department."

Most of us call such statements lies -- and such actions WAR CRIMES.

But not your dear sweet Barbecue King.

But the nano-scandals, if left unspun, grow into narratives, which grow into news stories, which frame the campaign, which affects the election outcome. So there is no ending “the stupidity of BlackBerry politics.”
-------------------------

That is the saddest thing of all. So John Kerry becomes a "flip flopper" because of one inelegant turn of phrase and Al Gore is a serial exaggerator etc...

It will be an odd thing to be on the side of a candidate this time that the media actually likes (Obama), but
I have every faith in the right wing attack machine to do their job. Just this morning I talked to a long time Democrat who was saying how she hated Michelle Obama and was repeating GOP talking points against her...

One thing that I have always kind of admired about the GOP is how they manage to get all their TV consultants (the people who show up to represent the GOP on cable) to sing exactly the same song. This creates an unbelievable echo chamber. The people who are called "Democratic strategists" always seem to be working off of 18 different playbooks and unable to stay on message. I'd love to see an inside look at how the GOP achieves such discipline. Is there a boot camp for GOP strategists?

Flown Over is right -- the problem is not just little mistakes like Obama saying the wrong concentration camp name, which don't change the larger factual basis, but trying to gloss over substantive errors which do underly the facts.

The point of McCain's error, it seems to me, is not simply the verb tense and that the "draw down" is still going on, it shows a lack of understanding of the situation on the ground in Iraq right now. I know that the number of troops is not at pre-surge level now and I'm not supposed to be an expert.

Neat post.

The scary thing is that narratives develop based on these little things, regardless of whether they have any larger meaning.

However, in this case, I think the main reason that McCain "in danger of giving the impression that he does not have a grasp on the facts" is that he does not have a grasp on the facts.

As Josh Marshall said a while back, McCain thinks that whatever he's saying now is the only true way of looking at the world, even though he almost certainly said something different yesterday.

"Yeah, this is the stupidity of BlackBerry politics. They get caught in this day-to-day. No one's going to care what John McCain says about the [troop] levels. What they care is fundamentally who was right about Iraq."

On reflection how is this anymore than a way for Brooks to dismiss any nutty thing that McCain says? Is this a new position for Bobo?
Would a search come up with Brooks taking a less charitable position on Obama, Kerry. Gore, or Clinton?

McCain's "last big flub" was his getting mixed up as to the differences between Sunni and Shi'ia? You're obviously not paying attention any more, Michael. There was McCain's disaster of a speech on Tuesday and his lying about his support of investigatinos into the aftermath of Katrina yesterday, just to name two.

These aren't "small factual errors," as you would like to spin them. They're a pattern of a guy who is out of touch.

And David Brooks is a bozo.

Michael: re:Reporters are not criticized just for what they write, as in days of old, but for what they do not write.

In the days of my Episcopalian youth, we used to confess to such tandem errors each week: "I have done those things I ought not to have done, and left undone those things I ought to have done..." Just comes naturally to some of us I guess.

David Brooks in 2012:

"This is the stupidity of politics. They get caught in this day-to-day. No one's going to care that John McCain nuked Iran. What they care is fundamentally who is going to keep the queers from getting hitched."

Ah, curse me for using the wrong brackets. That was supposed to read "This is the stupidity of [insert latest techno-meme here] politics."

Blackberry Punditry
"New York Times columnist David Brooks recently ridiculed Dean for beginning "a sentence with, 'Us rural people ...' Dean grew up on Park Avenue and in East Hampton. If he's a rural person, I'm the Queen of Sheba."
http://dir.salon.com/story/news/feature/2004/01/13/dean_media/index.html

So Bobo felt differently in 2004.

McCain's "last big flub" was his getting mixed up as to the differences between Sunni and Shi'ia? You're obviously not paying attention any more, Michael. There was McCain's disaster of a speech on Tuesday and his lying about his support of investigatinos into the aftermath of Katrina yesterday, just to name two.

McCain was even blatantly erroneous about where he was speaking from.

He wasn't in New Orleans, he was several miles outside of town in a completely different place.

Michael,

I agree with you with everything other than -

"Does it make sense that the Obama email response to John McCain’s Monday speech at AIPAC was 3,800 words long, longer than McCain’s actual speech, which ran about 2,800 words?"

Obama's response should have been longer than McCain's speech. His comments are long because reasoned responses have to deconstruct conventional wisdom and then rebuild an arguement (see lengthly Philadelphia speech). McCain and Obama's proposed Lincoln-Douglass debates seem to serve the same purpose - allow long answers to actually describe positions rather than offer buzz words and soundbites.

Time itself (as a news magazine) offers long articles often commenting on the points made by shorter articles in newspapers.

Long is good. I hope all of Obama's responses to Blackberry talkingpoints are 3,800 words long.

This is clearly a self serving defense over the fact that Mccain misstatements are likely to continue and MS is going to continue to give them a pass.

He is absolutely right that most Americans don't care about the day to day minutiae of the fact-checking that goes on, and I personally am not that concerned about the gotcha's that will continue to plague the campaign.

But the confusion of Sunni with Shiite and the invoking of Al Qaeda when describing people who are nothing of the sort is the exact sort of dishonesty and misrepresentation that allowed us to be marched into Iraq in the first place.

Here is a reminder of why it matters.

http://edition.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/06/05/senate.iraq/

I'd also like to note that it's not often when someone directly insults theior most loyal following. Feeling a little under the weather are we?

Hmm from way back in April Bobo on tha ABC debate

"First, Democrats, and especially Obama supporters, are going to jump all over ABC for the choice of topics: too many gaffe questions, not enough policy questions.

I understand the complaints, but I thought the questions were excellent. The journalist’s job is to make politicians uncomfortable, to explore evasions, contradictions and vulnerabilities. Almost every question tonight did that. The candidates each looked foolish at times, but that’s their own fault."
http://campaignstops.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/04/16/no-whining-about-the-media/index.html?hp

I think we can fairly conclude that this was nothing more than "Rules for Thee but not for Me"

BTW, Michael, thanks for your recommendation, but I will not click on The Page even once if I can help it.

Shorter Brooks/Scherer:

F&CK THE FACTS

Great.

This is off topic, but it does pertain to McCain coverage:

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/middle-east/revealed-secret-plan-to-keep-iraq-under-us-control-840512.html

http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5hcWJu9bbzrJZ7uNHjvMn0BuTGqHQD913IHEG0

Either the Independent article is overblown or the AP article is seriously understated but in either event, it's clear that there's another BushCo power grab in progress as we speak.

We already know how John McCain feels about permanent basing in Iraq, but he needs to clarify his interpretaion of article II war powers. It is vitally important that we determine which, if any of the candidates feel that the President is above the law.

The evidence presented here isn't promising:

http://blog.wired.com/27bstroke6/2008/06/mccain-id-spy-o.html

Yeah, I think the need to be immediate can be destructive.

I've thought about that this week. After Tuesday, the immediacy of new media allowed everyone to pile on Clinton about not conceding that night.

It got me thinking that in the old days, taking between Tuesday and the end of the week to think about things wouldn't have been that big of a deal. The papers would run some "what will she do" stories in teh meantime.

But in the current environment, there is instant pressure and anger for her to do something right now. We can't wait - the net is 24/7. we need constant developments. As an Obama supporter, even I have to admit that she got jumped on again this week, and not given just a bit of breathing room to make her decision.

I see Michael has adopted the talking point McCain 's campaign is pushing to clean up his latest mess -- that what he said was just a problem of 'verb tense'.

They can't "just admit that McCain blew some verb tense" because any fair minded person that listens to what McCain said knows that McCain misrepresented what is happening in Iraq intentionally. It clearly wasn't a slip of the tongue (if you're not sure go to youTube and listen to the comment for yourself).

He either got the facts wrong (which means he's incompetent at his signature campaign issue) or he was lying -- he wasn't having a problem with 'verb tense'.

I highly recommend Sasha Issenberg's piece on Bobo and his lying ways. (link)

There's just one problem: Many of his generalizations are false....

"Everything that people in my neighborhood do without motors, the people in Red America do with motors," Brooks wrote. "When it comes to yard work, they have rider mowers; we have illegal aliens." Actually, six of the top 10 states in terms of illegal-alien population are Red.

"We in the coastal metro Blue areas read more books," Brooks asserted. A 2003 University of Wisconsin-Whitewater study of America's most literate cities doesn't necessarily agree. Among the study's criteria was the presence of bookstores and libraries; 20 of the 30 most literate cities were in Red states.

attaturk it is a good thing impeachment is off the table because otherwise there might be consequences for lying the country into war. The only thing worse is lying about a blow job.

"Yeah, this is the stupidity of BlackBerry politics. They get caught in this day-to-day. No one's going to care what John McCain says about the [troop] levels. What they care is fundamentally who was right about Iraq."

The take away is "The stupidity of BlackBerry politics"?!?!

BoBo the Clown should be called on his enabling of McCain's outright dishonesty. Grandpa essentially said in the same breath: "Basra, Mosul and now Sadr city are quiet ..." Nobody cares about those lies either, huh.

First McCain obfuscates the realities in Iraq, then BoBo the Clown says "move along, nothing to see here", and now you congratulate him on his rhetorical wizardry.

To obfuscate: To deliberately make more confusing in order to conceal the truth. As in:

Before leaving the scene, the murderer set a fire to obfuscate any evidence of his or her identity.

Hang on, these aren't "nano-scandals." John McCain is a 72 year old man who keeps getting things wrong. Substantive things. He didn't "get the verb tense" wrong about our Iraq troop levels. He got the troop levels wrong. Because he doesn't know what the troop levels are and yet he's running as the guy who's more knowledgeable about policy than his younger, hope-talking opponent.

If he's going to run as the better informed candidate, then he has to get the facts right. If he gets them wrong, it is your job to point out his errors, not to let them slide.

And yes, what you choose not to cover is as important as what you choose to cover. You should have known that the day you filed your first story. In fact, I believe you do know that.

Finally, as Red Snapper said upthread: your mistake is that you're spending more time with the emails from party hacks than you are with us. We're not trying to spin you. It's in our best interests to help you get to the truth.

To defend Halperin a little. Some of his current "BlackBerry spats" include, (1) a report released today indicating "Home Foreclosures Up 35% Nationwide Since Last Year" and (2) an announcement that "Continental Cuts 3,000 Jobs, Grounds Planes."

I'm willing to argue The Pape's reporting is sincere and worthwhile.

There seem to be flubs and outright distortions every time McCain speaks. When he addressed the AIPAC recently he suggested that Iran was actively pursuing nuclear weapons (NIE says no), claimed that Iran is "flouting the NPT" which grants members the right to develop civilian nuclear energy, repeated the erroneous claim that Ahmadinejad said "wipe Israel off the map", warns that Iran is starting a nuclear arms race in the Middle East (while speaking to lobbyists for Israel- the only country in the Middle East with nuclear weapons) and said that Iran consistently refuses to talk when they reached out to us as recently as 2002 http://www.prospect.org/cs/articles?articleId=11539 .

Will someone call him on this stuff?

"...The committee voted 10-5 to approve the report, with two Republican lawmakers supporting it. Sen. Christopher Bond and three other Republican panel members denounced the study in an attached dissent as a "partisan exercise."

...

Same old liberals.

Same old legacy.

Same old isolationist trembling at the sign of trouble.

What a legacy.

I find nothing new from Senator Happy Face, barney frankly.

McCain clearly IS trying to mislead voters about Iraq. He's been doing it all along, since he was trumpeting the "great progress" we were making in 2003.

You really think all these errors which are made in the direction of the "Iraq War is awesome" side of the argument are just honest "flubs"?

Wake up.

Here by the way, is an excellent article on the candidate's amazing and stunning reversal over the issue of telecom immunity.

http://news.cnet.com/8301-13578_3-9960493-38.html

On November 30, 2007 McCain sent us this response via e-mail:

So instead his campaign is insisting, improbably, that their candidate has never changed his mind. Here's an excerpt from the statement that they sent us (the full, unedited version is here):

So at least, in this instance, we can't be referring to a senior moment or jumping on inadvertant misstatments.

The candidate has two opposing positions, both clearly stated in writing. Since they touch directly on the Constitutional limits of the office he is seeking, it's pretty important.

MS: Part of the problem with "what you didn't write" is that, in comparison to the "old days," we, your adoring public, your rapt fandom, know more about what's going on, in general, precisely due to the Internet. So when you leave out, or gloss over a point that we've already seen and know to be important, we can point it out almost as quickly as your blog is posted.

We're just trying to keep you folks honest.

Shorter Scherer/Bobo:

"LEAVE MCCAIN ALONE!!!!!"

*sob*

@ Red Snapper: Amen, brother.

Very interesting perspective, Michael Scherer.

I'm going to think about this...

Watch out, Stuart's thinking!

I love it! McCain's consistent pattern of misstating facts and the repeated contradictions between what he says and his actual record can now be deemed "blackberry politics" (tit for tat) and not worth mentioning.

Scherer: ...thanks to Brooks, I now at least have the vocabulary to call a spade a shovel.

The phrase 'Blackberry Politics' only suggests a change in the medium and the speed at which the same old media obsession with trivial detail and progression from 'nano-scandal' to 'candidate issue' occurs. Obama's bowling score is to Kerry's windsurfing is to Dukakis' tank ride is to is to Reagan's B-movie career is to Carter's peanut farming. Only difference is the speed and the method of communication. The purpose is the same.

Many Swampland commenters... regularly accus[e] me of reportorial bias for failing to comment on the nano-scandal of the moment.

Um, no...The criticism you've received concerns the appearance of bias in your coverage of the candidates, Mike. You're leaping to McCain's defense far too frequently, even to the point of explaining what McCain really meant in some circumstances, a 'nano-fluffing' of sorts.

As for the whole 'nano-scandal' thing, I'm not sure that McCain stating that he supports the troops then voting in support of Bush against a perfectly good GI Bill qualifies as a tiny, sub-microscopic manner. And neither should anyone in the press.

Re: Brooks -

Yeah, this is the stupidity of BlackBerry politics. They get caught in this day-to-day. No one's going to care what John McCain says about the [troop] levels.

versus, just this past April:

...voters want a president who basically shares their values and life experiences. Fairly or not, they look at symbols like Michael Dukakis in a tank, John Kerry’s windsurfing or John Edwards’s haircut as clues about shared values.

Brooks is inconsistent in his application of logic, which is no great suprise.

Anything reflecting badly on McCain is prima facie a "nano-scandal" to Scherer and his ilk.

*manner = matter

Shorter Scherer: Take that, you damn grubby commenters!

That'll teach me to take numerous individual data points and attempt to form them into a coherent whole! Who do I think I am?

I do see this short time-span reporting as getting sensationalistic, and I think both the media and media consumer is at fault here.

But the savvy news reader needs to, and is hopefully able to, distinguish between sensationalist narratives (ie Wright, flag pins, Bosnian snipers) and honest-to-goodness important details.

Ideally, the reporter would focus on those important details.

Paul, no-not-that-one: so are you suggesting an ulterior motive to Brooks' "blackberry" declaration, by examining context and his prior actions to discern present intent?

My god, that almost looks like real journalism!

... McCain is in danger of giving the impression that he does not have a grasp on the facts, or worse, that he is trying to mislead voters.

Um ... it's not an "impression." McCain really does NOT have a grasp of facts and does, in fact, try to mislead voters (Hamas supporting Obama, for instance).

Perhaps if the media wasn't able to be bought and sold with mediocre bar-be-que and access, most voters would already know that.

As far as "Blackberry Politics" goes, I find it amusing that one guy who helped create it -- Brooks -- is now whining about it. If he and his fellow Villagers actually reported about substantive issues, rather than on absurdities that matter not one whit, then Blackberry Politics wouldn't exist.

Instead, he and others decided that the price of haircuts, leisure activities such as windsurfing, and the color of a candidate's slacks are all important. For him -- or anyone else -- to complain about it now displays a rather stunning lack of self awareness and a mountainous level of hypocrisy.

It's like Dr. Frankenstein whining about the monster that tore up the lab, conveniently forgetting he's the one who created the very monster that's screwing up everything.

It's pathetic, really. And probably a sign of some sort of psychosis ...

"Nano-fluffing"

grape_crush, don't ever go changin' on me.

This is, by the way, the new trend in political press criticism. Reporters are not criticized just for what they write, as in days of old, but for what they do not write.

Considering that even Bush's ex-henchmen are openly denouncing the press for all but rolling out the red carpet for the great Iraq safari, let alone almost every other issue till it winds up exploding with urgency (illegal immigration, economic carnage caused by NAFTA/"farce trade", health care crisis, American resource gluttony, etc), to lob this statement at us is just insulting.

The fact is, "BlackBerry politics" is just a new way for you guys to chase easy money without really having to earn it by directly confronting your fellow establishment.

By the way, you can't simply call "nano-scandal" towards a bout of "truthiness" and obfuscation if it relates to a freaking war that is costing lives. Common sense dictates it. Where was the handwringing when McCain and Hillary attempted to nano-scandal Obama to death with the "bitter comment" issue?

Thanks Todd, but I'm not sure me spending 10 minutes in Google can be called journalism, it just looks that way by comparison.

But the savvy news reader needs to, and is hopefully able to, distinguish between sensationalist narratives (ie Wright, flag pins, Bosnian snipers) and honest-to-goodness important details.

They're able to do that now. That's why they're able to focus exclusively on sensationalist narratives.

If they weren't able to distinguish between the two, then some honest-to-goodness important details would inevitably creep in. The fact that important details never do creep in is a testimony to the skills of today's savvy reporters.

Argh. Defeated by a wall of mouth-foam.

In fairness to Michael and to Brooks, I thought the point was that the McCain camp was caught up in BlackBerry politics, refusing to concede that he'd gotten an (important) fact wrong. I don't think they're arguing that anyone who asks McCain to get facts right is doing BlackBerry politics.

It's not the end of the world to just say, "yeah, sorry, blew that one," but campaigns are scared to do that because they don't want to invite a narrative of "he's wrong!"

Elvis your position is that Brooks was being critical of McCain? That is a very charitable take. More than the quoted evidence supports, I think.

Your second point is beyond dispute. Largely because of people like Brooks, ironically.
Witch leads me to think that your take may be mistaken.

Paul Dirks- Thanks for the link (@ 12:55). I found the following very telling:

"Yet there's a more important issue here, which is why the neo-cons are pressing McCain to adhere to the Bush administration's line. And that's the administration's theory of the so-called unitary executive, which says that the president's use of military force cannot be reviewed by courts.

McCain's earlier statements -- especially where he says presidents must "obey and enforce laws that are passed by Congress" -- seem to question the administration's interpretation. Beyond wiretapping, that touches on topics such as John Yoo's so-called torture memos, the applicability of the Geneva Convention to detainees, Bush's signing statements, and military commissions. Questioning the justifications for Bush's warrantless wiretapping means questioning the rest; no wonder McCain seems a little worried about where this may lead."

It certainly suggests that the gaffes and flubs are not mistakes, but rather McCain getting in line. A very anti-maverick thing to do.

Uncanny Valet: don't ever go changin' on me.

Dunno if that was a compliment, but I figure that if a 'nano-scandal' can evolve into a major negative issue for a candidate, then a 'nano-fluff' can evolve into a positive, wide-spread perception of a candidate.

Plus, considering what 'fluff' means in a certain context, I think it's just a little bit funny.

Elvis -

I think that reading of the BlackBerry politics line is very strained. It's just like the "gotcha" politics that Ana Marie Cox makes clear she doesn't engage in w/r/t McCain, and will defend him from those who do.

Okay.. dumb question here.
Isn't the repeated touting of McCain as a "meveric" just a continuation (and in many cases the cultivation) of exactly this sort of poltics?

Don't worry about what he's actually saying *he's a maveric*. "Maverics don't need to make long speeches, they have BBQs".

Feh

Michael-

An interesting post. I am astounded by your description of your journalistic judgement.

" But the nano-scandals, if left unspun, grow into narratives, which grow into news stories, which frame the campaign, which affect the election outcome."

I cannot believe you have it so incredibly backwards. It is the "nano-scandals" which are spun: taken out of context or entirely fabricated, pre-packaged and fed to you that become the narratives and stories. You need not look further than the whole Rev. Wright episode which engulfed the MSM for weeks at a time.

Do you honestly believe that story really told us enough about Obama's "character" to justify the amount of coverege and analysis devoted to it? Wasn't it really more of a "nano-scandal" spun into significance by clever packaging and marketing?

The unspun "nano-scandals", on the other hand, die a quick and usually timely death. They are scattered and isolated incidents. It is your job as a journalist to note these and file them away unless or until they fall into a pattern.

As per your many excellent commenters above, there is a pattern of McCain making misstatements regarding Iraq and the US deployment there-in. To take it a step further, is there also a pattern in that his "misstatements" always reflect in a positive light to the issue or audience he is addressing at that particular moment? I would argue that they do.

Yet you refuse to go there on this as well as other issues where blatantly obvious patterns of unspun incidents have emerged from the McCain campaign. Incidents which do fit together into common naratives and overall stories about the McCain campaign.

Stop expecting to be spoon-fed by the likes of David Brooks and Mark Halperin. Grow up and be a real jounalist by following the story. Your news judgement is at least their equal, a really low bar to clear - I know. Have them linking to you because you really have something news worthy to say.

Please display some jounalistic judgement.

Yeah, what Elvis said above.

So Brooks WAS going after McCain for stonewalling-for lack of a better term-about his mistake about troop levels?
I know you extrapolated MS but it really doesn't read that way.

Michael,

Maybe you should do a follow up post elaborating exactly what you mean by "the stupidity of blackberry politics". Or perhaps, giving your own definition of "blackberry politics", instead of defining a term based on the often contradictory phrasings of David Brooks.

In that post, perhaps you would articulate for us whether you believe there to be any difference between a blackberry message that seeks to give immediate fact checking to something a candidate claims, such that there is a clear and contemporaneous record of such claims, and a message which contains mere talking points.

Also, I would note that "blackberry politics" isn't really anything new. it's just a faster version of war room politics which used faxes as the medium for response. And before that, it was telephones. To complain of the stupidity of blackberry politics isn't really a fabulous phrasing of a newly observed trend, but rather a reporter who seems exasperated by the ease and access with which people may contact and confront a reporter with factual information.

It seems to me that is a reporter doesn't wish to be annoyed, he simply needs to change his/her e-mail address. Or get another damn job.

And as a side note, Michael--you are going to get precious little sympathy on this point from bloggers, who read far, far more e-mails per day than you ever will.

Candidly, my reaction to you and Brooks is a basic, "Quit whining. That's why you get a paycheck."

That is pretty lame, Michael. Claiming the spirit of Elvis' post as your own. You really do cling to the pre-packaged, don't you.

Elvis (and, by adoption, Michael) :

"…campaigns are scared to do that [just say, "yeah, sorry, blew that one,"] because they don't want to invite a narrative of "he's wrong!"

True enough, but it's the sheer frequency of error that forms the narrative of the incompetent, dishonest and/or delusional candidate for President of the United States. They might want to consider, as an alternative strategy, MAKING IT A PRIORITY NOT TO BE WRONG SO OFTEN and pretending it doesn't ever matter. Just try playing it straight for a change.

Yes, what I am describing is not new, just an acceleration. And I do not mean to say that small things never matter. But they often don't: I don't care, for instance, that Obama named the wrong concentration camp and then corrected himself. My point is that it is a concern when too much importance is given to these small things to the detriment of bigger things: What do the candidate actually believe? Who are they actually? What will they do? And I am against the view that the political "news" of a particular day is made up primarily of such ephemera and trivia. Of course sometimes the ephemera and trivia add up to something that has substance.

And to be clear: Brooks was criticizing the campaign. It is just silly to expect a 71 year-old or a 46-year-old candidate never to make verbal mistakes, but it is even sillier for campaigns to pretend that those mistakes aren't mistakes. I am saying that the debate should be about Obama and McCain's very different plans/views for/of Iraq, not the meaning of "100 years" or the verb tense of "to draw."

Well this is helpful http://abcnews.go.com/ThisWeek
It's about 10 minutes into the Roundtable clip.
I have to say that MS is probably correct. Bobo quickly moved on to say how McCain is right about Iraq but for this specific point he was mocking McCain's denying of the obvious.

I am saying that the debate should be about Obama and McCain's very different plans/views for/of Iraq, not the meaning of "100 years" or the verb tense of "to draw."

But the one is clearly pertinent to the other. McCain's clearly stated position is that we are suceeding in Iraq and that there's nothing wrong with our maintaining bases there for the next 100 years (Note that I'm not making any claims about 100 years of war)

On the day he claimed we were suceeding there were 3 suicide bombings in the very place he claimed was calm. The troop level mistatement is just a misstatement, but the assertion that we are succeeding is arguable and the evidence he cited was flat-out wrong. So it is more than a mere stumble.

On the 100 year front, you've already accomplished your mission. Obama no longer uses the phrase 100 years of war, but a 100 year occupation is a perfectly accurate description of McCain's goals for Iraq.

Words don't exist in a vacuum. They are chosen for a reason and when that reason is suspect, its certainly fair game to turn attention back to the words themselves.

the debate should be about Obama and McCain's very different plans/views for/of Iraq, not the meaning of "100 years" or the verb tense of "to draw."

The debate over "100 years" is a debate over competing visions for Iraq. McCain wants to keep bases there as in Korea (except, of course, when he doesn't), Obama does not.

It's not a debate about verb tenses. McCain made a factual claim about how many people we have in Iraq. It was false. It will remain inaccurate for the foreseeable future. The Obama campaign called him on it, and the McCain camp lied that it was all a debate about verb tenses. Bad policy, bad politics.

Part of the reason that McCain is so wildly out of step on Iraq is that he has no idea what's going on there. In John McCain's brain, Gen. Petraeus is tooling around Baghdad by himself in an unarmored car, Baghdad markets are just like going to the mall in Indiana, and our troop presence is at the same level it was before the surge. None of this is remotely close to true.

Sorry. I should have been more specific. Yes, there is a big policy difference between Obama and McCain over troop levels in Iraq, both currently and (if there is one) in a post-conflict country. Obama wants out, McCain wants to stay and "win" and after that is open to staying longer.

By writing 100 years above, I was trying to offer a shorthand for the meta-debate over McCain's 100 years comment, and what it meant, which has already consumed way too much space on these comment threads.

Also, here's an example of what I am talking about, an email I just received a few minutes ago from the Republican Party, the sort of thing that I don't much care about, but which is distributed by the RNC as part of the BlackBerry game. There are literally dozens of such things produced every day. . .

Today, in Bristol, VA:

“Everybody knows that it makes no sense that you send a kid to the emergency room for a treatable illness like asthma they end up taking a hospital bed. It costs – when – if you – they just – you gave them treatment early – and they got some treatment and a breathalyzer or an inhalator not a breathalyzer. I haven’t had much sleep in the last 48 hours.”

-Obama speaking to health care

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KbpWonUzlrc


Flashbacks…

“Even after we left Mitchell. No, even after we left Greenwood. We’re in Mitchell now.” – Barack Obama telling story about Greenwood, South Carolina in Mitchell, South Dakota, June 1, 2008

“We were in Grand Rapids with a—or Grand? – Rapid City. See I’ve been talking to long.” – Barack Obama in South Dakota, May 31, 2008

“How’s it going Sunshine? Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you everybody. It’s good to be in Sunshine!” – Barack Obama in Sunrise, Florida, 5/23/08 (“Did Obama know where he was for Sunrise rally?” South Florida Sun-Sentinel , May 24, 2008)

“Thank you, Sioux City!” – Barack Obama, first four words of Barack Obama’s rally in Sioux Falls, South Dakota, 5/16/08 (“Obama starts speech with gaffe,” Sioux Falls Argus Leader , May 16, 2008)

I am saying that the debate should be about Obama and McCain's very different plans/views for/of Iraq, not the meaning of "100 years"

Doesn't the substance of McCain's plan depend on what he means by "100 year"? The primary difference between the two is how long to continue the occupation and 100 years is a number McCain has bandied about. Shouldn't we be drilling down to see exactly what he means by that?

I just don't see how a candidate talking about a multi-trillion dollar century-long occupation isn't important, more important even than arugula and shots of Crown Royal.

I guess that's why I couldn't make it as a journalist.

OK, fair enough. I see your point-- there was an awful lot of back and forth over what that phrase meant, rather than the differing proposals on the matter. Better that than windsurfing and haircuts, but you're right that better still would be discussion of their actual policy proposals. (Or comparing Obama's proposals to McCain's pleasant fantasies, at least).

You sort of answered the question above, but I still don't see how what he means by "100 years" is irrelevant. I'd like to know what he means -- how many troops for a hundred years, what they'll be doing there, how much we'll spend on it, and so on.

Is that too much to ask?

I think if one is going to send out attacks pointing out another's mistakes one should proofread them or one would appear to be an idiot. .
“We were in Grand Rapids with a—or Grand? – Rapid City. See I’ve been talking to long.” – Barack Obama in South Dakota, May 31, 2008

Thanks for posting that e-mail. I do indeed feel your pain. Of course part of what you're experiencing is the RNC hoping to wear you down so if their Candidate really does say something significantly wrong, you're already primed to treat is just another verbal stumble and write it off.

I admit my bias but to me '57 States' and 'quiet in Basra' have a considerable difference in importance.

one should proofread them
to long....

Who proofreads on a Crackberry?

Who proofreads on a Crackberry?
Posted by Paul Dirk

Don't forget to tell the crowd to try the veal!

ok, Michael, I see the pattern here. When Barack Obama, when exhausted out on the campaign trail mixes up the names of the locations he's at. And at least part of the time acknowleges that on the spot. McCain, delivering policy pronouncements, gets facts wrong (to his advantage)and has been allowed to spin out of it with minimal attention.

What I fail to see is the equivalence in these two examples.

Of course part of what you're experiencing is the RNC hoping to wear you down so if their Candidate really does say something significantly wrong, you're already primed to treat is just another verbal stumble and write it off.

It sounds like they've already succeeded.

Which one of the two examples has significance and which doesn't. That's where your journalistic judgement should be coming into play.

But they often don't: I don't care, for instance, that Obama named the wrong concentration camp and then corrected himself. My point is that it is a concern when too much importance is given to these small things to the detriment of bigger things: What do the candidate actually believe?

Michael, that was originally my point and I agree with the silliness of your examples of Obama naming the wrong place.

However, the rest of my point was that McCain's error about the level of troops was not a comparable silly error, but demonstrated a lack of knowledge about the situation on the ground in Iraq. That is not insignificant and that is the stuff I object to his being given a pass on.

grape_crush: that was totally a compliment. Very sharp!

I think this is an interesting discussion. It seems like it's crying wolf--blasting off an e-mail for any minor thing. And I can see where we expect you to filter through all this crap to find the good stuff. Which is hard, because what's wheat to me may be chaff to someone else.

Nice point, Beth (and good to see you here, too!).

I'd like to think that a beginning place to determine wheat from chaff, is when what a candidate is discussing and making a mistake on, has to do with the life or death of another human being.

I'd also like to think that when candidate corrects themselves immediately, we can take the item out of consideration completely.

You know Michael, it occurs to me that a weekly post called, "Useless Crap I Get From Campaigns", might be entertaining and educational. You can post, just as you have above, the useless, mindless, craptastic crackmails that seek to have reporters create distracting narratives. You could create an e-mail to have readers send in things that they receive or see, or any pattern of language talking points they notice emerging that are needlessly distracting.

You can complain about this stuff, Michael, or you can create a mechanism which exposes this behavior. It's up to you.

Bear this in mind, though. The crackberry campaigning wouldn't be happening if lazy journalists didn't accomodate folks by reprinting, reporting or otherwise retaining this foolish idiocy.

'Blackberry politics' is a symptom of the larger issue with the media these days. The fourth estate is as much in the pockets of corporations as the parties.

If Iraq 'only' costs 10 billion per month then how the **** has the national deficit almost doubled. This is just the amount borrowed. Even with the tax cuts this economy has to produce a lot of revenue so where is this money? It makes me sick to think of how far 4 TRILLION dollars could have gone in this country and the media seems to have no interest in covering it.

What happened? The media used to uncover real scandals...now they uncover pastors who are a little too 'fired-up'. $4 trillion increase to the national debt and no universal health care, the Social Security surplus still being raided, 25% homeless are Veterans, military suicides are higher than ever, poverty is up, etc., etc, etc. But let's dedicate hour after hour of air time to a freaking flag pin.

Then they wonder why people have turned to the internet for their news. I am hopeful it is because people are tired of the propaganda and the fluff and desire to know truth. I have made a concerted effort to choose 'news' stories first on the internet because it seems like the media believes the 'top-picked' stories are the ones people care about.

Before I realized this craziness the opposite was true for me. I admit that my curiosity meant I would choose looky-loo type stories first because I actually wanted to dedicate some time to the stories I really cared about. Then I realized all day on CNN! there is a story about a dog found under a hood and it is one of the top viewed stories on cnn.com. All the while actual news stories float by on the ticker. Reporters are well-deserving of criticism for what they do not report.

One of the primary talking points for republican mouthpieces on TV and for the wingnut blogosphere is that Obama is "gaffe prone".

Democrats are very well aware that stupid and shallow talking points can impact elections. Just ask Kerry, Gore and Dean.

This is a little good-for-the-goose-good-for-the-gander stuff, but if traditional media chooses to draw the line here and now to protect McCain, it's absolutely and fairly evidence of bias.

Scherer is so so busy and important gossiping for the groupthink prespective, it's likely he may not agree with this point, but it's pretty elementary.

On the 100 years thing:

McCain insists the troops have to stay until there is peace and stability.

Once there's peace, then the troops should stay for another "100 years." It will be just like Germany and Japan.

And yet you continue to label characterizations of McCain's position that we need to stay in Iraq for 100 years as dishonest. You are wrong.

Red Snapper: The real difference isn't that the "agenda of the commenters here is that they want a return to the Constitution, the system of checks and balances, transparency in government, and an honourable foreign policy" -- it's that the "political hacks" aren't quite as self righteous.

M4V Converter free download center- ALL M4V conversion tools which help you feel free to convert M4V to MP3, AVI, WMV, MPEG, FLV, 3GP, WMA. And useful Guide on How to Deal with M4V files.
m4v converter
convert m4v
Ultra Quicktime M4V converter currently is the best M4V converter which can convert Quicktime movie M4V to AVI, MPEG, MP4, MPG, WMV, ASF and Vob. As we know Quicktime movie usually has the video formats of M4V, MOV, QT, MP4, and M4V, With this M4V Converter, you can feel free to Convert them all with fast speed and high output quality.
m4v to avi
m4v to wmv
With the fast and powerful QuickTime video decoder inside, Ultra QuickTime M4V Converter supports almost all MOV, QT, MP4, M4V files, even QuickTime Player has not been installed. Integrated High-speed MPEG-2 encoder which let you convert M4V to DVD-Video files(VIDEO_TS, AUDIO_TS) and VCD/SVCD, so you can burn VCD/SVCD/DVD disc easily from QuickTime files by using third-party buring tools. It is a software program for converting video formats at fast speeds and high quality. Very user-friendly interface and Quality Profiles.
m4v to mpeg
m4v to mp4

Easy Way to Cut Large Video Files into Small Clips with Video Cuttervideo cutterFLV Video Cutter3GP Video Cutter Ultra Video Cutter is a powerful video cutting tool. The main function of Ultra Video Cutter is to cut large video files into new video files, and also to join or merge multiple video clips into a large one. AVI Video CutterMP4 Video CutterDVD Video CutterDAT Video CutterVideo Editor
The program supports so many video formats including AVI, Divx, XviD, MPEG, WMV, ASF, RM, MOV, 3GP, MP4 formatsVideo MergerVideo JoinerVideo Splitter

اناشيد طيور الجنة
العاب تلبيس زفاف
العاب سونك
العاب
العاب ماريو
العاب
العاب باربي
العاب مكياج و ميك اب
العاب طبخ
العاب تلبيس بنات
العاب ترتيب
العاب ديكور
العاب بنات
العاب اطفال
العاب كرتون
العاب سيارات
العاب اكشن
العاب ذكاء
العاب دراجات
العاب رياضية
العاب قتالية
العاب بازل و متاهات
العاب ورق
العاب تصويب ونشان
العاب حربية
العاب فلاش
العاب مغامرات
العاب تلوين
العاب عربية
العاب قص الشعر
العاب براتز
العاب اولاد
hguhf
عيش سفارى
العاب تلبيس باربي
العاب براتس
العاب بنات شمس
ريجيم ورشاقة
طبخ
ازياء
ميك اب ومكياج
اتيكيت
ازياء محجبات
اكلات
حلويات
الطب البديل والاعشاب
صحة المراة
العروس
اكسسوارات
ديكور
برامج
اغانى اطفال
توبيكات
صور سيارات
العاب
افلام كرتون
افلام عربية
العاب شمس
افلام اجنبية
اناشيد
دليل مواقع
عالم حواء
العاب بنات
برامج
العاب للبنات فقط
تحميل افلام
تنزيل برامج
شات
تحميل العاب
يوتيوب
مسجات
قصص
برامج الكمبيوتر
برامج انترنت
برامج صوت و صورة
برامج تصميم وفوتوشوب
مصارعه
برامج حماية وانتى فايروس
برامج صور
برامج ماسنجر
العاب
بروكسي
برامج الجوال
برامج بورتابل
برامج الشبكات