Two Views On Pro-Obama Bias In The Media

Jonah Goldberg writes:

"...As a general proposition I think there's an additional explanation why the press has been burrowing deeper into the Obama camp: post-election access. This is certainly not news to you, but most of the reporters covering these campaigns want to be rewarded with White House correspondent jobs. Others just want access to the next administration. Many figure that ripping into the Obama campaign now would be like wounding the king without killing him.

And VandeHarris write -- and you gotta love the Drudge headline: "Don't blame us for the bias; McCain campaign sucks...)

There have been moments in the general election when the one-sidedness of our site--when nearly every story was some variation on how poorly McCain was doing or how well Barack Obama was faring--has made us cringe.

As it happens, McCain's campaign is going quite poorly and Obama's is going well. Imposing artificial balance on this reality would be a bias of its own.

....

McCain's decision to limit media access and align himself with the GOP conservative base was an entirely routine strategic move for a presidential candidate. But much of the coverage has portrayed this as though it were an unconscionable sell-out.

Since then the media oftens presume bad faith on McCain's part. The best evidence of this has been the intense focus on the negative nature of his ads, when it is clear Obama has been similarly negative in spots he airs on radio and in swing states.

It is not our impression that many reporters are rooting for Obama personally. To the contrary, most colleagues on the trail we've spoken with seem to find him a distant and undefined figure. But he has benefited from the idea that negative attacks that in a normal campaign would be commonplace in this year would carry an out-of-bounds racial subtext. That's why Obama's long association with the Rev. Jeremiah Wright was basically a non-issue in the general election.

Journalists' hair-trigger racial sensitivity may have been misplaced, but it was not driven by an ideological tilt.

In addition, Obama has benefited from his ability to minimize internal drama and maximize secrecy--and thus to starve feed the press's bias for palace intrigue. In this sense, his campaign bears resemblance to the two run by George W. Bush.

Who's right?

Comments

Who's right?

You have Jonah Goldberg, so you answered your own question.

Posted by James | October 28, 2008 10:44 AM

Ideologically, they both are. Which means it's good news for McCain that these types of stories are coming out. Because this next 7 days are going to be BRUTAL for Obama as the press tries to make this a close race...

Posted by MattC | October 28, 2008 10:45 AM

None of the above.

Posted by a | October 28, 2008 10:47 AM

They both are. I've contended that "negative" campaign ads against McCain aren't actually negative in the traditional sense; they're merely reflecting of a non-positive-message campaign that McCain has run. It's hard not to be biased against McCain's campaign when the campaign has been so awfully flawed.

Posted by Scholar in Training | October 28, 2008 10:47 AM

Perhaps it is just this simple: even more than a nice close race, the press really likes a well-crafted narrative. The Obama campaign has provided one, while the McCain campaign has appeared to be all over the map. Hence the perception, by the reporters, that the McCain campaign has been mis-managed. It's not so much the management style that they disapprove of (although some of them do see how that could be a problem for an administration), it's that the story just doesn't track. And writing a story that makes sense is what the press corps is all about.

Posted by wj | October 28, 2008 10:50 AM

What James said. Or, to quote Roy Edroso, that comment from Jonah Goldberg is the stupidest thing ever written until he writes something else.

I mean, is Jonah really saying that the competing Obama embeds and cablenews networks would sit on some potential Obama blockbuster? That's just dumb: Carl Cameron took the Bush DUI story national in late 2000, because, regardless of your ideological leanings, he's a hard-nosed reporter who wanted the scoop on his national rivals. And I don't think he lost any access as a result.

If anything, you're getting two things: tire-swing elegies to the McCain Who Loved Me from campaign reporters, and lots of juicy goss from within the McCain campaign. What are the political media going to cover? Oh, yeah: the people who want to be heard.

Jonah's never been a reporter. He's a sinecured opinionist, and as such, has as much perspective on campaign reporting as Kevin Drum's cats.

Posted by pseudonymous in nc | October 28, 2008 10:55 AM

WJ -- That's assuming that all journalists are failed authors or novelists. Oh, 90% are? Ok, then ya, I agree with your point. Much easier to write a story where the plot is already there for you than to have to look at events objectively and then decide for yourself where the points are...

Posted by MattC | October 28, 2008 10:57 AM

The McCain campaign is doing poorly, and Obama's "no drama" style and ground game is working great.

It all goes back to two things: Palin and the lack of surrogate attackers. Palin was a "rally the base pick" and she did; but then she opened her mouth to Couric and Gibson and was completely exposed as an empty suit with nothing but cultural resentments to offer. The Obama campaign has not attacked her, she's failed fine on her own, and now the unfavorables are at unprecedented levels.

And while there have always been negative attacks and smears, typically a candidate knows not to leave their prints on them. You get a shadowy group to do your dirty work and can even condemn them later (while secretly approving). For example, Swift Vote Veterans for Truth. But this campaign sends this smears direct ("pallin' around with terrorists," the robocalls, etc.). So there has been far more negativity coming directly from the candidate. And the attacks are all over the place, which plays into the narrative of a flailing campaign.

Posted by agorabum | October 28, 2008 11:03 AM

VandeHarris write -- and you gotta love the Drudge headline: "Don't blame us for the bias; McCain campaign sucks...)
...
As it happens, McCain's campaign is going quite poorly and Obama's is going well. Imposing artificial balance on this reality would be a bias of its own.

The "liberal media" decides when a campaign is going well and when it's not. See the latest 'Palin's gone rouge!' "liberal media" script. Not one quote from one named person. Lots of 'someone close to the mccain campaign', 'insiders say' ect. The "liberal media" just read from the same script they used on Hillary during the primaries. The same script they used on Kerry and Gore. Talk about a lazy press. The really big story: obama has more money than God, the "liberal media" wind at his back for 18 months and deal is still not done. Amazing.

Anyway a pimped on the front page story from wapo on Cindy mccain's past drug problems. No mention ever anywhere in the national press of mrs. obama's skyrocketing income the second ombama joined the US senate. All the "liberal media" agreed wapo's hackery was bad news for mccain. See how that works. The "liberal media" trashes mccain then says 'gee things are going bad for mccain.' But we know that's how it works don't we.

Bottom line: The "liberal media" picked bush twice. Insanity is thinking their third pick will work OK for us.

Posted by hadenough | October 28, 2008 11:06 AM

Neither. The media's not in the tank for Obama.
If they were, there'd be unprompted stories about Alaska Independence party keynote speeches, G. Gordon Liddy, anti-witchcraft religious services, McCain's gambling propensities, voter suppression activities, and the like. Plus demands for media access to McCain & especially Palin.
Instead we get wall-to-wall Ayers, ACORN, and Socialism.

Posted by Joe Bftsplk | October 28, 2008 11:11 AM

See the contrasting articles in the LA Times today. The reporter covering McCain clearly loves him; whereas the reporter covering Obama evidently has a personal dislike (sounds like it might be mutual.)

I'd imagine this is typical of reporters, that in fact on a personal level they have a bias for the McCain campaign. And during the summer this was reflected in all the stories of all the mistakes Obama was making and how unknowable he is. But once the polls shifted, reporters had no choice but to follow reality. It's not the media bias, it's reality bias.

Posted by alex | October 28, 2008 11:11 AM

The best evidence of this has been the intense focus on the negative nature of his ads, when it is clear Obama has been similarly negative in spots he airs on radio and in swing states.

This is not really any indictment of the media. There are two key differences. First, the McCain campaign all but hit the media over the head with the negative ads as part of an intentional strategy to use the media for free coverage beyond what McCain could afford to buy. As a result, the McCain campaign did video press releases on almost all of their hardest hitting ads. You can't very well beg the press to cover your latest attack ad and then complain that the media is making it look like you are running a negative campaign. Team Obama took exactly the opposite approach - they did video releases of their positive spots, while quietly running localized negative ads on smaller media. Of course it didn't get the same coverage - it wasn't as visible, and it didn't directly involve the political media as a player in the game.

Second, there is a very, very fundamental difference in quality that is every bit as important as quantity between, for example, an Obama "negative" ad saying John McCain will tax health benefits (which is objectively true and is also a relevant substantive issue) and a McCain ad saying Obama is like Paris Hilton and Britney spears, which is substance-free and is a purely ad hominem appeal.

The McCainiacs are being disingenuously whiney on this one: they have in fact run a negative campaign. And they got called on it. I have trouble seeing the drama.

Posted by zeitgeist | October 28, 2008 11:17 AM

Does anyone really believe that the McCain camp has been performing as well as the Obama camp since the financial mess hit, and that it's just the media making us think otherwise?

Posted by Chris O. | October 28, 2008 11:18 AM

It is false and stupid to call the amount and nature of deception in the McCain and Obama campaigns equivalent. I mean you could look at the number of ads that are generally negative that have played and conclude that Obama has been more negative because he has spent more money on his ads. And you can look at Obama's ads about McCain's health care plan that are somewhat dishonest and say that Obama's campaign is just as dishonest as McCain. You could do that if you were a braindead hack.

Compare Obama's healthcare attacks which generalize from an edgecase that McCain's health care plan will cause people to lose their health insurance. When for most people it won't. To McCain's ad that implied that Obama supported teaching kindergarten children sex ed or take the utterly disingenuous implication that Obama called sarah Palin a pig.

McCain was allowed to go really far before the press turned on him. He got praised for his celebrity ad that called Obama a dumb bitch. McCain took things to far and got called on it. I guess that sucks if you think mean spirited, craven, duplicitous, cynical rambling is the same thing as the typical "Tax Raiser" "Service Cutter" tit for tat that happens in every election.

Posted by Michael Foody | October 28, 2008 11:21 AM

Neither of them are right. The McCain camp is floundering, Obama is doing great, reporting that fact is reporting on reality. I don't understand how journalists around the world haven't suffered brain explosions trying to dig up this false equivalency nonsense.

Reporters love McCain, I expect to see tears in their eyes every time they talk about the latest flub he made. It's pretty pathetic in the big picture.

Posted by Lily R. | October 28, 2008 11:22 AM

Since then the media oftens presume bad faith on McCain's part. The best evidence of this has been the intense focus on the negative nature of his ads, when it is clear Obama has been similarly negative in spots he airs on radio and in swing states.

Have to call 'foul' on that one. Obama's attack ads have been about issues (McCain's health care plans, ties to Bush/GOP ideology, economic mumbling). McCain's have been character-based (asking who is Barack Obama, Ayers, celebrity). That is the reason the media is more attracted to covering the negativity of McCain.

Posted by The Ghost of Johnny Apple | October 28, 2008 11:26 AM

As it happens, McCain's campaign is going quite poorly and Obama's is going well. Imposing artificial balance on this reality would be a bias of its own.

That, I think, is closest to the truth. There have been more negative stories about McCain recently because McCain has done more stuff meriting negative stories recently. That's really all there is to it.

Posted by Darius | October 28, 2008 11:29 AM

First of all, the McCain campaign has demanded most of the attention from the media. Even on the most leftwing of MSM, MSNBC much more air time has been given to McCain than Obama. Obama gives one killer speech after another to huge crowds and does not get a scintilla of the coverage on Sarah Palin's clothing.

Part of the antipathy towards the McCain campaign has been his determination to grandstand. He lost the election during the two weeks he was basically trying to upstage the tsunami of the financial meltdown with his helter-skelter campaign soap opera. Sarah Palin was brought in to do what exactly? Upstage Obama's charisma. So while television is glued to her every move, some of them have been so laughable that the nation, while it can't take its eyes off her, doesn't think there's much there, there, Vice President wise.

Obama has kept it simple and low key: tax breaks for 95%, health care that's affordable; focused energy policy, American blood is both Republican and Democratic.

But like a deer in the headlights, actually the spotlight, it's hard to tell one day to the next what exactly is McCain's economic vision except that tax cuts for rich people are anticommunist, Joe the Plumber, and Obama is an alien commie terrorist with a Muslim name who has the audacity of wanting to spread the wealth around to someone other than the top 10% of Americans.

Colin Powell saw exactly what everyone has been seeing. It's not that the media is against McCain; it's that his reality soap opera campaign while endlessly entertaining is in the end only good for laughs if you don't take it seriously.

Posted by CitizenE | October 28, 2008 11:31 AM

What zeitgeist and Chris O. said. Is it so hard to think that the coverage reflects the lousy campaign McCain has run? His organization knew its best hope of winning was making the race about Obama, but it went over the top in its negativity and failed to come up with a coherent message. Voters think Republicans are on the wrong side of the issues, and McCain hasn't given them a reason to think otherwise.

That's a campaign that's blundered, and that's not "bias." Vandehei and Harris are right. The media will be demonized by partisans no matter what (which makes me distrust most media criticism), but a "he said/she said" narrative doesn't reflect what's going on.

Posted by Brian | October 28, 2008 11:31 AM

Obama has run a much better campaign than McCain but the press has been much, much tougher on McCain. The national media is totally in the tank for Obama and they have been ever since he won in Iowa and they realized that he had a chance to win. There are multiple reasons for this: the media's pack mentality, their guilt at doing nothing for 8 years while Bush wrecked the country, their liberal bias and their desire to see a major milestone...first black president...occur during their careers.

What will be interesting is whether or not they stay in the tank after the election. Will Obama get the same kind of free passes as president that he's gotten as a candidate....

Posted by Libertarian | October 28, 2008 11:31 AM

I don't know which is worse: a disingenuous campaign run by extremists with their own house media organ complaining about press bias...

...or the press actually listening to the complaints, and writing articles on how hard they've been on the McCain camp.

Anyone remember the "terrorist fist-jab?"

Posted by Cameron | October 28, 2008 11:31 AM

McCain's decision to limit media access and align himself with the GOP conservative base was an entirely routine strategic move for a presidential candidate.

(1) No. You don't align with the base in the general election. This has been the single worst mistake of McCain 2008 -- the notion that the base had to be appeased rather than taken for granted (who else ya gonna vote for, base?).

(2) "Entirely routine" is not sufficient for a "maverick" who is running with the same party that's got a wildly unpopular incumbent.

Posted by Anderson | October 28, 2008 11:36 AM

Even this post is biased. Instead of using conservative op/ed columnist Goldberg as a point of comparison with journalists (in theory, at least) VandeHei and Harris, you might have picked a reporter critical of the reporting, such as Michael S. Malone on the ABCNews website.

Is the media biased this cycle? Indisputably. Within hours the reporters from major "serious" news outlets had long, critical stories on Gov. Palin and then "Plumber Joe" that aired any and everything negative that could be drummed up on both.

The press has shown not even the slightest bit of curiosity about Sen Obama's past beyond what he has served up in his own biography.

The media have approached any claims from the GOP side with skepticism, but shown an abject lack of critical thinking skills for any press release to come out of DNC head- and hindquarters.

I take comfort in the fact that the consolidation in the dead-tree media will push many of these journalistic dolts into the soup kitchens and/or true gainful employment.

Posted by MarkG | October 28, 2008 11:39 AM

I agree with what i've read elsewhere, that the right wing of the Republican party (and to enough of a degree McCain/Palin) went after Obama in too scurrilous of a fashion. Their negativity was a whole other animal, portraying Obama as "other," "not to be trusted, "he's not who you think he is," "socialist," "friends with terrorists," etc. Basically, those kind of attacks are fodder for the media to focus on, debunk, and harshly criticize. Obama's fudging the truth on McCain's health plan, tax plan, immigration, etc. is a pure standard for political campaigns. The fact checker nerds make a whimper of a noise and then...done. Given who Barack Obama is and his newness to the national stage, he has always been vulnerable as a candidate. My feeling is that the Press doesn't want this election to be unfairly decided by voters' fears that stemmed from falsified attacks that preyed upon their deepest insecurities (whether it be race, religion, etc.) Also, the McCain campaign is, um, not good. Realize also that complaining about media bias in this type of political environment for Republicans seems to lose sight of what's really going on.

Posted by james | October 28, 2008 11:41 AM

This is silly. The media was devastating to Kerry, but it was justifiable as he didn't control the narrative. The simple fact is that Obama is the better candidate - to try to balance that in the media would be a false positive bias towards McCain.

Posted by D | October 28, 2008 11:45 AM

If McCain and Palin want better coverage they should stop soiling themselves in public.

Posted by MoeLarryAndJesus | October 28, 2008 11:48 AM

If John McCain murdered a kid, and Barack Obama saved a family from a burning building, it'd logically follow that the news of McCain would be mostly negative, and the news of Obama would be mostly positive.

The news orgs don't fabricate things completely. They work off what they are given, and things like the Couric Interview, Troopergate, Campaign Suspension, Fundamentals are Strong, Race-baiting tend to be written from a negative perspective because they're negative.

You can't expect the media anymore to say "Today, John McCain killed a kid. His opponent, Barack Obama, uses sharp language on the stump. We'll be back after these messages with reaction to both." No, sorry, some things make more headlines, bier headlines, and badder headlines. The Republicans used the Symmetry of Sin to win two elections, rightly believing the media would try to find something negative the Democrat did, and weigh the two equally. It was absurd.

Those days are over. You pick someone like Palin, and she herself digs a hole on Couric, you are going to pay a price in the media.

The Drudge headline is exactly right: Don't blame the media, McCain's campaign sucks.

Posted by Daily Shocker | October 28, 2008 11:57 AM

This is probably more for Ta-Nehisi's blog but lemme throw a sports analogy at you.

Sure Obama is getting help from the media..

Michael Jordan got a ton of gimme calls from refs when he played too..

However, boo hooing about it is lame and only losers resort to it.

The bottom line is that just like Jordan who didn't need the help from the refs, Obama is just head and shoulders better than McCain in a campaign setting. You're watching genius, once in a lifetime talent now. He's still gonna drop 50 on McCain even without some iffy calls from the refs, so crying about the 10 extra free throws he gets kinda misses the point here. While it may be annoying, mostly because he doesn't need the help, it wouldn't make a difference in the end. That fadeaway is still gonna be shot right in McCain's eye, and he's gonna get dunked on and posterized no matter what.
he

Posted by Jim | October 28, 2008 11:58 AM

Without even reading anything that was written, I can say that the person who is not Jonah Golberg is right, or at least righter.

We're talking about Jonah Goldberg here.

Posted by Exile on Ericsson St. | October 28, 2008 12:04 PM

I'm going to have to follow my fellow commentors on reality's well-known liberal bias. VandeHarris gets close to that with "McCain's campaign is going quite poorly and Obama's is going well," but then needs to go into deep conspiracy mode about how McCain's campaign is overflowing with people ready to do precriminations and Obama is running a no-drama tight ship, as though these are accidents.

The media don't like John McCain? I mean, come on. The media never loved a candidate more, and Marc beat both the yahoos quoted above when he asked if the McCain campaign really wanted to go to war with the media 2 months out from the election, and later pointed out several instances of the media saying "Okay, you know what? The McCain people are Wrong Wrong Wrong on whatever lie they're telling this week, and I'm going to follow Campbell Brown on just saying "The sun actually is shining, but McCain keeps claiming that it's nighttime."

Let's all fondly recall the moment when McCain's abandoned press caught sight of their candidate and started up the "Bring Back Mac!" cheer.

If the Obama campaign were going to go negative in the way of the GOP, we'd have endless ads about McCain as Manchurian candidate brainwashed to usher in global communism. Instead, we got "erratic, and like Bush" and then McCain did all in his power to live up to that at every turn of the economic crisis.

And reporting on Palin's inadequacies is not evidence of bias; it is evidence of inadequacy. There's a reason every person related to the campaign was selling "You can actually see Russia from Alaska!!" after she was nominated, and it wasn't her stunning adequacy.

Posted by Deborah | October 28, 2008 12:05 PM

Hey Ambinder, you anvil-headed hack, rather than responding to your insufferably obtuse question, let me pose you one of my own. Why is it always the most insecure and pimply-faced members of the Washington press corps who need to play G.I. Joe by winking and nudging into copy these entirely gratuitous allusions to military terminology? Cf. your unfortunate invention, "RUMINT," which doesn't make you cool, Ambinder. It makes you, if possible, even more despicable, you sad little boy.

Posted by xx | October 28, 2008 12:05 PM

Both comments are right, in so far as they go.

But as a recovering journalist, I think they lack real insight into this campaign's coverage. It's been treated as a sporting event. There's been a dearth of policy coverage, so voters are still unclear on the difference between candidates; even this late in the game. The only place their differences have been displayed side-by-side is the debates, and the short time frames for answers didn't allow in depth contrast.

I do give kudos for pointing out that one candidate is ahead, another behind does not constitute bias. If the race were not covered as a horse race, it would not feel as if it were bias.

Posted by zic | October 28, 2008 12:06 PM

People are way too simplistic about evaluating media bias. They assume positive coverage equal media bias, but that is not the case.

Vandeharris is closer to the truth.

In my opinion, Effective Media Bias = (Coverage - Reality - Backlash effect) X (Echo chamber Effect)

You can read my reasoning, which I came up with in the primary, here:

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2008/3/24/103951/218/973/483137

Posted by RKA | October 28, 2008 12:12 PM

You have one campaign calling out the opponent's health care and economic plans for being four more years of the same and another campaign calling the opponent a Nazi-loving terrorist. And you're asking about media bias?

McCain has run a low-rent third-party campaign from day one and, early on, hardly any of his BS was called out by the press. In contrast, Obama's run a particularly stellar (and consistent) campaign from day one, and early on, we were all wondering whether we approved of the roll of his bowling ball. Since McCain started withholding his barbecue, we've finally been able to get some honest coverage of his campaign. It's not our fault that, quite often, reality has a liberal bias.

Posted by slag | October 28, 2008 12:17 PM

Chrissake I'm sick of this:

== " . . . the intense focus on the negative nature of [McCain's] ads, when it is clear Obama has been similarly negative in spots he airs" ==

McCain's ads: Personal attacks, which have been both despicable and lame
Obama's ads: Issue based.

All Negative Ads Are Not Created Equal.

I wish to hell the third graders that pundify in our media industries would discover that obvious fact and interpret accordingly. How did these people pass 10th grade English class with such poor skills in compare/contrast?

I don't care if this repeats what other commenters above have said. This deserves multiple repetition through blogosphere and other media until these guys (and gals) figure this out.

Posted by typing the letters onto the website | October 28, 2008 12:19 PM

The two ideas...John Mccain has run a terrible campaign and the media is biased in favor of Obama are not mutually exclusive.

McCain has run a terrible campaign.

The media is biased in favor of Obama.

Both statements are accurate. The media may want to think that they are reporting 'reality' but that is not true. In objective reality, John McCain's alleged affair 10 years ago or his wife's drug problem from years ago do not merit any significant coverage, especially when Obama's very recent relationship with a racist pastor and his relationship with Bill Ayers have been deemed by the media as basically 'old news' not worthy of any significant coverage let alone investigation. John McCain's ad about sex ed for kindergartenders is no more a "lie" than any of Obama's misleading ads about John McCain, yet the media treated the fairly typical hyperbole and exaggeration of political ads by the two campaigns completely different.

Posted by Libertarian | October 28, 2008 12:21 PM

The title of this posting might as well be, "Press pro-Obama Bias: Meance or Threat?" The press is saying that Obama is winning because, guess what: Obama is winning. At least VandeHarris has the cojones to admit it. But blogger-pundits can't imagine that voters are sick of negative campaigning, and are actually voting accordingly. Nor can they believe that voters can distinguish between negative characterization of a political opponent's policies on the one hand, from character assassination, smears, innuendo and lies on the other. That's what distinguishes these candidates' campaigning styles. One courts boos, catcalls, and worse; the other scolds his supporters for booing the other side. There's no comparison. Face it, guys. Lee Atwater is dead.

Posted by Mark Johnson | October 28, 2008 12:23 PM

I think both are right, which makes this the second time in Jonah Goldberg's life he's been right about something (the first time had something to do with dogs).

It seemed to me, subjectively and as an Obama guy, that the press turned on McCain somewhat when McCain started accusing them of all manner of treachery and subversion. Ideally that kind of thing wouldn't happen - the press would play it straight no matter what was being said about them at the time. But in reality these are human beings trying, for the most part, to do good work. McCain trashed them for it, and they turned on him. McCain was an idiot for going this route and he got what he deserved.

Posted by Hieronymus Bosch's Poodle | October 28, 2008 12:24 PM

I bet if I could get the biggest "journalists" in the country together and quizzed them, I bet 90% of them couldn't coherently explain the differences between the two health care plans (and why McCain's sucks so hard), their economic proposals (and why McCain's doesn't reflect the slightest bit of reality, and would raise the deficit by 1/3 a trillion dollars or so). By the same token, 100% of them would rationalize why bowling scores and orange juice are important to America, and why hanging out at the McCain house and "riding the tire swing" doesn't contribute to bias.
We'd also lots of excuses from them along the lines of: the reason that McCain's ties to terrorists like G.Gordon Liddy aren't mentioned is because Obama has to bring it up first. Really, one of the alleged journalists at the WaPo chat gave that pathetic excuse as to why Liddy wasn't a news item. You're going to tell me that such a go-getter is in the tank for Obama? Please.
If we had an objective media in this country, Obama would be up by 20.
P.S. Goldberg is a momma's boy nepotism hire and basically a poster boy for much of what ails the journalist class these days--it's who you know and not what you know.

Posted by flounder | October 28, 2008 12:28 PM

It's not just the internal drama that has separated these two camps. It's the perception that each candidate has for the other as shaped by their campaigning strategy and ads.

McCain negative ads are directed at the character of Barack Obama. McCain's entire strategy is "Obama is a diva. Obama is shady. Obama is scary (aka could be a terrorist or is black and will rape and kill your family). Obama is a Socialist! (I love this one).

Obama's negative ads are directed at McCain's policies. McCain's plans are out touch with middle class voters. McCain's policies are the same as W. McCain's health care plan sucks. McCain's plan to buy mortgages is a bad one because of the increase in debt. McCain wants to lower taxes for corporations and the rich.

Not once in the entire campaign did Obama attack the character of John McCain. In fact, he has said quite the opposite. Obama has called McCain a patriot and has applauded his service from the first moment of the campaign. That is why Barack Obama will be president. The voters are sick of the petty bull shit about Ayers, Acorn, and Wright. Not of that matters if Obama's economic plan works. Obama could burns flags to heat his house and if gets America out of this recession and on the "right" track, nobody will give a shit. This is the new politics of hope not the McCain politics of fear.

Posted by JB | October 28, 2008 12:30 PM

You've got people at rallies shouting "terrorist" and "kill him", and McCain aids pretending to get attacked by black men just to blame it on the Obama campaign.

Fox News loves to run race baiting stories. I'm sure they are quite pleased with stirring up the Neo-Nazi skinheads and racist groups who want to kill black people. They must be so proud of themselves, especially Hannity and Limbaugh.

I'd say the media bias in favor of Obama is negative or barely neutral.

Since the GOP is going to lose they need some group to bash. So, if it's the media - who cares?

Posted by Betty Chambers | October 28, 2008 12:34 PM

Obama doesn't have much of a record to be criticized, though, does he? All of those present votes and no major legislation that he authored.....

When McCain has criticized his record, such as his support for comprehensive K-12 'age appropriate sex education' he has been called a liar. Same goes for his criticism of Obama's economic plan...the press just reports that McCain is a liar.

I don't think Obama's economic plan will work, that is why I won't vote for him. I think he knows and has always known that there is no way he can cut taxes for 95% of Americans and increase government spending all by taxing 'the rich'.

Posted by Libertarian | October 28, 2008 12:37 PM

I had every intention of voting for Senator Obama. But the last few weeks, I feel as if I've been in a used car lot with a bunch of high pressure salesmen trying to sell me a lemon. I don't believe the Senator is the Savior of America like the press would have me believe. And I'm tired of the bias. Something's not right. I'm going to the other side.

Posted by WasObama | October 28, 2008 12:59 PM

BOTH!

Ripping Obama now will barely put a dent in his lead. On the other hand, McCain campaign indeed sucks. Why should he be rewarded with positive coverage.

Posted by Diamond | October 28, 2008 12:59 PM

You've got people at rallies shouting "terrorist" and "kill him"...

Posted by Betty Chambers

That is perfect Betty. Because it didn't happen. At least according to The secret service. No really. Only two members of the "liberal media" heard "kill him" yelled at an event. Isn't that perfect? Does that fit in with 'gee is the "liberal media" biased?" Yeah it does.

Anyway did get one of those kool Palin is a c###t t-shirts?

Secret Service says "Kill him" allegation unfounded

Agent Bill Slavoski said he was in the audience, along with an undisclosed number of additional secret service agents and other law enforcement officers and not one heard the comment.

“I was baffled,” he said after reading the report in Wednesday’s Times-Tribune.

He said the agency conducted an investigation Wednesday, after seeing the story, and could not find one person to corroborate the allegation other than Singleton.
www.timesleader.com/news/breakingnews/Secret_Service_says_Kill_him_allegation_unfounded_.html

The other fake story was from millbank. No, no video, no audio just millbanks fevered mind.

Posted by hadenough | October 28, 2008 1:00 PM

I believe it is due to how the McCain campaign decided to utilize the media to change the storyline. With their money disadvantage, the McCain campaign released many of their negative ads to the media. In doing so, it gave the appearance that their campaign was running essentially a negative campaign. Thus, the Obama campaign only had to respond in kind. When you pair this tactic with the cutting off of media access to the campaign in addition to ads that went over the top (sex education ad) is it really so surprising that the media started to push back? In other words,the McCain campaign wanted to the use the media for their own ends (airing ads aimed at attacking Obama), but not return the favor (media access).

Posted by JM | October 28, 2008 1:00 PM

The Press do as they will, Conservatives suffer as they must.

Posted by Horatius | October 28, 2008 1:03 PM

Libertarian, does it get tiring repeating the same talking points, or do you have a macro?

Is the media biased this cycle? Indisputably. Within hours the reporters from major "serious" news outlets had long, critical stories on Gov. Palin and then "Plumber Joe" that aired any and everything negative that could be drummed up on both.

Absolutely! Why on Earth did the media go and drum up information on the vice-presidential candidate, anyway? Shouldn't the fact that John McCain picked her be evidence enough of her qualifications?

Posted by Persia | October 28, 2008 1:07 PM

Interesting...

The claim that there has been Obama bias by the media is quite entertaining.

Does anyone remember the media coverage of the campaigns during the Democratic primaries?

During the beginning of the Dem primary campaign process, Hillary was all but pronounced the 2008 Democratic candidate by virtually EVERY news organization (From Fox to CNBC).

Then the campaigns drudged on, issues were discussed, plans revealed, debates were held, ideals were scrutinized, and leadership styles were compared. As time went on, Obama's campaign picked up momentum. Then Hillary's campaign started with the negative slants, trying to find any way to punch a hole in the Obama message. It didn't work, and Obama ended up with the nomination.

While Obama and Hillary were sparring, the McCain/GOP campaign had many months to sit back and come up with a cohesive message that would convince the American people that a vote for McCain would be the right decision for our country. They needed a compelling message because they were now going to be running against what had now turned into a "movement."

What did the GOP choose to do? Attach an inexperienced empty suit as a running mate that could only be thought of as an attempt to woo women voters feeling anger/resentment about the democratic primary results and still wished for a woman in the White House. As soon as Palin opened her mouth in even the most tame of interviews, that hope was dashed. Since the GOP had no message on which to run their campaign, they then focused on the only method they had left.... They produced a wave of any and all negative smear rhetoric they could come up with. When these two tactics obviously failed miserably, they blamed the economic crisis and a "liberal media bias" for their fall in the polls. What a joke.

Now, while Obama's message, ideas, and strength of his persona have taken hold across the nation, the cries of "liberal media" ring out from those who are not yet ready to accept this shift in the American consciousness.

The rediculous and shameful GOP campaign that has attempted to propogate fear, anger, and division amongst our society will ulitmately result in the very outcome it deserves... Defeat by those intelligent enough to see right through it.

The reason the press has now embrased Obama is because polls show that he is winning, and he also happens to be a great and uniquely American story. America loves an underdog, and America loves a winner, and Obama unequivocally represents both of these. The media coverage is just a reflection of this microcosm of our society.

I say... Get over it. The American people have had enough of the "vote through fear" campaigns. The GOP should look to their own message to understand that they have nothing AND no one to blame other than themselves. Accept responsibility for your own actions, and let's get to work healing our country and our world.

It's not just about "the economy stupid," it's about EVERYTHING.

Posted by Duh | October 28, 2008 1:32 PM

Absolutely! Why on Earth did the media go and drum up information on the vice-presidential candidate, anyway? Shouldn't the fact that John McCain picked her be evidence enough of her qualifications?

Posted by Persia

Persia = missing the point

What have you heard about mrs obama's skyrocketing income the second obama became a US senator? Has anybody, any reporter anywhere every asked obama about biden's horrific voting record on bankruptcies and credit cards? Has anybody asked biden about obama's horrific voting on FISA? How does biden's wanting to split Iraq fit with whatever obama is saying he'll do today. Those are real issues ignored by the "liberal media". I'm sure there are people very interested in Palin's clothes. I mean besides just "reporters" but Americans really don't give a damn.

Also you ignored joe the plumber. So please tell us why you think joe the plumber's divorce records are more important than the questions joe asked obama?

Posted by hadenough | October 28, 2008 1:32 PM

I actually got to thinking about this when last week I saw an old movie from 1950 called "The Big Lift", staring Montgomery Clift & about Berlin Airlift--to cut the the chase, Clift's co-star, Paul Douglas, tries to convince his German girl friend that all Americans were free in part because in the last election, "90 percent of all the newspapers endorsed the other guy & told the people to kick Harry Truman out but he won anyway."

As it happens, Hollywood got it wrong again, only 85 percent of the mass media told the people to dump Harry. (as the link below proves)

http://www.editorandpublisher.com/eandp/news/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1003877229

And as many historical accounts of the '48 election proved, Truman couldn't catch a break from the media for love or money, including very bad economic news--by July reports were circulating runaway inflation would cause a national collapse by fall; in fact, things got bleak in the fall through the election.

This old story struck a nerve, because I remembered my reaction when I first read Arthur M. Schlesinger's "Crisis of the Old Order" about the 1932 campaign; they didn't keep track of editorial pages then, but if they did, I'll bet the percentages were similar as the media moguls were dead against FDR, who they called too socialist & tied to the corrupt Tammany machine to protect America--and FDR won anyways.

Bottom line, the media's the media & they'll do what the hell they want, while it's the candidate's job to connect to the voters by any means possible--sure it helps, possibly a lot, but they ain't some sort of deus ex machina for bad campaign or one running the wrong message at the wrong time.

Posted by Honir | October 28, 2008 1:37 PM

Liberal bias commentary is the GOP/Fox News trap...Talk about it so much so that you question the coverage.

Obama is running a "uniting" campaign that's on strategy...McCain is running a "divisive" campaign that relies on a new tactic each day...Clearly, one is a more positive message.

I think it's horrendous that the GOP & Bush politics say if you don't agree with Republicans then you're a liberal, a socialist, a communist...you're un-American... and I think a majority of Americans (not part of the GOP base) are sick of this rhetoric

Therefore, the negative coverage for McCain is due to his negative message...nothing more nothing less.

Posted by Ansel | October 28, 2008 1:37 PM

Why on Earth did the media go and drum up information on the vice-presidential candidate, anyway?

Exactly. It's this sort of dreadful, unfair reporting that makes us distrust the evil media. The McCain campaign told us that Palin was a maverick, a reformer, killed the bridge to nowhere, was a maverick, could see Alaska from her house, had improved Alaska's already socialist taxation system so that Even More Wealth got Redistributed from the rich oil companies to the ordinary Joe Sixpacks, and was a maverick. That should be enough for anyone.

Posted by Deborah | October 28, 2008 1:38 PM

Obama is forward looking with a certain self-confidence and sincerity in the message he is delivering which when amplified thru the media will serve him well. His positioning also keeps him above the mud-slinging. It has been a right choice as the press is really helping the campaign now. McCain is mostly driven by experience of the past, where cynicism and fear of the press's ideological biases and their sensational dirt-mongering will sink their ship. McCain is running a politics-as-usual campaign while Obama is breaking new ground and it's proven to be very effective against the Karl Rove doctrine.

Posted by chlai88 | October 28, 2008 1:54 PM

Wow! I feel like I've died and gone to heaven! =D I actually enjoyed reading 95% of the posts here. Most posters seemed insightful and intelligent. I am so sick of reading intolerant, ignorant posts by people on both sides of the isle. I'm an Obama supporter, 100%, but appreciate thoughtful discourse and meaningful perspectives from both sides. What a treat! Thanks!!!

Posted by Glenna | October 28, 2008 2:25 PM

I seem to recall various stories about how access to Obama was restricted, and how the press on the plane wasn't treated well, didn't get schedules in advance, etc.

Maybe the press is just codepedant. ;)

Posted by lutton | October 28, 2008 2:26 PM

Rule of thumb: Jonah Goldberg Is Never Right.

That being said... watching "Morning Joe" this morning, it was amusing seeing "Gingrich Revolution" ex-Congressman Scarborough fancy himself a "media critic" rather than a member of the actual media this morning. Three hours on TV every weekday, but he's not "the media elite."

If it weren't for Ambers, Sully, Coates, and Dibgy, I'd be going insane. Instead, thanks to the excellent work and writing being done on the internet, I've enjoyed this entire election like no other in my lifetime.

Posted by JenJen | October 28, 2008 2:38 PM

Journalists' hair-trigger racial sensitivity may have been misplaced, but it was not driven by an ideological tilt.

This is kind of puzzling. "Hair-trigger racial sensitivity" is itself an ideological tilt. I guess they mean that that sensitivity wasn't driven by a partisan tilt in favor of Obama personally. I don't know why it's any better for the media to be biased due to general left-wing political correctness, though.

In general I'm amazed by how much of the conservative argument Politico is agreeing with here.

Posted by aaaaaaa | October 28, 2008 3:27 PM

Goldberg's viewpoint isn't based on the premise that the media has maintained a Pro-Obama bias throughout the general election but rather in the past few weeks, to gain post-election access. I imagine there is a shred of truth there.

VandeHarris' implies the media holds a grudge because the McCain campaign tightened access, and the best evidence of this is the media's "intense focus" on McCain's negative ad spots (even though Obama ran more negative ads). But I don't think the facts support this. The media's focus has really been on McCain's negative campaigning rather than the TV ads. And this is the coverage the McCain campaign wants, obviously, because McCain is running a negative campaign.

They're also covering the Obama campaign the way the Obama campaign wants them to.

They haven't covered the Keating5, nor have they covered Reverend Wright. But if one of the campaigns decided it was time to talk about one of those things---by running an ad or what have you---then the press would cover it.

Let's face it: The campaigns decide what news is covered, not the journalists.

Posted by Tessa | October 28, 2008 4:06 PM

There's no equivalence between McCain's "OTHER" strategy and Obama's legitimate and well within the political norm contrast ads. If you doubt this ask yourself a question: Which campaign recently began to distinguish a "Real America" and an "Other"?

Additionally - is it news when a campaign is extraordinarily well run and works like a well-oiled machine? or is it news when a campaign is flaming out for almost a month straight, changing tactics every 3 days and policies every week?

McCain, in many states, has been 100% negative ad placements for weeks. The only fault, as many journalists have been noting, is that those ads aren't working; were McCain winning the media coverage of his negativity would be grudgingly admiring, not condemning.

Posted by John | October 28, 2008 5:58 PM

I swear to God McCain and the Republican Party and the biggest whiners in the world. Go cry on your mom's shoulder you moron. It's pathetic enough that you have to use her at your age to get people to like you. Obama has been the most critiqued presidential candidate in history. He has been attacked and questioned more than McCain by the press, but has come though because of his great speaking and people skills. McCain has gotten bad press because he's run a horrible campaign and Steve Schmidt is a fucking idiot who attacked the press everyday for no reason. Obama was attacked for no reason such as the New Yorker Cover Page and the New York Times Piece on Ayers. He has come through these tough spots though with class and more confidence. McCain looks and sounds like a 10 year old child or a grumpy old man. Neither person we want to have lead the country.

Posted by Rick | October 28, 2008 7:06 PM

Would everyone in this country that plans on voting please think for a moment and ask yourself this question? Who do you all work for? Either a small business or large corporation. When they are taxed, the employees are hurt and everyone is hurt. It's a shame Obama didn't major in economics at school, or even learn the basics. Good luck learning the hard way Obama supporters. It's a shame uneducated votes count as much as mine.

Posted by kenno | October 28, 2008 8:15 PM

Yes the media is bias but that isn't the problem. McCain has no economic plan other than Obama is wrong. Yes he is but McCain offers no alternative that is aligned with the current events.

McCain lost this election when he supported the bailout. Here is the problem that Obama won't address since it would threaten his socialist plans. The US govt with the Fed has pursued a reckless monetary policy, printing money backed by nothing and setting interest rates too low for short term political benefit. the result is a country in debt and without a manufacturing base. The current financial crisis is the result of a government that wants to give goodies to everyone. McCain should have come down for a strong dollar, end to reckless expansion of the money supply, against inflation and big government. All he had to do was ask if Obama's policies work, why didn't the Soviet Union win the cold war? Central planning doesn't create wealth or growth only benefits the public sector elites. And he should have asked Obama how he is going to create jobs? Will the Feds start building factories? and where the hell is the spending going to come from, the Govt is broke!

Instead McCain had to take the Neocon road like Bush...Bernanke is doing a good job and all that crap.

Hopefully with the loss, Republicans can again become the party of small businesses and the free market and not the party of the Financial Services, Insurance and Real Estate industry.

Posted by The press and McCain | October 28, 2008 8:53 PM

I have not seen a report from the mainstream media yet that actually compares the Obama beliefs with the McCain beliefs. All the reports are who's winning, which poll shows what, and all that stuff that is non important to choosing the next president.

Posted by gusman | October 28, 2008 8:57 PM

The Democrats have forever accused the Republicans of favoring the rich. I wan't to know how they justify Obamas' fund raising tactics. He has taken more money from "BIG MONEY" than John McCain ever thought of. He also took money from the CEO of Fanny Mae. McCain agreed to a limit on fundraising and kept his word, Obama agreed to the limit and then changed his mind. Who has integrity? Obama will be another Jimmy Carter. You will not be able to find anyone who will admit they voted for him a year from now. We are going to pay an awful price for an Obama presidency and as usual the Republicans will get the honors of cleaning up the mess 4 years from now.

Posted by Casey Coippock | October 28, 2008 9:02 PM

It's amazing to me that the media is tilted so far to the left. Obama's father is a Muslim. His step father is a Muslim. At the least, Obama leaned toward the Muslim faith growing up. I'm not going to pretend to know if Obama is a Christian or a Muslim. I do know he went to a church, whos preacher hated the U.S.A. Remember?..."Not God bless the U.S.A., but God Damn the U.S.A.!!!". Obama can say he didn't agree with Wright, but if he didn't he should have left the church as soon as he heard the hate spewed by the racist idiot that married him and which he had such a close relationship with.

Obama can deny being a socialist, but I'm smart enough to take his own words and figure out that he is. I don't need the media for that. If McCain went to a church whos preacher was a K.K.K. leader, could he say, "Yeah, I knew what he was, and what he stood for, but I don't agree with him". No, he would be beat down by the media, and would deserve it. Obama is a smooth talking Malcolm X. The media knows it and he gets a pass. The media is like a cancer and its growing. It will eventually be the death of the U.S.A. as we have known for over two hundred years. All great civilazations come to an end. This is the start of our end.

Posted by Scott | October 28, 2008 9:07 PM

The Project for Excellence in Journalism’s researchers found that John McCain, over the six weeks since the Republican convention, got four times as many negative stories as positive ones. The study found six out of 10 McCain stories were negative.

What’s more, Obama had more than twice as many positive stories (36 percent) as McCain — and just half the percentage of negative (29 percent).

You call that balanced?

He should be so far out ahead with all this, and the amount of money he's raised it's obscene! Why isn't he? Because he wants to massacre the economy with his tax raises (and don't let him tell you it won't be you. He'll keep lowing his number till it fits his purpose). And all his questionable associations. It boggles the mind that anyone would vote for this speaker. We don't need a pep talk. We need a leader.
There are none so blind as those who will not see.....

Posted by charlie | October 28, 2008 9:54 PM

Just listened to James Dobson about Obama's Abortion Extremism. Do you people in America want a murderer as President. Where are your Christian Values. Pray. Change can still happen by Obama losing the election.

Posted by concerned voter | October 28, 2008 10:09 PM

Well said Scott.. You are witnessing the death of journalism dictated by the so called "educated and politically correct". Sad fact is the mainstream media is too stupid or arrogant to see their own failings.... they should at least be able to read the ratings?? It's Ok though, Soros himself can only throw so much money into an empty hole. If the mainstream media can't win this one for them, there will be a lot of unemployed self gratifying "journalist" (ahem) looking for the next teet to suck.

Posted by UT | October 28, 2008 10:26 PM

I read every comment. Nearly all viewed press bias
from the viewpoint of their own poitical and idealogical bias thereby treating a question of bias with another bias.What is the individual voter supposed to do when exposed to just about every kind of bias known to man - social, religious, political, press, idealogical, racial...etc.? About all you can do is try to collect as much objective information as you can; try to get around some of your own biases; and crap shoot at the voting booth.

Posted by JOLLY ROGER | October 28, 2008 10:35 PM

It would appear that not only will Obama win(don't count your chickens BEFORE they hatch)and we may have a veto proof democratic Senate and Congress. Isn't that fantastic!!! Now they will be able to remove a few pesky laws that might hinder their being able to get TOTAL CONTROL of the government, and our lives. They will first have to revise the Constitution and get the vote of the people (or will they?)But how hard can that be with Obama's winning personality.(It's happened before in Germany in the 1930's)We hear what we want to hear. Is Communism all that bad? Not if you are the leaders... they live like KINGS. Obama is not to blame, really, for what he brings about... but there are liberals in the wings that are using him to bring about just that... and he can do nothing more or less that they will permit. McCain is really trying to do what is right for the people in this country but he is being distroyed by much bigger fish than Obama because he would thwart their plans, or at least delay them if he were elected.
Oh, I know that Hitler was a NAZI not a Communist... Big difference.. though I'm not sure where.
When you vote remember: FREEDOMS THAT YOU HAVE GOT NOW... What would it be like if you loose them.
"what is right isn't always popular and what is popular isn't always right."

Posted by Aberham | October 28, 2008 10:43 PM

MarkG writes:

Instead of using conservative op/ed columnist Goldberg as a point of comparison with journalists (in theory, at least) VandeHei and Harris, you might have picked a reporter critical of the reporting, such as Michael S. Malone on the ABCNews web site.

Malone makes Goldberg look like a genius. He had the craziest explanation of liberal media bias I've ever seen. He blames it on editors who know that their industry is dying because the Internet and alternative media are stealing their readers, advertisers, and talent. Their jobs may disappear and the Newspaper Guild is too weak to protect them, so they support Obama and the Democrats because "monolithic, single-party government will crush the alternative media via a revived fairness doctrine [and] re-invigorate unions by getting rid of secret votes..." These pathetic editors believe that "newspapers and network news are doomed anyway -- all that counts is keeping them on life support" until they can retire. This is at abcnews.go.com/Business/story?id=6099188&page=1 (see the last page).

This is what happens to people who start believing the propaganda their side pumps out. I've seen a lot of supposed explanations for why the media is in the tank for Obama, but I never imagined someone would blame anxious editors who believe that the fairness doctrine and union card check-off will help them hang on until they can collect their gold watches. The fairness doctrine is a red herring. Google it. You will find thousands of pages attacking it and none defending it. More important, the fairness doctrine, if it is constitutional at all, is only constitutional if applied to means of communication that use a scarce public resource that must be allocated by the government. The airwaves were thought to be that in the early years of radio and television: it was thought that no one would ever have many sources available, so those that existed would have to be evenhanded. Today's communication world is completely different and the fairness doctrine could never be upheld. In particular, the doctrine could never be applied successfully to the Internet, cable television, podcasts, satellite radio, or similar media even if someone wanted to. So the fairness doctrine is not going to kill alternative media and save newspapers and network news. Blaming union card check-off is even wilder. It only applies to organizing and union recognition. Newspapers and television are already unionized, so they would not be affected. What strikes me as most absurd, though, is the argument that newspapers and television are dying, but stronger unions can prolong them, so editors want the pro-union candidate. Does Malone really think that strong unions improve a businsess's economic prospects? That's not what his crew usually argue.

Posted by Paul Turner | October 28, 2008 11:27 PM

Because the Media is full of democrat left wing radical gay loving liberal freaks!

Posted by r | October 29, 2008 7:59 AM

Who's right? Aside from the Harris/Vandehei observation about how much Obama's campaign resembles the 2000 and 2004 Bush campaigns - an extremely important point, IMHO - I'd have to say "none of the above." For me one of the greatest pleasures of this election has been seeing Democrats who drew the correct conclusions about what Bush/Rove did right and apply their insights in the context of a type of campaign that no Republican could have won with - the best of both worlds. A "Democratic Rove" is surely an oxymoron, but David Axelrod and company have shown how a Democrat can selectively borrow and adapt successful Republican strategies - no need to go reinventing any more wheels than we have to.

Posted by Seth Knoepler | October 29, 2008 9:20 AM

We as a nation have been shaped by the media and that's evident by many articles posted here. There are so many "stump speech" excerpts that it looks like the pied piper led everyone to this article. Some of you should feel manipulated not only by the media, but your party affiliation and it's leader. See through the fog (media and your candidate promises) then make the best choice for the nation, not your party. We all know the candidates won't be able to deliver on 90% of their promises so, we don't need the media to tell us whose campaign is more effective than the other. What should be evident is one party took the fight to the other from the start. The other played heavy defense and when we think of our national security, we shouldn't want a president who's reactive instead of proactive.

Due to the media, we voted TWICE to put an idiot in the Whitehouse based on our party ideology and fears, so we deserve to suffer through this economic crisis! IMO we should suffer deeply at all levels - upper, lower and middle income - until we truly get it. Partisanship nearly ruined our great nation.

We all have enough info to make an informed decision so, unplug yourself from the media and VOTE.

Posted by Brad in Olympia | October 29, 2008 10:30 AM