Puma Bashing [Updated]

by linfar, Tue Jul 22, 2008 at 07:39:41 PM EST

[Update--For all those who have asserted this diary is not factual. These are the facts: He didn't have reporters with him, he didn't have a press pool, he didn't do a press conference while he was on the ground in either Afghanistan or Iraq. No one disputes this. This was not only due to the security of the situation. An interview, by the way, is not any of the preceding. And in the place of real media coverage we were shown stage managed questions and the appearance of press conferences. Get it? Stage managed. If you think this is a small matter and that I am nitpicking--we will converse again in a year or so. Obama's treatment of the press has been deplorable. I am not saying the press isn't also deplorable, ok? What I am saying is this isn't any way to improve matters. We are reaching the point of a stage managed, state run media. Obama shows no inclination to reverse this aweful trend. And I will stand up for improving real media access, no matter who the candidate is!!!]

I made a different choice than the Hillary supporters who joined Puma which means Party Unity My Ass. It was a hard choice. And at first I was irritated at those who refused to support the nominee as Hillary had done and asked her supporters to do.

But Enough is Enough!!!

Leave the pumas alone. I do not think they are dishonest, misguided or stupid. I do not think they are ripping Hillary off. And I certainly do not think ridiculing them, bashing them and humiliating them serves any useful purpose.

So get over it!!! Some Hillary supporters will not back the nominee. And they do so for excellent reasons, be it dislike of Barack Obama  and/or outrage over the way Hillary was demeaned in the media and railroaded by the DNC.

I saw a clip today from Andrea Mitchell who was about as outraged as I have ever seen her over the fact no reporter was allowed to ask a question of Barack Obama in either Iraq or Afghanistan.

Everything the American public saw out of those two places about Barack Obama's trip was staged. This is something even  G.W. did not dare attempt in the general election contest. Mitchell said:

He didn't have reporters with him, he didn't have a press pool, he didn't do a press conference while he was on the ground in either Afghanistan or Iraq.

Gives you pause, doesn't it? And if it doesn't, it should.

Barack Obama is exercising  more press "management" than even George Bush.

So I think the PUMAs serve a legitimate purpose. They are saying that the primary contest was rigged which is not the way a democracy is supposed to work. And they are saying that practices like fake news conferences by a presidential candidate are not something they will vote for.

They are not saying this directly, but by their  existence These aren't just sore losers. And they aren't all weird and crazee. Many of them are longtime democrats who believe the Democratic Party needs to change, become more responsive to its members and more fair.

I could never be a PUMA, anymore than Hillary could be. But I respect their intention. It is time to stop smearing them and  accusing them of  being disloyal to Hillary. They are refusing to do as she has asked, but that is their right.

This is the way a democracy works. People get to promulgate their cause and act on their convictions. In this spirit I say  the PUMAS show us that democracy--at least at this level--is alive and still kicking--which is all to the good.




Tags: PUMA, Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama, Andrea Mitchell (all tags)

Display:
Permalink :: 259 Comments :: Post a Comment


Howdy Linfar (2.00 / 6)

We've agreed, here at MyDD, not to discuss or bash that group any further.  Last call went out, and the deadline has passed in the last day or two.

Nobody's going to mess with them here anymore.  It's over.  We've moved on.

I appreciate the sentiment in your diary, but you are a day or two too late.  No biggie.


by Reaper0Bot0 on Tue Jul 22, 2008 at 07:41:31 PM EST

Re: Howdy Linfar (2.00 / 10)

Hi reap--I think a moratorium on any subject is silly. We are all talking about it and thinking about it because it is relevant. I think Mitchell's comments today are serious. Any group putting pressure on Obama to open up his press relations, etc. is valid. This group does that--by saying they will not support press management of this sort.


by linfar on Tue Jul 22, 2008 at 07:47:53 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Howdy Linfar (2.00 / 7)

I'm willing to give any candidate a pass if they're in a warzone.

As to the politics?  Obama has to walk an incredibly fine line on this trip.  His staff is jealously protecting his image right now, and they need to be.

I'm sick of losing.  I want a candidate who runs as near to a flawless campaign as is possible.

Besides, the three-point shot was real.  What more do ya want?  :)


by Reaper0Bot0 on Tue Jul 22, 2008 at 07:49:48 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Howdy Linfar (2.00 / 4)

What?

I thought the 3 point shot was CGI?

Damn, that man DOES have game! (Snark!)


On Nov 4th, Barack Obama officially ends the Southern Strategy....
by WashStateBlue on Tue Jul 22, 2008 at 08:05:32 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Howdy Linfar (2.00 / 7)

When you have a President who is less available to the press that GW was; when you have a President who does as he pleases and then stages a "news conference" with flunkies who ask fluff questions,and when you have a Prsident who punishes people who publish articles he doesn't like, maybe you will care less for the basketball shot and more about what was staring you in the face in the general election.


by linfar on Tue Jul 22, 2008 at 08:40:31 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Howdy Linfar (2.00 / 3)

It ain't gonna happen.  Until I see any legit reason to worry, I ain't gonna worry.

Does Barack Obama keep the press at arms-length?  Yes.  Does he hide from them and live in a bubble?  Absolutely not.


by Reaper0Bot0 on Tue Jul 22, 2008 at 08:45:43 PM EST
[ Parent ]

totally full of it (2.00 / 4)

Your claims are all false.

There was a press conference today and there were plenty of tough questions.  In fact, Andrea Mitchell asked one of them.

And there were far more reporters who wanted to be on the plane than spaces.


We care about politics because we know politics matters for people's lives and opportunities.
by politicsmatters on Tue Jul 22, 2008 at 09:04:16 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: totally full of it (1.60 / 5)

He answered a very tough question last night, and answered it very well!

This is a man who can really think on his feet.


I'm for a timeline on Iraq, public funding of elections, women's reproductive rights, gun restrictions and universal suffrage. So why should I vote for Obama?
by William Cooper on Wed Jul 23, 2008 at 04:18:23 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: totally full of it (none / 0)

Trolled for trollishly trawling hours of Obama responses to find one where he stumbles.

How many McCain points for this sad little attack I wonder?


The Moose is Loose!
by duende on Wed Jul 23, 2008 at 09:49:41 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Howdy Linfar (2.00 / 1)

I think you are a bit off base with this statement.  see previous post.


by mariannie on Wed Jul 23, 2008 at 02:29:00 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Opuma Bashing (2.00 / 2)

Sorry, this is a repeat post from the bottom of this diary. But you'll see why I put it up here

Linfar. Having disagreed with you in the primaries, I've come to listen to and respect your diaries in the last few months. I don't always agree - you wouldn't expect that from people on this site - but you were always passionate and interesting. And unlike others I could mention, you were always genuine enough to engage in debate with other posters.

I do think the conflation of Puma/Obama here is a little confusing. All politicians should be held to account, and there IS a danger that Obama is taken so high into the stratosphere he loses connection with his base and reality (always a danger for politicians in the bubble of modern media). So those points are valid.

But lots of other people read this blog like myself, without access to the daily updates on US media.

I think you should address the points made by other posters about Obama's press conference.

Politicians and pundits (and posters) should be criticised when they fail to listen, but there's a corollary to this...

They should be praised when they do listen.

Are you listening, Linfar?


The Moose is Loose!
by duende on Wed Jul 23, 2008 at 06:12:39 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Yeah. (2.00 / 6)

Like I care what Mrs. Greenspan the Warmonger thinks anyway.


by Bush Bites on Tue Jul 22, 2008 at 11:17:29 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Yeah. (2.00 / 1)

She is a piece of work.


by ReillyDiefenbach on Wed Jul 23, 2008 at 10:17:40 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Linfar (2.00 / 10)

1) If Obama did nothing but answer reporter questions at every turn A) this would no longer be a fact finding mission and B) I'm sure the press would be all over him for being so presumptuous as to take questions as though he were the president/decider.

You are being manipulated by Andrea Mitchell. She is a McCain supporter through and through. Sounds like a bit of journalist envy more than anything else. I guarantee you that if she had one of the exclusive interviews, she would be singing a different tune.


by highgrade on Tue Jul 22, 2008 at 07:58:57 PM EST
[ Parent ]

huh (2.00 / 7)

What are you talking about? He had a press conference TODAY.


We care about politics because we know politics matters for people's lives and opportunities.
by politicsmatters on Tue Jul 22, 2008 at 08:55:56 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Actually that clip was from days ago... (2.00 / 3)

I feel like we must have been watching two different interviews.  I didn't think Mitchell seemed outraged in the least.  And for that matter I can't believe anyone would be outraged that a presidential candidate went overseas for a reason other than a press photo op.  I think he wanted to send the message that he was there for our troops in a serious and honest attempt to assess the situation and feelings on the ground.  

If he had gone over there and staged photos and talked only to the press when he should have been talking to troops and generals I would have been personally offended.

Lastly, Obama did a great press conference this morning from Jordan.  Mitchell was there and had plenty of access.  Here is a good read from the 45 min press conference:
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2008/7/22/ 101618/912/216/555076


by Tenafly Viper on Tue Jul 22, 2008 at 08:56:39 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Howdy Linfar (2.00 / 6)

It doesn't matter to that group whether they have a valid complaint or not. They knock Obama for everything, whether real or imagined.

BTW, Obama met with reporters for an hour today to answer questions. Darn him! He did it again. Took the complaint away before it even got legs.


"The true measure of a man is how he treats someone who can do him absolutely no good." Samuel Johnson
by MS01 Indie on Tue Jul 22, 2008 at 09:09:37 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Mitchell is outraged, what else is new (1.90 / 11)

The reason there wasn't a press pool is because the Iraq/Afghan leg of the trip was an official CODEL and travel was done by the military. Press could NOT come along for the ride. Period.

If he had given a press conference to whatever media wanted to pay their own way to Iraq/Afghanistan I suppose he could have. But so what? He would have been criticized for that as well if he had I suspect.

As soon as he got to Jordan, where the official CODEL ended, and where his own campaign had flown the entire press corps of the free world to join the rest of the non-CODEL trip, he did what? Gave a press conference.

Now Andrea Mitchell knows all this, she is pissy about something else (maybe she got denied a one on one) but whatever she has always been pissy about Obama.  Keep in mind who she is married to.

And since Andrea can't remember a Presidential candidate doing this before, well maybe she has memory issues as well. All the way back in March when presumptive Republican Nominee John McCain hit Iraq, unannounced, without press.
http://abcnews.go.com/International/wire Story?id=4459769


McCain's visit was not announced and he was believed to have been in the country for several hours before reporters were able to confirm his arrival. It was unclear who he met with; no media opportunities or news conferences were planned.

If you notice from other media accounts of the trip, it was also covered media wise by members of the Military press. Known by Andrea Mitchell as the "fake press".
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/23658239/
Check out the credit on the photo.

It's standard operating procedure. The Military does it for all official delegations. The only difference this time is that people are paying more attention.

Here's a CNN video report of McCain then. Notice all the video of Sen McCain has been taken by the defense department (the fake press managed by McCain).

http://youtube.com/watch?v=sP8dlhekrxI

So maybe someone should inform Andrea how these things work.


by br549x on Tue Jul 22, 2008 at 10:47:51 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Mrs. Greenspan spent a lot of time... (2.00 / 3)

...spreading Bush and McCain's propaganda and now Obama's ruining it all !!!


by Bush Bites on Tue Jul 22, 2008 at 11:19:03 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Howdy Linfar (2.00 / 1)

I heard on NPR that all of his photo ops and interviews are totally staged by the military and controlled by the military - his campaign has NO control whatsoever in his schedule.  


by mariannie on Wed Jul 23, 2008 at 02:27:41 AM EST
[ Parent ]

PUMA seems only to have (2.00 / 1)

relevance here.  They simply do not matter.

Who cares?  I have far more respect for people who vote for Nader or McKinney for ideological reasons than I do for sore losers who backed a centrist candidate.

All PUMA does is demean Hillary Clinton.  

They simply don't matter.


by TomP on Wed Jul 23, 2008 at 11:24:24 AM EST
[ Parent ]

I know... (2.00 / 6)

I've moved on. After my last diary over the weekend, I'm done negotiating with "PUMAs". As long as they stop trolling around here, I'm done with "PUMA".


No way, no how, no McCain! :-)
by atdleft on Tue Jul 22, 2008 at 08:22:28 PM EST
[ Parent ]

PUMA Moratorium, My Ass (2.00 / 5)

There will be no moratorium!

This has nothing to do with the fact that PUMA adherents are obviously easy targets and notoriously poor sports to boot, making their resulting hysterics a highly entertaining spectacle for the terminally bored.

No, this is a matter of principle. Sure, now that you moratorium-bots need me, I'm supposed to simply yield to your cultist mandates? Yet, where were you when certain comments and responses of mine went unmojo'd and unloved, permanently lost to the ignominy of the ignored?

The PUMA Moratorium My Ass, or PUMAMMA movement plans to take a stand for the right of everyone to freedom of speech (including rants, bloviation and random drooling) and to permanent adulation by sockpuppets, no matter how long-winded or tiresome the subject. Stay tuned!


It is not because I cannot explain that you won't understand. It is because you won't understand that I cannot explain. - Elie Wiesel
by Sumo Vita on Tue Jul 22, 2008 at 10:24:58 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: PUMA Moratorium, My Ass (2.00 / 3)

You've inspired me!  I'm off to write my first PUMAMMA diary!

;-)


Obama/Adam West or Bruce Campbell or Lucy Lawless '08
by Purple with Green Stipes and Pink Polka Dots Dem on Wed Jul 23, 2008 at 01:02:30 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: PUMA Moratorium, My Ass (2.00 / 2)

Don't hold back. This is a serious movement, and the obvious nobility of our cause should be beyond question.

In keeping with tradition, make sure your diary is replete with smears and innuendo - and don't forget to tip off the rest of us once it's up. Overactive imaginations and drive-by recs, that's the kind of stuff "movements" are made of.


It is not because I cannot explain that you won't understand. It is because you won't understand that I cannot explain. - Elie Wiesel
by Sumo Vita on Wed Jul 23, 2008 at 01:35:40 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: PUMA Moratorium, My Ass (none / 0)

I have deep experience with "movements," since I eat a lot of bran.  

Thanks for the encouragement!


Obama/Adam West or Bruce Campbell or Lucy Lawless '08
by Purple with Green Stipes and Pink Polka Dots Dem on Wed Jul 23, 2008 at 07:49:46 PM EST
[ Parent ]

I haven't agreed to that. (1.50 / 4)

We've agreed, here at MyDD, not to discuss or bash that group any further.

What I agreed to was not recommending anymore diaries with PUMA in the title.  They still deserve to be bashed, and I'd love to do it, but it's what they want.  

It's sort of like a submissive trying to provoke his dom into beating him.  If you want to make these trolls go away, just stop beating them, dammit.  It's the only way you can really be cruel to masochists.


by Dumbo on Wed Jul 23, 2008 at 01:48:17 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Go Linfar! (2.00 / 5)

You have a strong voice and while somebody posted a "no more PUMA diaries" diary yesterday you express it more emphatically than everyone else. Recommended!


by catfish2 on Tue Jul 22, 2008 at 07:43:22 PM EST

Re: Go Linfar! (2.00 / 2)

I'm shocked.  SHOCKED! to find gambling going on in this place.


Tony Romo for Secretary of Awesome
by kasjogren on Wed Jul 23, 2008 at 12:12:47 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Puma Bashing (1.92 / 14)

I don't respect them in the least, and I honestly don't care about their Democratic resumes.  That said, unless they provoke something stupid here, I'm not going to make a point of acknowledging their existence.


by rfahey22 on Tue Jul 22, 2008 at 07:45:30 PM EST

You make some good points here. (2.00 / 7)

I disagree with some of them, but I see what you're saying. I'll try to lay off the PUMAs, but if they decide to be pissy about my decision to support the nominee, I'll probably snipe right back at them. It's got to be a two-way street. Live and let live.

Recommended.


Even John McCain lusts after teh engels.
by sricki on Tue Jul 22, 2008 at 07:47:21 PM EST

Re: You make some good points here. (2.00 / 4)

that's fair ricki. this is all about debate and difference of opinion. We have a serious one going on here. I may disagree with what you say, but I will defend [to the death] your right to say it.


by linfar on Tue Jul 22, 2008 at 07:49:14 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Right, (2.00 / 4)

I think I've probably vilified them enough. Hey, at least this place isn't an echo chamber, I guess...


Even John McCain lusts after teh engels.
by sricki on Tue Jul 22, 2008 at 07:51:19 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Right, (2.00 / 4)

right, it is not an echo chamaer--and we don't want it to be. It's all about accountability. I find this tendency in Obama about the press to be very worrisome and troubling.


by linfar on Tue Jul 22, 2008 at 07:52:49 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Right, (2.00 / 5)

He didn't have reporters with him, he didn't have a press pool, he didn't do a press conference while he was on the ground in either Afghanistan or Iraq.

I'm going to give him a pass on this one since my sense it was done for security reasons and rather than intentionally keeping the press at bay. If that was the case why even invite them to be on the plane for the rest of the trip.


Faced with the choice between changing one's mind and proving that there is no need to do so, almost everyone gets busy on the proof.
by jsfox on Tue Jul 22, 2008 at 08:17:41 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Right, (2.00 / 1)

But that would make too much sense. PS. How does anyone know for sure the secret service didn't implement this policy?


by Dog Chains on Wed Jul 23, 2008 at 12:15:38 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Nicely said, sricki... (2.00 / 7)

While I vehemently disagree with all things "PUMA", I'm so done fighting with them. If they want to keep embarrassing themselves by trashing Democrats, they can go ahead. I just want none of it, and I don't want to engage the trolls any longer.


No way, no how, no McCain! :-)
by atdleft on Tue Jul 22, 2008 at 08:32:28 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Puma Bashing (2.00 / 4)

Hey, I wonder if Andrea's nose is out of joint, cause she is used to being "big dog" with the Republics cause of her Hubby.

Now, I am NOT happy if Obama goes into mole mode and won't talk to the press, but I don't trust Andrea a bit, her outrage seems a bit too personal.

"Everything the American public saw out of those two places about Barack Obama's trip was staged. This is something even  G.W. did not dare attempt in the general election contest. Mitchell said:

He didn't have reporters with him, he didn't have a press pool, he didn't do a press conference while he was on the ground in either Afghanistan or Iraq."

Well, I saw the press question and answer today?

Personally, I expected this.  They were going to push back, no matter what?

I heard almost a contradictory criticism, that Obama was speaking TOO MUCH and was out of line, doing this on a congressional junket?

And, I think, if the Puma's think they are doing some good, well, more power to them?

I fail to see one of their primary rationales being played out, that they are going to punish the media for treating Senator Clinton so bad by voting for McCain, but, again, everyone gets to choose.


On Nov 4th, Barack Obama officially ends the Southern Strategy....
by WashStateBlue on Tue Jul 22, 2008 at 07:48:33 PM EST

Re: Puma Bashing (2.00 / 6)

WSB, you remind my of my Momma who operates on the premise that if she doesn't like it--it didn't happen. Obama's press management is becominhg legendary. And in my opinion it is not healthy


by linfar on Tue Jul 22, 2008 at 07:51:01 PM EST

Re: Puma Bashing (2.00 / 7)

I don't get it...What is so wrong with trying to control the message or the narrative in a General Election.  Seems to me to be good strategy especially when it is helping us against a third term of Bush.

What's the big deal, every politician attempts to do this in an election year?


I can see Lake Erie from where I live, so can I please run the Navy?
by hootie4170 on Tue Jul 22, 2008 at 07:55:00 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Puma Bashing (2.00 / 3)

hootie, the totalitarian state of any stripe would be so pleased by your comment. You have just demonstrated the way people today do not understand or care about a free press. Give us stage managed "news" and we are happy. He's in a campaign, who cares if we are being told the truth. Isn't that what people said about Bush and the war?? We are in a war, for heaven's sake--you can't expect the truth.


by linfar on Tue Jul 22, 2008 at 08:44:57 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Puma Bashing (2.00 / 3)

linfar...If you're trying to tell me that "Free Press" equals truthful news I've got a bridge I'd love to sell you...The fact is even when the MSM has access to your so-called "free press" and the truth, they distort, edit, and mangle it to make it fit their meme and then they feed the bullshit to the viewers.

If this is an attempt to stick up for the MSM, I'm afraid I can't support that cause.


I can see Lake Erie from where I live, so can I please run the Navy?
by hootie4170 on Tue Jul 22, 2008 at 08:56:21 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Puma Bashing (2.00 / 2)

No, hootie, Not sticking up for msm. But stage managed infotainment that looks like the real deal is even scarier to me. I would like to hear Obama say that he will support bringing back the fairness doctrine and that he is insterested in improving the accuracy and fairness of the media. I have heard no such thing from him. If somebody has any info that says otherwise, I would love to hear it. We have to improve the media not substitute fake news and say well, the media sucks so what the hey...


by linfar on Wed Jul 23, 2008 at 11:36:41 AM EST
[ Parent ]

This is a different generation, Lin (2.00 / 1)

The original amendment to the Constitution is the cornerstone of the way of life in the United States ...

Yet, when told of the exact text of the First Amendment, more than one in three high school students said it goes "too far" in the rights it guarantees. Only half of the students said newspapers should be allowed to publish freely without government approval of stories.


by catfish2 on Wed Jul 23, 2008 at 01:20:47 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Puma Bashing (2.00 / 5)

The first few days were part of the Senate trip, and now we are on the campaign part. His priorities were the soldiers . . . today it shifts to a trip funded by the campaign . . . and he properly held a press conference.

The press just craves Obama, and whines . . . yet they only send ONE reporter to cover McCain last night upon his arrival on NEW HAMPSHIRE!!

ONE!?


NO 100 year WAR, NO McConnell run Senate, & NO GOP-led Supreme Court!!!
by Veteran75 on Tue Jul 22, 2008 at 09:09:03 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Puma Bashing (2.00 / 1)

This is true... Jake Tapper was on the Ed Schultz show yesterday talking about this.  Nonetheless, Obama has done interviews with the press in every country he's been to thus far and will do 3 major interviews -- one for each network.


by froggyman on Wed Jul 23, 2008 at 11:35:02 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Puma Bashing (2.00 / 2)

thanks froggyman. Yes. it is true. and it is troubling. This is as troubling to me as his FISA vote. I would think progressives would be up in arms at Obama's stage managed press "conferences" and photo ops. We need someone fighting for a better, improved more "free" press and doing so by leading the way.


by linfar on Wed Jul 23, 2008 at 11:38:52 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Puma Bashing (none / 0)

Linfar,

We appreciate your concern.

;-)


Obama/Adam West or Bruce Campbell or Lucy Lawless '08
by Purple with Green Stipes and Pink Polka Dots Dem on Wed Jul 23, 2008 at 01:06:06 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Puma Bashing (2.00 / 1)

You are being very naive if you think that by not having press events 'staged' it will automatically mean what the candidate says is the truth.  EVERY candidate does this...when they let go for one minute, even if off the record, the press distorts what they say and we have instant chaos within the campaign and the message.  Frankly, I think Obama does too much 'free talking' and would be shut up from time to time.  has nothing to do with his events being staged.


by mariannie on Wed Jul 23, 2008 at 02:44:39 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Puma Bashing (2.00 / 2)

Well, I don't blame the campaign for caution during this trip, at all. First, there seems to be entirely too much interest in a potential gaffe. Moreover, the press constantly described the risks associated with trip, and most of these risks relate to perceptions (which gives the press enormous amounts of power). And, because the press is habitually shallow and obsessed with inconsequential crap, I frankly don't blame our candidate for keeping some distance during the trip.

Again, my sympathy for the campaign's guarded posture is mostly limited to this trip. During the ordinary domestic phase of the campaign, I would hope to see greater openness.


by DPW on Tue Jul 22, 2008 at 08:04:14 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Um, Barack has been one on one... (1.87 / 8)

...with every freaking network this week.

I'm sorry Andrea Miller feels slighted, but what question did she need to ask? "How's your chest pass?"


by Lieber on Tue Jul 22, 2008 at 07:52:06 PM EST

Re: Um, Barack has been one on one... (2.00 / 5)

Lieber--that is her point!! Nothing was real. It was all staged. Yes, he got a lot of press converage-- of stage managed news. Mitchell is right. There was not one moment of genuine news coverage in the way we normally  think of it.


by linfar on Tue Jul 22, 2008 at 07:54:38 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Um, Barack has been one on one... (2.00 / 11)

The first part of the trip was known to be restricted from the press. The press had their chance to ask any question they wanted in Amman, Jordan today.

Mitchell is full of it. Sure, the images were stage-managed. They always are. But whining about being locked out is disingenuous.


by elrod on Tue Jul 22, 2008 at 08:05:59 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Um, Barack has been one on one... (2.00 / 6)

When there is "genuine news coverage" of McCain, then I will agree that it should go both ways...

We have yet to see genuine criticism of McCain.  For all of his failings, for all of his gaffes, we have yet to see sincere criticism via the media for it.

The media is incredibly hard on the Democratic nominee... they have been for years.  

That Obama has the ability to control SOME of his coverage is a plus, not a minus.

That Mitchell may have her nose out of joint is her too bad.


McCain/Palin... even scarier than Bush/Cheney... and that's saying something!
by JenKinFLA on Tue Jul 22, 2008 at 09:31:55 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Um, Barack has been one on one... (2.00 / 4)

This is the same "free press" that is openly mulling not covering the conventions because they're "not news" and it's too expensive to do so, right?

It's up to the press to preserve a "free press," not politicians.  When the "free press" universally adopted McCain's stance that this election is only about Obama and that any little gaffe would be a dealbreaker, the only rational course was to control the message as well as possible.  The press is always free to get off its collective ass and force the issue; it's not up to anyone else to do the reporters' job for them.


by rfahey22 on Wed Jul 23, 2008 at 12:25:14 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Concern noted (2.00 / 1)

and filed and forgotten.


by ReillyDiefenbach on Wed Jul 23, 2008 at 10:25:00 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Puma Bashing (2.00 / 10)

This is the way a democracy works. People get to promulgate their cause and act on their convictions.

Then non-PUMA members should be able to exercise their rights as well.  If we want to provide factual evidence to counter some of the PUMAs accusations, then we are well in within our rights as well.

They don't get free reign to knee cap Obama and then fall back on the "this is a Democracy" excuse or the "I guess you don't want party unity" meme.  

Fact is some (not all) PUMA's only purpose is to ridicule and insult Obama with no intention on making the Democratic Party "better".  Those are the ones I have issues with.


I can see Lake Erie from where I live, so can I please run the Navy?
by hootie4170 on Tue Jul 22, 2008 at 07:52:33 PM EST

Re: Puma Bashing (2.00 / 4)

Ok you are a few hours late 9:47 to be exact. However,  since you did it with more passion and less snark (read none) than I did.  No harm no foul.

I've moved on and choose to ignore those that no longer shall be named.


Faced with the choice between changing one's mind and proving that there is no need to do so, almost everyone gets busy on the proof.
by jsfox on Tue Jul 22, 2008 at 07:53:26 PM EST

Re: Puma Bashing (2.00 / 4)

oh dear, I have been dealing with a family crises and just swamped. If I am rehashing old news here and your diary covered this--I apologize


by linfar on Tue Jul 22, 2008 at 08:34:31 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Puma Bashing (2.00 / 3)

No no! Not to worry! as I said your diary was more passionate where mine was just a tad snarky :)

Apologies certainly not needed, Beside it's turned into yet another lively discussion


Faced with the choice between changing one's mind and proving that there is no need to do so, almost everyone gets busy on the proof.
by jsfox on Tue Jul 22, 2008 at 10:11:28 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Puma Bashing (2.00 / 4)

"Obama's press management is becominhg legendary. And in my opinion it is not healthy"

Well, considering the fact we have gotten CLOBBERED in the last two GE by BAD news managment, I wonder?

I did say, I don't want Obama to go into Mole Mode, but I think, again, our candidates have done a crappy job in press management, it's a mixed blessing at best?

Hey, I think I might have liked you Mommy, if she thinks like me! (Wink!)


On Nov 4th, Barack Obama officially ends the Southern Strategy....
by WashStateBlue on Tue Jul 22, 2008 at 07:54:11 PM EST

Re: Puma Bashing (2.00 / 2)

Momma winks back :) :)


by linfar on Tue Jul 22, 2008 at 07:56:02 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Puma Bashing (2.00 / 4)

And they come in all stripes, I'd like some party unity, but not the bullying kind, i want them to listen. This fake news thing may be okay for now, meaning he can get away with the tight marketing for now, but no honeymoon lasts forever, and once it's over, then the press will remind us that we elected a man who scripted everything, but called his rival too scripted.  What goes around comes around, those of you who are four-square behind him, tell him this is plain stupid. if he's too fragile to take out without 'protection,' he's proving he's not ready.  And if he is ready, why would he need to pretend he isn't?  


Hillary - alternative energy
by anna shane on Tue Jul 22, 2008 at 07:55:32 PM EST

Re: Puma Bashing (2.00 / 7)

"then the press will remind us that we elected a man who scripted everything, but called his rival too scripted."

I will live in that future disaster if it comes, right now, as I said, I would rather have the campaign try to get it's message out and control the news cycle a bit.

Anne, will you at least admit, Gore and Kerry did a MISERABLE job of controlling the message, they were always on the defensive.

The Republics beat their campaigns at virtually every turn?

YES, I want balance, I don't want Obama to go into a shell, but trying to control the message is NOT inheriently a bad thing.


On Nov 4th, Barack Obama officially ends the Southern Strategy....
by WashStateBlue on Tue Jul 22, 2008 at 08:00:37 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Puma Bashing (none / 0)

it's hypocrisy, but okay, it's okay with you, and given that he's our candidate and he can't speak for sure without putting his foot into it, he does need to be scripted. but every smear he made on Hillary turns out he's worse.  Remember, she's so scripted?  This isn't even a script, it's editing.  And it all sets precedents. I'd far rather hear what he's about, whatever it is, can't be as bad as John, but at least it would be refreshing.  They're both personality driven candidates, and he has the better personality.  


Hillary - alternative energy
by anna shane on Tue Jul 22, 2008 at 09:13:45 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Puma Bashing (2.00 / 4)

What do you have to say about this after finding out that he did give an interview with a CBS reporter in Afghanistan and then held a one-hour press conference today?


"The true measure of a man is how he treats someone who can do him absolutely no good." Samuel Johnson
by MS01 Indie on Tue Jul 22, 2008 at 09:35:09 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Puma Bashing (2.00 / 1)

From the famous Anna Shane of Alegre's corner, you hear crickets...


Obama/Adam West or Bruce Campbell or Lucy Lawless '08
by Purple with Green Stipes and Pink Polka Dots Dem on Wed Jul 23, 2008 at 01:09:04 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Ugh. (none / 0)

Those Alegre's Corner people are nasty and brutish (I don't know how solitary, poor or short they are).  Some of them are out and out racists.  Those who aren't are morally corrupted enough to welcome the racists in without a word of protest.  Anybody who writes over there has no credibility with me.  I even got an account there some weeks ago so I could respectfully disagree with some of the bilious shit I saw spewed, but after I wrote my first comment, which never got published, I was quickly banned.  Seems about what anybody would think would happen, but it's still kind of sad.  They rant about their right to free speech, but then don't want any dissent; that's altogether within their rights, of course, but it does kind of make them look like hypocrites.  I think that when they talk about free speech, what they really mean is that they have the right to say anything they want, and nobody has the right to call them on their bullshit.  Kind of a one-way freedom of speech.


ооо
by Mumphrey on Wed Jul 23, 2008 at 02:17:42 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Ugh. (none / 0)

how charming.  We're all Democrats, and calling us ugly names isn't the way to foster unity.  Just makes you look like sore winners.  


Hillary - alternative energy
by anna shane on Wed Jul 23, 2008 at 07:44:03 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Ugh. (none / 0)

Those who go out of their way to help get McCain elected, aren't Democrats.  Those who latch on to every nutso conspiracy theory that comes along the pike, as long as it's about Obama, are not Democrats.  Those who let freako racists scumbags hang around and spout off on their sites, and don't run them off at the first sign of racism are not Democrats.  And those who tag along with Alegre or Texas Darlin or Larry Johnson at their freakshows are not Democrats.  It takes more than just saying, "Hey, I'm a Democrat, too," to make somebody a Democrat.  ANYBODY can claim to be a Democrat.  Hell, Joe Lieberman does.  But it's what you DO rather than what you Say that shows who and what you are.  I'm sorry, but that's that.  Joe Lieberman is no Democrat, neither is Alegre and neither are you.


ооо
by Mumphrey on Thu Jul 24, 2008 at 02:50:44 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Oh Jesus, (2.00 / 4)

Can we please just stop with the 'Revenge for Hillary' thing? PLEASE?


* Hums Mr. Rogers theme *
by Maori on Tue Jul 22, 2008 at 10:44:40 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Puma Bashing (2.00 / 3)

No I don't remember that, and I never said anything like that nor do I remember Obama saying anything like that.

It's NOT Hypocrisy, as people have stated the first half of the tour was run by the military, so it's not like the Obama camp was running the shots anyway?

And, as far as he can't speak without putting his foot in his mouth, I have seen 2 interviews in the last two days and the press conference from today?

So far, so good.


On Nov 4th, Barack Obama officially ends the Southern Strategy....
by WashStateBlue on Tue Jul 22, 2008 at 11:56:08 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Puma Bashing (none / 0)

Is he a baby, or is he a grown up.  OF course you don't remember, it wasn't above your radar, that was one of those 'negatives' he thought she carried and deserved.  I want him to win, and so far this is working, he still has the press and the public doesn't like him being bashed, even when it's right, so as far as practical, this seems okay. Of course not everything is edited, some is simply scripted.  I'm not holding onto grudges, just not forgetting that there have been two standards, I think he would have won the nom without the smearing, but that's just my opinion, maybe I'm wrong and he needed to do that. I think he'll win the GE without having to edit for news, or to script. He just needs to learn not to give his own opinions, without first telling them to his advisors and getting feedback on how his words will be understood. Enough with the explanations after the fact, he should learnt to script himself, if that means not speaking when you don't know what you're talking about.  He's improving, I can see that, but this is too careful for my taste. But it's his campaign and I'm very glad he's really trying to win.


Hillary - alternative energy
by anna shane on Wed Jul 23, 2008 at 10:36:48 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Puma Bashing (2.00 / 2)

Is that blank verse of free verse?  I always confuse the two.


I have that readiness.
by Jess81 on Wed Jul 23, 2008 at 11:21:55 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Puma Bashing (none / 0)

It's free verse--has no rhythm or rhyme.  Blank verse has rhythm but doesn't have rhyme.  I don't know what it is when it has no rhythm, rhyme or point...


ооо
by Mumphrey on Thu Jul 24, 2008 at 02:57:03 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Puma Bashing (2.00 / 4)

He fielded questions from the press in Jordan, and conducted one-on-one interviews before that.  Would it really have made a difference to you if he had held TWO press conferences at his trip?  Three?  Be honest.

Or perhaps you didn't know about the press conference.


I have that readiness.
by Jess81 on Wed Jul 23, 2008 at 01:16:23 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Puma Bashing (none / 0)

It's about releasing edited video, it's not about whether or not he's ever spoken to the press and let them take their own video and use it like they will.


Hillary - alternative energy
by anna shane on Wed Jul 23, 2008 at 10:37:58 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Puma Bashing (2.00 / 2)

The DOD doesn't allow that, as has been pointed out again and again.  Please quit the act.


I have that readiness.
by Jess81 on Wed Jul 23, 2008 at 11:22:50 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Puma Bashing (2.00 / 6)

ya know...
to me anyway
you were moving forward...

Then this..

"So I think the PUMAs serve a legitimate purpose. They are saying that the primary contest was rigged which is not the way a democracy is supposed to work. And they are saying that practices like fake news conferences by a presidential candidate are not something they will vote for."

Would you please support, in any way that the Primary contest was rigged in Obama's favor?

Could you give examples of "fake news conferences"?

You are now saying that these positions of PUMA's are legitimate?...

You have written with articulate passion since the end of our Primary..
This, to me, flies in the face of that. What am I missing?

(
As long as PUMA's continue to post bullshit here..
it is a live issue.

The belly of PUMA
http://www.18millionvoices.blogspot.com/
http://noquarterusa.net/blog/
http://alegrescorner.soapblox.net/

If you can find any PUMA website...where there is not a commenter(s) not calling voting for McCain...let me know.


"harlequin speech of suicide, demanding instantaneous lobotomy"
by nogo postal on Tue Jul 22, 2008 at 08:08:12 PM EST

Re: Puma Bashing (2.00 / 1)

I am not endorsing any of those websites at this time. And if you don't think the primary contest was "rigged," I certainly will not persuade you otherwise. But I am not a lockstep person. I support the nominee. Does that make me blind to press management on a scale not even Bush could manage? When Andrea Mitchell gets her buns in an uproar, you know something is seriously amiss. How many people who wantched the nightly news shoing scense of Obama's visit to Iraq and Afghanistant understood there was nothing "live" about it?


by linfar on Tue Jul 22, 2008 at 08:32:01 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Puma Bashing (2.00 / 4)

What the hell happened?  Was I unconscious for a decade?  When did Andrea "Frickin" Mitchell become the spokesperson for all media?


I can see Lake Erie from where I live, so can I please run the Navy?
by hootie4170 on Tue Jul 22, 2008 at 09:03:26 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Puma Bashing (none / 0)

Linfar, I thought you were bat shit crazy for a while.

I have realized you are either that, or a master manipulator.

I recall your horid post on the death of Russert, and now you say the Primary's were fixed?
Are you claiming voter fraud?

You never fail to dissapoint Linfar.

You do the same tricks everytime, start a thread with nobility then end it in shame.


by DemsLandslide2008 on Wed Jul 23, 2008 at 05:34:50 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Puma Bashing (none / 0)

When Andrea Mitchell gets her "buns" in an uproar, you're right, it's because something is seriously amiss -- the Democrat is trouncing the Republican. Her complaint is a partisan pro-McCain move. It has nothing to do with "preserving a free press", unless the definition of "free press" is "pro-Republican".

I think anyone who's seen any news report from Iran and Afghanistan over the last 6 years or so and paid any attention knows there's nothing "live" about it. There has been and will be no "live" coverage from those regions. It's the same when GWB goes there, or McCain, or Lieberman, or Clinton for that matter. Yes, a lot of people don't pay attention, and for them I'm sorry. But that doesn't mean that Obama did anything different, or wrong, or worse, or whatever than anyone else who's visited, nor does it mean that he could have done anything different -- he couldn't.

Faux outrage and concern about something that the candidate has zero control over and is done the way it's done for well-known and long-established reasons just isn't very persuasive. Obama has been praised throughout this campaign for being very accommodating to and forthright with the press (remember the Chicago media w.r.t. Rezko, for instance?). There's been more criticism of him for having too much media coverage on this trip than too little, and outside of the war-zone countries, it's been quite open and accessible.

It's certainly possible to argue that the primaries were rigged, but if so, it's a very open question whom they were rigged in favor of and whether the rigging worked or not. There's at least as strong an argument that they were rigged against Obama as in his favor.


No Way. No How. No McCain-Palin!
by Texas Gray Wolf on Wed Jul 23, 2008 at 07:36:07 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Puma Bashing (2.00 / 4)

As I recall, there was non-stop positive coverage of a particular candidate up until super-Tuesday.  That candidate was not Obama.  As I recall, there was also a candidate that had questions planted in the audience.  That candidate was not Obama.  Given the first point, I don't see how the claim can be made that the election was rigged.  Given the second, I don't see how that other particular candidate would have been any better in this respect.  Indeed, these practices began with Bill's presidency.  Without message control there's no way the dems can win.


by Philoguy on Tue Jul 22, 2008 at 10:07:32 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Puma Bashing (none / 0)

I sure hope that isn't true.  Because you can't control the message, you can only make yourself look afraid.  


Hillary - alternative energy
by anna shane on Wed Jul 23, 2008 at 10:40:12 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Puma Bashing (1.50 / 2)

"Because you can't control the message, you can only make yourself look afraid."

Anna, I'm sorry but that is a completely ridiculous comment.  What planet have you been living on?  It's called "Marketing,"  and it works, whether we want to admit it or not.


Obama/Adam West or Bruce Campbell or Lucy Lawless '08
by Purple with Green Stipes and Pink Polka Dots Dem on Wed Jul 23, 2008 at 01:16:43 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Puma Bashing (none / 0)

then who next with be marketed? That is very cynical, and I think untrue. the voters right now actually like Barack, and forgive his blunders cause he's new and they think his heart is in the right place.  He may think it's because he's marketed himself, but it has less to do with him than he thinks.  He could do a lot of things differently and still be elected.  I think he would have won the nom without having to smear anyone, or misrepresent anyone. These are in my opinion mistakes he's made, because they make him look marketed, and not a regular guy who wants to be president, in an election year when Americans want a regular guy who didn't grow up in DC.  


Hillary - alternative energy
by anna shane on Wed Jul 23, 2008 at 01:44:07 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Puma Bashing (none / 0)

Jeez, what the hell?
"Regular guy"?
I don't want some "regular guy" to be president, I want somebody a good deal better than "regular".  I mean, we've seen how well this "regular guy" thing worked out the last 7 years, haven't we?  People though Bush was more "like them" than Gore or Kerry were, right?  Turns out, maybe most "regular guys" wouldn't be too likely to be good--or even passable--presidents.
I don't really care if Obama isn't some "regular guy."  I don't care if he likes arugula or French cheese or dijon mustard.  It doesn't bother me that he went to Columbia or that he lived in Indonesia.  But then,m I guess I'm suspect, since I like arugula and French cheese and dijon mustard, and I went to the University of Pennsylvania and I lived in Honduras for 2 years, so I guess I'm not "regular" enough for people like you either.
I think people like you, who seem to revere jus' reg'lar ol' folks enough to want them living in the White House and running the most powerful country the world has ever seen deserve somebody like George Bush.  The trouble is, when you vote on your childish fetishes in enough numbers, the rest of us end up with your pathetic "regular" misfits running our country (and it IS our country, too) into the ground, and WE suffer, too.
So take your "regular guy" crap and go back to Alegre's Corner and rant away about "affirmative action" and "black culture paranoia" among the other dead-enders over there.  But for the love of God, why can't you just stew away in your bitterness and inconsequentiality on your own and not try to take the rest of us down with you?
ооо
by Mumphrey on Wed Jul 23, 2008 at 04:08:42 PM EST
[ Parent ]

everyone's regular (none / 0)

only some pretend to be superior, but Americans don't have respect for those who crown themselves, because this is a Democracy, sort of, anyway.  Barack may get elected and he may be a terrific president, I certainly hope so, but he's just a person, and his record hasn't shown his greatness, if he has some. If he's great, he'll need to prove it.  In the meantime he needs to win, and preening isn't the smartest way to win over thinking voters.  


Hillary - alternative energy
by anna shane on Wed Jul 23, 2008 at 07:46:32 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Puma Bashing (2.00 / 1)

Anna -  Whether my point is cynical or not is really immaterial.  This is a fact:  Marketing works, otherwise advertisers would not spend $100 billion a year in the US, for that very purpose.

You can have a marketing strategy to make someone appear elitist, (happenned during the primary), or a marketing campaign to make someone look like a regular guy, (chimpboy in 2000).  When marketing is done well, it's invisible.  

Again, irrespective of the moral judgments of manipulating people's behavior patterns, marketing works.  I'm just glad that we have a nominee who truly understands this approach, and knows that it's the best way to fight the GOP machine, (which is very, very, very good at marketing).

It means that we finally get to win.  I'm glad that he's handling the press during this trip, exactly the way he is.  It shows me that his campaign has the discipline and sophistication to win.

I applaud them wholeheartedly!


Obama/Adam West or Bruce Campbell or Lucy Lawless '08
by Purple with Green Stipes and Pink Polka Dots Dem on Wed Jul 23, 2008 at 04:15:28 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Puma Bashing (none / 0)

it's not invisible.  i'll be fine enough with Barack, when he wins, and until then I'll be blogging my opinions about how he can be a better candidate and a better president.  This looks like short term gain, long term pain to me.  If he's got it, he doesn't need to edit and script.  He has the media, but without the media he wouldn't be our candidate, and if they turn on him he won't be our president.

His strengths are things he rarely shows - he has humor, and he can be unscripted and funny.  He doesn't always take himself so seriously.  

His shortcomings are his arrogance, perceived and real, and his smallness, don't ask me to explain, you probably think anyone he punishes deserves it.  He's not worse than many other candidates who got elected, but he's not better and this is a time when a better guy could get elected.  

I know he's a newcomer and I can cut him slack, but I won't stop telling him how he comes across, that may help him more than any of his cheerleaders.  


Hillary - alternative energy
by anna shane on Wed Jul 23, 2008 at 07:42:30 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Puma Bashing (none / 0)

Marketing has been a key factor in most ever Presidential campaign since the mid-1800's, and television marketing has been critical in every campaign since (and including) JFK's. To suddenly be surprised and upset that marketing is involved in a campaign is to suggest that you've been tuned out for the last 50 years.

Not all marketing is bad, either. It's possible to both have a truly great product and to market it in an aggressive fashion. For those that like Bill Clinton, for instance (and I count myself generally as one of them, his flaws notwithstanding), he was a very good product that was also well-marketed.

I would also argue that he did win the nomination without smearing or misrepresenting anyone, or at least to a much lesser extent than he himself was smeared and misrepresented. Water under the bridge and all that, but I have very little doubt that the anti-Obama smears were far more widespread and effective than the anti-anyone-else smears.


No Way. No How. No McCain-Palin!
by Texas Gray Wolf on Wed Jul 23, 2008 at 07:43:34 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Puma Bashing (none / 0)

then he's not new politics after all, that's just marketing? I knew that, and I still don't like it. Call me idealistic but I think someone who's prepared and has shown the ability to unite, and who is clear about priorities and realistic on how to get there, could be elected.  I don't think anyone needs to pander to the hate filled to form a majority, I think there is a majority for a hard working, experienced, open and above board candidate, especially after that marketed George Bush, compassionate conservative indeed.  I want something new, is that hard to understand?  He's finding his voice, I'm hoping he'll listen and become that candidate.  He hasn't the experience himself, but all he needs to do is get those experienced on board, and tell us who he listens to,who he agrees with, what he wants to do and how. Then i'll be glad to vote for him, not vote for a roll of the dice but for a clear policy maker and a proven leader.  


Hillary - alternative energy
by anna shane on Wed Jul 23, 2008 at 07:53:43 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Puma Bashing (none / 0)

I don't think it's possible to elect a President without marketing. I don't think it's been possible for a long time now. I certainly don't think any President within, say, John McCain's lifetime has been elected without marketing.

Marketing is an absolute necessity, not an option. It's not a black mark on any candidate that there's marketing. The type of marketing can be a plus or minus, but the mere existence of it is about as controversial as the fact that both candidates breath air, and without it they'd stand about as much chance of getting elected as they would if they gave up breathing air.


No Way. No How. No McCain-Palin!
by Texas Gray Wolf on Thu Jul 24, 2008 at 08:34:08 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Puma Bashing (none / 0)

that's very sad. I think it's necessary, to elevate the process. Now it's Barack, but who's next to be marketed?  Arnie? Shall we have the guy who reduces the pay of state workers to balance the budget marketed to us?  Ronny was marketed, was that good?

What we need are better candidates, some standards, some kind of rating system for qualifications, like for judges.  If people want to vote for an unqualified candidate, so be it, but let's have some standards.  Enough with the marketing, personality stuff, let's get some excellence.  Wouldn't it be great for Hillary to have been the least qualified, so qualified were all the contenders?  Bet she wouldn't have run then, she'd have been glad with the pick and not felt the need to lead this country out of it's huge problems.  

have you read Madeline Albright's book? Steven Colbert did a great interview of her, and she's one very smart and very sane woman.  I read that Barack now has her as an advisor, I sure hope he's listening. And he might be, he's getting together a transition team, a year later than he ought to have, but sooner than he might have.  That's a good thing. Also, he now has 300 foreign policy advisors, and he's taking daily tutorials. It seems he's trying to get up to speed.  


Hillary - alternative energy
by anna shane on Fri Jul 25, 2008 at 08:46:46 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Puma Bashing (2.00 / 3)

It may also be worth noting that Obama could have thrown up an airball. Or, maybe it's not worth noting. But, he did sink his one and only shot, so he gets some love from me.


by DPW on Tue Jul 22, 2008 at 08:08:34 PM EST

Re: Puma Bashing (2.00 / 1)

SWISH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


"Is there no keeping with class in whom we mingle with anymore?"
by Brandon on Tue Jul 22, 2008 at 08:23:31 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Puma Bashing (2.00 / 1)

YESSSS, and it counts!


NO 100 year WAR, NO McConnell run Senate, & NO GOP-led Supreme Court!!!
by Veteran75 on Tue Jul 22, 2008 at 09:11:59 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Puma Bashing (2.00 / 2)

I swear I thought he sank two??!!  Or was it an instant repeat?


by mariannie on Wed Jul 23, 2008 at 02:51:50 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Press control (2.00 / 12)

Frankly, I'd need to see more evidence than this that Obama is controlling the press in an unhealthy way.

I guess one can always choose to see the dark slant on things (my principle argument with PUMAs, by the way) or one can choose to give the nominee the benefit of the doubt.

It is possible that he is taking this trip to LEARN -- to inform himself first-hand to begin to address his supposed weakness in foreign affairs.  Were it me, perhaps I'd want that opportunity to LISTEN and learn before formulating opinions the press will then hammer into "but didn't you say" positions.

It strikes