Sounds right. Screw voters.

Question is: did Obama's campaign manager have a flag pin on while having this conference call? WE MUST KNOW!

Yea, the media is too easy on Obama. *rolls eyes*

The Liberal Media strikes again!

Wow, Captain Obvious writes for the blog circuit.

Drive by media, operation chaos, etc.

/need to find better grim entertainment than Rush, like maybe snuff films

The media exists to get ratings. Controversy (even the manufactured kind) does that.

They cater to morons, because that's what we reward.

Yes, they should only ask what the candidate wants them to ask about.

He's not playing to voters, here. 85% of them have voted. He's playing to superdelegates. Many of whom are elected officials (note, he holds the lead in elected-official superdelegates, she only has a lead among unelected DNC members). They know that, even if both Obama and Clinton are unelectable, Obama's ground team and money are likely to bring new voters to the system and win a lot of close House and Senate races. Exactly the opposite of what Bill and Hillary did in 1992 and 1994.

Poopspasm: The media exists to get ratings

For the most part, probably. It's impossible to deny that controlling events isn't part of the equation, though.

Spanky_McFarksalot: Yes, they should only ask what the candidate wants them to ask about.

How about what the voters want the candidates to be asked?

Spanky_McFarksalot: Yes, they should only ask what the candidate wants them to ask about.

So it's okay, when the President goes to Iowa and holds a press conference about bringing jobs back to Iowa, it's just fine for reporters to ask him about the war in Iraq, illegal wiretapping, Guantanamo Bay, and too-high gas prices?

Good to know.

An imaginary reporter finally asks a question on the actual subject of the conference.

"Mr. Obama. Arent you concerned that the sort of people who may need an outside party to hold their hand all the way from the couch, to the place of registration, and then to the voting-booth, may in fact harm your candidacy by voting Republican?"

"Whats that Senato..., oh...oh, I see, you arent the least bit worried about that happening."

"Well, thank you Senator."

IlGreven: So it's okay, when the President goes to Iowa and holds a press conference about bringing jobs back to Iowa, it's just fine for reporters to ask him about the war in Iraq, illegal wiretapping, Guantanamo Bay, and too-high gas prices?

Yes it is. What's your point?

Spanky_McFarksalot: Yes it is. What's your point?

That reporters at press conferences are under no obligation to only ask about what the person calling the press conference wants to talk about?

/just guessing

Churchill2004: That reporters at press conferences are under no obligation to only ask about what the person calling the press conference wants to talk about?

You should probably put that in the comments section of kos. They appear to be unaware. (which had nothing to do with voter registration)

Spanky_McFarksalot: You should probably put that in the comments section of kos

I'd have to take a shower afterwards.

That's not a hair question, I'm sorry.

Spanky_McFarksalot: Churchill2004: That reporters at press conferences are under no obligation to only ask about what the person calling the press conference wants to talk about?

You should probably put that in the comments section of kos. They appear to be unaware. (which had nothing to do with voter registration)

I would say there is a journalistic obligation to ask important questions. If someone wants to look me in the eye and tell me a massive voter registration drive is actually less important then what Obama's pastor said on Bill Moyers,, feel free.

Spanky_McFarksalot: Yes, they should only ask what the candidate wants them to ask about.

They weren't talking to the candidate, they were talking to some underling's underling. Who isn't really qualified/allowed to comment on the questions being asked.

Neeek: They weren't talking to the candidate, they were talking to some underling's underling

Fair enough. I'm too drunk to argue much more.

Churchill2004: That reporters at press conferences are under no obligation to only ask about what the person calling the press conference wants to talk about?

/just guessing

Exactly. So I guess what the original Kos complainer wanted was ... the media to follow the candidate's agenda, the candidate's line of questioning and the candidate's talking points? The difference between the "reporter" in that case and a transcriptionist would be ... ?

DamnYankees: I would say there is a journalistic obligation to ask important questions. If someone wants to look me in the eye and tell me a massive voter registration drive is actually less important then what Obama's pastor said on Bill Moyers,, feel free.

THIS.

Thank you!

awwwww, SOMEONE's upset that people are being critical of the golden boy's terrorist sympathies. WAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA

stucka: The difference between the "reporter" in that case and a transcriptionist would be ... ?

Oh please, that's what 90% of the are. They check the AP and transcribe. The other 10% just write whatever crap will advance their own agenda. We haven't seen a decent, impartial, professional in that field in over 30 years.

captain_napalm: awwwww, SOMEONE's upset that people are being critical of the golden boy's terrorist sympathies. WAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA

For the last time: No. We. Aren't.

We're pissed because so many jackasses (take yourself, for instance) actually believe it.

captain_napalm: awwwww, SOMEONE's upset that people are being critical of the golden boy's terrorist sympathies. WAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA

Terrorist sympathies?
Dubya has done more to promote the cause of jihad than Osama Bin Laden could have managed in 100 years.
Of course, he might yet be outdone by McCain. Nothing like a war with Iran to calm things down.
Your troll is strong. Your thinking, not so much.

Poopspasm: captain_napalm: awwwww, SOMEONE's upset that people are being critical of the golden boy's terrorist sympathies. WAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA

For the last time: No. We. Aren't.

We're pissed because so many jackasses (take yourself, for instance) actually believe it.

Oh let him whine. His sort of crap makes it so much easier for anyone on the fence to come on over. They don't want to be identified with that shiat.

A moment of real terror: Obama as Commander in Chief.

Be afraid

Spanky_McFarksalot: Yes, they should only ask what the candidate wants them to ask about.

well, it is the only thing that is actually news. everything else we already know enough about, or is utterly unnewsworthy.

that is to say, it's the primary thing i would prefer to know more about, as a consumer of news. even the clyburn thing i have heard about from clyburn himself already. i don't really care what obama thinks about it, he isn't really involved in the story directly.

Solwyvern: A moment of real terror: Obama as Commander in Chief.

Be afraid

My fear ended after I saw Mr Bush Jr react to 9/11. I'm cool with Obama.

rppp01a:

My fear ended after I saw Mr Bush Jr react to 9/11. I'm cool with Obama.

Sure- he can't be worse that Carter was right? I'm comforted.

*than (obviously)

Solwyvern: A moment of real terror: Obama as Commander in Chief.

Be afraid

I'm a Liberal...
Not a P*ssy.

tatum: Your troll is strong. Your thinking, not so much.

Such is the nature of the troll.

Without Fail:
I'm a Liberal...
Not a P*ssy.

& I like Obama, but we are going to need someone strong on defense after Bush leaves. I don't know that he is.

Solwyvern: Without Fail:
I'm a Liberal...
Not a P*ssy.

& I like Obama, but we are going to need someone strong on defense after Bush leaves. I don't know that he is.

well then vote for McCain lol

there's more to being strong on defense than being willing to blow shiat up, Bush taught us that by having us all eat the shiat sandwich

Solwyvern: & I like Obama, but we are going to need someone strong on defense after Bush leaves. I don't know that he is.

why? because he's the only one that remembers iraq has never presented a threat to our national security? because he suggested strategies for actually taking care of those that do present a threat to us, strategies that were then used to full success, even though it was mocked by hillary, mccain, and the president?

i dunno, that seems like the guy who actually knows what the fark he's talking about when it comes to defense.

"We need someone strong on defense"

Oh yes, we need someone strong on defense so we can blow billions more dollars on high-tech gadgetry that will immediately be stolen and manufactured cheaper by our enemies. We need more kickbacks to private military-contractors all the while the U.S. economy and infrastructure collapses in a morass of incompetence, graft, embezzlement, blatant cronyism and unchecked nepotism.

Solwyvern: Without Fail:
I'm a Liberal...
Not a P*ssy.

& I like Obama, but we are going to need someone strong on defense after Bush leaves. I don't know that he is.

Yea. That's exactly what this country needs more of right now. Even more tax money spent on war.

No country has attacked U.S. soil since Pearl Harbor, yet somehow, we need to keep building up a massive war machine to defend ourselves from---who, exactly?

I don't think I've seen a comment on politics that was neither a troll nor someone feeding a troll since March 3.

xuanzhiyouxuan: Drive by media, operation chaos, etc.

/need to find better grim entertainment than Rush, like maybe snuff films

Pfft, snuff films are weaksauce. Snuff porn, that's where it's at!

/saw it on Law & Order

Belac: I don't think I've seen a comment on politics that was neither a troll nor someone feeding a troll since March 3.

Politics itself is just trolling, or responding to a troll.

Solwyvern: A moment of real terror: Obama as Commander in Chief.

Be afraid

Thus, why I stand by my assertion that the current Republican Party (and all those who defend it, or attack people who don't fall in lockstep with it) is the largest terrorist organization in the world today. And it will stay that way until everyone who was ever associated with PNAC is out of the party.

A. Strong on defense should equal no one messes with us because our leader is seen by our enemies as strong.

B. Bush made us a few enemies

C. We need a leader who is seen as strong so that future attacks are thought to be a bad idea.


- NOT more war
- NOT building more war machine
- JUST a man who is ready to say that we won't mess with you, but you had better not mess with us. And mean it.

Solwyvern: A. Strong on defense should equal no one messes with us because our leader is seen by our enemies as strong.

Why is John McCain more of this than Obama?

DamnYankees: Solwyvern: A. Strong on defense should equal no one messes with us because our leader is seen by our enemies as strong.

Why is John McCain more of this than Obama?

Their backgrounds speak for themselves. Again, I like Obama, but don't even try to say that McCain would not seem stronger to people looking to do us harm. That would be absurd.

DamnYankees
Why is John McCain more of this than Obama?

The "politics as theater" in me wants to see McCain get elected so he'll say something horribly racist to Ahmedinejad.

/Like calling him an attractive and successful Sand-Iranian

Solwyvern: DamnYankees: Solwyvern: A. Strong on defense should equal no one messes with us because our leader is seen by our enemies as strong.

Why is John McCain more of this than Obama?

Their backgrounds speak for themselves. Again, I like Obama, but don't even try to say that McCain would not seem stronger to people looking to do us harm. That would be absurd.

I think the senility is very Reaganesque, but it's not going to look strong when he can't remember where he is or what country he's talking to. He's going to look like a prime target. If the American president seems unhealthy or incapable you can bet anyone that actually wished us harm would see it as a sign of weakness and an opportunity. Not to mention the whole history of heart disease and advanced age. We won't neccisarily have an acting president for four years and that could be risky.