Seems appropriate, thoughts?

I agree, JWRN, but it fascinates me that their bias so blinds them that they can't see it. I think I'm fair-minded enough to admit when I see bias on the conservative side. It's sort-of like those blind studies where they ask people about "Candidate A" and "Candidate B", with specific beliefs and policies attributed to each one; people will choose one over the other, but when you attach a NAME to Candidates A and B, all of a sudden people reverse their opinions.

I challenge anyone to cover the names of the candidates above and look objectively at the questions asked. There IS a difference, and a big one. Add to that the fact that it was the VP candidate that got the tough questions, and it just magnifies the bias.

It's interesting to compare the kid-glove treatment by the MSM of Obama and of Palin. Here's a list of questions from Charlie Gibson for Obama and for Palin. Notice a difference?

Obama interview

:

How does it feel to break a glass ceiling?

How does it feel to “win”?

How does your family feel about your “winning” breaking a glass ceiling?

Who will be your VP?

Should you choose Hillary Clinton as VP?

Will you accept public finance?

What issues is your campaign about?

Will you visit Iraq?

Will you debate McCain at a town hall?

What did you think of your competitor’s [Clinton] speech?

Palin interview

:

Do you have enough qualifications for the job you’re seeking? Specifically have you visited foreign countries and met foreign leaders?

Aren’t you conceited to be seeking this high level job?

Questions about foreign policy

-territorial integrity of Georgia

-allowing Georgia and Ukraine to be members of NATO

-NATO treaty

-Iranian nuclear threat

-what to do if Israel attacks Iran

-Al Qaeda motivations

-the Bush Doctrine

-attacking terrorists harbored by Pakistan

Is America fighting a holy war? [misquoted Palin]

quoted from http://theanchoressonline.com/2008/09/12/side-by-side-gibson-questions-more/

But aren't the questions prior to him accepting the nomination - and Palins were after - so those are apples & oranges arent' they..

I am so sick of this pro-life pro-abortion crap! Why are we still fighting this battle? Of course women have the right to choose. They have the right to choose not to have sex, or use birth control if they are. It is a human life we are talking about! NO one is suggesting that women who suffer from rape (which can avoid pregnancy with a DNC) or incest should not have the right to an abortion, but to just be able to kill an innocent life because you were not adult enough to prevent it is just absurd. Grow up, or keep your legs shut. That is my opinion. To answer the question, are we ready for a female vp- YES! Are we ready for this one, Absolutly!

A dnc isn't abortion ??? I may be wrong here but from what I've heard Palin doesn't beleive in abortion at all - she doesn't care if it's rape or incest..

But aren't the questions prior to him accepting the nomination - and Palins were after - so those are apples & oranges arent' they..

Not apples to oranges at all. Why shouldn't Obama answer tough questions just because it was prior to the nomination? And why hasn't he been asked them since? And I think you'll find the same lines of questioning to be true with any MSM personality. They are generally more hostile to Republicans than they are to Democrats.

Not apples to oranges at all. Why shouldn't Obama answer tough questions just because it was prior to the nomination? And why hasn't he been asked them since? And I think you'll find the same lines of questioning to be true with any MSM personality. They are generally more hostile to Republicans than they are to Democrats.

So you watch fox who is more hostile to the Dems than the Reps :thumbup:

Because he hadn't taken the postition of Dem Candiate yet - I don't kmw that's my lame excuse.. :wink_smile: Plus then everyone was focused on him picking Hillary or not - the whole will you kiss and make up with her and bill Those were the issues at hand when he was interviewed. Thats what alot of pple wanted to know -

I have watched a little of the interview from last night but not the whole thing yet - but you know what bugged me the most - and this is very trivial and I understand why she didn't answer it honestly - but the questons was "Didn't you hesistate in accepting the VP" Her answer no not at all - come on their had to be some doubt - I understand why she said No - so that she didn't look weak - but I think she had to be a tad scared when 1st asked the question - heck this is vp of the usa anyone with half a brain would be a little scared to accept that responsiblity. It wasn't like she is the one who chose to run for this position like Obama and McCain have done - she was asked out of the blue

Ya he was tough on her - I would assume to see what she was made of and she gave the typical politician answers which were no answers at all - before you get your hackles up both side do this all the time - talk in circles - I'm not saying it's just her but that they all do it...

Heck why can't they answer yes or no sometime -

I don't watch Fox all the time; not hardly. I watch a variety of networks and read a variety of websites. But I most definitely notice a bias. I wish there were a conservative counterpart to the liberal networks. Fox has conservative commentators, but they're not the norm. In fact, I read a report a while back that Fox reporters were personally just as liberal as reporters from other networks. The difference is that they make an attempt to be fair.

As to the interview, I haven't watched the whole thing, either. But the thing that pissed me off in what I did hear was the same question. When she answered she was ready, he accused her of "hubris". Yet if she had answered that she wasn't sure she was ready, he would have attacked her on that. There was no way for her to answer to his satisfaction. Either she's not ready or she's cocky because she is.

"Didn't you hesistate in accepting the VP" Her answer no not at all - come on their had to be some doubt - I understand why she said No - so that she didn't look weak - but I think she had to be a tad scared when 1st asked the question - heck this is vp of the usa anyone with half a brain would be a little scared to accept that responsiblity. It wasn't like she is the one who chose to run for this position like Obama and McCain have done - she was asked out of the blue

At the time he asked (after she had already been "in the running" for a while (which, despite reports you've heard to the contrary, she knew she was a possible pick for a long time), she may very well have not hesitated at all. She may already have been through the thought-process and made her decision.

That being said, I will never understand the mentality of those who want to run for top office. I wouldn't accept the job of President or VP if it were handled to me on a silver platter. I wouldn't want that kind of responsibility. I think politicians who seek that kind of office are a different breed altogether and I don't think we "normal people" can understand them.

Heck why can't they answer yes or no sometime -

I think I posted on this thread earlier but it may have been on another one: first rule of politics -- never answer a question directly. Second rule of politics: if you do answer directly, always be prepared to tell the other side why you answered the way you did, when you really agree with them. It sucks, but that's the way it is. If politicians just answered yes or no, they'd likely never be elected.

I don't watch Fox all the time; not hardly. I watch a variety of networks and read a variety of websites. But I most definitely notice a bias. I wish there were a conservative counterpart to the liberal networks. Fox has conservative commentators, but they're not the norm. In fact, I read a report a while back that Fox reporters were personally just as liberal as reporters from other networks. The difference is that they make an attempt to be fair.

As to the interview, I haven't watched the whole thing, either. But the thing that pissed me off in what I did hear was the same question. When she answered she was ready, he accused her of "hubris". Yet if she had answered that she wasn't sure she was ready, he would have attacked her on that. There was no way for her to answer to his satisfaction. Either she's not ready or she's cocky because she is.

I agree I really wish there was some place to get info that wasn't skewed to the reporters beliefs - I don't watch CNN Fox or MSNBC unless there is something major going on in the world (like 9/11 - or Katrina etc) I what our local new and I like Charlie Gibson - so ABC is my channel of choice.

And there are days that I dont even watch the news cuz I'm not back from the gym or just don't feel like being depressed.

I did try to watch Obama with George Stephonofolas (sp) last weekend but it got to boring -- I really was trying to get some info so I could parrot here on this thread:lol: But like I said - I was looking at the ad's and drinking coffee - my usuall Sunday morning routine - and it was just too much for my brain to comprehend on a Sunday morning

At the time he asked (after she had already been "in the running" for a while (which, despite reports you've heard to the contrary, she knew she was a possible pick for a long time), she may very well have not hesitated at all. She may already have been through the thought-process and made her decision.

That being said, I will never understand the mentality of those who want to run for top office. I wouldn't accept the job of President or VP if it were handled to me on a silver platter. I wouldn't want that kind of responsibility. I think politicians who seek that kind of office are a different breed altogether and I don't think we "normal people" can understand them.

I think I posted on this thread earlier but it may have been on another one: first rule of politics -- never answer a question directly. Second rule of politics: if you do answer directly, always be prepared to tell the other side why you answered the way you did, when you really agree with them. It sucks, but that's the way it is. If politicians just answered yes or no, they'd likely never be elected.

You gotta remember you are younger than me - I don't remember what was posted 2 seconds ago

No I think it would be better if they gave a yes or no -but like you said they would have to back it up - and they can't or they are afraid that it will come back to haunt them

Just like the bridge to no where - she was for it then she wasn't (which imho is fine we all change our minds with new info) but then she says she told Washington she didn't want it or their $$$ - well really they had shelved the project - It's the whole spin issue - Spin City that's Politics

I did try to watch Obama with George Stephonofolas (sp) last weekend but it got to boring -- I really was trying to get some info so I could parrot here on this thread:lol: But like I said - I was looking at the ad's and drinking coffee - my usuall Sunday morning routine - and it was just too much for my brain to comprehend on a Sunday morning

I don't think it's your brain at all. I think he's just boring. Except for the part where he talked about "[his] Muslim faith" and George Stephanopolous corrected him LOL! I wonder if he hadn't been corrected if he would have realized the gaffe!

I agree I really wish there was some place to get info that wasn't skewed to the reporters beliefs

No such animal. Everyone has an opinion and it infiltrates everything they say. The best we can do is identify their opinion so we can gauge their "facts" knowing what's behind it. BTW, that's the case for real life as well

BTW, speaking of untrue things, I read somewhere today (I have yet to verify) that Obama's ad criticizing McCain for not using email in distorted -- he can't type (or do a number of other things, like comb his hair or even raise his arms above his shoulders) due to his injuries in Vietnam. Everything has a background story, huh?

Didn't take too long for me to find it! LOL!

From Hot Air

Why can’t McCain e-mail? Boston Globe explained it in 2000; Update: So did Forbes

posted at 7:15 pm on September 12, 2008 by Ed Morrissey

Earlier today, Barack Obama’s campaign released an ad attacking John McCain for not knowing how to send an e-mail. Their crack research team apparently never heard of Google or Lexis-Nexis, but Jonah Goldberg does. He discovers why McCain doesn’t use a keyboard — his torturers made sure he couldn’t. The Boston Globe reported it eight years ago:

McCain gets emotional at the mention of military families needing food stamps or veterans lacking health care. The outrage comes from inside:

McCain’s severe war injuries prevent him from combing his hair, typing on a keyboard, or tying his shoes.

Friends marvel at McCain’s encyclopedic knowledge of sports. He’s an avid fan - Ted Williams is his hero - but he can’t raise his arm above his shoulder to throw a baseball.

After Vietnam, McCain had Ann Lawrence, a physical therapist, help him regain flexibility in his leg, which had been frozen in an extended position by a shattered knee. It was the only way he could hope to resume his career as a Navy flier, but Lawrence said the treatment, taken twice a week for six months, was excruciatingly painful.

”He endured it, he wouldn’t settle for less,” said Lawrence, who rejoiced with McCain when he passed the Navy physical. ”I have never seen such toughness and resolve.”

Making fun of a war hero’s severe injuries — smooth move, Team O. Talk about computer illiteracy! Doesn’t anyone on the Obama campaign know what they’re doing? Didn’t it ever occur to them that a man who can’t raise his arms above his head might have a physical barrier to using a computer?

If this is what happens when they takes the gloves off, maybe they should just keep them on in the future.

Update (AP): I’m not sure how he’s accessing the ‘Net given his injuries, but he does appear to have some kind of access. From an NYT interview in July:

Q: What websites if any do you look at regularly?

Mr. McCain: Brooke and Mark show me Drudge, obviously, everybody watches, for better or for worse, Drudge. Sometimes I look at Politico. Sometimes RealPolitics, sometimes.

(Mrs. McCain and Ms. Buchanan both interject: “Meagan’s blog!”)

Mr. McCain: Excuse me, Meagan’s blog. And we also look at the blogs from Michael and from you that may not be in the newspaper, that are just part of your blog.

Q: But do you go on line for yourself?

Mr. McCain: They go on for me.

I am learning to get online myself, and I will have that down fairly soon, getting on myself.

I don’t expect to be a great communicator, I don’t expect to set up my own blog, but

I am becoming computer literate to the point where I can get the information that I need

– including going to my daughter’s blog first, before anything else.

Maybe he’s able to move the mouse so he can access sites bookmarked for him?

Update (Ed): Jonah Goldberg makes an excellent point in an update:

Lord knows I think the chicken-hawk arguments are stupid. And I don’t think the fact that Obama never served in the military should count against him in and of itself. But how stupid is it for the Obama campaign to claim that McCain is unqualified to be president because he can’t grasp cyber-security issues based on the fact he has never sent an email when the McCain campaign can just as easily say Obama can’t understand first order national security issues because he’s never fired a rife, flown a plane, commanded men in battle, or faced an enemy? I mean which prepares someone to be commander in chief better, hitting “send” on AOL or fighting a war?

In fact, didn’t Obama just make all of those arguments valid and fair?

Update II: Ace notes that Forbes Magazine noted McCain’s disability in 2000, too:

In certain ways, McCain was a natural Web candidate. Chairman of the Senate Telecommunications Subcommittee and regarded as the U.S. Senate’s savviest technologist, McCain is an inveterate devotee of email. His nightly ritual is to read his email together with his wife, Cindy. The injuries he incurred as a Vietnam POW make it painful for McCain to type. Instead, he dictates responses that his wife types on a laptop. “She’s a whiz on the keyboard, and I’m so laborious,” McCain admits.

How difficult was this for a campaign to find before they ran an ad embarrassing themselves?

Attack Ad's period are Wrong - Wrong - Wrong 99% of the time they are about crap that really doesn't matter...

Fox is not biased ? now I have heard it all. That's why Sarah Palin's next interview (a week from now), is on Fox Nexswith Sean Hannidy. Everyone know's Hannidy is the pillar of bypartisnship. It will delicious watching him droll all over her.

Fox is not biased ? now I have heard it all. That's why Sarah Palin's next interview (a week from now), is on Fox Nexswith Sean Hannidy. Everyone know's Hannidy is the pillar of bypartisnship. It will delicious watching him droll all over her.

Clusk it's not biase if you are a republican... I have watched it a few times and I think they are very conservative - but again I can't talk with any expert knowledge - Also it's the channel of choice for all my Staunch Republican Friends - they are always quoting someone from Fox..

They Love Bill O'Reilly.... I don't even know what channel he is on - but they were always talking about him - so I watched him once - and that was enought for me..

I stick with shows like Grey's Antomey - CSI Miami - ER - Lost - American Idol...

But I gotta say - and he is biase - James Carver - I love him... I love his accent and they way he responds the looks on his face - that's me - I can't hide my emotions ...

I like George Stephonafolas (sp) he seems pretty down the middle to me..