Inuyasha wrote:
aghogday wrote:
zer0netgain wrote:
minervx wrote:
The choice of Sarah Palin was effective, during the first two weeks. It shut down most of the media focus on Obama and directed it toward her. Of course, after she made numerous gaffes and her folksy attitude was poorly received, she was caricatured by comedy television programs.
More accurately, the media did a hatchet job on her.
Simple fact is that Palin had more executive experience and responsibility than Obama, who was nothing more than a community organizer with a budget to spend handed to him and didn't even serve one full term in office (most of which he was absent) before running for president.
To see people be critical of Palin's "experience" to be VP (which is a non-job unless the president dies) when they were supporting Obama for the presidency was hypocritical at the very least.
On TV what you see is what you get. In the public arena, the media is not normally kind when people in high positions make mistakes. She was criticized more for what she said and did, than her limited political experience as the Governor of Alaska. She was also criticized more for resigning her position than for her experience.
If Obama had made the gaffes that she did, during his campaign, it is not likely that he would have had a chance of winning. He ran, almost a perfect campaign and presented himself in a exemplary manner, regardless of his experience. That is what the public saw and that is why he won. One can argue it was a carefully constructed act; but it was a successful one, never the less.
It is a credit to her charisma and influence that she still has a strong base of unwavering support. Bush made those kind of gaffes during his campaign and still won. They both deserve alot of credit for staying afloat, and failing forward.
If they had gone after Obama with the same fanatism that they went after Palin, it would be a President John S. McCain in the White House, not Barack Obama.
Further the left used junk lawsuits to make it so Palin was over half a million dollars in debt when she finally resigned (and the resignation had to do with a new law in Alaska where people can be held liable for junk lawsuits). She resigned so there wouldn't be a corruption issue with the new law's implimentation.
Also Journ'O'list proved the mainstream media was doing whatever it could to cover up any potential scandal involving Barack Obama, so no this was a hatchet job not legitimate reporting.
Most of the gaffes she made on TV were of her own doing. There is a general concensus among people that evaluate presidential campaigns that the one Obama ran doesn't get much better.
He didn't make any significant gaffes in his campaign in debates or interviews; can you provide any. Yes, he has made some since he was elected, but no significant ones that I know of during the campaign.
Journalists don't always pursue the policies of Republicans in negative ways. It was evident in the hands off approach to the Bush Administration in not seriously questioning the war in Iraq.
Cable networks don't count in this; they all have their bias, and are mostly in the entertainment business.
And by the way, I'm not an Obama supporter, I'm a people supporter. I don't agree with everything he's done. I voted for him mostly, because I felt it was the only chance in history that the majority of people in America might have the opportunity to get proper healthcare.
I don't like the resulting healthcare plan, but I see the alternative of nothing, into the distant future, and that is not going to benefit anyone.
And for anyone that is young and doesn't think that healthcare should be as available to everyone as much as possible; wait until 15 or 20 years pass, and see if life throws curve balls that aren't expected. I don't blame a person with this view, I didn't give health insurance a second thought until I got a curveball late into my thirties and forties.
And, I was covered through work; the whole time. I know what it would have been like to go without it, and believe me, a person shouldn't risk going there, if they have an opportunity to get health insurance.
19 Apr 2011, 3:26 pm
In any case, Pearl Harbor, back in 1941, got the US off of our collective butts and through that event allowed for the shortening of WWII.
