MSM Continues Love Affair With Obama; Now Documented

Jack - Mitchell was not referring to tripping to the ME she was specifically talking about the content of the news reports of the trip.
You'll recall reports from McCain's trip that involved Q&A from reporters . Mitchell is saying the press reports on Obama's trip are different in that they are not conducted by journalists.

Melony:

Yeah. IN JORDAN which is where Obama is going next and where a presser with reporters is scheduled.

Maybe Mitchell is disappointed? Perhaps she expected that because the big networks sent their top brass reporters they would be featured in Obama's MSM reports from the ME. I'm waiting for the presser.

Funny, but I don't seem to remember Katie, Charlie and Brian tagging along on McCain's junket.

Great article, Kathy.

Well, were they invited?

. IN JORDAN which is where Obama is going next and where a presser with reporters is scheduled.

Happening right now.

Bill:

That issue is distinct from the claim Mitchell makes. She, to remind you, was discussing the supposedly unprecedented action of the CANDIDATE. She so doesn't remember it happening it before that she forgot McCain made a virtually identical trip in March and then made ANOTHER trip to Columbia, Mexico and Canada like three weeks ago.

The issue of traveling anchors is different and easily explainable: Obama is young, exciting and exotic. A ratings grabber. McCain is a boring, familiar and senescent man who nobody wants to watch.

Jack, @ 3

One of your worst articles evah.

I think you're being a tad too harsh, Jack.

(Kathy, great article...once again. Let the record reflect, I disagree with Jack. It's not your worst article. You're a great investigative writer!)

Jack, I think the broader point that perhaps while not explicitly expressed but which Mitchell infers is, the positive press coverage Obama is receiving is giving him a boost in public perception as it pertains to his appearance as "presidential material". McCain on the other hand continues to flub in the media spotlight. Think... his laughable mea culpas on Mideastern geo-politics - as just one illustration. Everyday, in the minds of undecided voters I think McCain continues to be perceived as incompetent (or perhaps he's just showing his true colors?) as we head towards the first Tuesday in November. McCain just doesn't seem to be able pull it off in the press as Obama does.

Media coverage of Obama versus McCain could be summed up thus: "orchestrated" versus "off-the-cuff" packaging.

Remember, Obama uses the motivational marketing approach - "yes! you can" to campaigning. That said, I venture a guess that many voters will be disappointed by his actual performance if he makes it to the WH. In my mind, it's becoming a case of lesser of weevils. ;-)

It's obvious that Obama is a product of orchestrated packaging, and well you've seen McCain in action first hand...as have journalists and news anchors alike...he comes off as a reactionary - off-the-cuff - because that IS what he IS.

In fact, McCain is scary to many liberal voters...at least to this liberal voter, and he appears that way in the press.

Media coverage of Obama versus McCain could be summed up thus: "orchestrated" versus "off-the-cuff" packaging.

Remember, Obama uses the motivational marketing approach - "yes! you can" to campaigning. That said, I venture a guess that many voters will be disappointed by his actual performance if he makes it to the WH. In my mind, it's becoming a case of lesser of weevils. ;-)

Excellent points.

Again, this orchestrated campaign is so reminiscent of the Bush campaigns (and the fawning the press did over their Texan comboy) that it's hard for me to believe that MSM like Andrea Mitchell is now pointing fingers. When has she ever been a fair and balanced reporter? Good God, she and others of her ilk roasted Gore for his roboticism and yet nary spoke a word on Bush's verbal gaffes.

I say look in a mirror, Andrea.

caltha:

Media coverage of Obama versus McCain could be summed up thus: "orchestrated" versus "off-the-cuff" packaging.

Yeah. So what? That's a reflection of the candidates, their campaigns and their characters, not the media--and the subject of this article is the Media.

And to repeat: The Andrea Mitchell quote which is the central point of this essay is FALSE. It's patently ridiculous. Kathy wants to know if the other media outlets will pick up on Mitchell's comment? The answer to that is No because what Mitchell said was flat-out stupid.

The only reason another outlet would pick up Mitchell's comment is to say what I just said about it.

(I just seeded Dee Dee Meyers' very fair-minded exposition on this subject).

Jack, An example from CNN and Fox (of all media outlets, and brought to you by brought to you by Talking Points Memo TV) comparing McCain' with Obama's eloquence. Pay particular attention at 2:27 to 2:39 into the video clip.

What about McCain's speech?!??! That was awful!!??

In the media clips of Obama's last trip there are no speeches or Q & A from which to evaluate what he said or did (aside from shooting some hoops with the troops) - perhaps Mitchell is miffed because she didn't get the "exclusive" interview with Obama...Brian did.

A little walk down memory lane, reminding people that McCain has long referred to the press as "his base", a calling card which was started by Chris Matthews. The MSM's love affair with McCain is documented back to at least 2000.

This NYT article is from about 4 months ago; at the time, it was Romney who was complaining that McCain got a free pass, which is what a lot of people in the Obama camp feel about McCain's coverage, especially compared how Obama got hammered on Rev Wright (McCain has his own pastor problems), etc., the whole "refine" coverage, gaffe coverage, etc.

"The Maverick and the Media", http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/26/opinion/26gabler.html

caltha:

You're a little (just barely) behind the times. O did a press conference in Jordan today and he'll be more available to the press from now until his return.

There really was nothing special about the managment of the "Congressional Delegation to the War Zone" portion of the trip. They always have little or no traveling press; instead, the coverage is done by the existent bureaus.

Jack, this is nothing more than a gussied-up Congressional junket. I don't object to the media covering it. I object to the level of coverage and the decision to send the anchors there which by its very definition means significant coverage and Obama campaign commercials funded at taxpayer expense. I mean it's real news watching Obama eat breakfast with US soldiers, shoot hoops with soldiers in Kuwait, and ride in a chopper with Dave Petraeus? Weighty stuff that. LOL.

Bill:

I object to the level of coverage ...

Why? It's a kick ass story on about three different levels, the characterological, the political and, should Obama win, the world historical. There are a few other factors like that late July is the dog days of presidential election and the fact this trip is almost the exact reciprocal of McCain's March trip, but basically, it's earned media.

shoot hoops with soldiers in Kuwait,

Gee. Didn't hear you whining about the idiotic coverage of that, er, bowling, ah, mishap last April and if he'd missed that three-pointer I'm damn sure you wouldn't be whining now.

If for six weeks the news media had been covering McCain 2x more than Obama, I believe you'd be crying bloody murder.

It rather depends on the type of coverage, doesn't it? In politics, there is such a thing as bad publicity. Just ask Trent Lott, Larry Craig, or Mark Foley. Mere volume does not indicate a fawning attitude. WTF does "significant part" even mean?

McCain went to Iraq and Afghanistan and refused to talk to reporters?

Given McCain's recent spate of gaffes, learning to "just say no" to reporters is probably a skill he should learn. Loose lips sink ships, and all that.

And which network anchor flew to Iraq to interview McCain while he was there?

Which network anchor was invited to do so by McCain? Let's also remember that due to McCain's own narrative about Obama, it is Obama's trip that is significantly more newsworthy. McCain loves to tell us again and again how many times he's been to the region, so what, really, is one more trip for him.

On the other hand, Obama has been much less often and the narrative espoused by McCain is that this trip is necessary for Obama. Just another example of "damned if he does and damned if he doesn't". Cute catch 22 you have set up for Obama, but don't be surprised some can recognize the trap you've laid for what it is.

BTW -- one of my colleagues at About.com has an Excellent point -- why is there so much focus on Obama and so little coverage of Iraq War.

Your colleague at About.com might want to check out the newspaper (or the newfangled internets). Violence is down significantly in Iraq. The situation is still serious, and we shouldn't take our eyes off the ball, but the simple truth is that Iraq is not the critical situation that it once was. No grand conspiracy necessary.

Kathy:

The data is not erroneous--your conclusion from it is.

If for six weeks the news media had been covering McCain 2x more than Obama, I believe you'd be crying bloody murder.

Actually, No I wouldn't. Not that I'm unwilling to cry bloody murder about media coverage, it's just that when I do my criticism is quite a bit more sophistcated. For instance. You'll see in that case that my critique had very much to do with "false balance." By your crude reckoning, that front page I deconstructed was in perfect 1 to 1 balance.

And which network anchor flew to Iraq to interview McCain while he was there?

Dunno. But since none of them flew to Iraq to interview Obama what difference does it make?

So far as Barack is viewed as our best crack at a solution to Iraq involvement coverage of his coming to power is about Iraq.

I mean it's real news watching Obama eat breakfast with US soldiers

We've always had stories like this. Bush strutting around in a cod-piece claiming that the "Mission is Accomplished" isn't actually news either, it was nothing more then a ridiculously expensive photo-op. But the media ate that one up, didn't they? Much like they ate up Bush cutting brush at his ranch, Huckabee duck hunting with some locals, Clinton taking a shot of Crown Royale, McCain grilling with reporters, etc, etc.

shoot hoops with soldiers in Kuwait

Didn't he make a three-pointer? That was awesome. And again, no one was complaining when Republicans had these photo-ops with the troops. Personally, I think a lot of Republicans aren't so much upset with the photo-ops themselves, they are upset that it's being documented that the troops actually seem to support a Democrat instead of spitting on him and calling him a traitor like the GOP would have the public to believe. Not having all the troops in their pocket really @!$%#s up the GOP narrative that Republicans, and only Republicans, can speak for the troops, and therefore are the only ones that can lead in a time of war.

I guess I would understand the objections if they weren't similar to stupid things that the media reports on every day. When personal things about Obama's life came out, many of us thought the media was focusing too much on character issues and not substance. "Focus on the issues", we said. Republicans didn't seem to mind, because the frame from before was that McCain was a maverick, Obama was not patriotic. "Character is important", they told me. "Character matters". And now that the media is focusing on "character" that doesn't fit into the GOP meme that Obama is the anti-christ, everyone wants to fuss about how trivial the media is being? Please.

and ride in a chopper with Dave Petraeus?

Why wouldn't a meeting with the Commanding General be newsworthy? Wasn't one of the criticisms hurled at Obama early on based on the assumption that he had never met with Patraeus, and therefore was clueless about Iraq? It's just silly to say that not meeting with Patraeus is totally newsworthy, but meeting him is totally not newsworthy.

If for six weeks the news media had been covering McCain 2x more than Obama, I believe you'd be crying bloody murder.

I ~want~ them to cover McCain. The problem is that they aren't. He's made so many major mistakes this past week that never made the mainstream news. He's flipped on pretty much every issue there is. His surrogates have straight-up lied about his positions on issues. This guy should be dead in the water at this point, he's a joke. But he's not, because instead of talking about McCain's inability to keep Iraq time-lines straight, his own talking points straight, or even basic geography straight, we are talking about how Christian or patriotic the Obama's are. McCain is constantly given the benefit of the doubt by the media (Oh, he's just cozying up to right-wing extremists because he has to, all politicians pander. He's really his own man, what a maverick! Let's give him some donuts with sprinkles!) whereas Obama has everything he does scrutinized (Is Obama a Muslim? Is Obama pastor a Christian extremist? Why isn't Obama going to Iraq? Why is Obama going to Iraq? Why doesn't Obama disown his pastor? Why did Obama throw his church under the bus? Etc)

I don't think anyone will deny that Obama's probably gotten more coverage then McCain. But this idea that Obama's coverage has been all roses and bunnies and teh media is totally in the bag for him is pretty absurd. No one had a problem with the focus being only on Obama when it was about bad things. The coverage of McCain, on the other hand, has been overwhelmingly positive, because the press adores him. The lack of coverage for McCain has probably helped him, it's kept the illusion of the "Straight-Talk Express" alive.

Nice try Stacy but the signal fact remains that this Congressional junket was covered all out of proportion to similar trips by McCain this past spring. What's troubling to me is that the media, as usual, is reporting on the flummery of the trip and that amounts to free campaign advertising for the Obama campaign while mostly ignoring his problematic stance on any number of issues which I shall make plain in a full article tomorrow.

The reason behind that was simple. McCain's trip came in the middle of the Democratic Primary. If you were the media would you drop the primary coverage to cover McCain's 128371928379128379th trip to Iraq?

Nice try Stacy but the signal fact remains that this Congressional junket was covered all out of proportion to similar trips by McCain this past spring.

And many people have pointed out already why that is (the hype surrounding it before hand because of McCain's attacks, Obama's invitation to journalists, etc), so I won't bother going into it.

What's troubling to me is that the media, as usual, is reporting on the flummery of the trip and that amounts to free campaign advertising for the Obama campaign while mostly ignoring his problematic stance on any number of issues which I shall make plain in a full article tomorrow.

Yet when they were a propaganda machine for the war, that was all good and well. Go ask some Bush supporters pre-2003 who flew into the World Trade Center and who Osama's bestest friend was and get back to me.

Look, I'm not going to deny the media often covers trivial things. There's a reason why I avoid a lot of that stuff. But to sit here and pretend that it's something unique to Obama or Democrats, or that it overwhelmingly favors them, is laughable at best.

Gee, what a shocker:

The Center for Media and Public Affairs at George Mason University, where researchers have tracked network news content for two decades, found that ABC, NBC and CBS were tougher on Obama than on Republican John McCain during the first six weeks of the general-election campaign.

During the evening news, the majority of statements from reporters and anchors on all three networks are neutral, the center found. And when network news people ventured opinions in recent weeks, 28% of the statements were positive for Obama and 72% negative.

Network reporting also tilted against McCain, but far less dramatically, with 43% of the statements positive and 57% negative, according to the Washington-based media center.

Stacy:

That is one of the best indications I've seen yet of Obama's strength. It means he's succeeding in going "over the heads" of the media in Reaganesque fashion (probably part talent, part staff work).

That means the debates in October are key. Crucial. In fact, maybe the only scheduled news event remaining in the campaign worthy of the term "news."

Wake me in October, please?

Do you have any data that counters my "opinion"?

Lack of evidence is not evidence.

What's the line about how easy it is to manipulate people if you keep them feasting on irrelevant ideas and providing bread-and-circuses?

Got any data to support that opinion?

Seems a little hypocritical for you to say, with this article you posted.

Gotten an F for identifying a historic and newsworthy event? Sounds like you had incompetent professors.

What precisely is historic about a Congressional junket, spiffie? Was McCain's similar junket in the spring historic? Stick to math.

Was McCain's trip to Iraq this spring equivalent? Again, the very commonness of McCain's presence there works against its newsworthiness, and McCain's own rhetoric is what has helped hype this trip to an importance it perhaps does not deserve.

As for why it's historic, pretty much anything Obama does is going to be historic for a while. That's just the nature of firsts.

What you said! :)

spiffie

Chuck Todd is nothing more than a wonky little numbers cruncher like Charlie Cook (who he'll probably resemble in about ten years). I checked out one of his Q & As and was bored beyond belief at the dreck. Andrea Mitchell is an overrated, social-climbing status whore. It's been a long downhill slide at NBC from the likes of Roger Mudd to Andrea Mitchell, Chuck Todd and Brian Williams.

Yeah, that was kind of my point. That Mitchell got a little pissy because Obama didn't/doesn't fawn over the press isn't very relevant to a supposed "love affair" between Obama and the media.

Why are you drawing conclusions about "fawning" coverage off data that only indicates volume not character? Why not find data that supports your point instead of focusing on data that doesn't say what you apparently want it to say. (Ask your professors about that.)

Kathy, the link I clicked did not address my question, which is the measurement of the actual character of the coverage. From what I can tell, they stopped short of examining that very critical question.

To me, the question is not volume of coverage or even the topic, but whether that coverage was positive or negative. Getting lots of negative coverage does not equate to media bias in favor of the person getting negative coverage.

As I posted earlier, McCain has been a media darling for a long time (see NYT article above talking about it); Chris Matthews is one of the first ones to label the press as McCain's "base".

I'd take this more seriously if they had examined how the media reacted to various stories on Obama and McCain and who received the more FAVORABLE coverage and the quantity of both favorable and unfavorable coverage for each candidate.

Let's not forget Al Gore got plenty of coverage in 2000, but a heck of a lot of it was unfavorable coverage talking about things like his stiffness and snark about the internet, etc.

Kathy:

Why is everyone focusing on Mitchell

ARGH

Because YOU focused on her, you silly goose. You freaking quoted her twice in the article above and concluded your essay with a challenge regarding the Mitchell quote--which, as I have now pointed out three times in this thread, was false anyway.

Kathy:

Grrrrr. Okay. Let's try this REAL slow since you don't seem to be getting it.

Here is what Mitchell said:

But we've not seen a presidential candidate do this in my recollection ever before.

What exactly did the CANDIDATE do that had never been done before?

my personal observation is that the news coverage has been, in the main, overwhelmingly positive

Rev. Wright? Terrorist fist jab? "Limping" across the finish line? Can he close the deal? Can he win over Hillary supporters? Just what is Obama's probably with white voters, anyway? With Jewish voters? Incessant handwringing about Kentucky and West Virginia? How can Obama win if he doesn't win the working class (never mind that a Democrat hasn't won the working class in forty years)? Just why does Michelle hate America?

Every major story (e.g. those stories that go on for multiple news cycles), just about, except this one has been a highly negative one for Obama, except stories dealing with his fundraising (and perhaps the race speech, which itself was tied to the Wright flap).

Right spiffie, and let's not forget to mention the recent hooplah over one word -- "refine"...

my god people, he's a presidential candidate, not a rock star or shoo in for messiah. the press is , like one writer pointed out here, much like capitalism. they are trying to attract attention and they are also feeding us the lines that they know we as a public want to hear. mccain is a doddering old fool, obama has a great smile and he's so cool, michelle hates america (big deal hillary went through the same thing years ago and also during the primaries and the obamas were not complaining then)...the press is going to be mindless.
this has been proved through the past eight years. it's up to us to sort through the mess and figure out what is news, what is posture, and what is cheerleading.

my god people, he's a presidential candidate, not a rock star or shoo in for messiah.

Hey, nice strawman. Try reading what we're saying. No one is saying Obama is a "rock star" or a "shoo-in for messiah".

the press is , like one writer pointed out here, much like capitalism. they are trying to attract attention and they are also feeding us the lines that they know we as a public want to hear.

I agree with you here, except that they feed us the lines they think we want to hear. Most Americans are "low information" voters, and don't pay much attention to the political news media anyway.

my point is, spiffie, that some are pointing to the fact that obama has received ANY negative coverage to counter the fact that he has been the recipient of the majority of favorable coverage.

of course he is going to receive some negative coverage. he;s a presidential candidate, for god's sake.

that does not detract from the fact that he has been fawned over repeatedly by the msm.

mccain has been largely ignored, which he should consider a blessing considering his contant gaffes and interpretation of the truth, to say nothing of his talent for inventing borders....

mccain has made one misstep after another, his latest showing that he is out of touch with the majority of americans. driving around in a golf cart is not a good thing to do when people are being crippled by evictions and sky high gas prices.

so again, he should thank his lucky stars he is virtually being ignored.

nonetheless, the press sucks. there is no other way to put it. they have sucked for the last eight years...a little more in fact. they gave bush the same free ride they are now giving obama. which is why he was elected. which is why we got into iraq. which is why we are in the mess we are in.

it seems they will never learn.

I agree with you here, except that they feed us the lines they think we want to hear. Most Americans are "low information" voters, and don't pay much attention to the political news media anyway.

I agree with you--to a point. 24 hour news cycle channels like CNN and MSNBC and FOX have a demographic of people who want to see the news constantly. So they (segment of public) do pay attention to the political news media. This is the audience that the media is trying to feed. What, McCain tripped over a wire while walking across the stage? Why...he MUSt be a doddering old FOOL. What--Obama can make a speech? Why, he MUST be the answer to all our social ills. This is the crap that the 24 hours news cycle focuses on instead of the larger issues.

that does not detract from the fact that he has been fawned over repeatedly by the msm.

If that's a "fact" then you should be able to cite an objective study establishing it as such. Until then, I see a whole lot of opinion.

It's more like, "What, Obama can make a speech? He must be an empty suit and have no policy ideas."

Spiffie,

Because there isn't an objective study saying as much doesn't make it so.

Remember the days leading up to the Iraq War. There was all this "evidence" citing Iraq's possession of WMDs... all this communication and satellite imagery, etc etc.

There were those who didn't believe that evidence at ALL.

But THEY didn't have evidence or a STUDY to prove otherwise.

Look what happened there.

Truth is the truth whether or not someone has compiled enough evidence or objective data to give a report to you.

That might be so, but it's a pretty weak argument to make. "It's true because I know it's true I just can't prove it to you but you should believe me anyway." Riiiight.

I never said you SHOULD believe me.

You have your opinion and you're entitled to it.

That doesn't make it the truth.

Hey, you're the one claiming a fact without evidence. If you don't want to imply that I should believe you, you probably shouldn't claim that your statements are facts when they are only opinions.

Well I got some info I wanted shared as a counter point only I have fact. Here and Here Oh and here.Can't forget Here and here Point being with all this against him why isn't he getting scruntinized by the media. The man was Pro-War and Pro-bush for years. You Tube look up McCains Neverending war if you dont believe me. Yet this year he claims to have always been a critic against the war. Why isn't this Flip Flop all over the MSM network. Obama's wife's statements of being proud were all over yet Cindy stealing drugs from a childrens charity Here If the MSM was doing its job McCain would have dropped out of the race.

Yeah I've seen better trumped up "evidence" trying to say that Obama is being favored. This is quite classless though. And far too obvious.

Are you saying that the data from the Project For Excellence in Journalism is irrelevant?

YES THAT IS EXACTLY WHAT WE'RE SAYING.

Christ.

Your data does NOT indicate a "love affair", "fawning" coverage, or anything of that sort. When your own data does not indicate the favorability or un-favorability of the coverage, attempting to draw a conclusion that the coverage is unfairly favorable of Obama is just not justified. You're drawing a conclusion not supported by the very data you cite.

spiff:

I KNEW that you and JFX would come here and attack me

Feel left out?

Gillis, I had to take over while you slackers were napping.

Or shining up his RAV for an article whose central premise was proven to be false.

Thank You. -applauds-

Just out of curiously, has anyone here actually read both the Obama piece and the McCain piece? What the editor brings up about the way Obama's is written and how McCain's is written is actually valid.

Yes. And what you say about the two is nothing but dishonest spin. There's not one goddam thing in Obama's op-ed vis-a-vis the "metrics" Shipley was talking about vis-a-vis McCain's. Nor is Obama making any serious argument about how he'd win in Iraq. Instead, it's always been about his central goal and that's leaving regardless as is evidenced by the last sentence in it.

Here spiffie said it best. Aren't you supposed to be un-bias when placing something out there. And here you are grasping at air to make a point that doesn't exist. Did you sit down and consider the many gaffes by McCain that are barely covered compared to non-issues on Obama that reverberate through the media. Kathy this article is worthless. It holds no fact, no point and worst of all it is so far from objective journalism it wouldn't make a tabloid. It's not even about opinion at this point McCain doesn't invite the media and you fault the media for not taking interest. And I dunno if you considered this but McCain is the media's darling. The man joked about killing Iranians multiple times but I hear more about a fist bump. Come on now how can you tell me these statements here, have any worth or value when they don't even resemble the truth. And Bill I haven't been here long so maybe there was a time when you did post something of substance. But so far I have seen nothing. You want Obama's views here's what you do take your hands off your ears and open your eyes. How does McCain plan to get us out. Show me his documented plan, or does being a POW make him a Foreign Policy Guru and an Expert on getting out of war.

Bill Harrison -

Yes. And what you say about the two is nothing but dishonest spin.

Bull@!$%#. It's right here - McCain's Piece and Obama's Piece.

Here's what Obama says about McCain:

Unlike Senator John McCain, I opposed the war in Iraq before it began, and would end it as president.

Instead of seizing the moment and encouraging Iraqis to step up, the Bush administration and Senator McCain are refusing to embrace this transition — despite their previous commitments to respect the will of Iraq's sovereign government.

Unlike Senator McCain, I would make it absolutely clear that we seek no presence in Iraq similar to our permanent bases in South Korea, and would redeploy our troops out of Iraq and focus on the broader security challenges that we face.

Here's what McCain says about Obama:

Senator Barack Obama was an equally vocal opponent [about the surge].

Now Senator Obama has been forced to acknowledge that "our troops have performed brilliantly in lowering the level of violence." But he still denies that any political progress has resulted.

Perhaps he is unaware that the U.S. Embassy in Baghdad has recently certified that, as one news article put it, "Iraq has met all but three of 18 original benchmarks set by Congress last year to measure security, political and economic progress."

The success of the surge has not changed Senator Obama's determination to pull out all of our combat troops. All that has changed is his rationale.

In a New York Times op-ed and a speech this week, he offered his "plan for Iraq" in advance of his first "fact finding" trip to that country in more than three years. It consisted of the same old proposal to pull all of our troops out within 16 months.

In 2007 he wanted to withdraw because he thought the war was lost. If we had taken his advice, it would have been. Now he wants to withdraw because he thinks Iraqis no longer need our assistance.

To make this point, he mangles the evidence. He makes it sound as if Prime Minister Maliki has endorsed the Obama timetable, when all he has said is that he would like a plan for the eventual withdrawal of U.S. troops at some unspecified point in the future.

Obama is also misleading on the Iraqi military's readiness.

The Iraqi Army will be equipped and trained by the middle of next year, but this does not, as Senator Obama suggests, mean that they will then be ready to secure their country without a good deal of help.

No one favors a permanent U.S. presence, as Senator Obama charges.

Senator Obama has said that he would consult our commanders on the ground and Iraqi leaders, but he did no such thing before releasing his "plan for Iraq." Perhaps that's because he doesn't want to hear what they have to say.

Senator Obama seems to have learned nothing from recent history. I find it ironic that he is emulating the worst mistake of the Bush administration by waving the "Mission Accomplished" banner prematurely.

Now let's take a look at what they actually say about what their plan for Iraq is (keep in mind I'm not including statements on what has happened, which fills up the other half of McCain's editorial besides slamming Obama. What I'm quoting here is what they claim they will do as president).

Obama:

We should seize this moment to begin the phased redeployment of combat troops that I have long advocated, and that is needed for long-term success in Iraq and the security interests of the United States.

But this is not a strategy for success — it is a strategy for staying that runs contrary to the will of the Iraqi people, the American people and the security interests of the United States. That is why, on my first day in office, I would give the military a new mission: ending this war.

As I've said many times, we must be as careful getting out of Iraq as we were careless getting in. We can safely redeploy our combat brigades at a pace that would remove them in 16 months. That would be the summer of 2010 — two years from now, and more than seven years after the war began. After this redeployment, a residual force in Iraq would perform limited missions: going after any remnants of Al Qaeda in Mesopotamia, protecting American service members and, so long as the Iraqis make political progress, training Iraqi security forces. That would not be a precipitous withdrawal.

In carrying out this strategy, we would inevitably need to make tactical adjustments. As I have often said, I would consult with commanders on the ground and the Iraqi government to ensure that our troops were redeployed safely, and our interests protected. We would move them from secure areas first and volatile areas later. We would pursue a diplomatic offensive with every nation in the region on behalf of Iraq's stability, and commit $2 billion to a new international effort to support Iraq's refugees.

As president, I would pursue a new strategy, and begin by providing at least two additional combat brigades to support our effort in Afghanistan. We need more troops, more helicopters, better intelligence-gathering and more nonmilitary assistance to accomplish the mission there. I would not hold our military, our resources and our foreign policy hostage to a misguided desire to maintain permanent bases in Iraq.

Unlike Senator McCain, I would make it absolutely clear that we seek no presence in Iraq similar to our permanent bases in South Korea, and would redeploy our troops out of Iraq and focus on the broader security challenges that we face.

McCain:

As we draw down in Iraq, we can beef up our presence on other battlefields, such as Afghanistan, without fear of leaving a failed state behind. I have said that I expect to welcome home most of our troops from Iraq by the end of my first term in office, in 2013.

I will continue implementing a proven counterinsurgency strategy not only in Iraq but also in Afghanistan with the goal of creating stable, secure, self-sustaining democratic allies.

The difference there is pretty striking. And that's not going into McCain's false accusations of Obama, like the refusal to point out why Obama still doesn't support the surge, or the accusation that Obama claims Maliki has "endorsed" him, or that Obama thinks the war is "lost". And let's not forget the necessary boilerpoint that "If we don't achieve the undefined goal of "winning", the terrorists will kill us all!" at the end.

McCain's editorial is a joke, and I don't blame the NYT for refusing that draft.

Kathy Gill -

what do you say about the data from The Project on Excellence in Journalism

I think I made that pretty clear with the snark in this line:

Obama focuses on his plans are for Iraq and Afghanistan. McCain focuses on Obama's plans for Iraq and Afghanistan (which by default, proves that Obama favored over McCain by the media, since they are both focusing on Obama and therefore Obama is getting more coverage!).

As has been pointed out to you repeatedly, the statistic you pulled from the Project on Excellence in Journalism is useless for the argument you are trying to make. It's like me claiming that since I can show that the media focuses constantly on Brittney Spears, it proves that that they love her music and think she's the most talented singer ever.

And whether you or I think that the NYT did the right thing or not ... Red State American does NOT think it did the right thing.

Oh. Well that settles it then.

I UNDERSTAND where those folks are coming from.

Our understanding is different. All I see is a deliberate grasping at straws in hopes to revive the talking point of "The GOP is the heroic underdog that is oppressed by the evil liberal media that is part of the vast left wing conspiracy", so that they can discredit any critique of The Man They Call Petraeus when he runs in 2012*.

* I actually think McCain's camp is doing it for the current election, since they are the only ones that think they can still win this one. But I do think many others are looking ahead. We are going to see a lot more of this attempt to fit Obama into the dominant right-wing anti-liberal memes in the next four years so that the GOP can bring back that underdog/party of the people meme that worked so well for them in the past few elections.

come on, mack....that fist bump had more favorable coverage than i have heard in a long time. it started conversations about how cool he was, what a great marriage he had, how confident the couple was, ad nauseam. the only people who had a fit over the fist bump was fox news and who takes them seriously anyway\?

Stacy:

As has been pointed out to you repeatedly, the statistic you pulled from the Project on Excellence in Journalism is useless for the argument you are trying to make.

Oh LAUGH!!! I just thought of something.

Now that the dominant media, including but not limited to Andrea Mitchell, has started with the "Does the media favor Obama?" media coverage, the next round of "statistics" will register that as increased coverage for Obama, which will itself lead to more media coverage of the media coverage of Obama's media coverage.

10.7: Fox News is the most watched news unit in America.

10.8: Brilliant. That's amazing.

And those (people who watch nothing but Fox) are the people that won't be voting for Obama no matter what. These are hardcore Republicans who think if you watch ANYTHING but Fox News, you're a liberal that wants to move to France and hug trees and smoke pot.

And then there are the people who watch a little bit of everything, like me...to get a sense of what's being said out there....and see OReilly make a fool of himself on a nightly basis...

They (hardcore Fox watchers) are the people who would think Obama is a Muslim even if they saw the Pope himself baptize Obama.... so it's not a loss really...not when they're already in the bag of the Republican party and will be until they are hit on a personal level with the brunt of politicies enacted by their conservatives.

I try to watch Olbermann, O'Reilly, and Abrams.

I get as far left as possible, as far right as possible, and then some actual sense.

I think Olbermann is my favorite to watch though.

I watch all of them, but I prefer Morning Joe. He's a republican, but as far as the pundits go, he's probably the most objective. I love to see Rachel Maddow and Chuck Todd too....just because it seems as if the rest of the media is repeating the same thing....echo chamber in effect, I guess. Olberman is a little much for me, and I was totally turned off by his relentless anger towards Clinton during the primaries. Chris Matthews has been looking for the next political messiah for the last five years and it's pathetic to watch. First it was McCain, then Romney, then Obama and who knows who the recipient of his latest man crush is....

It does get a little tiresome, doesn't it? Watching them repeat the same ol' song and dance.
I really, really can't stand Andrea Mitchell....she is the cheerleader of the "conventional wisdom", which is so way off most of the time....I like the original interpretation, the quirky ways of seeing things that Todd, Maddow, and Scarborough have to offer.

And don't get me started on Brezensky (sp?). She needs to stop the high laughter and deferential attitude towards the men on the panel and start acting like an educated woman with a mind of her own....

I HATE JOE SCARBOROUGH. I honestly don't find him very objective - he makes his disdain for all things Democrat very clear.

I have a total crush on Rachel and Joe is so dismissive towards her, so maybe that's why I don't like him. But I really think he seems dismissive. At least he puts democrats on the show.

Olbermann can be a little bit too much at times. And Chuck Todd I like because he actually knows something.

Matthews, I don't care how long he's been on television, is BAD at it. Whenever he transitions he grimaces or just gives these vacant looks like he doesn't know he's on TV. And he's too submissive to his guests for my taste. Did you see him on Leno a couple nights ago? He repeated almost word for word the Obama position on Iraq and said that it's pretty much the only good idea.

I hate Andrea Mitchell too. She was in the tank for Hillary the whole primary and still is.

Russert was of course the best. But Maddow is my second favorite. The only time she's ever made me mad was when she starts to criticize Obama for not being liberal enough. But apparently that was the script given to her for Countdown.

Lol at Matthews.

What? This morning, Joe offered to give advice to Obama on how to switch this idea of the surge working against McCain!

All the same, he criticizes both candidates, which I like. I'm tired of pundits repeating the party line for one candidate and then roating the other. It's so transparent and so effing sad.

I haven't seen Joe being dismissive of Rachel, but then again, I can't get myself up every morning....Some mornings I catch only the last hour or so...but yeah, that would piss me off too.

Olberman is a little much, yes. I prefer John Stewart to him. Olberman was so biased during the primary "in the tank" for Obama.

As for Andrea Mitchell being in the tank for Hillary, I didn't get that. She was constantly saying things like "Clinton will say anything to win....I'm not sure why she's still in this race...etc etc..."

And I really just couldn't stand Russert. I'm sorry...I cried when he died, but he just was not an objective reporter. He was pretty good as far as the media is concerned, but only because they are so bad in comparison.

Maddow is my favorite by far, but she doesn't have her own show. I hear that they're looking for a spot. I also watch Dan Abrams, which is pretty good...but I am not a fan of the cursory superficial news. I wish he would do some indepth analysis.

Yeah. I stopped watching Abrams for a while when he started talking about how good the death penalty was but I came back.

I agree that Russert wasn't objective, but we can say that he was at least the best of them all.

I think I got that impression from Mitchell when she spent a whole ten minute segment complaining that Obama hadn't started to help Hillary with her debt yet.

I got that from Joe when he was filling in for David Gregory (whom I can't watch because of his hair) and they were talking about Obama's (non)flip-flop on Iraq. He claimed Rachel obviously didn't understand the English language.

All I saw this morning was the end where General Clark was talking and Joe was cutting him off. (It was because of time, apparently.)

Stacy

Barry writes:

Instead of seizing the moment and encouraging Iraqis to step up, the Bush administration and Senator McCain are refusing to embrace this transition — despite their previous commitments to respect the will of Iraq's sovereign government.

A manifest and provable lie. The entire counterinsurgent strategy implemented by Gen. Petraeus since the summer of 2006 when the Petraeus-written new COIN manual was disseminated is all about encouraging Iraqis to step up and step up they have during the fighting in Basra during the month-long Operation Knight's Assault and later in Baghdad where they're still mopping up renegade parts of Sadr's Jaish-I-Mahdi. Do yourself a favor and quit reading so many of the leftwing fever swamp blogs and start reading the reports from on the ground. I would suggest a deep immersion in Bill Roggio's Long War Journal.

Unlike Senator McCain, I would make it absolutely clear that we seek no presence in Iraq similar to our permanent bases in South Korea, and would redeploy our troops out of Iraq and focus on the broader security challenges that we face.

That's not what John McCain said in that famous townhall meeting in NE. He made it plain that he was open to either a full withdrawal or a Korea/Bosnia-style contingent provided that the security situation continued to improve. And toward the end of the tape he also made it plain that he understood that the American people would not support an open-ended commitment to Iraq absent no or little progress.

Great, Bill. Politicians "lie" and play off of each other's gaffes. Stop the presses.

But what does that have to do with what we were actually talking about? You know, about how my claim that:

Obama focuses on his plans are for Iraq and Afghanistan. McCain focuses on Obama's plans for Iraq and Afghanistan (which by default, proves that Obama favored over McCain by the media, since they are both focusing on Obama and therefore Obama is getting more coverage!). Obama goes into his rational for his ideas about the war. McCain and avoids ever laying out his own strategy in his "counterpoint" and instead hides behind vague terms while @!$%#ting on Obama. Obama talks about redeploying troops in Afghanistan to better combat the actual front on terrorism. McCain relies on boilerplate dog whistles about how Obama is a defeatist and that if we don't "win" (never defined), the terrorists will (Eeee!). Obama acknowledges there are honest differences over Iraq policy. McCain basically calls Obama a liar.

Is "nothing but dishonest spin"?

wooblah--

Joe said that?!? I'm going to have to write him a pissed off email...I'm sure he could care less...but I'll do it nonetheless.

Yes, gregory's hair is something to not behold....ugh...

Andrea just tends to criticize and complain in all of her analysis...it's her nature...she does it with every candidate. I'm not sure why she still has a job (where can I audition for it, btw?)

I watched Olbermann today and it was honestly just annoying as hell. And that's because I'm as liberal as they get!

Who said it was essential? Nice try with the spin there.

Precisely.

a non-news-event

Seriously? Kathy, take a deep breath and get a grip. I'm sorry if you can't recognize the clear newsworthiness of a major presidential candidate's trip to Iraq, but the fact of the matter is that it is a news event. McCain's trip(s) rightly generated coverage, as well, if not to the same extent that Obama's trip has. However, arguably (as above), Obama's trip is simply quite a bit more newsworthy given the context of this campaign. Whine and gnash your teeth all you want, but attempting to claim that this trip is a "non-news event" is simply delusional.

Stacy:

I can top that. After all this @!$%#ing, McCain CANCELED HIS PRESS AVAILABILITY TODAY because, one suspects, he didn't want to get hammered with queries about the CBS interview.

McCain cancels avail

Wow.

That's about all I can say. Just a few Google News Searches

It's nothing advanced, just basic research.

I have an article pseudo-published, if Newsvine didn't eat it. Waiting for it to show up on my column. Grr.

spiffie,

I noticed a couple of articles I seeded this morning weren't showing up on my column. Then I clicked "show more" and they appeared.

Cool, I'll try that.

That happened to me too. Apparently it's taking it a while to get them up.

I e-mailed Newsvine, and then what do you know but the article magically appeared right afterwards. (Although it was the second attempt.) Anyway, here it is for those interested:

McCain's very bad, no good ability for chronology (or Bush is not responsible for the oil price drop)