The Hot Blog

And Bush is vetoing a bill that would ban waterboarding, aka approving of an evil practice.

What is it about Hollywood movie bloggers that they all secretly want to be political bloggers? ;>

Honestly, in response to Dave's title, I don't really care about political discussion on these sites one way or another - it's Dave's site, he can do what he wants with it.

That said, these posts (and even moresos, the ones on HE) do little in the way of convincing someone who hasn't made their mind up once a blogger has stated that he's in favor of one candidate over another. It doesn't matter much when they start talking facts, as bias has seeped into their coverage. Facts should be presented by objective journalists, not supporters. Anyone can get conterweighting facts from the Hillary camp that suggest she should be the nominee just as easily.

Ultimately, it's like watching Crossfire, two people yell as loud as they can that they're right and the other guy is wrong, but no one calls it a discussion.

It's not like the journalists don't have preferences, too. Discounting another person's argument simply because he or she supports one candidate over another is ridiculous-- maybe there's a reason that person supports the candidate. Maybe it's because of the very facts you've decided to ignore. It's not like all the candidates are the same.

Thanks Dave, some of this information is new to even a political junkie like me.

You answer your own question, Me. I write what I feel like writing. This month, politics are far more interesting than the movies out there, no?

And if you can't see past bias, you aren't going to last long in any media, old or new. Larry King last night was 2 Clintons vs 2 Obamas and every question was answered by the Clintonites with their stump speech, no matter what the actual question. The Obomites did some of the same, but unlike The Clintonites, they did speak to accusations and didn't continue to throw lies into the debate... the latest spin being "Obama stated the negativity." This accusation was based on the fliers in Ohio... but when confronted with the detail that both fliers were accurate, no response by the Clintonites.

What makes me truly crazy is that every attack by Clinton's side is now a slogan, which is so Rovian. They don't discuss the detail, they just keep repeating the accusation. The scary thing is... people really hear that surface stuff and it sinks in more than real ideas or facts.

Perhaps that's why you, Me, discuss only the fact that I am pointing to facts, not the facts themselves. Thanks to the media - especially Traditional Media, which keeps blaming blogs for being worse than blogs - you have been trained to do that. And that's how we got 8 years of Bush in this country in thew first place.

A couple of California court cases could be bad news for Obama or Clinton: 1) the impending decision in the CA supreme court on whether or not the state's law against gay marriage is valid; 2) yesterday's appelate ruling outlawing home schooling. Republicans will be salivating at the prospect of getting Barack and Hillary to go on the record against the latter, and against the former if gay marriage is legalized. And they'll have to if they hope to maintain whatever crossover appeal they have.

Has the home schooling ruling become a big national news story though? I don't get that impression.

If anyone wants a good idea of what Hillary's campaign is like, you just had to tune in to Bill Maher's show last night where Terry McAuliffe wasn't able to answer a single difficult question that he was asked. He sidestepped questions and tried to make jokes and then when Maher made a joke about Bill Clinton towards the end, McAuliffe promptly ended the interview.

This man is one of Hillary's top advisers and he couldn't explain why Hillary would say that she and McCain have more experience than Obama (essentially saying "if i don't get the nomination, vote for McCain"). Instead McAuliffe sidestepped and talked about how Hillary meant to say that her own foreign policy experience is better. Then when Maher asks him how much foreign policy experience Bill Clinton had in 1992, McAuliffe got all red-faced and started blathering about how it's a different world now.

I just can't get over how Hillary's campaign makes a big deal out of these non-issues and then dumps them when they are no longer useful. She does the damage and then walks away.

Stella, the home schooling ruling isn't a big national story yet. That's not a surprise for a ruling that came out late Friday eastern time. It'll percolate over the weekend. You know someone will ask both Democratic candidates about it soon, since it's a classic gotcha issue for a Dem. All it takes is some Samantha Power level staffer saying the wrong thing for it to blow up. The ruling is pretty much DOA (the entire CA govt. from Arnie down couldn't stomp on it fast enough), but we both know that doesn't mean anything.

He's not going to defeat her in the primaries. She's not going to quit.

Move on. There is nothing to see here...

I just don't see it being that controversial of a campaign issue for the Democratic candidates. The endorsement of the disgusting John Hagee hasn't seemed to hurt McCain much. Sometimes the things you expect to blow up never do.

"Perhaps that's why you, Me, discuss only the fact that I am pointing to facts, not the facts themselves."

Perhaps 'Me' has better things to do with his time.

"Sometimes the things you expect to blow up never do."

That is so, just as the reverse is. There's eight months to go. There will be plenty of surprises to come. As a wise man said, "Always in motion is the future."

McAuliffe didn't end the interview, the satellite feed dropped out. That's why there were suddenly bars on the screen and Maher asked if they could get the feed back up, but was told no.

He was probably grateful though.

McAuliffe I mean.

First, God bless the CBC - at least Peter Mansbridge gets reports that are steeped in fact over those CTV reports.

Secondly, our Canadian 'right-wing' government is somewhat more neutral than the American right wing, so the pundit saying that the government was trying to influence things is somewhat off. Does Canada need NAFTA? Yes - but I think people on both sides of the border will agree that it could be more beneficial for all involved.

Thanks for signing in, . Now you can comment. (sign out)

(If you haven't left a comment here before, you may need to be approved by the site owner before your comment will appear. Until then, it won't appear on the entry. Thanks for waiting.)

URL:
Remember me? YesNo

Comments: