I haven't done the research on this, outside of my personal observations, so feel free to call it out if I got it wrong. I spend a lot of time on the web, with the news on in the background. Fox News. CNN. BBC. Bloomberg. From my memory, the Democrat candidates not only refused to debate on a Fox News hosted debate, but for a very long time, would not make any appearances on Fox whatsoever. This in contrast to the Republicans who re-appeared in the "Lion's Den" of CNN hosted debates, even after being assailed with gotcha questions and Clinton staffers who were given equal time in their debate.

Given that Fox has better ratings than all of it's competitors in pretty much every market segment, in some cases by 5x, it seems it would make sense for Democratic candidates to make an appearance, even if they got completely attacked during their stay. After all, any press is good press. So this morning of Super Tuesday, it struck me that Barak Obama has been making daily appearances on Fox! I cant recall when it started happening, but then it struck me that shortly after Barak started doing it, so did Hilary. Of even more interest, is the fact that neither candidate has been assailed with "Gotcha" questions from what I can tell, and the devil himself, O'Reilly, has praised Obama repeatedly.

Could it be that Fox is partially responsible for the Obama surge?

Originally Posted by cbwm

From my memory, the Democrat candidates not only refused to debate on a Fox News hosted debate, but for a very long time, would not make any appearances on Fox whatsoever.

As it should be. Along the same lines of how the Ford Motor Company should have refused to do business with Hitler. I'm not saying the Forced Opinion channel is comparable to Adolph Hitler (although you just called Bill O "the devil himself" and a Republican earlier this campaign compared Fixed to al Quaeda - the sentiment is certainly there), I'm saying as terrible as the Democrats are this round, they still shouldn't appear on Fixed News and lend the place any legitimacy. It would be like, I don't know, Nancy Pelosi having a sit down with the crazy guy from Iran.

Originally Posted by cbwm

Given that Fox has better ratings than all of it's competitors in pretty much every market segment

Olbermann beats Bill O in the ratings sometimes. I'm sure this is true, because you just can't manufacture the kind of glee and happiness that shows on Olbermann's face when this happens.

Bill O'Reilly's market segment is septuagenarians. As Keith says, every time you hear an ambulance go by, there's a Bill O fan on his way to the ER to have his chest cracked. O'Reilly watchers are dropping like flies, and not being replaced.

Originally Posted by cbwm

Could it be that Fox is partially responsible for the Obama surge?

Given the 70+ year old crowd and how Obama's strength seems to be not his race, but his appeal with youth, I doubt it.

(And, yes, I'm biased. However, I have just as negative things to say about the Contains No News channel - I just hold back because you're honestly the only person I know of who watches it.)

Funny post John. I'd argue that the democrats are appearing there because the channel lends credibility to them, not the other way around, but I'm sure we differ on that view.

I did have a question though.

Originally Posted by Learning Newbie

It would be like, I don't know, Nancy Pelosi having a sit down with the crazy guy from Iran.

Obama is saying he'll have a sit down with him, Kim Jong Il, and maybe Osama Bin Laden himself if made president. Are you saying you think that is a bad idea?

Originally Posted by Learning Newbie

Olbermann beats Bill O in the ratings sometimes. I'm sure this is true, because you just can't manufacture the kind of glee and happiness that shows on Olbermann's face when this happens.

Funny stuff. I'd propose an alternate reason for his glee, in lieu of statistics. Maybe he just cashed his most recent check from Moveon.org..... Just a thought.

Originally Posted by Learning Newbie

O'Reilly watchers are dropping like flies, and not being replaced.

I didn't find statistics to support this, though I'm sure Kommunist Keith wishes it were so (We both think O'Reilly is a blow-hard, as you know). He has a certain crass appeal, something like Howard Stern.

Originally Posted by cbwm

I did have a question though.

Obama is saying he'll have a sit down with him, Kim Jong Il, and maybe Osama Bin Laden himself if made president. Are you saying you think that is a bad idea?

I was making reference to when Nancy Pelosi sat down with the president of Syria and was severely criticized by all Republicans in power. Us Dems like to be reminded of Europeans and JFK, so to us talks (and eating cheese) are always a good idea. It's just strange to see Republicans also thinking this is a good idea after criticizing it so much. Especially in praise of a Democrat.

I'll answer your question, and I'll blow your mind.

Obama should sit down and have a talk with Osama bin Laden. He should have a sharpshooter hidden in the vents above the room. Ideally we'd capture Osama alive, convict him in a fair trial, and he'll spend the rest of his life in a small metal box. Maybe earning food and water by giving over information. If we can't catch him, the entire world balked at our illegal war in Iraq but supported our legit right to self defense in Afghanistan - put a round through his head.

Kim Jong Il is a different situation, obviously. War is what happens when dialog aka politics fails. America's interests are better served if we convince North Korea to behave with sticks and carrots, than with a full blown invasion.

Originally Posted by cbwm

Funny stuff. I'd propose an alternate reason for his glee, in lieu of statistics. Maybe he just cashed his most recent check from Moveon.org..... Just a thought.

Nope. Keith isn't on MoveOn's payroll. Why pay someone when you get it for free?

I know Republicans sell their emotions to the highest bidder - was it Ralph Reed who was lobbying for medical marijuanna? - but foot soldiers of the Dems, not so much. Besides, the sheer joy when Olbermann does beat Orally in the ratings just can't be faked. Even Mr Thompson isn't that good an actor.

Originally Posted by Learning Newbie

Nope. Keith isn't on MoveOn's payroll. Why pay someone when you get it for free?

Thats odd, because they seem to read from the same book. For example: August 16th 2007, before the "General Betray Us" advertisement from Moveon.org, Kommunist Keith starts out his evening spiel with:

Which of these stories will you be talking about tomorrow? The Petraeus report, less Petraeus, more betrayaeus (ph).

That, and the link on Moveon's site promoting MSNBC. Maybe they do it for free? They definitely speak from the same talking points.

No doubt they speak from the same Talking Points. And Keith gets a healthy paycheck from MSNBC - I'd trade with him any day. But I don't think he's on MoveOn's payroll.

MSNBC is famously liberal - that's why he goes up against Bill O in the ratings. A few people have all described the same thing "Keith Olbermann is obsessed with Bill O'Reilly and Al Franken is obsessed with Andrew Coulter." I think MoveOn promotes MSNBC because they're allied by the message, not because of greenbacks. They might share intelligence before it's published to us great unwashed masses (General Betray Us) but again, I think that's because they have the same agenda.

Also, Olbermann really isn't a communist. Neither are most left wingers. It might be fun to pretend otherwise - I get a kick out of the idea that all right wingers are fascists - but it's not factually accurate. Communism is frankly a better economic system than capitalism, and capitalism and democracy are NOT synonymous. We'd be better off as a nation if we took more of what's right with communism (we already have public libraries, schools, hospitals that will take the indigent) but Keith Olbermann isn't interested in improving the lot of the poor.

So you are saying he isn't communist enough? >)

Keith is capitalist swine just like the rest of them. Apart from his own stab Bill O in the eye fetish, he's got his own $$$ vested interests. One of them is he's in a better tax bracket than I am, but I'm sure it reaches a lot further than that.

You're right - in my book, Olbermann and even CNN aren't anywhere near communist enough.

And just like that, two more people(My wife and I) voting Democrat in the 2008 general election. The other night, I saw Ann Coulter say she would vote for Hillary over McCain in the general election, as she is more conservative than he is. It got me thinking. I don't agree with any of the Candidates for their positions(Obama least than most). If you don't agree with their positions, what does it leave you with to make a decisison? For me the answer was character, something McCain clearly has none of(less even than Hillary, and that is sad). So there it is. I hope his dirty campaign politics in West Virginia, and demonstrated idiocy by standing behind clear lies and misrepresentations have the same profound effect on other republican voters they have had on me.

Obama 2008

Gingrich 2012

Don't you dare saw Gingrich 2012

Gingrich owns. Im convinced he didnt run this time because of the "Angst". 4 years of Obama otta be enough to fix that right up.

Are you saying that the best candidate Republicans could find and going to vote for is a Democrat?






fastreplies

There are a significant number of moderate Republicans who will vote for Obama, but not Hillary. It says much more to how much McCain is hated rather than how much Obama is liked. You can look at the continuing Huckabee wins to see how much McCain is hated. Maybe there are many that will vote for Obama because of group psychology.

To be clear: Issue wise, Obama stands for nothing I stand for. Period. Experience wise, he is completely unqualified. He works hard at likening himself to JFK, one of our most failed presidents(Cuban Missile Crisis, Bay of Pigs, Vietnam, etc,etc,etc). That said, I'll still vote for him over McCain for two reasons. 1) Outside of his position on the war, McCain doesnt stand for anything I do. 2) Obama's has a fairly high probability of bringing genocide back to Iraq, strengthening terrorism, and bringing something close to a depression to the U.S. economy. While I stand for none of these things, I think we need to go there to unify the nation again. I also think having a black president would be good for the racial divide that still exists in our country (unless he gets assassinated, which I'm sure there will be many who try).

This is no reason to vote for him (as a republican), but his presidency also seems fairly inevitable at this point.

Edit: On the topic of Kennedy, can anyone name one good thing (besides the space program) he did?

Edit: On the topic of Kennedy, can anyone name one good thing (besides the space program) he did?

If the man had not died in office, I doubt he would be well remembered or even re-elected. Said by a person who was a young supporter at that time.

The best reason to like Obama? He isn't Hillary. Has everyone forgotten about Whitewater?