Andrea's Pro-Obama Editor's Cut

Andrea's Pro-Obama Editor's Cut

By Mark Finkelstein (Bio | Archive)
September 27, 2008 - 06:52 ET

Andrea Mitchell gave it the old Hollywood try for Obama this morning. Summarizing the debate on Today, Mitchell managed to cobble together a video clip that showed McCain's only stumble, while snipping out what many including her colleague Chris Matthews saw as the debate's most salient feature: the multiple times Obama expressed agreement with McCain.

And so it was that Andrea treated us to McCain's difficulties in pronouncing "Ahmadinejad." But the eight times Obama abjectly agreed with McCain? Not a one made it into the Mitchell editor's cut. Then there was Andrea's parting shot:

The only question is whether in some of the reaction shots [McCain] looked too angry and dismissive of an opponent who seemed determined to remain cool.

To his credit, co-anchor Lester Holt later raised with NBC News political director Chuck Todd the matter of Obama's multiple agreements, even playing the web ad on it that the McCain camp had up within minutes of debate end. Todd was agnostic as to whether Obama's serial acquiescence would help or hurt him, while wondering whether voters would approve of McCain's more aggressive tone that Todd described more than once as "disdainful."

But in Today's show-starting video summary of the debate, Mitchell made sure that viewers never saw how much Obama had to agree with McCain.

Comments Policy

All comments are owned by whoever posted them and are subject to our terms of use. They should not be assumed to represent the views of NewsBusters.

Journalism s Dead

September 27, 2008 - 07:07 ET by Gat New York

The fact that this blog has to exist is a statement of how vile the press has become. Journalism is supposed to report a story factually and objectively. The press today is in the business of propaganda.

McCain’s biggest challenge is exactly what you and others are reporting. He beat the pants off Obama and made him look like a novice with bad judgment.

McCain’s biggest challenge is beating the 80% of the media which has become a huge propaganda machine for Obama.

Propaganda is the right word!

September 27, 2008 - 08:59 ET by MaximusBraveheart

Excellent post. Propaganda is indeed correct. A light needs to be shown on these cockroaches. FoxNews did not favor one or the other last night. I would say their independents were not so independent afterall. Liberal would be the correct term as more spoke for Obama. How could you hear both and not be for McCain. Do you want Socialism or NOT? The choice is clear and if you want socialism why are you here moaning? Go to Canada, France or China, etc. Lots of CHOICES!

Media Bias?

September 27, 2008 - 10:56 ET by arkansaszippers

This whole "liberal media" arguement is getting out of hand. It's the oldest myth in the book. Talk about propaganda - you people are nothing but a bunch of sheep, repeating the same things you've been told for years. Try thinking for yourselves for once - geez.

Yeah,

September 27, 2008 - 11:07 ET by Newsbusterbrown

Yeah, whatever.

“There are no easy answers' but there are simple answers. We must have the courage to do what we know is morally right.” - Ronald Reagan (1964 Republican Convention)

arkansaszippers

September 27, 2008 - 11:22 ET by DontFeedTheTrolls

Hey arkansaszippers, good to see you upgrade the level of insults the left brings here. Pretty classy. How long do you think your stay will last? Would be nice if you could back up your pronouncements with facts. And I don't mean Faux News.

Keep the ILLEGALS out, join NumbersUSA to send free faxes to your reps.

huh?

September 27, 2008 - 11:27 ET by arkansaszippers

What does that mean - how long my stay will last? Would I be removed for having a different opinion? I don't know, sounds a bit "biased" to me...

Can you back up your pronouncements of liberal bias with fact?

Listen to yourself

September 27, 2008 - 11:37 ET by KC Mulville

You come onto a site that has twenty items every day about bias, and you ask for evidence? Look around. The backing up of these "pronouncements" has already been done. The ball is in your court, my friend, to rebut as many items as you wish.

It's a little ridiculous to appear in the midst of hundreds of examples of media bias and say - "Can you provide examples?"

bias?

September 27, 2008 - 11:41 ET by arkansaszippers

Just because different people on TV have opinions that differ from your own doesnt mean that there aren't just as many opinions from the other side. ALL the opinions on TV can't agree with your own you know.

Are you 18?

September 27, 2008 - 12:17 ET by KC Mulville

Your accusation was that liberal bias is a myth, and to prove it, you argue that everyone's biased. Which, if you take a moment to think, affirms my point and contradicts your own.

It is an interesting

September 27, 2008 - 12:22 ET by BD

It is an interesting paradigm, isn't it?????

study

September 27, 2008 - 11:46 ET by arkansaszippers

Ok, read this then.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/11009379

People on both sides like their bias.

Now it's scientific

September 27, 2008 - 12:35 ET by KC Mulville

Again, you claim that liberal bias is a myth. But you cite a study that lends scientific credence to the notion that everyone is biased. Are paying attention to your own argument?

If you're claiming that NewsBusters has their own point of view, you've arrived in TrivialTown. The point of NewsBusters is not to claim absolute truth, but to expose the liberal bias of others who claim absolute objectivity.
If you have a specific rebuttal of a NewsBusters item, feel free to give your reasons. But if all you have is a "No it's not" comeback without any reasons, then you're just looking for Monty Python's Argument Clinic. And that's not what NewsBusters is for.

So, let's try it from scratch. The current example of liberal bias is Mark's analysis of Andrea Mitchell's selective editing of debate clips. Mark's point is that out of 97 minutes, Mitchell chose to show McCain's irrelevant stumble, and ignored Obama's constant agreeing with McCain. Mark claims that's a selective editing, obviously to Obama's benefit. That's a bias. If you don't think so, you have to explain why Mitchell (or her producers) chose to narrow the focus on that stumble, rather than on the other 96+ other minutes of available footage. If you have an answer for that, I'll listen.

...

September 27, 2008 - 13:36 ET by arkansaszippers

My point is that there is bias on both sides, and each side naturally feels that the bias is worse coming from the other side. It's human nature.

Well, you're halfway there

September 27, 2008 - 14:50 ET by KC Mulville

Humans, being subjective, naturally have a perspective. But that's precisely why the media is so dangerous. They claim not to have one. They claim to be objective and neutral.

More importantly, they claim that like a referee, their impartiality gives them the authority to moderate the national discussion about common affairs. They want the referee's authority to penalize, call strikes or fouls, hold up red cards, etc. (Pick your sports analogy.)

And, since they do have biases, it means that one side of the debate wants the authority to control the debate. That's why we stand athwart and yell stop!

If they came out and admitted that yes, we have biases, that'd be a welcome breath of fresh honesty. But then they'd be no different from the rest of us.

Exactly

September 27, 2008 - 20:07 ET by arkansaszippers

That's exactly my point: Being conservatives, you're only concerned with any perceived liberal bias. You don't seem to care if your side does it; either that, or you seriously don't think it happens, but you don't seem that dim. So it's human nature to pick a side and feel as though it is the side of good, and the other side is just a bunch of evil tricksters. So both sides are equally brainwashed.

It's probably better to avoid any news altogether if you want to avoid bias.

AZ... You are telling the

September 27, 2008 - 20:16 ET by Clear thinker

AZ...

You are telling the wrong folks. Most conservatives would much rather hear the unvarnished truth, but with the bias in the liberal media it's almost impossible to get. We can work things out more intelligently when we have the truth given to us. The propoganda wars by the media in this country is just like a computer program... 'garbage in, garbage out'.

Candidates Google Wars - Palin Smart

Making Fun of AGW http://giovanniworld.wordpress.com/

bias

September 27, 2008 - 20:22 ET by arkansaszippers

Yes, everybody would love a bias-free world. But like I said, if you were just concerned about bias, you would be complaining about bias from both sides. You don't think that there's a conservative spin machine? Please. Just admit that you're sticking with your side under the pretense of rooting out bias wherever it rears its ugly head.

“Exposing & Combating

September 27, 2008 - 20:26 ET by Clear thinker

“Exposing & Combating Liberal Media Bias”

Candidates Google Wars - Palin Smart

Making Fun of AGW http://giovanniworld.wordpress.com/

Ct... LOL...that was a

September 27, 2008 - 20:32 ET by bigtimer

Ct...

LOL...that was a Dead Center Bulls-Eye!

"America isn't the problem...America is the solution." ~ Rush Limbaugh

bt... I just wish that

September 27, 2008 - 20:36 ET by Clear thinker

bt...

I just wish that people would read a little before they come here talking nonsense.

Candidates Google Wars - Palin Smart

Making Fun of AGW http://giovanniworld.wordpress.com/

Ok...

September 27, 2008 - 20:41 ET by arkansaszippers

So does conservative bias bother you? I mean, what's nonsense? I'm just trying to have a discussion here...

Not ok... Please read the

September 27, 2008 - 20:48 ET by Clear thinker

Not ok...

Please read the following words slowly...“Exposing & Combating Liberal Media Bias” Now do you get it?

Candidates Google Wars - Palin Smart

Making Fun of AGW http://giovanniworld.wordpress.com/

yes

September 27, 2008 - 20:52 ET by arkansaszippers

I get what you're getting at.

My whole point, is that only being concerned with bias from one side is by definition biased, and as a result, extremely hypocritical.

...and they call him Mellow

September 27, 2008 - 21:00 ET by bigtimer

...and they call him Mellow Yellow...

Gawd az...you are really pathetic...

We really need hater/leon back to teach these guys how to be good trolls...

Hater...that isn't you is it?

LMAO...Nah..you were a better class of troll..took you awhile...but practice almost made perfect.

Ignore me folks...I'm just going back to the good ol' days, from just about the beginning of the wild wild west here...

Just having some fun for the heck of it...

"America isn't the problem...America is the solution." ~ Rush Limbaugh

That doesn't even make sense

September 27, 2008 - 21:08 ET by arkansaszippers

Having a different opinion doesn't make one a troll.

ad hominem:

attacking an opponent's character rather than answering his argument.

Well, you are full of

September 27, 2008 - 21:12 ET by bigtimer

Well, you are full of it...I've had my fun with you for the evening, seems B wants in now...

I'm off to other topics...you have yourself a good lil' ol' time jus' a' trollin'...

Catch ya later gater...

"America isn't the problem...America is the solution." ~ Rush Limbaugh

No you missed the other half

September 27, 2008 - 21:13 ET by KC Mulville

It's the mainstream media that insists that it's not biased. They want, and have largely acquired, the ability to frame the public debate. But since they're biased, they've distorted the public conversation on just about everything.

The mainstream media is predominantly biased against conservatives. So, as conservatives, the purpose of this website is to expose liberal media bias. That's the part you're missing. If the biases were equally present in the media, then it would be simply a choice for one over the other. But because the bias is so massively in favor of liberals, that's why this website is necessary.

But

September 27, 2008 - 21:24 ET by arkansaszippers

You realize there are also websites dedicated to exposing conservative bias. It just depends on who you ask; a liberal will tell you there is a conservative spin, and a conservative will tell you there is a liberal spin. It's everywhere you go.

Then numbers alone don't decide

September 27, 2008 - 22:52 ET by KC Mulville

A fraud will tell you he's not lying, and a truth-teller will tell you they're not lying. So, you don't go by what they say. NewsBusters exposes liberal media bias, and for example, MediaMatters claims to expose conservative bias. Each claims bias.

Shop. Reason. Engage if that's your style.

That's democracy. I read NewsBusters, and not every item works for me. Sometimes it seems like the bias cited isn't all that big a deal. Sometimes I reply, sometimes I just blow it off. Sometimes MediaMatters actually makes a good point - usually about O'Reilly, whom I'm not a big fan of. But that's why I appreciate NewsBusters' approach. The items aren't just presented ... the poster actually spends the article defending his point. You can examine the reasoning on your own.

So we come full circle. If you can argue against specific points, you have the right to do so. But if your only point is that everyone has a bias, that doesn't defeat any argument presented. It's just a canard thrown in like a stinkbomb, not to persuade, but simply to frustrate.

If you can explain why Mark's original post about Andrea Mitchell's editing is not biased, now's the time to lay out the reasons. Otherwise, this conversation is simply rehashing a trivial point.

Thank you

September 28, 2008 - 00:10 ET by arkansaszippers

I just wanted to make sure everybody wasn't totally convinced that bias only happens on one side. I like to debate things from time to time, and I was just frustrated by how much anger something other than total agreement was met with. Not suprised, really; I mean, this is the internet.

And the editing was totally biased. I mean, it's blatant.

That's fine

September 28, 2008 - 00:47 ET by KC Mulville

But I think most people here, if you get to know them, would agree with you about that. And that applies to other sites as well, even some of the left-wing sites.

You probably know this as well as I do ... conversation takes time. The internet forces people into drive-by thinking, and spouting off. But we do the best we can with what's available, you know?

KC

September 27, 2008 - 11:49 ET by

It's a little ridiculous to appear in the midst of tens of thousands of examples of media bias and say - "Can you provide examples?"

----fixed it----

(20 per day X 365 X 3 years = 21,900)

“The way to stop discrimination on the basis of race is to stop discriminating on the basis of race.” -Chief Justice John Roberts

hilarious

September 27, 2008 - 11:58 ET by arkansaszippers

Yes, very funny. Did you read the study?

Gosh

September 27, 2008 - 12:12 ET by Blonde

You are very familiar, arkansaszippers.

Just that certain scent of je ne sais quoi, and that feigned ignorance all at the same time. How've ya been, hater?

David Gregory, do you know which damn network you lie for? ~ Uncle Jimbo, @Blackfive

what

September 27, 2008 - 13:38 ET by arkansaszippers

Hater? Who am I hating?

Dude

September 27, 2008 - 14:08 ET by Blonde

That is soooooooo typical.

A hint for you. Next time you pick a SN, don't run it all together. Besides your obviousness, it's the dead giveaway.

David Gregory, do you know which damn network you lie for? ~ Uncle Jimbo, @Blackfive

hi B!!!!

September 27, 2008 - 14:24 ET by

how's things this fine Caturday???
http://icanhascheezb...

“The way to stop discrimination on the basis of race is to stop discriminating on the basis of race.” -Chief Justice John Roberts

Getting better in every way, botg

September 27, 2008 - 14:28 ET by Blonde

Gators are tied up and on the march.

Gardening is done (painting of kitchen to begin, maybe tomorrow).

Identified new (old) troll.

Disco dancing kitties.

Life is sweet!

David Gregory, do you know which damn network you lie for? ~ Uncle Jimbo, @Blackfive

indeed!! “The way to

September 27, 2008 - 14:50 ET by

indeed!!

“The way to stop discrimination on the basis of race is to stop discriminating on the basis of race.” -Chief Justice John Roberts

truly truly

September 27, 2008 - 14:19 ET by

i say unto thee: there was no study to read!! there was some story about a study which included this nugget: "stimulated an area of the brain hypothesized to.....blah, blah, blah" ..

They are drawing conclusions based on unproven premises? GIGO there zippy!

PS: did they verify the 'study' with a t-test analysis or a chi-square and was the p<.05% ?? Do you even know what i'm talking about?

“The way to stop discrimination on the basis of race is to stop discriminating on the basis of race.” -Chief Justice John Roberts

WOW!

September 27, 2008 - 20:14 ET by arkansaszippers

Holy crap, you're super smart! I am in way over my head.

So you don't believe it's human nature to latch on to a side and stick with it regardless of contradictory evidence? It seems pretty obvious to me, just based on the comments on this website. People here seem to be less concerned with media bias, and more concerned with liberal media bias - as if it doesn't happen on both sides. It's odd, because you seem too intelligent to be buying into all this knee-jerk reactionary nonsense.

AZ... It might help if

September 27, 2008 - 20:20 ET by Clear thinker

AZ...

It might help if you also read the mission for this site... “Exposing & Combating Liberal Media Bias”. Now do you get it?

Candidates Google Wars - Palin Smart

Making Fun of AGW http://giovanniworld.wordpress.com/

Mitchell not biased...

September 27, 2008 - 11:16 ET by Scrapiron

She has her head so far up Hussein O's butt she can only view the world through his belly button. Michelle had better look out or Hussein O will bring home some form of STD that is not curable.

Found this but lost who to credit it to, originated in the 'Patriot room':

Bill Clinton blamed the Democrats for blocking reform of the mortgage giants, via Patriot Room:

Going very much against the media meme that the current financial crisis is all George W. Bush and the Republicans' fault, Bill Clinton on Thursday told ABC's Chris Cuomo that Democrats for years have been "resisting any efforts by Republicans in the Congress or by me when I was President to put some standards and tighten up a little on Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac"

True. President Bush warned about reforming Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae 17 times this year alone. John McCain's reform bill was blocked by dems in 2005. Thank you, Bill Clinton!

Old, Retired and glad of it.

Has anybody besides me noticed that...

September 27, 2008 - 13:44 ET by jawebster1

Liberal commentators are as ugly as their comments? I mean look at them: Andrea Mitchell, Paul Begala, Keith Olbermann, Alan Colmes, Howard Wolfson, Juan Williams, Larry King. I could mention more but I seldom watch channels other than Fox. Jim Webster

The only question is

September 27, 2008 - 07:24 ET by motherbelt

The only question is whether in some of the reaction shots [McCain]
looked too angry and dismissive of an opponent who seemed determined to
remain cool. -Andrea Mitchell

You didn't really expect Mitchell to do an analysis without inserting an "angry and short-tempered McCain" blurb, did you?

And talk about "dismissive"....I saw more than one reaction shot of Obama where he kind of smirked and shook his head, that could have been interpreted as either condescension or even pity.

Poor old John, it's sad, really....

Mitchell

September 27, 2008 - 08:13 ET by Rhino_itall

Is anyone surprised that Mitchell or anyone else at MSNBC is in the tank for Obama?

I must say however that i disagree with anyone who say's it was a McCain blowout. In fact i thought he missed several opportunities to crush Obama on economic issues. Especially the "cut taxes for 95% of Americans" B.S. Why McCain let that go unchallenged is beyond my understanding. He did make Obama look silly on the Surge and on meeting with dictators however so i give him the slight edge.

Agree

September 27, 2008 - 08:45 ET by forest

He blew it on the 95% nonsense - I, for one, will see a big increase in my tax burden under the D plan (see HR 3970) due to the expansion of application of self-employment SS tax, and I make less than 250k..

He blew and opportunity to explain the genesis of the mortgage crisis in Democrat measures to "encourage" risky lending to poorly qulified borrowers. He needs to make both those points repeatedly, and he didn't do it at all. Maybe saving the bigs hits for the economy debate? Hopefully.

But Obama was the one who looked flustered and hurt multiple times when McCain was hitting him on his naivite. McCain looked calm as he was being attacked. I don't know if Mitchell and I were watching the same debate.

I agree

September 27, 2008 - 08:13 ET by Glenn

Motherbelt and GNY are spot on. The drive-bys are spinning furiously this morning, trying to protect the "lightbringer". Don't believe your own ears and eyes....believe what we show you. As Sean Hannity has said, this is the year that jurnalism died.

Hannity

September 27, 2008 - 10:59 ET by arkansaszippers

Sean Hannity is the last person who should be commenting on the lack of integrity in journalism. Please.

Except Sean Hannity is not

September 27, 2008 - 11:09 ET by Newsbusterbrown

Except Sean Hannity is not or has never proclaimed himself to be a journalist.

“There are no easy answers' but there are simple answers. We must have the courage to do what we know is morally right.” - Ronald Reagan (1964 Republican Convention)

Hannity

September 27, 2008 - 11:09 ET by DontFeedTheTrolls

Why not? Hannity is a commentator, not a journalist. Get a brain, I'm sure there's one lying around somewhere.

Keep the ILLEGALS out, join NumbersUSA to send free faxes to your reps.

Why not?

September 27, 2008 - 11:16 ET by arkansaszippers

His record just indicates that he is little concerned with keeping bias out of anything.

Do you now understand?

September 27, 2008 - 11:22 ET by BD

As a former Journo, I must now inform you the difference between a journalist and a commentator.

Journalists are supposed to prevent news in a dispassionate manner, showing total objectivity and not allowing personal feelings to enter into the story. Supposed journalists include Dan Rather, Walter Cronkite, and Katie Couric.

Commentators are individuals who are not required to present news, rather they are supposed to present their opinion of the current events of the day. THey include Sean Hannity, Rush Limbaugh, and Bill O'Reilly amongst others.

As such, Hannity is following in the editorial/Commentator function admirably.

Rather, Cronkite, and COuric et al are not follwoing in the objective journalist role in an acceptable manner.

Do you now understand?

understood

September 27, 2008 - 11:32 ET by arkansaszippers

I understand the difference, which is why his opinion doesn't matter. And his own bias makes his opinion even less credible.

His OPINION is as valid as

September 27, 2008 - 12:06 ET by BD

His OPINION is as valid as any.

Your post assumes that his position was that of a journalist. He is not.

I am starting to sound like my old Journ 101 instructor from 27 years ago.....

Andrea Mitchells' marriage to Greenspan

September 27, 2008 - 08:16 ET by antivenom.fr

Andrea Mitchells' marriage to Greenspan is why she has taken a Pro 0bama stance...she knows the investigations that would occur under McCain would bring home some roosting chickens to her hubby.

I wish McCain would take the

September 27, 2008 - 08:51 ET by rimsky

I wish McCain would take the gloves off regarding Obama's so-called tax cuts. It could be a slam dunk for John. This 95% of working households (I think that's how Obama states it) is an impressive number to throw out there and too many voters are being sucked in by that. But what is he really saying here? So the other 5% of "working households" are the bad guys, who supposedly don't pay enough in taxes? Everything I've read on who pays taxes in this country points directly at the top 10% or so being those who pay the largest portion of all taxes collected. And what about the 95%? Again, everything I read says that nearly half of those folks pay little to no taxes, so how can you cut their taxes any further without just giving them cash? McCain could destroy Obama on this.. why isn't he?

tax cuts

September 27, 2008 - 09:01 ET by Rhino_itall

Actually yes. According to the Obama plan, those who don't pay taxes at all will get a "stimulus check". He'll just "give them cash"
Socialism 101 is income redistribution.

McCain also didn't mention that Obama would let the Bush tax cuts expire which of course is a tax increase. That cut went to everyone who pays taxes regardless of income. So in effect that would raise the taxes of every tax paying citizen.

I'm telling you McCain missed some serious opportunities. Hoepefully he'll hit these points in the next debate as someone here said previously.

Reminder, this was NOT an

September 27, 2008 - 09:41 ET by ThisnThat

Reminder, this was NOT an economic debate. That's coming up next. McCain has plenty of opportunity in those upcoming debates, and from his performance last night, rest assured he will make those points.

___________________________________

If you can read this, thank a teacher. If it is in English, thank a Soldier. - My barber

Basic Answer to Obama

September 27, 2008 - 10:10 ET by Gat New York

The short answer to the Obama tax plan is that 95% of middle class Americans will get a $1000 tax credit. But how happy will they be whethey find out that many of them won't have a job.

Because Obama is going to give a substantal income tax and capital gains increase to the very people who provide jobs.

McCain needs to make it simple and straightfoward.

McCain has to stop overplaying this porkbarrel stuff and get into more substantive issues that clearly explain why we are where we are and what Obama is really doingy promising everything to everyone.

Complete lack of credibility

September 27, 2008 - 08:51 ET by Graig36

Every time Andrea Mitchell speaks she loses credibility... that is, what credibility is left...

I used to think that Andrea

September 27, 2008 - 08:58 ET by Seashell

I used to think that Andrea was a tremendous reporter with integrity but no more. She is blowing her career with her obvious bias toward Obama.

I'd be more worried about Obama's inability to pronounce....

September 27, 2008 - 08:59 ET by krendler

I'd be more worried about Obama's inability to pronounce "Massachusetts" - or, as he likes to call it, "MassaTOOSETS". He did that TWICE during the primaries during two different debates. Never saw one pundit call him on it, let alone ridicule him.

The people doing laps in the Obama tank are really grasping at straws if this is the biggest knock they have on McCain's performance. Speaks well, actually, about how well McCain did.

Obama Tank, LOL, water in the gas!

September 27, 2008 - 09:07 ET by MaximusBraveheart

I have an image of the Obama tank running dry on or before election day... or water getting in their tanks. The Liberal Media will pay for this. I will never respect these same people again. They may as well fire them all after the election if Obama looses because 40% or your audience is lost and my kids feel the same way, 10 & 14. The next generation. If you run a news business, why not report THE NEWS the best that you can vs. PROPAGANDA? Dumb business decision! Liberals again making DUMB choices; CHANGE for America? NO thanks Obama!

As a native of

September 27, 2008 - 09:45 ET by motherbelt

As a native of Massachusetts, I am very offended by that.

But they are too busy obsessing over McCain's mispronunciation of "Ahmedinejad." Much more important, you know, to correctly pronounce the names of our enemies.

Where's the media?

September 27, 2008 - 09:05 ET by pbthinker

Henry Kissinger says John McCain is correct and Obama is wrong on his beliefs on meeting foreign leaders, without pre-conditions, isn't that an important story? Wouldn't it make someone look foolish, when they make a statement like that, and it's proven wrong? I would think a watchdog media would be reporting that. I haven't heard anything, on any news outlet, so far. Has anyone else heard this mentioned?

Democrats: Stuck on Stupid since 2000.

Kissinger v. Obama

September 27, 2008 - 09:12 ET by MaximusBraveheart

You are correct. The media SHOULD jump on this 24/7. It is an outrage that they are not equal opportunity slammers. Only to REPS.

WELL the PACS should just slam this home on TV ads so the actual truth gets out! It is right in the transcript yet the media will defend Obama. This is an easy hit as it is 100% true and BETTER pass their biased "truth" tests!

AP Fact check in tank for Obama

September 27, 2008 - 09:35 ET by MaximusBraveheart

This is what yahoo has in the most popular web news; makes Obama look quite good by distorting the fact that HE SAID he would go without preconditions! They are all liars and can twist the most BASIC facts (Like Clinton did)!

----
OBAMA: "Sen. McCain mentioned Henry Kissinger, who is one of his advisers, who along with five recent secretaries of state just said we should meet with Iran — guess what? — without preconditions."

MCCAIN: "Dr. Kissinger did not say that he would approve face-to-face meetings between the president of the United States and (Iranian President Mahmoud) Ahmadinejad. He did not say that. He said there could be secretary-level and lower-level meetings. I've always encouraged that."

THE FACTS: Obama was right that Kissinger called for meetings without preconditions. McCain was right that Kissinger did not call for such meetings to be between the two presidents.

In a foreign policy forum on Sept. 15, Kissinger said: "I am in favor of negotiating with Iran." He went on to say, "I actually have preferred doing it at the secretary of state level" and the U.S. should go into the talks with "a clear understanding of what is it we're trying to prevent. What is it going to do if we can't achieve what we're talking about? But I do not believe that we can make conditions for the opening of negotiations. We ought, however, to be very clear about the content of negotiations and work it out with other countries and with our own government."

http://news.yahoo.co...

The only question is

September 27, 2008 - 09:26 ET by Richard Romano

The only question is whether in some of the reaction shots [McCain]
looked too angry and dismissive of an opponent who seemed determined to
remain cool.

What nonsense. McCain was cool and collected -- Obama was often trying ot interupt and offer correctives after the fact...the MSM is as partisan as ever. Remember, these same folks cheered over Kerry's "schooling" of Bush -- we know the rest of the story.

Lehrer did a good job I thought...

September 27, 2008 - 09:55 ET by krendler

A good indication is that there's not a lot of chatter about him, as opposed to the candidates. He might have cut off McCain a bit more than he did Obama but no real biggie...

Having said that, it's going to be all down hill from here with Brokaw, Shieffer and friggin' Gwen Ifell - All firmly in the tank for Obama. I'm hoping McCain - at least once - politely and calmly asks one of them to "kindly shut up" when they try to interrupt him (and you know they will - repeatedly - and much more than they will The Bringer of the Light).

Bringer of Light?

September 27, 2008 - 11:03 ET by arkansaszippers

What does that mean, exactly?

Network TV should be

September 27, 2008 - 09:56 ET by d1carter

Network TV should be required to post a disclaimer before each political "report". It should read, "This network endorses BO and therefore our report reflects our endorsement"....

That's not enough.

September 27, 2008 - 12:08 ET by pbthinker

For the type of coverage Obama's gotten, they should have to claim it as a campaign contribution. Sarah Palin has been asked more tough questions, in less than a month, than Obama has in 2 years.

There was talk that Obama has to sell himself to independent voters to win this election. Well, independent voters have questions about his experience and judgement which, if the MSM doesn't start asking some tough questions, will never be answered.

Apparently, Obama's campaign believes they can shame all those people into voting for him, without his showing good judgement and experience, by telling them they're prejudiced if they don't vote for him. Anyone think that will work?

Democrats: Stuck on Stupid since 2000.

Gossip or reporter?

September 27, 2008 - 10:12 ET by Red Jeep

Why was Andrea hired, to be a reporter, to be a newsreader or for social connections as Mrs. Greenspan? Must be social connections, gossip. What an expense for the GE stockholders.

whats that shiny object?

September 27, 2008 - 10:41 ET by tonemeister

if mcain wants to make an impression on the american voter he should wait till the last debate to rip barry up. after all, with the attention span of a 9 year old, the public will have forgotten what happened friday anyway. also, never approach obama after sundown when his powers are strongest....t