<p>I don’t know, razorsharp. … While the mainstream media really hasn’t seemed very interested in McCain, on the other hand, they swing hot and cold on Obama. He’s been under their microscope so much lately, it’s been a double-edged sword for him: He gets adoring coverage, followed by criticism. … Remember Chris Matthews’ infamous “tingling leg?” After embarrassing himself with that silly comment, he went the other way on Obama for awhile, and even seemed gleeful when the polls showed a tightening of the race.</p>
<p>I guess a few of you missed my point. Candidates going after each other does have it’s purpose (“two men enter, one man leaves!”). What I’m more upset about is the nastiness here on CC by some of the posters.</p>
<p>OK, I get it. You love your candidate, and want to see him win. But some of us are bordering on the “school-boy” crush type of following. And like the crush you had in HS, you always see this person as NOTHING our candidate says or does is wrong. And how DARE you even suggest such a thing. And like a School boy crush, the main competition for the person we have a crush on is “pure evil incarnate”. And anyone who is friends with them or likes them must be an idiot.</p>
<p>Let the candidates throw the mud. We do learn a little form it. BUt show some intellectual maturity and realize your candidate is human as well, with human flaws for all to see. And show the intellectual maturity to know a candidate beyond what their PR crew can do or say in response to a 20 second sound bite from a 3 hour speech. </p>
<p>Do I really care if my candidate mis-speaks that there are 57 states, or confuses ****e from Shia? Only if their policies are based on that incorrect information. I’d rahter know where they stand on the ISSUES, than how well there PR machine can respond in crisis mode.</p>
<p>Single digits. The thread was still in middle single digits when it got partisan. I actually thought it would be low single digits. ;)</p>
<p>^Agreed completely. I have heard the most moronic and offensive responses on this forum.</p>
<p>Oh, curmudgeon. This isn’t “partisan.” Not by CC standards! :)</p>
<p>I don’t find it to be Partisan either. I would like to see both candidates sell themselves. Rather than tell me (well not me really with the whole not being a citizen issue) what is wrong with the other guy tell me what is right about you.</p>
<p>But I agree with Bullet - his original point was about the nastiness when we try to express our own viewpoints on CC - and i completely agree we should be able to express our opinions while at the same time respecting (or responding respectfully to at least) the opinions of others.</p>
<p>Thnx, swimcatsmom. A man can dream…</p>
<p>“Do I really care if my candidate mis-speaks that there are 57 states, or confuses ****e from Shia? Only if their policies are based on that incorrect information.”</p>
<p>I would be VERY concerned if I thought a candidate believed Iran was aiding Al-Qaeda in Iraq. This is not a matter of misspeaking, or confusing - it is a signal that he doesn’t know, and doesn’t learn about, conditions on the ground. I’d also be concerned if he doesn’t know, after being briefed, how many troops are occupying a foreign nation. I’d be similarly concerned if I heard a candidate making mistakes about his core life story that he has told dozens of times previously.</p>
<p>We’ve just suffered through a commander-in-chief who, being as charitable as I can be, doesn’t take in and synthesize new information very well, and doesn’t handle “details”.</p>
<p>I don’t mind at all when someone makes an enthusiastic pitch for their candidate, even if I happen to disagree. I also appreciate the use of humor and even gentle sarcasm in making a point. What upsets me is when a poster questions my intelligence or integrity, or continually pours the most mean-spirited venom over my opinions and/or candidate. That doesn’t happen often, but when it does, it’s really disheartening.</p>
<p>You guys are living in la-la land if you think campaigns will focus on issues. The media you put on pedestals **will not cover **issues.</p>
<p>Look at the disgrace of Tim Russert and Brian Williams leading off a Democratic primary debate with 20 minutes of inane questions about race despite the audience booing them and demanding for them “to ask real questions”.</p>
<p>Look at the pure crap that passes for political coverage on cable news. I dare you. Watch any ten minute segment on CNN or MSNBC or FOX and ask yourself if a substantive discussion of issues would EVER fit in that format where every question is framed in format: “Some are saying that you have not stopped beating your wife, would you care to respond?”</p>
<p>Read the NY Times or the Washington Post. Their political coverage stops at campaign spokesmen and unnamed party “strategists”. It’s a joke.</p>
<p>
But the ads could address issues. We do see the ads. I don’t form my opinions based on what the media says. I want to know what the candidate(s) has to say. I would be able to learn what they have to say of their ads would be about what *they *have to say. That would have far more impact than anything the media reports. Though, sadly, i agree that I am probably living in la la land thinking it will ever happen. But that is the choice and the fault of the candidates - or their advisors which ultimately means the candidates - not the media.</p>
<p>Bullet, thanks. I read the political threads, but try not to get involved, simply due to the nastiness. There are many issues I’m not sure of, many angles I’d not considered before, and I appreciate hearing arguments from both sides. </p>
<p>I really appreciate the “thinking” folks on here. In general, the only folks not thinking are those who are convinced they already know everything, and don’t have to think anymore. They are the quickest to sling mud, not just on the candidates but on each other. Maybe they have something beneficial to say. I just can’t find it in the dirt. I have to guard against a visceral reaction to automatically be in favor of anything they are opposed to, and vice versa.</p>
<p>30 second ads can’t cover issues in any meaningful way. The more-issues oriented candidates have 20 page white papers on specific issues. Do the folk complaining here read them? Do you watch the video of detailed policy speeches on topics like health care or defense? Or just catch the 10 second “gotcha” soundbyte version?</p>
<p>I did, throughout the primary season. The reporters and pundits covering the election did not. The questioners at the debates did not. And, my guess, is that most of the folk doing the hand-wringing about lack of issues talk did not.</p>
<p>I’ve not seen this as overly partisan. If this is your idea of partisan you may want to stay away from some of the other political threads. It gets downright vicious. </p>
<p>Unfortunately the candidates messages are either delivered in 30- or 60-second snippets or are handled by the mainstream media. The best thing that has happened is the candidate website. It gives them the forum to lay out, in detail their stances on every single issue they deem important. It’s there, in writing, what they stand for. I doubt too many people take advantage of it though. They always feel the need to go get their information 2nd hand through other media or websites.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Of course. It’s the golden age for people who really care about issues (as opposed to those who just complain about it). For example, you can go back and read or watch every major speech given by a serious Senator. For all the chatter about Clinton’s AUMF vote, the speech she gave with her vote has been available in streaming video on her website for years.</p>
<p>The media won’t cover issues, but any voter interested in detailed policy positions can get a bellyful (if the candidate is an issues-oriented candidate).</p>