President Obama

[Wanderer]

"argumentation"?   

Look, "you're the decider" of the wordchoice you employ, but I believe Will Buckley would recommend employing, "style of arguing", "how one argues", or "Your arguments are always to..."

Just sayin'...   

Indeed, I am. But how very argumentative of you.

OMG...there are now five of the last five posts* that use this word...thus, proving it must be a word.  It is beyond argumentation.   
*including this one.

Time to steer any latent argumentativeness towards other shores.   

[adamdavid80]

Indeed, I am. But how very argumentative of you.

Time to steer any latent argumentativeness towards other shores.   

Good idea!  I'm in complete argument with you here!








...i mean agreement...

[karlhenning]

The Economist endorses Obama.

[(poco) Sforzando]

The Economist endorses Obama.

A very powerful article, all the more as it comes from a source of unimpeachable integrity with not the slightest taint of partisanship. I imagine a certain Gorgon at That Other Board must be turning even more heads than usual to stone with her "if looks could kill" act.

[Catison]

The Economist endorses Obama.

See my comment here.

[Joe_Campbell]

The Economist endorses Obama.

That was a great article. It makes a compelling case for Obama, despite the risks. It is unfortunate that McCain the senator didn't show up to campaign, because that certainly would have made things more interesting. The decision to choose Palin was really the nail in the coffin.

[Anne]

The Economist endorses Obama.

What a beautiful endorsement of Obama!  Karl, thanks for posting this.  I've already sent it to 5 other people.

[Anne]

 
  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W3ijYVyhnn0

[Dancing Divertimentian]

  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W3ijYVyhnn0

Hilarious!!

[(poco) Sforzando]

What a beautiful endorsement of Obama!  Karl, thanks for posting this.  I've already sent it to 5 other people.

Andrew Sullivan:
http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/2008/11/barack-obama-fo.html

[drogulus]

The decision to choose Palin was really the nail in the coffin.

      I think that's right. If he'd gone with an experienced moderate many of the fence sitters would have broken his way.

[Daverz]

Obama is the Real Conservative.

[Josquin des Prez]

Obama is the Real Conservative.

The neo-con party is led by former left-wing radicals, why are people still surprised when they act in a way that doesn't comforn to conservative principles? Read anything by Irvin Kristol and tell me it doesn't have a massive leftist bent to it, in a Leninist sort of way.

Unfortunatly, Obama will not turn out to be the messiah everybody hopes him to be. America is headed downward, there is no hope nor change that can set the course astray.

BTW, the author of this article is obviously no conservative and never has been. 

[Joe_Campbell]

What future do you see for The Great Nation of Satan, Nostradamus?

[Josquin des Prez]

What future do you see for The Great Nation of Satan, Nostradamus?

Decadence, and a slow march towards global irrelevancy. Europe is going down first of course, so Americans can get a first hand glimpse of the future before they themselves get there.

[Anne]

Andrew Sullivan:
http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/2008/11/barack-obama-fo.html

Another inspiring post!  Thank you, Sforzando.  I have sent this to 5 more people also.  Politics have not touched me so deeply for a long, long time. 

[karlhenning]

Dear Stumped:

How can the media claim to be un-biased toward either candidate when coverage toward McCain is 60-70 percent negative and coverage toward Obama is 20-30 percent negative? The only exception seems to be Fox News, which had 40 percent negative coverage of both candidates. Maybe Fox really is fair and balanced?

Larry Anderson

Dear Larry:

Good related question. But I have to disagree with your premise that in a world of objective news coverage each candidate would receive the same dosage of "positive" and "negative" coverage. Bias can be perceived when two similarly situated candidates are treated differently, or when a double standard is applied to analogous situations. But when one team plays better than the other, it makes no sense to expect both candidates to be treated the same. I'm sure if you studied last year's national coverage of the NFL, my Steelers, who made it to the playoffs, received more "positive" coverage than the Miami Dolphins, who won only managed to win one game all season. That's not because the sports media is biased against the Dolphins. The coverage simply reflects the team's performance.

In this election cycle, Barack Obama's campaign has been the more impressive operation, in terms of the consistency of its message, the candidate's equanimity under pressure, its fundraising prowess and so on. John McCain's campaign, meanwhile, has been sloppy in both branding its candidate and executing on any kind of consistent strategy. Stories about McCain's marginal vetting of Sarah Palin are a good case in point. And given the mismatch we've seen, it would be odd if media coverage consisted of an equal ratio of "positive" to "negative" stories for both campaigns.

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/stumped/

[Catison]

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/stumped/

Interesting take.  We've discussed Fox News vs. MSNBC on another thread in which you questioned Fox News' bias.  Here, in print, is the rationality behind bias.

Newspapers shouldn't be in the business of determining who has the winning campaign, that is the voter's job.  How does a newspaper go about it?  If one campaign is going better, do they skip over the bad news coming from it?

[karlhenning]

Newspapers shouldn't be in the business of determining who has the winning campaign, that is the voter's job.  How does a newspaper go about it?

Monitoring the voters' reactions to the campaigns?

[Mozart]

All hail the new Messiah!