Considering McCain's take on the war and his repeated misstatements how can he argue that visiting Iraq eight times has benefitted his knowledge and judgment? Unless he goes to Iraq just to lead cheers, or perhaps for photo ops, apparently he's not learning very much.

Do you think he's not learning much or just ignoring facts about the Middle East that he doesn't like?  Personally, I would go with the latter.

I do not know if any of us understand what McCains thought process is.

Considering McCain had the gall to walk to an open market in Baghdad (while being guarded by helicopters and scores of troops) and claim everything is hunky-dory...I think that would support the latter possibility as well.

McCain's problems when he visits Iraq are legion.  First he pulls off military from their job so he can have huge amounts of cover.  Then he brags at how safwe his is.  DUH!!!!  Then although he brags about his many visits to Iraq, I am unsure if he is getting senile, or is just careless, but he continues to confuse Sunnis and Shias.  Imagine someone posing as an Iraq expert who misses the entire crux of the conflict going on in Iraq, the hate problems going on between the Shia and the Sunni.  I suppose we can expect him to continue to muddle that very important fact no matter how many times he goes to Iraq and no matter how much he brags about his superiority over Obama.  I have heard Barack cogently discuss the Sunni/Shia problem with great insight.  Guess McCain, at his age, may need a dozen more trips before he can even keep the Shia and Sunni groups straight.

Right, he should have just stayed home in one of the 57 states.

While both reports do note the response from Obama's campaign, I believe the response was tepid, off-target and ineffective.

Since the "liberal" media failed us so horribly early in the war (a fact that even Scotty McClellan recognizes), the Obama campaign simply cannot afford to depend on them to be critical of McCain.  Instead, Obama's spokespeople need to have a laundry list of McCain's Iraq gaffs ingrained in their memory that they can refer to whenever they are afforded a response to McCain's foolishness.  

Not to worry Pete, that list is posted daily right here. :-)

Oops.  That's "gaffes," not "gaffs."

(Thanks Tommy) 

I agree, Pete, that Obama's campaign needs to respond specifically...and, further, I think Obama needs to follow up personally with remarks about McCain's gaffes, demonstrating how clueless McCain really is. Also, I think that Obama's toughness, which he better displays directed at John McCain than Hillary Clinton, will win him some votes. He needs to stand up and forcefully call out John McCain's bullshet. 

I agree with you Irony, it's up to Obama and his campaign to respond appropriately to this stuff, the media, specifically Crowley, in this case anyway, is reporting what Burton's response was, which I agree with Pete was ineffective. It's not her fault if she reported his response accurately, and there is no evidence she did not.

At least the Governor is satisfied with the DNC and that's apparenlty good enough for him. 

At least the Governor is satisfied with the DNC and that's apparenlty good enough for him.

 

Well, I'm not satisfied with CNN's and Fox News' partisan ignorance to McCain’s very clear and very readily available misstatements which they could very easily report if they were interested in balanced reporting.

What it would sound like Governor if at the end of Crowley's report on what Bill Burton's response was, she said something like this?

"Oh, and incidentally, since Bill Burton didn't mention these McCain gaffes, we will, here they are................................."

They would rightly accused of anti-McCain bias, and they should be.  It's not their responsibility, in this particular instance, much to the chagrin of you and MMFA. 

Well, I'm not satisfied with CNN's and Fox News' partisan ignorance to McCain’s very clear and very readily available misstatements which they could very easily report if they were interested in balanced reporting.

Tommy, I have to agree with the Gov on this one, Crowley is very disapointing, I think she is another media type afraid of being left out of the McCain inner circle.

Sue, I respect your opinion but I have seen no evidence that Crowley wants to be a part of some inner McCain circle, so I don't share your view.

Tommy, I also respect you however why else would the media continue to treat McCain with kit gloves?

Sue, The "media" is all too often seen as some monolithic creature with one agenda - I don't buy it.  There are certain instances of bias for and against McCain, just as there are for Obama and Clinton.  To just say "the media" is far too broad and general to pigeonhole into one bias or another, in my opinion.

I can agree with that.  I really don't care about bias all that much.  I care more about the information. 

I think someone can even have a personal bias - and that is fine with me.  However, they have an obligation to look past that bias to present the arguments and facts faithfully - even when their bias may seem inconvenienced by those facts.  Some of the media fail miserably at this and some do it very well.

I'm not a Crowley fan myself, but in order to criticize her here it has to be shown how she failed to perform her journalistic duties.  This doesn't seem to be valid criticism no matter who reported it.

CROWLEY: McCain is getting reinforcement from the Republican National Committee, which set up a website dedicated to clocking how many days have passed since Obama's last and only trip to Iraq.

 

Really?  She was not obligated to give the DNC equal time?

Governor that is exactly my point to Tommy also. She basically told all the people watching to go to the RNC Website set up to lie about Obama , it was a free commercial ad to go to the RNC Website. 

The link you provide elsewhere is about the "gaffe list".  That was in response to criticisms from the RNC about Obama's gaffes, which is a completely different matter.  You can see it encompasses topics like the economy and Czechoslovakia, so it's not a relevant response to what she's talking about here.

If the DNC issued a comment regarding this particular matter, then yes she would be obligated to say that they are reinforcing Obama's position as well.

And I forgot to ask;is the website in question completely devoted to this counting of days?  If so it doesn't really add anything new to McCain's comments, and a sufficient rebuttal should handle that easily.  It's not like she mentioned this specific website from the RNC and that opens the floodgates to any number of comments about unrelated matters from the DNC.  That's hardly balanced.

She quotes McCain at length, adds "reinforcement from the Republican National Committee" through its website and fails to provide the DNC or the Obama Campaign with equal time.

Also, it's clear by this…

CROWLEY: And just a little bit more from the Obama campaign. Again, Barack Obama himself has not responded to McCain's comments today.

…that she herself did not call the Obama Campaign, or the DNC, or go to its website.

There's nothing balanced about her report.

Exactly, she gave them free air time. It is shameful!

I honestly don't think you even read my post.  If the website in question is just a day-counter, then that doesn't add anything new to what McCain said.  Why would that justify a list about gaffes regarding Iran, Czechoslovakia, the economy, etc?

Burton made a public comment.  That eliminates any need to call the campaign.

It is funny seeing Bra and Tommy on the same side.

Priceless

 

It's happened quite a few times over the last few years.  I don't base my arguments on the premise that anybody is always wrong, therefore I must be right if I disagree with them.  I'm also more interested in honest evaluation than alliances or grudges.

There shouldn't be anything about my history that makes this surprising.

Fair point.  Just lately there seems to be so much hostility from people accusing me and Bottlebonde to being others, to other childish thread taking. I am glad to see people discussing topics only. Its a breath of fresh air.

There is nothing surprising about it whatsoever, I have often complimented your fair minded evaluations, even though we often are at odds.  

But if our agreeing on this topic is "priceless" to some, so be it.....although I fail to see why. 

I just explained why Tommy, lately the board has become a gossip room with attacks on among others me .

Gotcha

Case in point below by Tommy, same old shite as he insults my intelligence.  He makes it hard to stick to the posted item in question but I think I have here.

Tommy and Brabantio tend to be very fair and open minded in my opinion. The fact that they agree on this should be no suprise.

And Brab, to expand on what you are saying, Crowley does counter the RNC website day-counter with her report that the Obama capmpaign calls it a "publicity stunt", which it absolutely is, it doesn't even deserve further clarification that that. 

Then she goes on to give Burton's response to McCain's opinion, perfectly fair and balanced reporting.

She herself sought no response from Obama or the DNC. She did a copy paste of Burton's statement as it was reported elsewhere.  9 out of 10 of her keystokes favored McCain and were his camp's and party's assertions.

No response?  What do you call her reporting it a "publicity stunt", do you call that no response?  Read Gov, it helps.

I claimed that she sought no response, she simply mentioned something an Obama spokesman stated a day earlier.  This report by her is slanted and a clear bias exisits in favor of McCain.  No Obama quote, no DNC mention, just McCain's drawn our attack and the RNC's mockery.

An Obama spokesman's response is a response, duh.  Are you saying that because Obama himself didn't respond that that is bias?  Because that is absurd.  And she obviously did seek a response, where do you think she got hers from?  She reported their response to the RNC website, and she reported their response to McCain's comments. 

She did not give equal time. Period.

I read all 3 of your posts.  This is simply about Crowley's very clearly biased reporting. Why are you making it about a top 10 list that I "reported"?  She simply gave the what the McCain Camp and the GOP had to say far more air time than the Dems.  It's been very clearly spelled out.  That's all.

You are the one who included the top 10 list, now you want us to ignore it?

Whew..... 

There's no point in holding it up to judge against Crowley's reporting.

Good lord, you spin yourself around so fast you have no idea what you are even arguing?  Comical, but rather pitiful.

More meaningless insults.  This is about Crowley's reporting and her inabilty to give equal time to Obama.

Gov, I'm sorry, but you deserve no better.  First you post 10 points by the DNC and then want us to forget them as being immaterial to some point you can't even articulate, then you keep saying there was no Obama response in Crowley's report, when there clearly is, in two instances.  So, don't blame someone, namely me, for constantly questioning your lucidity.

Crowley gave McCain and the RNC far more and better play than Obama and the DNC.  She went to the RNC website mocking Obama and reported it to her viewers, so all she needed to do was share with her viewers simple points made by the DNC concerning McCain and foreign policy; namely that he doesn't even know who is in charge in Iran and that he doesn't know the difference between Sunni/Shia.

Well, you wanted equal time for the DNC based on that list, right?  Otherwise I have no idea why you thought it was relevant here.

If the DNC doesn't make a statement about the matter, then there's no "equal time" to be given.  It's not like they don't know how to issue a press release. 

Well, you wanted equal time for the DNC based on that list, right?

 

No, I wanted equal time based on journalistic integrity, which you yourself brought up and claimed Crowley has shown in this report.  I disagree.

So if the "gaffe list" isn't relevant, then what response should she be mentioning?  As has been mentioned the day-counter was dismissed as a publicity stunt.  That was the full scope of the RNC's role in this, and I don't see how it adds anything to what McCain said.  So there's no need to go any further into it.  The RNC did something regarding Obama and Obama's campaign responded.  Both were reported.  The idea that she's obligated to call up the DNC and get them involved in it is rather strange.

She promoted the RNC's negative campaign message and did not give the DNC equal time.  And the only Obama campaign quote she gave was from a day prior.  McCain and his attacks simply got more airtime.  Period.

"P U B L I C I T Y   S T U N T !!!!", per the spokesman for the Obama campaign.

In case you missed it again. 

This is about equal time and McCain got 92% of it in Crowley's report.

So if McCain makes a long speech and Obama's campaign refutes it with a single sentence, is that unfair reporting?  They're supposed to dig up material from the DNC to make up that imbalance?

Again, what equal time are you expecting if the DNC doesn't comment on the matter?  They're not involved. 

This report was all about attacking Obama on Iraq - it was free air time for McCain and the RNC and their attacks on Obama.  The DNC has had plenty to say about McCain on Iraq and CNN gave them no play.

I'm sure a lot of organizations have things to say about McCain and Iraq.  How are any of them involved in this story?

The point here is that Crowley put together a report that could have been produced by the McCain Campaign.

Then why did she include the Obama campaign's rebuttals?  You think they're insufficient, then criticize Burton for that.  Ridiculous.  Like if it were the other way around and McCain didn't fire back at something Obama said, a reporter is supposed to do research and then make that campaigns arguments for them.  Unreal.

Then why did she include the Obama campaign's rebuttals?

She mentioned a day old statement by Burton as a rebutal which she got from a press clip.  As for the "publicity stunt" statement, she quotes no one, just those two words.  And I think she got the claim that Obama's camp called McCain's trip challenge from McCain himself.  I can't find anything about Obama's ppl calling Iraq a "publicity stunt".  I could be wrong. 

Just to be clear, I'm not up in arms over this, I simply see this CNN report on McCain/Obama/Iraq to be slanted to McCain's benefit.

If the Obama campaign released a statement on the matter that she didn't cover, then you have a point.  But I'm not seeing evidence of it.  If there's nothing more out there, then there's nothing more for her to cover.  Even if that creates some discrepancy in allotted time to each side, she did what she was supposed to do.

Right? 

She reported that the Obama camp called McCain's Iraq visit / attack on Obama's credibilty a "publicity stunt".  I can't find who said it or where it came from. Can you?  

My google search said it was from an email exchange between Burton and TalkingPointsMemo.  If that's true, then you have to wonder if she is just such a frequent reader of that liberal site, or if she got that information through Obama's campaign.  Either way she made an effort to get their side.

In any event, what needs to be demonstrated is that there is some response out there that Crowley isn't covering, not that she's conveying one they didn't actually make.  If it came from McCain, then either Obama's campaign didn't say anything about it (hard to imagine), or they did and Crowley didn't mention it.  Where is it, then?  Someone must be covering it, somewhere.  Even if it's just on the internet, press releases and public comments by campaign spokespeople don't just evaporate into the atmosphere.

My google search said it was from an email exchange between Burton and TalkingPointsMemo. 

 

She did not quote anyone.  What was the actual "publicity stunt" quote?

She said it came from an Obama spokesman, right?  Is there a relevant difference between that and saying Burton said it?

Like I said, if there's some other response out there that she's not reporting, then that's wrong.  But MMfA isn't making that argument.  If she called them up and then didn't report what they said, or needed to call them and didn't, I would think the campaign would issue a press release about that at the very least.  If they thought their responses weren't accurately or fully conveyed to the public, they could clarify and expand on it the same way.  There's a lot of media, so they have a pretty big megaphone to get their point across whenever they like.

So where are the actual responses from the campaign, if Crowley didn't represent them?  Where are the objections, the clarifications, the expansions of their views?  If they're not out there somewhere, then they're not being made.  That would be the fault of the campaign and nobody else.  Otherwise, you should be able to find something.

If you don't mind, please show me where and who said the words "publicity stunt".  If Crowley falsely attributed them to Obama's campaign, that simply not right.

Gov, Are you for real?  First you complain how bias and lopsided Crowley is towards McCain, and now you say since there is no attributable Obama spokesperson quoted on "publicity stunt", she must have made it up? Do you not see the mind-boggling contradiction in that?

 

Tommy, we've established that Crowley misquoted here and delivered the false quote out of context. Please try and keep up.

Gov, The way you have moved the goalposts so many times during the course of this topic it's a wonder anyone can keep up....next time I will check the floor to see who mopped you up before I post, sorry.

Thanks Brab.... 

You have not said much of anything, you're only able to mock me, not add anything.

Here

So it appears that the comment wasn't about the RNC website, but McCain's proposal, and there's more to it than just the phrase "publicity stunt".  However, you have to remember that this was from a video clip of a previous broadcast.  In the original broadcast she might have aired more of his comment.  If she didn't, that would be a valid complaint.

Google "Bill burton political stunt talking points memo" to see more links. 

Thanks, Barb.  I think Crowley should have provided more context and afforded a few seconds more airtime to what's contained there, that's my only gripe.

A molehill carved from a mountain.

She failed to perform her journalistic duties by misquoting the Obama campaign and delivering the false quote out of contaxt.  No biggie.

How did she misquote them?  "John McCain's proposal is nothing more than a political stunt...".  So I guess the only problem is that she made it sound like that line was about the RNC instead of McCain.  That is sloppy and misleading, and that would be a more valid complaint from MMfA than this is.

The report is sloppy and misleading and that's my complaint.

The whole other part to this biased report is the simple fact that McCain is repeatedly on public record for misstating and not knowing what's happening in Iraq.  Why does a reporter need to be told what to say.  If she's going to report his attack on Obama based solely on McCain's recent visits to Iraq, then she should be able to report what he said when there, not just how he's spinning it now.

What you keep missing here is that this is McCain's opinion about Obama.  There are no facts to check there.  Going into hypocrisy is worthwhile for us and for commentators, but it calls for subjective analysis and conclusions that are outside the scope of a reporter's duties.

No.  If Obama started making statements about McCain and Hagee and how late and lame McCain was in doing anything about the hate pastor, Crowley would be able to and would "report" Obama and Wright WITHOUT a statement from McCain.  The fact is that McCain screwed several times in Iraq and his documented lack of understanding in that region is something to report.  McCain thinks Obama is too young to be president.  Does Crowley need to check with the Obama campaign to confirm how or whether to report McCain's age?

"If Obama started making statements about McCain and Hagee and how late and lame McCain was in doing anything about the hate pastor, Crowley would be able to and would "report" Obama and Wright WITHOUT a statement from McCain."

That would also be inappropriate then.  If it's a factual matter, then anything false should be corrected.  If it's opinion, like Obama's judgment of McCain's behavior regarding Hagee, then a reporter should let the McCain campaign make the response.

"The fact is that McCain screwed several times in Iraq and his documented lack of understanding in that region is something to report.  McCain thinks Obama is too young to be president.  Does Crowley need to check with the Obama campaign to confirm how or whether to report McCain's age?"

Again, she has to evaluate and judge respective knowledge to make the determination that McCain is being hypocritical.  If she were to look at your age example and decide on her own that it was unfair, that would be inappropriate.  It's not her job to make points or arguments.  If it's a simple argument, then the response should be able to provide it.  If it's a more complex argument then you can see how someone who's supposed to be objective shouldn't be making it, since there's more to say for the opposing side of that argument.  Either way there's no way to assert that Crowley is supposed to be doing that in her particular role.

Good points all. On this issue, I think she dropped the ball and failed to evaluate and judge that McCain is being hypocritical.  He was bragging that he's been to Iraq recently, I simply thing that what he said there is news.  But again, good points. 

If it was Chris Matthews who dropped the ball I'd call him an idiot.  That's the sort of person who should be evaluating, analyzing and judging this sort of thing, someone in a commentator position.

Thanks! 

"P U B L I C I T Y   S T U N T !!!!", per the spokesman for the Obama campaign.

In case you missed it again.

 

Tommy: I cannot find an actual quote for the Obama campaign on this... Can you?  It appears that Crowley made it up....

So she's manufacturing responses?  Wouldn't that very clearly be pro-Obama bias, since she's criticizing the RNC's actions of her own volition?

There is NO right why to report the words "publicity stunt" as words stated by the Obama campaign if they simply were not stated by the Obama campaign.  Forget bias, this goes to Crowley's judgment and credibility.

Are you serious?  Of course the bias matters, because you're arguing against yourself.  Which position are you now taking, that she was unfair to Obama for not filling in the uneven time or that she's unfair to McCain by acting as an agent on behalf of Obama?  Obviously if there's no other response from Obama's campaign and she just decided to help him out, then she would have crossed the line already and you wouldn't want her to fill up any more time with material from the DNC that wasn't issued in response to McCain's comments anyway. 

The words "publicity stunt" were stated by John McCain and Crowley falsely reported them as the words of Obama's campaign.  That is just wrong.  Crowley issued this report from McCain's vantage point and that is also wrong.

So she issued it from McCain's vantage point, but decided to rebuff the "entire thing" by calling it a "political stunt".  That makes no sense whatsoever.  If she was really going at it from his viewpoint, she wouldn't say anything derogatory about his side.

This is especially true since Burton did make the comment as shown above.  I'm not sure why you think it came from McCain. 

McCAIN: Now, I asked Senator Obama to go to Iraq. I asked him to go back. And I asked him to meet with General [David] Petraeus and our great ambassador there, Ambassador [Ryan] Crocker. And I said I would go with him, if necessary. I'd be glad to go with him. Now, why is it that Senator Obama wants to sit down with the president of Iran, but hasn't yet sat down with General Petraeus, the leader of our troops in Iraq?

Burton: John McCain's proposal is nothing more than a political stunt, and we don't need any more 'Mission Accomplished' banners or walks through Baghdad markets to know that Iraq's leaders have not made the political progress that was the stated purpose of the surge. The American people don't want any more false promises of progress, they deserve a real debate about a war that has overstretched our military, and cost us thousands of lives and hundreds of billions of dollars without making us safer.

Crowley: Yesterday, an Obama spokesman called the whole thing a publicity stunt.

She gave McCain more time and better coverage than Obama.

I'm not sure why you think it came from McCain.

Because - and I admit this is pedantic but shows to me that she sought most of the info for her report from McCain - the words "publicity stunt" came from McCain:

"That is again a result of Senator Obama’s lack of appreciation of the importance of this issue. My friend, 4,000, more than 4,000 brave young Americans have given their lives. To say that, that my urging a person who wants to be President of the United States to go to Iraq for the first time in 871 days and see the situation for himself and to call that a publicity stunt is a fundamental misunderstanding of the gravity of this issue"

How do you distinguish between her getting the phrase from what Burton said and getting it from McCain's repetition of it?  I see no basis for that determination.  If she just got it from McCain's quote, how did she know that it had been said the previous day and that it was a spokesman who said it?

I agree she should have given more of that quote, since Burton brought up the Baghdad market in particular.  That's a far cry from where you started from, but it's a valid complaint.

I agree she should have given more of that quote, since Burton brought up the Baghdad market in particular.  That's a far cry from where you started from, but it's a valid complaint.

No it is not a far cry.  I have been very clear that she should have given equal time to the Obama campaign.  She choose not to.  She cropped the quote and left out full and clear responses to McCain's attack.

Oh come on.  First it was that Crowley should point out McCain's comments like MMfA argued, then it was that they should have put up some list from the DNC because they're owed equal time for some reason, then she was manufacturing quotes for Obama's sake, then it was about presenting the report from McCain's perspective, then it was about misquoting, then finally it was about equal time for the Obama campaign.  Did I miss anything?  You didn't even know where the quote came from or that it was real, much less the fact that there was anything to crop for most of this.

If this had been the point from the beginning, I would have agreed with it. 

Equal time has been my point all along but - yes - I made other points, as did you.  She mentioned the RNC so equal time for the DNC would be fair.  She aired McCain's attack in full, so the full response before and after "publicity stunt" would have been fair. That's all.

You didn't even know where the quote came from or that it was real, much less the fact that there was anything to crop for most of this.

Um.... that's because she did not report it correctly - she cropped what was a response to McCain's attack that should have gotten equal mention.

Whether she cropped it or not she still said where it came from.  You acted like you had some cause to accuse her of manufacturing it, when a simple google search showed otherwise.

The point was that you've shifted your argument all over the place, while you act as if you're being consistent.

The full response to McCain's Iraq quip (an attack she reported in full and with RNC backup), should have been reported here.

Yes, I said that such cropping would be a valid complaint before either of us knew of the full quote, so we're agreed there.  That's a non sequitur.

We did not know the full (and apt and quite good) reply because she choose not to report it.

I forgot to ask, are you sure that this quote from McCain came out before this report?

Point taken, I'm not sure.  But this has no bearing on the issuse of her cropping Burton's words and reporting a very limited response from Obama's campaign re McCain's attack.

I didn't say it had anything to do with that.  I was just thinking that your assertion about getting that phrase from McCain was highly questionable on the grounds I stated already, but if his comments came after the report it would disprove the theory without question.

Understood, though the words "publicity stunt" were never stated by the Obama campaign re this matter.  My guess is that she got it wrong because she was too busy reporting McCain's attack and did not care to report Burton's full and, in my opinion, very solid reply.

She's not the only one, though.  Maybe his use of the phrase confused some people.  I admit the phrases are similar enough that I wasn't picking up what you were saying before.

I think months ago Obama said he would go to Iraq sfter the primary was over.

That's much more relevant than an evaluation of McCain's own knowledge, and something that should be mentioned.

I would be very fearful of Obama going to Iraq until he is President. I do not trust our nation . And I am sorry to say that.

I don't think he really has to go; there's more than enough information about Iraq in the public sphere.

Excellent Point.

No, more like this:

CROWLEY: McCain is getting reinforcement from the Republican National Committee, which set up a website...

...Incidentally, I was able to track down a DNC press release issued earlier today that outlines what it calls McCain's "Top 10 misstatements and outright deceptions."

1. McCain doesn't even know who is in charge in Iran.

2. Iraq/Iran, Sunni/Shia: McCain doesn't know the difference.

3. McCain still thinks Czechoslovakia (which split into two countries in 1993) exists.

4. McCain wrongly claimed that Baghdad was mostly normal.

5. McCain called Baghdad market safe.

6. McCain can't even remember how little he knows about the economy

7. McCain falsely claimed he never requested pork.

8. McCain falsely claimed that tax cuts increased government revenues.

9. McCain's claim to be untainted by special interest money is false.

10. McCain wrongly claimed he never supported amnesty.

7. McCain falsely claimed he never requested pork.

There's an explanation for that... McCain had dinner with Joe Lieberman and became confused about what each of them had ordered.  ;>)

Hysterical, even for you Governor.  No, no bias there in anyway.  You're on it today big Guy.....

Crowley reported on the RNC attacking Obama and did not give equal time to the DNC on McCain. Period.

Gee, I missed the 10 point laundry list of attacks Governor that she laid out by the RNC, which you expected her to do with the DNC's list.

In any event, we disagree again. Period.  I will muddle through. 

She reported the RNC's attack on Obama's foreign policy credibility and gave zero time to the DNC.  

However, neither Crowley nor Rosen mentioned any of the misstatements McCain has made that have raised questions about whether McCain himself "know[s] what's happening" in Iraq.

Exactly, this media myth that McCain is Mr Foreign Policy , yet he has shown clear examples in the past of misunderstanding Iraqi history, Sunni vs Shite. We also remember his famous Marketplace visit where Troops had to clear out the market. The Media can not and must not be allowed to let McCain get away with this. Or else the Bush third term will gain ground.

J,

So you support Rev.Wright's parishioner's candidacy? ;-)   

AA, I proudly support Obama, and where he goes to church is only an issue to the Right Wingers like Hannity and Rush.

and AA

AA does seem obsessed with the Rev Wright, last I looked Rev Wright was not running for President . Yet the right wingers want to keep him in the game.

People respect gays and accept them as valued members of society. That is good. We don't need to tear down heterosexual institutions just to appease gays-AnotherAmerican

This is also the person who believes the Swift Boat Liars told the truth.  Just a frame of reference for who you're dealing with.

Seeing as how he's the only candidate with an even remotely sensible foreign policy and McCain has no intention of even trying to solve any of the problems we have on the domesic front (except of course to make sure that the rich don't have to pay any taxes - boo-frickin-hoo) yes, I am also a proud supporter of Senator Barack Obama.  If you think Reverand Wright is on the ticket, then you're a moron.  If you think a man that would court Hagee and Parsley is following a sensible path reagrding social issues, then you are an ignorant, bible-humping bigot to boot. 

I'd choose a Rev. Wright parishioner over a Karl Rove employer to lead our country, any day of the week!

Going to a few sites in Iraq a couple of times a year doesn't make you an expert on all the ins and outs of what is going on in Iraq.

Going to Iraq makes for great publicity for the candidate. It endears you to the soldiers you visit there. It makes shallow people think you're actually doing something. You don't need to visit Iraq to be well-informed about what's going on there.

Top that off with McCain's distortions of reality about what's going on in Iraq, basing those distortions on his visits, and you get an even better idea of how hypocritical this guy really is. The only reason the market he visited was safe was because of the incredible American military firepower surrounding him the whole time he was there, yet he tried to claim that the market was safe.

The market wasn't safe, but he said it was. We're supposed to be convinced that Obama would have a better idea of what's going on in Iraq if he visited Iraq like McCain has done?

Good thing you're not a candidate for President!  "It endears you to the soldiers you visit there. It makes shallow people think you're actually doing something" - wouldn't MSM have a field day with this?  Asking why you are calling our soldiers "shallow"?

And that's how it's done folks...cherrypick the statements...then deliberately misinterpret them, and voila!  Another "gaffe"

And BB - please don't think I'm criticizing YOU.  Just using what you said as an example of how the Democratic candidate get caught in false "aha" moments.

Perhaps if Obama spokesman Bill Burton, when responding, instead of repeating the McCain bought the original flawed rationale so readily all those years ago, he would better serve his candidate to mention the laundry list of far more recent McCain gaffes with regards to his knowledge of Iraq.  

You can't blame the media entirely when the opposing campaign doesn't even note McCain's misstatements in their media response.

http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2008/05/28/1072286.aspx

Now can we? 

I am talking about Crowley's report, which is the topic highlighted here Governor. If you want to discuss the DNC, then you are off topic and just derailing the thread.

I'm sorry, I thought you meant that you can't blame the media entirely when the opposing campaign doesn't even note McCain's misstatements in their media response.

I figured it was pretty easy to figure out I was speaking either of Crowley or Rosen, and when I italicized what was essentially in Crowley's report as to what Bill Burton responded with, also in Crowley's report, it was only common sense and elementary to follow.

I can't help it if that confuses you Governor, better to post elsewhere. 

I'm sorry.

That's Ok.

(quick aside... sarcasm has no ceiling)

Perhaps Crowley could have provided the full response which she cropped and misstated:

"John McCain's proposal is nothing more than a political stunt, and we don't need any more 'Mission Accomplished' banners or walks through Baghdad markets to know that Iraq's leaders have not made the political progress that was the stated purpose of the surge. The American people don't want any more false promises of progress, they deserve a real debate about a war that has overstretched our military, and cost us thousands of lives and hundreds of billions of dollars without making us safer."

We're supposed to be convinced that Obama would have a better idea of what's going on in Iraq if he visited Iraq like McCain has done?

Not only that...we're also supposed to believe that if Obama supported our troops, and if he and his wife didn't hate America, and if he didn't want to surrender to the terrorists, that he'd be over in Iraq visiting eight times like McCain. That may only be the subtext...but it's there, too.

The terrorists in Iraq are proabbly hidingright underneath those weapons of mass destruction.  I hope McCain finds them both soon, or GOD KNOWS what could happen...

(my God these people are so mind-bogglingly stupid)

We're supposed to be convinced that Obama would have a better idea of what's going on in Iraq if he visited Iraq like McCain has done?

Not only that...we're also supposed to believe that if Obama supported our troops, and if he and his wife didn't hate America, and if he didn't want to surrender to the terrorists, that he'd be over in Iraq visiting eight times like McCain. That may only be the subtext...but it's there, too.

Although Media Matter effectively exposes flawed news stories and commentary, a new study by the Pew Center conducted between January and March shows who, looking at the big picture, has been portrayed in a positive way by