Oh now I get it.... It's misinformation when a Republican says something nice about a Democrat. ;-)

"Many of the truths we cling to depend greatly upon our own point of view." - O.Kenobi

I can't argue with your point, because it's definitely true from a certian point of vew.

Of course, insincerity is something the right excels at.  Why else support Nader in 2000?  Beauce they thought he woud be a BETTER candidate than Gore?  (And what about operation choas?  (Assuming it ever exsisted.) Casting votes just to screw with the other party, as opposed to for the GUY YOU ACTUALLY WANT TO WIN?)  Yeah, I can see why you missed the sincerity part and why politics as usual is accpetable.  (Of course I can't say that we wouldn't want politics as usual if we'd won 7 of the last 10 elections, so don't bother calling out hypocrisy.  I admit it that, sadly, that would probably be right too.)  Here's hoping Sen. Obama can change things.

Nice,

Nice rant. I noticed you didn't disagree with my statement. ;-)  

Nope.  Nope.  It's absolutely true from a certain point of view. ;)

Right, no misinformation here.  McCain was just lying when he said that Clinton was "going to raise your taxes by thousands of dollars a year."  Now he's being honest.  Media outlets should not report anything to cast aspersions on his sudden Clinton praise.

McCain is part of an establishment that tried to destroy Senator Clinton and her husband since the 90s.  But you are right, no misinformation.

Media Matters for America put in place, for the first time, the means to systematically monitor a cross section of print, broadcast, cable, radio, and Internet media outlets for conservative misinformation — news or commentary that is not accurate, reliable, or credible and that forwards the conservative agenda — every day, in real time.

Part of their mission statement.

Reuters, The New York Times, The Wall Street Journal, and NBC's Today reported Sen. John McCain's praise of Sen. Hillary Clinton in a June 3 speech, but none of those outlets noted that McCain has previously distorted Clinton's record on issues such as health care, taxes, the environment, and housing, nor did they note that McCain has a history of personal attacks against Clinton and her family.

This fits perfectly. It forwards the conservative agenda to discuss the ways that John McCain is wooing Clinton supporters without discussing how much of a hypocrite that makes him. He's attacked her in the past. He's a flip-flopper, and when the news media doesn't point out his flip-flops, it furthers the conservative agenda. According to conservatives, they don't flip flop, but liberals do.

Yes, that is not allowed. Heaven help us if we try and be civil. Not allowed the partisans hate that.

Nah, brother. Civility is welcome when it's authentic. This junk from McCain, it's just too contrived. It's phony.

Exactly. Bobthep tries to distract us from the real issue. It's not that civility is being disparaged. It's that fake civility should be pointed out for the hypocrisy that it is.

Take for example Roe v Wade and you'll realize that conservatives have come to understand sincerity as a person's willingness to lie to them.

How long has the right been sincerely promised by their leaders that Roe will be overturned?

Still no progress on that but righties just love to hear the promise even though they have to know it's damn lie.

So I guess when the Clinton and Obama campaigns try to come together MMFA will find a "Naah - we were just kidding - we love each other" mantra acceptable?? 

Well according to Media Matters and other partisan organizations, you are never allowed to say anything nice about someone with different views, and if you do you have a motive. You are never allowed to be friendly with people of different views.

Are you really that shallow, or are you being dopey on purpose?  No, you can't suddenly be nice to someone after more than a decade of distgusting smears and personal attacks and not have your motivation questioned.  Especially when this happens right after it's clear that they are no longer you're supporter.  (And that some of they're booster are still on the fence.) And to his credit: It's smart politics for McCain.  But it's also insincere.  So unless we're burying our heads in the sand (or in a right-wing blog) let's call it like it is for crying out loud.

McCain has been nasty to Hillary Clinton for a decade? 

That's all you got? A nit pick?

Come on. Speak to the point.

You're missing the whole point. This article is about how McCain's campaign strategies are being reported in the media. It's really incredible how people can post here day in and day out and still not comprehend the purpose of the site.

The purpose of this site is to get Democrats elected - I understand it just fine.

HAHA!  Perfect, way to steer yourself into that one Clams....

Dead on Dems, when Democrats pander for each others votes of opponents they dissed earlier in the campaign, that's party unity.  When the right does it it's misinformation, unless every single earlier criticism is chronologically listed.

Hilarious. 

It's going to be a fun summer - can't wait until the convention.

Me Too!

I think the Republicans are in for long overdue, well earned arse-kickin'.

when Democrats pander for each others votes of opponents they dissed earlier in the campaign, that's party unity.  When the right does it it's misinformation, unless every single earlier criticism is chronologically listed.

 

That is a misrepresentation of what's happening here.  Party lines are being crossed. 

 

Yes - how dare a republican go after democrat voters. Bad republican - bad, bad!!!

I was simply pointing out Tommy's misrepresentation.  Party unity has nothing to do with it.

"Party lines are being crossed".

LOL, what does that have to do with a politician pandering of another's votes?  The Gov is in rare form today.

What does it have to do with "party unity"?

Soliciting your party's primary opponents votes is pandering, all in the name of party unity.  Soliciting another party's votes from a defeated candidate is also pandering.  They are not much different.  If you can't see it Gov, then don't ask.

To me, Obama's certain soliciting of Clinton voters (who are very much in line with him on the issues) appears mightily less like pandering than the pandering reported as gamesmanship on the part of John "How Do We Beat The Bitch" McCain.  But then again, I had clarity for breakfast today.

Oh, so how do you know it's pandering if the media didn't tell you so?  After all, that is your beef here, isn't it?

Oh, and my suggestion would be to skip more lunches and dinners and eat your breakfast three times a day, might help...... 

I don't need the media to define anything for me.  Why is it always about people being stupid with you.  The point is that if they're going to report McCain instant praise, they can report a couple examples of how it's news and let the viewers decide the scope and depth of the pander Maverick.

HA!  You've been bellyaching on two threads today that the media is being derelict in it's duty by not being forthcoming on what this really is by McCain, pandering.  Now you say you don't need them to tell you anything?

Gov, do you live on a merry-go-round? 

I never claimed that this McCain wooing Clinton voters items needed to be called anything.  The point is that these reports of McCain's move to get votes from Dems is totally missing any issue and policy mention.

"missing any issue and policy mention"?

What do you mean now? 

He's trying to get votes from people who disagree with him on the issues.  I know he's played both sides on just about everything that Americans care about and will the media's cool with that, it could at least pretend that voters vote on issues, not gladhanding.  I guess you'd only prefer that this election and reports on it be about the issues when it's not in the way of your WITHing.

...and while the media's cool with that...

"He's trying to get votes from people who disagree with him on the issues"

Ahh, the audacity!  Well, that explains why MMFA put it here, thanks for clarifying. 

It's here because several media reports on McCain pandering made no mention of his contrary positions to voters he's trying to woo.

Obama supporters are quick to dismiss McCain's recent attacks and falsehoods against Hillary, because of course, they want people to believe that McCain and Clinton are evil twins, and that both support each other.

They are going gaga over McCain's praise of Clinton, even though they KNOW that he's doing this for political reasons--to attract Clinton's disaffected voters, not because he shares Clinton's political views.

Nobody plays dumb like an Obama supporter.

That makes no sense.  But oh yeah, I'm all against Hillary because I'm for Obama...many have expressed their displeasure with her campaign, but trust me, we understand the political posturing and is why at least I am trying now to bring Hillary supporters into the fold of the Obama campaign.

No doubt. It's important to understand that Hillary is a pro and she plays to win. When the game is over there's no hard feelings.

They are going gaga over McCain's praise of Clinton,

LOL, they must have lost their minds when they heard this one.

"She and John McCain are very close," Clinton said. "They always laugh that if they wound up being the nominees of their party, it would be the most civilized election in American history, and they're afraid they'd put the voters to sleep because they like and respect each other."

Liking each other and trying to draw the other's supporters to you with insincere platitudes are two different things.

In June 1998  at a Republican Senate fund-raiser, McCain told a downright nasty joke making fun of Hillary and Chelsea Clinton. The fact that McCain had made the tasteless joke was reported in major newspapers, as was the vain attempt by his press secretary to initially deny what McCain had done. But in several major newspapers, the joke itself was kept a secret. When Maureen Dowd penned a column in the New York Times about the joke, she wrote that McCain "is so revered by the press that his disgusting jape was largely nudged under the rug." But Dowd chose not to relay the joke, either. The joke did appear in McCain's hometown paper, the Arizona Republic, and the Associated Press did report the joke in full, this is what he reportedly said: "Why is Chelsea Clinton so ugly?
Because her father is Janet Reno."