Taken from this article : http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/07/16/AR2008071602562.html

"John McCain has taken three foreign trips in the past four months, all unaccompanied by a single network anchor. "

"The three network anchors will travel to Europe and the Middle East next week for Barack Obama's trip, adding their high-wattage spotlight to what is already shaping up as a major media extravaganza. "

"Some 200 journalists have asked to accompany Obama on the costly trip, which will include stops in Iraq and Afghanistan, but the campaign will be able to accommodate only one-fifth that number. No itinerary has been announced. "

Think this is further liberal media bias ?

The media follows McCain around too, while he's in the US. Maybe McCain is more concerned about security abroad.

The media follows McCain around too, while he's in the US. Maybe McCain is more concerned about security abroad.

Perhaps you didn't read this part :
"John McCain has taken three foreign trips in the past four months, all unaccompanied by a single network anchor. "

This is about internation travel, not state-side.

No, I think it is right wing paranoia! After 2 decades of driving the country into bankruptcy and moral decline, the right wingers are afraid the American people may put a stop the corruption, decadence, and imcompetence we have seen since the Republicans came to power. I think the right wingers are getting scared that change may be near, and that scares them.
What this shows is that McCain is not a strategic thinker. If he were, he would not be the flip flopper he is today. He would be more of the maverick he represented himself to be in 2000. McCain too, could have sold the news media on following him on his trips. But the reality he did not. The Obama campaign did. And because they did, the right wing is claiming bias...funny since the right wing controls the radio waves and has it's own TV network. Obama is just running a better campaign.

Funny thing, now McCain and Bush are doing what Obama has been saying they should do for years. We are now talking directly with Iran. We are in discussion with Iran about opening a mission. Bush and McCain are now talking schedule for troop withdrawl from Iraq. If Obama's positions were so bad, then why are Bush and McCain adopting them.

Frankly, I am not a Democrat...used to be Republican. But I am just so sick of the Republican horse shit. I am loosing patience with them and their minions and as a patriot, what they have done to this country just makes me sick!

The media follows McCain around too, while he's in the US. Maybe McCain is more concerned about security abroad.

Is McCain likely to say or do something newsworthy? Certainly not in the opinion of many reporters. More and more of whom seem to mix reporting the news with broadcasting editorials.

McCain is a media darling, as they say. He coddles the reporters and they love him, for the most part, unless they ask him probing questions.

McCain is a media darling, as they say. He coddles the reporters and they love him, for the most part, unless they ask him probing questions.

Coddled more than hilary or obama? Please. To be honest few if any reporters have done a good job in the last few years. At least as far as pressing the people running for various offices.

TV anchors found Osama?

No, I think it is right wing paranoia! After 2 decades of driving the country into bankruptcy and moral decline, the right wingers are afraid the American people may put a stop the corruption, decadence, and imcompetence we have seen since the Republicans came to power. I think the right wingers are getting scared that change may be near, and that scares them.
What this shows is that McCain is not a strategic thinker. If he were, he would not be the flip flopper he is today. He would be more of the maverick he represented himself to be in 2000. McCain too, could have sold the news media on following him on his trips. But the reality he did not. The Obama campaign did. And because they did, the right wing is claiming bias...funny since the right wing controls the radio waves and has it's own TV network. Obama is just running a better campaign.

Funny thing, now McCain and Bush are doing what Obama has been saying they should do for years. We are now talking directly with Iran. We are in discussion with Iran about opening a mission. Bush and McCain are now talking schedule for troop withdrawl from Iraq. If Obama's positions were so bad, then why are Bush and McCain adopting them.

Frankly, I am not a Democrat...used to be Republican. But I am just so sick of the Republican horse shit. I am loosing patience with them and their minions and as a patriot, what they have done to this country just makes me sick!


Oh pleaseeeee, nice detraction from the topic. :rolleyes:

GWB and McCain aren't "adopting" Obama's withdrawl plan. They can afford to talk about it now because the Surge of troops last year (which Obama and other leftists opposed) has been successful, and now that things have quieted down in Iraq, they can afford to talk about troop withdrawl.

Oh pleaseeeee, nice detraction from the topic. :rolleyes:

GWB and McCain aren't "adopting" Obama's withdrawl plan. They can afford to talk about it now because the Surge of troops last year (which Obama and other leftists opposed) has been successful, and now that things have quieted down in Iraq, they can afford to talk about troop withdrawl.

Pleasee, is that the reason or is it that troops are urgently needed in Afganistan? What happens in Iraq when these surge troops are removed?

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20080622/wl_nm/afghan_nato_troops_dc

Why is it that GWB is now talking withdrawal time frames...is now talking establishing a mission in Iran...that is not a reversal? If you think yes, you need to do some research my misinformed friend.

http://www.slate.com/id/2195661/
http://www.thecarpetbaggerreport.com/archives/16124.html

Joe, I don't think much of your last two sources. something more mainstream or at least something with fact checkers might be better.

How about:

http://www.texarkanagazette.com/news/WireHeadlines/2008/07/19/bush-agrees-to-talk-about-iraq-timetable-65.php
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080718/ap_on_go_pr_wh/us_iraq_13
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/jul/17/usa.iran
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,24036298-15084,00.html

McCain is a media darling, as they say. He coddles the reporters and they love him, for the most part, unless they ask him probing questions.
”
Coddled more than hilary or obama? Please. Absolutely. The difference is striking, if you've been following for a while.

There have been several analyses of how that was managed, with more than one reporter pointing to things as simple as McCain's affability and willingness to supply doughnuts and conversation, his longstanding friendships with news media honchos, sympathy for the way he was treated by W&Co back in 2000, and so forth.

McCain has enjoyed the luxury of being relaxed and joking with news folks, and it generally hasn't been taken out of context and blown up into nonsense - Obama has had to be on his guard at all times, not just when the live cameras are on. That affects Obama's relations with the people in the press - he's guarded, therefore distant.

The reason Obama's foreign trips will be bigger events is that Obama is quite popular and well-known in foreign parts. Lots of people overseas are interested in him. McCain is neither, and is viewed as the next in a grim line - something like an ordinary US citizen might view Putin after Yeltsin, if Yeltsin had been more spectacular in his evil and incompetence.

Taken from this article : http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/07/16/AR2008071602562.html

"John McCain has taken three foreign trips in the past four months, all unaccompanied by a single network anchor. "

"The three network anchors will travel to Europe and the Middle East next week for Barack Obama's trip, adding their high-wattage spotlight to what is already shaping up as a major media extravaganza. "

"Some 200 journalists have asked to accompany Obama on the costly trip, which will include stops in Iraq and Afghanistan, but the campaign will be able to accommodate only one-fifth that number. No itinerary has been announced. "

Think this is further liberal media bias ?

Actually you're wrong, McCain has reporters from all major networks embedded in his campaign. They even travel with him on his campaign bus.

Also, there's something in Economics called supply and demand. Obama is in demand, McCain is not. Obama can attract crowds of 70,000+ , while McCain can't. The Media has let McCain get away with numerous gaffs. While they crucify Obama for each and every mistake he makes.

Perhaps you didn't read this part :
"John McCain has taken three foreign trips in the past four months, all unaccompanied by a single network anchor. "

This is about internation travel, not state-side.

McCain is not news. He is not likely to win and therefore people are not interested in him. He does not create ratings. The election this fall is for or against Obama and for or against Bush. McCain is barely part of it.

But before you whine some more about media bias, ask yourself if you really want to see a "Jeremiah Wright job" done on McCain.

It seems to me that since the GOP has been making an issue of the fact that Obama has never visited the theaters, his first visit is consequently more newsworthy when it happens. :shrug:

Be interesting to see the media's reaction to Obama's making McCain-type mistakes, and confusing AQ with the Iranians or getting Iraq and Iran mixed up.

They'll have a chance to show their coddling style, and bury the event in excuses and inattention.

its always astonishing to see how naive people can be. you think obama will solve your problems? because he looks good on TV? because he is a democrat? because he talks about change? obama looks like another power hungry politician, who will say anything to be president, and will forget all of his promises after he will win. but then of course he will probably make every mistake possible with regards to foreign policy, and guess who will get the blame 30 years from now?

its always astonishing to see how naive people can be. you think obama will solve your problems? because he looks good on TV? because he is a democrat? because he talks about change? obama looks like another power hungry politician, who will say anything to be president, and will forget all of his promises after he will win. but then of course he will probably make every mistake possible with regards to foreign policy, and guess who will get the blame 30 years from now?

Spock you amaze me with your illogical position. Some may believe Obama is a savior. But the truth be known, we don't know. He is an untested commodity. But he is saying most of the right things. He has demonstrated he has a good understanding of management and leadership. Just look at the way he has run his campaign and contrast that with the way McCain has run his campaign. McCain's campaign almost went bankrupt. It has had several shake-ups with the last one occuring just last week. It has been plagued with scandal one after the other. Now contrast that with Obama.

McCain is a known commodity, and the commodity is not good. You cannot blame people for supporting a unknown commodity like Obama when most indications are positive and in any case certianly better than the alternative.

It is logical to vote for the canididate that says he is for change versus the canididate who does not advocate change. Very simple logic.

20 posts and nobody said the obvious:

When McCain visited he was only a Senator and not the presumtive Republican nominee..

End of story...Feel free to ask another question...

Very good observation Syzygys!

The media ALWAYS gives the Democrats a much longer exposure than Republicans as well as better pictures, better lighting and better interviews with the reporters. This has been going on for many decades now and started right after the Senates hearings on unamerican activities by the Communists during the 1950's.

The media ALWAYS gives the Democrats a much longer exposure than Republicans as well as better pictures, better lighting and better interviews with the reporters. This has been going on for many decades now and started right after the Senates hearings on unamerican activities by the Communists during the 1950's.

You right wingers always amaze me. Even though you control the air waves, the congress, the supremes and the presidency, you are the underdog that everyone picks on...please...give me a friggen break!

No, I just want you to realize that 90 percent of the media are registered Democrats and I'm not a right winger so please don't call me something I'm not. As an example I'm for abortion and womens right to choose.

No, I just want you to realize that 90 percent of the media are registered Democrats and I'm not a right winger so please don't call me something I'm not. As an example I'm for abortion and womens right to choose.

Sure Cosmic, whatever you say. McCain was also for womens right to choose and for abortion before he was against it. Christine Whitman (Republican female govenor) is for the womens right to choose...pro abortion.

90 percent of the media are registered Democrats and I'm not a right winger
100 percent of the media is controlled by Communists and I'm not a left winger.

So you don't believe that the majority of the media are Democrats?

100 percent of the media is controlled by Communists and I'm not a left winger.
Definately not a left winger! Are you saying Fox News, Limbaugh and Hannity, Bortz and others of their ilk are agents of the liberal media?

Idiots, it is all in McCain's favour, consider this:

"In the past two weeks, McCain has produced a trove of Iraq-related images and quotes that are sure to dog his faltering bid for the presidency. On March 26, during an interview with conservative radio host Bill Bennett, McCain said, "There are neighborhoods in Baghdad where you and I could walk through those neighborhoods today." The next day, he insisted to CNN's Wolf Blitzer that Gen. Petraeus was driving around armorless. Then, on April 1, in an attempt to back up his words, McCain went on his infamous Baghdad shopping trip. The Internet was soon awash with mocking photos of McCain strolling blithely through the Shurja market in a Kevlar vest. On Sunday, "60 Minutes" ran footage of McCain dickering over a rug with a merchant, then pulled back to show the senator surrounded by heavily armed and armored U.S. troops, and also mentioned that attack helicopters were hovering overhead."

So I will assume that the media is Republican, because they don't report more of his idiocy...Also, if there were no reporters present, how the fuck did we get those images???

For the record: "He is visiting as a member of a fact-finding mission for the U.S. Senate Armed Services Committee."

100 percent of the media is controlled by Communists and I'm not a left winger.

So why are you living in a Country full of Communists? Shouldn't you be seeking refuge elsewhere?

The Hopenchange Tour must be documented for future generations to see. His Holiness, The Messiah is coming to town. Quick, everyone must take off their green shirts!

Have you ever noticed that Obama has the same effect on stalwart right wingers and Republicans as the crucifix does on vampires? Just an observation.

If they do cover Obama more, I'm not complaining. They did a horrible job on the war, so maybe they just do whatever is popular.

Instead of measuring who is covered what, consider this:

Matt Taibbi:

"These fantasy elections we've been having — overblown sports contests with great production values, decided by haircuts and sound bytes and high-tech mudslinging campaigns — those were sort of fun while they lasted, and were certainly useful in providing jerk-off pundit-dickheads like me with high-paying jobs. But we just can't afford them anymore. We have officially spent and mismanaged our way out of la-la land and back to the ugly place where politics really lives — a depressingly serious and desperate argument about how to keep large numbers of us from starving and freezing to death. Or losing our homes, or having our cars repossessed. For a long time America has been too embarrassed to talk about class; we all liked to imagine ourselves in the wealthy column, or at least potentially so, flush enough to afford this pissing away of our political power on meaningless game-show debates once every four years. The reality is much different, and this might be the year we're all forced to admit it."

Some of us are aware of the issues involved, and the deficiencies of the corporate media.

I find it funny that Obamma was against the surge in Iraq, and now has removed that fact from his WEB Site, and is now calling for the a surge in Afghanistan, and claims the idea as his own, even though Mc Cain has already called for a surge in Afghanistan weeks ago.

Most Democrats feel Afghanistan never got the attention it needed, and the "surge" question in Iraq is irrelevent anyway.

I find it funny that Obamma was against the surge in Iraq, and now has removed that fact from his WEB Site, and is now calling for the a surge in Afghanistan, and claims the idea as his own, even though Mc Cain has already called for a surge in Afghanistan weeks ago.

Buffalo, Obama has been calling for an increase in troop levels in Afganistan since October of last year. McCain just came to this position a few weeks ago.

http://www.nysun.com/national/mccain-will-call-for-a-surge-of-troops/81861/

Obama has been calling as you point out for a withdrawl of troops from Iraq. And the Iraqi prime minister has endorsed the Obama withdrawl plan. Obama wants to leave a stable Iraq. But he does not want to waste lives and resources occupying Iraq. Obama's position, and rightly so, is that Iraq needs a goal, and objective and not a long term occupation. To quote my favorite red neck, Obama wants to "get her done" in Iraq and focus on things that are more important to the United States.

Buffalo, Obama has been calling for an increase in troop levels in Afganistan since October of last year. McCain just came to this position a few weeks ago.

http://www.nysun.com/national/mccain-will-call-for-a-surge-of-troops/81861/

Obama has been calling as you point out for a withdrawl of troops from Iraq. And the Iraqi prime minister has endorsed the Obama withdrawl plan. Obama wants to leave a stable Iraq. But he does not want to waste lives and resources occupying Iraq. Obama's position, and rightly so, is that Iraq needs a goal, and objective and not a long term occupation. To quote my favorite red neck, Obama wants to "get her done" in Iraq and focus on things that are more important to the United States.


The surge worked, and Obamma was against it, and for us to send troops to Afgahinstain we needed thing to quiet down in Iraq.

Last October? Please reference speach or legislation, that Obamma made, or introduced, doing so?

Your reference if from:

By ELI LAKE, Staff Reporter of the Sun | July 15, 2008

And it was Republican who first put forward such plans,
But the idea of an Afghan surge was first broached by a Republican rival of Mr. McCain during the primaries, Mayor Giuliani, who called in early January at a speech in New Hampshire for doubling the number of troops in Afghanistan. At the time there were 25,000 American troops in the country. Today there are approximately 33,000 troops in Afghanistan, compared to more than 150,000 in Iraq.

not Obamma, he was still in the with drawl mode.

Mr. Obama in the New York Times that reiterated the Democrat's pledge to begin the withdrawal of all combat troops from Iraq within 16 months of taking office.

Obama Web site removes `surge' from Iraq problem
July 15, 2008 - 5:06pm


Democratic presidential candidate, Sen. Barack Obama, D-Ill., speaks during a campaign stop in Washington, Tuesday, July 15, 2008. Obama said Tuesday that overall U.S. interests have been hurt rather than helped by the Bush administration's decision to increase troop strength in Iraq 18 months ago, and vowed to stick to his plan to withdraw combat troops within 16 months of becoming president. (AP Photo/Jae C. Hong) By NEDRA PICKLER
Associated Press Writer

WASHINGTON (AP) - Barack Obama's aides have removed criticism of President Bush's increase of troops to Iraq from the campaign Web site, part of an effort to update the Democrat's written war plan to reflect changing conditions.

Debate over the impact of President Bush's troop "surge" has been at the center of exchanges this week between Obama and Republican presidential rival John McCain. Obama opposed the war and the surge from the start, while McCain supported both the invasion and the troop increase.

A year and a half after Bush announced he was sending reinforcements to Iraq, it is widely credited with reducing violence there. With most Americans ready to end the war, McCain is using the surge debate to argue he has better judgment and the troops should stay to win the fight. Obama argues the troop increase has not achieved its other goal of fostering a political reconciliation among Iraqi factions.

After Bush delivered a nationally televised address on Jan. 10, 2007, announcing his plan, Obama argued it could make the situation worse by taking pressure off Iraqis to find a political solution to the fighting.

"I am not persuaded that 20,000 additional troops in Iraq is going to solve the sectarian violence there," the Illinois senator said that night, a month before announcing his presidential bid. "In fact, I think it will do the reverse."

Obama continued to argue throughout 2007 that the troop increase was a mistake. By the early part of this year, he was acknowledging that it had improved security and reduced violence, but he has stuck by his opposition to the move.

In a speech Tuesday, he argued that since the surge began, the strain on the military has increased, the United States has spent another $200 billion in Iraq, Afghanistan has deteriorated, the Taliban and al-Qaida have rebuilt and Iraqis have not made political progress. "That's why I strongly stand by my plan to end this war," Obama said.

McCain said Obama is failing to acknowledge success. "Today, we know Sen. Obama was wrong" to oppose the surge, McCain said.

As first reported Tuesday by the New York Daily News, Obama's campaign removed a reference to the surge as part of "The Problem" section on the part of his Web site devoted to laying out his plan for Iraq.

The change was part of many broader changes that Obama spokeswoman Wendy Morigi said were made to reflect current conditions. She provided the full text of the old site and the updated version, which includes a new section on the recent resurgence of al-Qaida in Afghanistan and another on this year's negotiations over a Status of Forces Agreement that would detail the legal basis for the ongoing presence of U.S. military forces operating in Iraq.

The changes stress that Obama's plan to end the war is responsible and designed to improve national security. They include:

_ An updated Obama quote at the top of the page. The previous quote stressed how Obama had the judgment to oppose the "rash war" from the start. This was a popular message among Democratic voters and was meant to draw distinctions with primary rival Hillary Rodham Clinton, who initially supported the war. The new quote focuses on how ending the war will make Americans safer _ a message aimed at general election voters who are more likely to trust McCain on issues of national security, according to polling.

_ A description of Obama's plan as "a responsible, phased withdrawal" that will be directed by military commanders and done in consultation with the Iraqis. Previously, the site had a sentence that has since been removed that flatly said, "Obama will immediately begin to remove our troops from Iraq." Morigi said that his plan hasn't changed, but they wanted to expand the description. "There's not an intent to shift language," she said.

_ A new sentence that says Obama "would reserve the right to intervene militarily, with our international partners, to suppress potential genocidal violence within Iraq."

Only one of his plan's subheads remains unchanged, the first one _ "Judgment You Can Trust." That's a message the campaign wants Americans to embrace.



Obama's updated site: http://www.barackobama.com/issues/iraq

By NEDRA PICKLER
Associated Press Writer

WASHINGTON (AP) - Barack Obama's aides have removed criticism of President Bush's increase of troops to Iraq from the campaign Web site, part of an effort to update the Democrat's written war plan to reflect changing conditions.

We are paying the Sunnis not to kill us. The cons used this to change the debate from getting out of Iraq to wether the surge is working. Political reconciliation is as far from stable as ever, which was the whole point of it.

The surge worked, and Obamma was against it, The surge has not worked, if evaluated by the original plans.

The surge only "worked" if assessed by the new criteria invented for it by its proponents.

The US occupation is still failing, and its originally claimed objectives are further away now than they were in '03 or '04. Bribing the Sunni tribesmen to quit killing Americans temporarily, completing the ghetto walls in Baghdad, and letting the Hunt Oil Company sign separate agreements with the Kurds, is a series of admissions of failure, not a collective sign of success.

Obama has so far been supported as probably correct in his opposition to the surge in troop numbers, and prescient in his characterization of the strategy as an attempted escalation - opposed to the temporary bump it was sold as.

Very true Spider and Ice. these are the facts that Republicans would like the world to gloss over.

The surge has not worked, if evaluated by the original plans.

The surge only "worked" if assessed by the new criteria invented for it by its proponents.

The US occupation is still failing, and its originally claimed objectives are further away now than they were in '03 or '04. Bribing the Sunni tribesmen to quit killing Americans temporarily, completing the ghetto walls in Baghdad, and letting the Hunt Oil Company sign separate agreements with the Kurds, is a series of admissions of failure, not a collective sign of success.

Obama has so far been supported as probably correct in his opposition to the surge in troop numbers, and prescient in his characterization of the strategy as an attempted escalation - opposed to the temporary bump it was sold as.

Now provide citation of the Surge not working.

Even Obammah and the Democrats now admit thta it is a sucess.




This is the week that the Democratic party ran up the white flag when it comes to the surge in Iraq. Leading the surrender was none other than Barack Obama, the Democratic party's presumptive nominee for president and among the most vocal critics of the counterinsurgency plan that has transformed the Iraq war from a potentially catastrophic loss to what may turn out to be a historically significant victory.

On Monday, Obama wrote a New York Times op-ed in which he acknowledged the success of the surge. "In the 18 months since President Bush announced the surge," Obama wrote, "our troops have performed heroically in bringing down the level of violence. New tactics have protected the Iraqi population, and the Sunni tribes have rejected Al Qaeda--greatly weakening its effectiveness." A day later, Obama gave a speech in which he declared for the first time that "true success" and "victory in Iraq" were possible. In addition, the Obama campaign scrubbed its presidential website to remove criticism of the surge.

The surge has not worked, if evaluated by the original plans.

The surge only "worked" if assessed by the new criteria invented for it by its proponents.

The US occupation is still failing, and its originally claimed objectives are further away now than they were in '03 or '04. Bribing the Sunni tribesmen to quit killing Americans temporarily, completing the ghetto walls in Baghdad, and letting the Hunt Oil Company sign separate agreements with the Kurds, is a series of admissions of failure, not a collective sign of success.

Obama has so far been supported as probably correct in his opposition to the surge in troop numbers, and prescient in his characterization of the strategy as an attempted escalation - opposed to the temporary bump it was sold as.

Now provide citation of the Surge not working.

Even Obammah and the Democrats now admit thta it is a sucess.

In his own words:"our troops have performed heroically in bringing down the level of violence. New tactics have protected the Iraqi population, and the Sunni tribes have rejected Al Qaeda--greatly weakening its effectiveness." A day later, Obama gave a speech in which he declared for the first time that "true success" and "victory in Iraq" were possible.

This is the week that the Democratic party ran up the white flag when it comes to the surge in Iraq. Leading the surrender was none other than Barack Obama, the Democratic party's presumptive nominee for president and among the most vocal critics of the counterinsurgency plan that has transformed the Iraq war from a potentially catastrophic loss to what may turn out to be a historically significant victory.

On Monday, Obama wrote a New York Times op-ed in which he acknowledged the success of the surge. "In the 18 months since President Bush announced the surge," Obama wrote, "our troops have performed heroically in bringing down the level of violence. New tactics have protected the Iraqi population, and the Sunni tribes have rejected Al Qaeda--greatly weakening its effectiveness." A day later, Obama gave a speech in which he declared for the first time that "true success" and "victory in Iraq" were possible. In addition, the Obama campaign scrubbed its presidential website to remove criticism of the surge.

Now provide citation of the Surge not working. One example will do:

During the "surge", Petraeus provided money, weapons, and training to Sunni tribal militias not under the auspices of the central Baghdad government - agreed?

Now do you recall what the original goals of US efforts were, with respect to the nongovernmental militias of Iraq, their independence of Baghdad, and their military weapons, just a couple of years ago?

Would you say the Surge has "worked", with regard to those goals ?