A Stark Difference In Coverage

Yes, we all know that the media is biased. 

And by now all my readers know that I look at the New York Times daily as a source for what the liberal mind is thinking.

As these recent online newspapers arrived in my email inbox when Joe Biden was chosen to be Barack Obama's running mate, I thought it might be an interesting thing to juxtapose the coverage between this event and the event of John McCain's choosing a running mate. And I was right - it's very interesting, albeit predictable. Now, why I am fascinated by the predictable, I cannot say. 

I am comparing two articles from the same paper. One titled "Obama Picks Biden, Adding Foreign Expertise to Ticket." Another titled, "Choice of Palin Is Bold Move by McCain, With Risks." Let's begin by looking at their opening paragraphs:

Biden

Senator Barack Obama introduced Senator Joseph R. Biden Jr. as his running mate on Saturday at a boisterous rally in Springfield, Ill., a choice that strengthens the Democratic ticket's credentials on foreign policy and provides Mr. Obama a combative partner as he heads into the fight with Senator John McCain.

Palin

Senator John McCain spent the summer arguing that a 40-something candidate with four years in major office and no significant foreign policy experience was not ready to be president. And then on Friday he picked as his running mate a 40-something candidate with two years in major office and no significant foreign policy experience.

Is there anybody but me who smells a bit of a difference in the coverage? Ah, but on with the rest:

Palin

The selection of Gov. Sarah Palin of Alaska proved quintessentially McCain - daring, hazardous and defiantly off-message. He demontrated that he would not get boxed in by convention as he sought to put a woman next in line to the presidency for the first time. Yet in making such an unabashed bid for supporters of Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton, he risked undercutting his central case against Senator Barack Obama.

Biden

In Mr. Biden, Mr. Obama selected a six-term senator from Delaware best known for his expertise on foreign affairs - Mr. Biden spent last weekend in Georgia as that nation engaged in a tense confrontation with Russia - but also for his skills at political combat. Mr. Obama passed over other candidates who might have brought him a state or reinforced the message of change that has been central to his candidacy.

This absolutely transparent vying for a particular candidate over another doesn't surprise me. What surprises me is the number of people who will still maintain that the mainstream press is either not biased or biased in a conservative direction. True, many of these claims come from places like The Huffington Post or Democratic Underground. But one would think the differences in coverage would be apparent even to these folks. Sheesh.

Also, I just can resist pointing out the obvious: Biden is NOT best known for his expertise on foreign affairs. He's best known for his stupid statements. Most of the public has been so taken up with his big mouth that they have never even heard of his resume details. 

I also have a difficult time with the claim that McCain's choice of Palin is an "unabashed bid for supporters of Hillary Rodham Clinton." The ONLY thing the two appear to have in common is the lacking of that particular appendage that biologically makes a man. Well, that and the ability to have babies... but the two go hand in hand. 

Palin

Democratic strategists compared her selection to those of Geraldine A. Ferraro in 1984 or Dan Quayle in 1988, suggesting that the decision reflected desperation by Mr. McCain. "He feels a little like Walter Mondale," said Jim Jordan, a Democratic political consultant. "He's a respected Washington lifer who's run into political forces that are bigger than himself. And he's responded by making a decision that feels panicky." 

I wish I could juxtapose the printed Republican talking points against this one, but - alas! There were none printed in Biden's two-page fawningly worded article. In his article, after two pages of flattery, they finally printed one paragraph that was less than complimentary:

Biden

Mr. Biden is hardly an entirely safe choice. He was forced to apologize to Mr. Obama almost the moment he entered the race for president after he was quoted as describing him as "the first mainstream African-American who is articulate and bright and clean and a nice-looking guy," a remark that drew criticism for being racially insensitive. While campaigning in New Hampshire, Mr. Biden said that "you cannot go to a 7-Eleven or a Dunkin' Donuts unless you have a slight Indian accent."

Republicans made clear that they intended to keep a close eye on Mr. Biden, looking to exploit any more moments like those. 

Ah, yes... those darned Republican exploiters!! Looking to exploit uncomfortable moments for Democrats, looking to exploit the poor, the downtrodden... even mother earth herself. 

I am still feeling optimistic. The mainstream media can try to paint the situation however it wants, but the truth is this:

Obama made a stupid choice. Biden is a hot-headed big mouth racist buffoon.

McCain made a smart choice. Palin is a young, good looking (sorry, but that does appear to matter, with television and all), pro-life, pro-drilling, gun-totin' Christian woman who will make the conservative base take a second look at that ticket. The fact that she's a woman will also attract a few stragglers who were angry that Hillary was beat out because they wanted a woman in office (but they don't closely follow politics in any other respect). To top that all off, she's a working (as a governor, no less) mother of FIVE. And, I believe, she has one child with Down's Syndrome and another child in Iraq.

Another blog on Palin soon. We should all know as much about her as we can, right?

Some Bad Behavior For Ya

Well, one cannot help but be entertained by the bad behavior of those in oppositions to one's own beliefs. After all, their bad behavior must make them look bad to the thinking folks in the country, right? Besides, it's either be entertained by it or severely irritated. I prefer to go through life happy -- thus, I choose ENTERTAINMENT. 

San Fran Nan (otherwise known as Nancy Pelosi) recently had a moment. And the moment was not a good one, but it was momentous. She exposed herself as the seventh grade thinker that she is. No, really!! Check it out, because it's hilarious. 

Apparently she was in the middle of a press conference of some sort outside an old train station. Some demonstrators were there, and they (rudely, I imagine) interrupted Nancy with chants of "Drill here! Drill now!" Now, I should take a moment to say that I can understand feeling a certain level of frustration on her part. I mean, she's taken a very strong stand against us taking any of our own oil out of the ground, and I'm sure she's been taking some serious heat for it pretty much everywhere she goes (except, maybe San Francisco). Certainly, she should be able to have one lousy press conference without people hounding her about her beliefs and political practices. 

However, Nancy cracked. Not immediately, mind you. Initially, she tried to douse the situation with a bit of humor. "Right here?" she replied. Now, THIS was funny. A great response to a situation that had to be very annoying for her. Of course, she followed this up with her middle school speech, "Can we drill your brains?" 

WHAT?! Did that just come out of the mouth of a grown up? Like from a tall person? A fully grown human being? How strange!! Almost makes you wonder if her next sentence was going to be, "My daddy is bigger than your daddy..." Quickly followed then by a one-word sentence, "MINE!" The regression was that fast!

Of course the "drill your brains" comment was, by far, the most entertaining thing she said. But she followed it up with a speech about how drilling for our own oil would result in a reduction of gas prices by only a couple pennies a decade from now. And then majority leader Hoyer condescendingly insinuated that people who are for drilling here are not "thinking Americans." 

So,  yes... they're losing it. 

The bigger question is: Does anybody notice?

An Opportunity To Complain

The ability to never never never be pleased has been honed to a fine art. 

In an article in the NYT, Roderick J. Harrison (a demographer who happens to have black skin) is quite excited about Barack Obama becoming the Democratic nominee -- his excitement, however, is tempered (in spite of the chills he may feel now and again) by uneasiness as he wonders: "Will Mr. Obama's success further the notion that the long struggle for racial equality has finally been won?"

As I read this, my first thought was, "You have GOT to be kidding me." But no -- they're not kidding. As the NYT reports, "But even as they cheer him on, some black scholars, bloggers and others who closely follow the race worry that Mr. Obama's historic achievements might make it harder to rally support for policies intended to combat racial discrimination, racial inequities and urban poverty." 

Mr. Harrison is, at the age of 59, a sociologist at Howard University and a consultant for the Joint Center for Political and Economic Studies. Well, he certainly SOUNDS important... I'm bettin' that he had some opportunity in order to get to the positions he's in. But he says, "I worry that there is a segment of the population that might be harder to reach, average citizens who will say: 'Come on. We might have a black president, so we must be over it.' That is the danger, that we declare victory. Historic as this moment is, it does not signify a victory in the ongoing, daily battle." 

"Such concerns have been percolating in black intellectual circles for months, on talk radio and blogs, in dinner conversations, academic meetings and flurries of e-mail messages crisscrossing the country." says the article. 

Hmmm... wait a minute. We have black people in professorial positions in colleges and universities... black people in "intellectual circles," black people on talk radio and writing blogs - having dinner conversations, sitting and participating in academic meetings, etc... and their main concern is that it's not yet easy enough to be a successful black person? How easy does it need to be? And a bigger question: if it's easy... is it really success?

Lawrence Bobo, a black sociologist from Harvard, said, "If Obama becomes the president, every remaining, powerfully felt black grievance and every still deeply etched injustice will be cast out of the realm of polite discourse. White folks will just stop listening." 

Huh? No offense, Bobo, but that sounds like typical victim mentality talking there. "Oh no!! We can't have a black man become president of the United States!! If that happens, the white folks will just stop listening to our grievances... and we feel those powerfully! Plus, they'll just keep on racially discriminating and shutting up more black folks than white folks in the prisons! And there won't be anybody trying to dole out bigger hand-outs to lift the black folks out of poverty! You know, there are TWO Americas!!" Well, I'm pretty much in agreement there. There ARE two Americas. There are the workers and there are the takers. 

Bev Smith is a black talk radio host based in Pittsburgh and nationally syndicated. That sounds successful, doesn't it? But here's her concern about Obama: "There's an assumption now that we've made it. Our concern is that we'll get lost in the shuffle." But Bev... you're heard nationally on the radio. I hardly think that you need to worry that YOU'LL get lost. 

I'll tell you... I live in the south. And I live near a large black population. I have met some black people who have been very nice and easy going... but there is another segment of the black population here who are carrying a great and heavy weight... it's holding them down, to be sure. Unfortunately, the only weight they're actually carrying is the large chip on their shoulder - and if they'd just lose that, they would be more capable of looking high enough to see the opportunities available to them. 

Representative Elijah E. Cummings, Democrat of Maryland, says, "A few of my white friends have asked me, 'With Barack achieving all of this, will we be in a position where we can put race aside?'" Mr. Cummings points them to statistics on lingering racial disparities in eduation, health and income. "I hope that progressive-minded people will not make a blanket conclusion that if Barack has made it everybody can make it."

Oy. Mr. Cummings -- you've "made it," haven't you? Or... are you not satisfied unless YOU'RE elected president as well? You do realize that most people in the United States - white OR black - don't end up becoming president? And I'm sorry -- but I already believe that everybody CAN make it, with or without Barack Obama. That's not to say that everybody will. I'm afraid that too many people get confused about equal opportunity. Not all white people have the same opportunity as one another, either. Many white people don't have the opportunity to go to a fine college... many don't have the opportunity to join NASA, be in professional basketball, football, hockey, etc... many don't have the ability which pretty much leaves them out of the opportunity equation. And many don't have the desire, which leaves the opportunity moot. 

But get the chip off your shoulder, seize the opportunities available to you, and make something of yourself. If you don't have the desire to do so, then stop complaining. 

The Chosen One Makes His Choice

And the jury is IN! Obama has officially announced his running mate and, frankly, I couldn't have asked for a more entertaining figure. There's so much I find funny about this I don't even know where to start.

Joe Biden, while running for the presidency himself this time around, made some of the most hilarious comments. To name a few...

In commenting on the growth of the Indian-American population in Delaware, "You cannot go into a 7-11 or a Dunkin' Donuts unless you have a slight Indian accent. Oh, I'm not joking."

When asked how a "northeast liberal" could compete against more conservative southern candidates, "Better than everybody else. You don't know my state. My state was a slave state. My state is a border state. My state is the eighth largest black population in the country. My state is anything from a northeast liberal state."

When visiting South Carolina, Biden referred to Delaware as a "slave state that fought beside the North. That's only because we couldn't figure out how to get to the South. There were a couple of states in the way."

When describing Barack Obama, "I mean, you got the first mainstream African-American who is articulate and bright and clean and a nice-looking guy. I mean, that's storybook, man."

When trying to get out of the above comment, "Barack Obama is probably the most exciting candidate that the Democratic or Republican Party has produced at least since I've been around. And he's fresh. He's new. He's smart. He's insightful. And I really regret that some have taken totally out of context my use of the world 'clean.'"

What a hoot. I had never seen lips quite so puckered up! And the fact that the only thing he could find offensive about his prior comment was his reference to "clean" is just hilarious.

The New York Times, in their article on the subject, cited among Biden's strengths his "familiarity with foreign policy and national security issues" and that "he is also something of a fixture in Washington, and would bring to the campaign - and the White House - a familiarity with the way the city and Congress works that Mr. Obama cannot match after his relatively short stint in Washington." Apparently, the candidate who seeks "change" cannot make this change without a Washington insider at his side? 

Not to mention the fact that when Biden was jockeying for the presidential position himself, his loudest argument was that Barack Obama was "not yet ready" to be president. Apparently, these last few months have made him ready. Ah, ambition is an interesting animal!

Joe Biden ran for the presidency in 1988 as well. He was forced to quit this presidential bid after being accused for plagiarizing one of his speeches in part. In truth, this same speech was given multiple times with credit voiced to the original author of the disputed words in all speeches but one. It seems to me quite possible that this was an oversight, and I really wouldn't hold it against him.

BUT... He also received an F in one of his classes in college for plagiarism and had to re-take the course. And he was questioned by a New Hampshire resident about his grades in law school (which seems a silly question to ask of a candidate, but whatever) and his response was a direct lie. I couldn't care less about his grades, but I do care about his integrity. He claimed to have graduated in the top half of his class (which is a claim to intellectual mediocrity - if you're going to lie you might as well try for something better than that). The truth was that he graduated 76th in a class of 85. He stated that he attended on a full scholarship and received three degrees. He actually graduated with two majors on a single B.A. - and went on a half scholarship based on financial need. 

To top it all off, Biden seems perhaps not too sure of Barack Obama's chances to win. His senate seat is up for re-election this year as well and it is said that he will be simultaneously running for both positions. There's some confidence for ya! 

I feel encouraged -- No matter how the election cycle turns out in the end, it's bound to be an entertaining ride on the way there. 

A Perfect Example

Ashante Mayfield is dead at the age of 14.

This sad story was reported in the Charlotte Observer on August 20th. I read the headline and thought, "That's sad," and then moved on to other news. 

Today, there was another article about Ashante titled, "A Troubled Past, An Early Death." And, in reading the article, I found a perfect example of what's wrong with our society today. 

Ashante's family gave up custody of her when she was twelve, saying that she was out of control. She spent time in group homes and foster families, but had a record of consistently running away. But here's the kicker: "Now her family members wonder why authorities didn't do more to prevent their daughter from running away, or track her down before she was killed. 'She wasn't in New York, she wasn't in California, she was right here in Charlotte,' said her aunt. 'Her mother tried to get help for her. Social Services is supposed to help you out when you have children and need help.'"

Whoa... back up the truck a minute! These people are this girl's family. Yes, family! And they gave her up to the state saying, essentially, "I can't take care of this kid anymore. She's out of control, I don't know how to control her, and I've had enough. YOU do it." She consistently ran away from every environment in which the state placed her (calling home occasionally to let them know that she was alright). Now that she's no longer alright, the family wants to know why the state didn't do more? What should they have done? I can guarantee that the state cannot do more to love your children than you can. And while there is a system in place, that system is notoriously imperfect. 

I'm not judging this family for giving up custody of a child they couldn't handle. Not ever having been in the stressful position of trying to raise a truly out of control child, I wouldn't dare to suggest options for them. I honestly have no clue. But this assumption that the state could and should do better than we as individual citizens is a dangerous one. 

And it sounds a lot like what I hear coming from many liberal circles... The state should take care of health care - the state should make sure every child can go to college - the state should, the state should, the state should. It's irresponsible to just hand over our freedoms so that we can have the "protection" of the state. 

Once we hand over the custody of our freedom to the state, we give up control. It might sound nice to have somebody else responsible for our children, for our healthcare, for our education, for the price of our gasoline and groceries, etc... But with somebody else responsible, we lack the ability to make a change to our situation. State-controlled health care? What happens when somebody is ill and the state decides it's not worth the cost to care for them? What happens when the public education system is failing and there are few options available beyond that system? 

I'm sad for Ashante's family. They are grieving the loss of a loved one. But blaming the state seems to me a bit irrational. Not that they're not entitled to a bit of irrational thought in their grief. 

Obama and McCain Square Off

So... did you catch the "faith forum" at Saddleback Church? Pastor Rick Warren hosted both major candidates separately, asking them the same questions. It was an interesting way to juxtapose the two men. After seeing this affair, I think I may be able to go vote McCain after all -- and without holding my nose shut too tightly to do it. This is not to say that I'm a new McCain fan. Far from it. But the idea of Barack Obama in the White House is just so terrifying to me that a vote for McCain doesn't really seem all that bad.

A few questions and answers really stood out. Warren asked them what three people they would rely on the most for wisdom and expertise in their administration. Frighteningly enough, Barack's first two people were his wife, Michelle, and his grandmother. He then went on to say some more people, naming politicians and their political affiliations... but his focus was heavily on Michelle. I cannot think of a person I would want LESS influencing a presidential administration, to be honest. 

McCain, on the other hand, immediately named David Petraeus. Considering the fact that our country is at war, it's a good thing that an intelligent military official came to his mind first. He then went on to say John Lewis and Meg Whitman. 

When asked which Supreme Court Justices each man would NOT have nominated, Obama said Clarence Thomas (and received a round of applause upon saying so - ??!?). He went on to say he didn't think Clarence Thomas was a great legal thinker at the time he was nominated. He then named Alito and said that while he was an intelligent man, Obama disagrees with his interpretation of the constitution. Warren asked specifically about Roberts, and Obama said that was more difficult because he finds Roberts to be a "compelling person in conversation individually." It really should have been an easy answer -- Obama would never have nominated Roberts... he cast his vote against confirming him.

Obama then expounded on what he considers to be the courts "most important job." And get this: it is to "guard against the encroachment of the executive branch on the other branches." Huh. Isn't that interesting?? Somehow, in Obama's mind, the judicial branch's most important job is to make sure the executive branch of the government is controlled by the judiciary. Doesn't this make the judicial branch the most powerful branch of government? 

McCain's answer to the same question was "with all due respect" Justices Ginsburg, Breyer, Souter, and Stevens. If this is indeed true, I will vote for McCain on the basis of the Supreme Court alone! 

You know what I find to be interesting? The primaries are over - the general election has begun. And, predictably, Obama has moved to the right. Of course, he started out so far left as to be almost off the page... so there wasn't too much room to wiggle except to the right. But what's really fascinating is that McCain has been moving to the right as well. 

He was unequivocal in his response to the question on abortion. At what point is a life deserving of human rights? AT CONCEPTION - no hesitation, no waffling. And this, I think, I would expect from McCain. He's always been pretty staunchly pro-life. Obama? The question was "above my pay grade." And he gave the old song and dance about how nobody is pro-abortion, but he knows that women don't make these decisions lightly. (That's an entirely different blog, so I'm not even going to go there.)

McCain was outspoken in his willingness to drill for oil here. Now... I'm thinkin' this is new for him. He's usually quite the environmentalist. But he spoke about how we're paying money to the people and governments who "don't like us very much." Well stated.

Could it be that McCain was speaking to his audience - and he figured that he was talking to Evangelicals so he needed to be more conservative? Perhaps... but his statements were made in such a decisive manner that it would be pretty difficult for him to speak differently to a different crowd. 

I'm newly interested in the general election. Wouldn't it be great if the networks could host their debates as effectively as this forum?