Friday, December 12, 2008

The YouTube Elections by: Carly Perez and Jennifer Donegan


The most important political venue of the year wasn’t the Pepsi Center in Denver, CO where the Democratic National Convention (DNC) was held, nor was it the Xcel Energy Center in St. Paul, Minnesota. You could guess that it was maybe one of the cities that held the Presidential debates, but you would be wrong. In fact, the most important political venue during this past 2008 Presidential election was right in everyone’s hands, YouTube. Between the political commercials that were posted by each, the republican and the democratic campaigns, and the user generated videos; YouTube has become a phenomenon and a huge player in politics.
Two of the most viewed videos of the 2008 Presidential Election were “Yes We Can” and “Dear Mr. Obama.” The celebrity packed “music-video” “Yes We Can” was inspired by President Elect Barack Obama’s concession speech given in the New Hampshire Primary on the 8th of January, 2008; the video is a repetitive and uplifting compilation of artists pouring their soul into those three very inspirational words, “Yes We Can.” This video was created by will-i-am and Jesse Dylan, Bob Dylan’s son, and aided with the collaboration of countless other famous and not-so-famous names was not a part of the Obama campaign. Its music-video style was targeted toward the young voter, to spread the word of “Change”, “Hope”, and what it means to vote.
The second viral video on YouTube that has generated the most “hits” during the 2008 election until now is the video, “Dear Mr. Obama”. This video, written, directed and produced by YouTube username “weneedmccain”, or Michael C. Brown, is a video of an injured American soldier speaking directly to the camera or, “Mr. Obama”. His speech is pointed towards President Elect Obama about the disrespect “he” feels that Obama expressed to millions of Americans when he called the war in Iraq a “mistake.”
Our content analysis of “Yes We Can” and “Dear Mr. Obama,” was broken down into two categories, the video content and the content within the comments for each video. Then within the two categories we evaluated them by the number of times they mentioned the presidential candidates, the amount the videos touched on the major issues of the election (the Iraq war, healthcare, economy, terrorism), and finally, we looked at the frequency of election “buzz words” (change, hope, and freedom).
Our content analysis was driven by our studies’ research questions:
• What were the issues addressed in the video content?
• How did viewers respond to these videos through comments?
• Is the YouTube content and the comments of these two videos reflective of the trends that occurred during the election?
Through our content analysis and answering of our research questions, we find conclusive evidence of major trends that occurred during this presidential election that were mirrored in YouTube and the media.

Literature Review/Background:

No longer relying on the daily newspaper and nightly broadcast, news consumers are now looking to the Internet as their dominant news source. In a 2008 study, the Pew Research Center found that before the primaries began 24 percent of Americans said they regularly learned something about the campaign from the Internet; almost double the percentage from a comparable point in the 2004 campaign.3 And more specific to the Internet, Web 2.0 has shown considerable impact on public consumption. Web 2.0 is a term used to describe the evolution of the World Wide Web, which has become an interactive conversation through social networking sites, blogs, and YouTube. With the mass popularity of the Internet and Web 2.0, their main following however, is from young people. Within the same Pew study eight percent of persons under the age of 30 citied YouTube as a campaign news source. YouTube, which is the fourth top site in the United States and has a traffic ranking of three according to the Alexa Web Information Company was having a significant impact on the way people formed their opinions on the election.
Signs of YouTube’s impact on the presidential election began as early as the summer of 2006, a time when during a typical election activity would have been limited. But this year was anything but typical, as one wrong word, mispronunciation, and regretful remark was quickly posted on YouTube and available for the masses to be played again and again and again.
This degree of availability on YouTube created an unattainable standard of perfection expected by the candidates and as a result would cost a candidate the race before it even truly began. This made the candidates need to get things right the first time crucial. In the New York Times article, “The YouTube Election,” the political arena was quick to criticize this new expectation marked by YouTube. “What’s happened is that politicians now have to be perfect from Day 1,” said Matthew Dowd, a strategist for President Bush in the article. A senior adviser to Senator Hillary Clinton added to Dowd’s point saying, “It is a continuation of a trend in which politicians have to assume they are on live TV all the time.”
This presidential election crossed new territory on all fronts. But YouTube was always at the forefront, which was evident when both the democratic and republic parties participated in the first-ever CNN YouTube debates during the summer of 2007. The YouTube debates made history; for the first time ever user-generated videos were used to ask the candidates questions. “YouTube enables voters and candidates to communicate in a way that simply was not possible during the last election,” said Chad Hurley, CEO and co-founder of YouTube in the online CNN article, “Your Voice to be Heard in Historic Debate.” “For the first time in the history of presidential debates, voters from around the country will be able to ask the future president of the United States a question in a video form and hear the answer.”
The YouTube debates were an early indication of the candidate’s ability to work with YouTube. Both McCain and Obama have and had throughout the duration of the election their own YouTube channels featuring speeches, events, and TV ads. Obama specifically took advantage of YouTube’s capabilities. During the primaries, Obama’s pastor Rev. Jeremiah Wright was harshly criticized for his outspoken and highly controversial sermons. Many of Wright’s reckless sermons were posted on YouTube only aiding to the public’s distain for him, which was negatively impacting Obama. Obama however, fired right back with a rebuttal YouTube video of a speech he had made in Philadelphia. Obama’s quick response to the controversy through YouTube calmed the ciaos and attracted 5.3 million viewers.4
The progression of YouTube’s impact was evident up until the final months of the election. Initially reporting 24 percent for Americans who watched political YouTube videos, the Pew Research Center found that that number had increased to 39 percent by late October. The American public was taking an active role through YouTube by consuming and producing content for the first time in history. On the day of the election, 28 percent of voters said they had watched candidate’s speeches online.3 YouTube’s role throughout the course of this election was groundbreaking as candidates and the public took advantage of expressing their views and opinions like never before.
Our study focuses on user generated YouTube content. Specifically, a content analysis of the two most popular user-generated viral videos during the time of the election with no political affiliation, “Yes We Can” and “Dear Mr. Obama.”
Description of Video Content and Comment Content:
“Yes We Can” was released to the public viewers of YouTube on February 2nd, 2008 by will-i-am, a political activist musician and member of the popular music group The Black Eyed Peas. “Yes We Can,” is a four minute and 30 second long stylized music video and was awarded the first-ever Emmy Award for Best New Approaches in Daytime Entertainment.
The lyrics of this video are entirely derived from Barack Obama’s inspirational speech in New Hampshire. Musicians and actors echo Obama’s words, as his voice is a constant in the background. Produced by will-i-am and directed by Bob Dylan’s son, Jesse Dylan, this video was an asset to Obama’s campaign that combined the methods of education, inspiration, and celebrity in a fashion that was able to reach out to the youth vote.
Since it’s release on the YouTube channel WeCan08, the video “Yes We Can” has received over 14,419,306 viewers and is growing in viewership at a rate of about 300 or more viewers per twenty minutes. (12/7/2008). The channel itself has 4,827 subscribers, 104,355 channel views and about 1,176 “friends.” “Yes We Can,” has created strong reactions from viewers with a total of 87,507 comments. The following is a comment on “Yes We Can,” posted a month ago by YouTube user “bigpotatofive:”
I believe in Obama, but there is still plenty to fear, we cannot sit back and watch until the work is done and there truly is change. People take it for granted that even though Bush brought many problems, he kept America safe. Our enemies are patient and once we let our guard down, I will be disappointed but not surprised if we are attacked again. Don’t let your guard down.
“Dear Mr. Obama” is a short minute and 55 second video that pacts a powerful punch. The video features Sgt. Joe Cook, an Iraqi veteran, addressing Obama and his disrespectful comments towards the Iraq war. An excerpt from “Dear Mr. Obama” is as follows:
When you call the Iraqi war a mistake you disrespect the service and sacrifice of everyone who has died promoting freedom… Because you do not understand or appreciate these principles Sir, I am supporting Senator John McCain for president.
The video concludes with the veteran walking away revealing that he is an amputee, then the closing message appears, which reads, “John McCain for President, the day we lose our will to fight is the day we lose our freedom.” “Dear Mr. Obama,” was written, directed, and produced by Michael C. Brown, who goes by the YouTube alias, weneedmccain. Brown’s main reasons for creating “Dear Mr. Obama,” circulates around four main points; It is wrong for elected officials to call the war a mistake, officials complaining about the war is a moot point because neither candidate will be able to pull the troops out of Iraq for at least two years, the historical aspect of freedom and the fight against Tierney is what the United States is based upon and, the final point is to support the troops and their mission until they are able to come home.
“Dear Mr. Obama,” has received 13, 381, 492 views to date, has a four star rating, 47,266 ratings, and 3,234 comments. “Dear Mr. Obama” runs on Brown’s YouTube channel “weneedmccain.” The channel itself has 4,604 subscribers and 204,794 channel views. Because of the strong message that “Dear Mr. Obama” provides, comments were highly opinionated. The following is a comment posted by “msw47” a month ago:
The Iraq war has had such a negative view from the media. Quite a few Democrats believe they know everything that’s going on over there, which is not true for the most part. We need to finish the job so that leaders like Saddam don’t rise up again. The Iraqi government needs to stabilize itself in order for this not to happen again. I would’ve voted third party, but I just had to send a message to Obama that I am not supportive of his presidency.

With the content of “Yes We Can” and “Dear Mr. Obama” and the viewer reactions reflected in the comments we attempted to answer three research questions that shaped our study:
• What were the issues addressed in the video content?
• How did viewers respond to these videos through comments?
• Is the YouTube content and the comments of these two videos reflective of the trends that occurred during the election?
This study focuses on how the content of the videos and the viewers comments are reflective of overall trends of the election which are; The strong themes of hope and change synonymous with Obama and the “Obama obsession,” which has been evident in the media’s focus on him rather than McCain. The aim was to see how these videos and comments are reflective of these themes and trends, which we’ve been seeing all throughout this election year.
Our content analysis was broken down into two categories, the video content and the content within the comments for each video (we took a sample of the first 50 comments for each video). Within the two categories we evaluated them by the number of times they mentioned the presidential candidates, the amount the videos touched on the major issues of the election (the Iraq war, healthcare, economy, terrorism), and finally, we looked at the frequency of election “buzz words” (change, hope, and freedom).
To our knowledge, this type of research has never been conducted before which presented some challenges. One of the major challenges we faced was the inconsistent amount of comments, because comments were constantly being added. Because of this factor we decided to time stamp when we began evaluating the comments. The following is an example of our content analysis coding which we used to analyze each video:
Video: Dear Mr. Obama
Length: 13, 341, 957
Views: 47, 052
Comments: 3,234
Video Content
Mention of Candidates:
Obama: 1

Issues Mentioned:
Iraq War: 2
Terrorism: 1

Buzz Words:
Hope: 1
Freedom: 6
Vote: 0
Video Comments
Total: 50
In support of the video: 44
Not in support of the video: 6

Mention of Candidates:
Obama: 33
McCain: 38

Issues Mentioned:
Iraq War: 12
Terrorism: 5
Economy: 0
Health-Care: 0

Through our content analysis of “Dear Mr. Obama,” we found that the content of the video focused on the war and freeing the Iraqi people (figure 1.1). Figure 1.2 shows that the majority of the comments focused on the candidates with Obama having a 31 percent chance of mention and McCain having a 37 percent chance. Through our analysis of “Yes We Can,” we found that the content of the video overwhelmingly focused on the idea of change (figure 1.3). Figure 1.4 demonstrates that the comments for “Yes We Can” had a strong mention of Obama at 69 percent followed by a 22 percent chance of mentioning change.
While researching the viewer comments we found that the “Dear Mr. Obama” video had many more elaborate and educated comments from viewers that seemed to be genuinely interested in why the video creator created the video and what his thoughts were on certain subjects of the campaign. The comment board became a sort of “chat room” with many YouTube users repeatedly making comments as viewers expressed their thoughts and opinions to one another while being able to maintain an educated reproach. Overall the comments were in strong support of the video’s message and in strong support for McCain.
Although there were educated comments made for the “Yes We Can” video, the comments were much more reactive and off the wall. Many of the viewer comments were much more passionate than that of the “Dear Mr. Obama” video. Countless videos were cheers like “GO OBAMA” or very negative remarks against Obama. Overall however, the comments were mainly positive towards the video and its message.
Our study reveals that the content of the “Dear Mr. Obama” video focused on the war and Iraqi freedom, which correlated with the comments that focused on McCain and the need to vote. However, even with a 37 percent mention of McCain in the comments we found it interesting that a video in support of McCain was actually being directed towards Obama. And viewers made mention of Obama in their comments only six percent less times than McCain, although it was a video with a republican backing.
The content of the “Yes We Can” video focused on change, which correlated with the amount of comments that mentioned Obama (at 69 percent). Change was of course, the cornerstone of the Obama campaign in order to distinguish himself from President Bush and his failing policies.
This evidence answers our research question of “is the YouTube content and comments of these two videos reflective of the trends that occurred during the election?” The answer is “yes.” Overall the video content and the content within the comments were reflective of trends occurring in the mainstream media throughout the election; that is the landslide of coverage on Obama rather than McCain and the theme of change. Even when a video was in support of McCain, it is still directed towards Obama, and although the comments for “Dear Mr. Obama” were overwhelming in support of the message, Obama still had a high instance of relevance as viewers were more likely to debate the two candidates. This was not true for “Yes We Can,” where there was only a six percent mention of McCain while Obama was mentioned 69 percent of the time.
In conclusion we found that YouTube was a very effective tool in the elections especially for Obama and that the videos we analyzed were reflective of mainstream media.

Monday, November 10, 2008

Jenn's and Carly's Research Proposal on New Media and Election 08

This Presidential election has been like no other with the presence and importance of the Internet. Web 2.0 has created an elaborate tapestry that has woven its way through the minds of millions of Americans and the way they formed their opinion on this year's candidates. With the capacity to reach millions, youtube, facebook, and blogs have changed the game for the race to the white house. Our study sharpens the lens on this "new media" and how it shaped this historic election.
Our study will focus on the effects and effectiveness of new media. That is, the consequences of web 2.0, intended or not and the success it has had with it's intended objectives, such as attracting large audiences and influencing the opinions and behaviors of the public. We will interpret the effects and effectiveness of new media through three main avenues of popularity, youtube, facebook, and blogs.
Our research questions for this study include:
• What were the positive and negative effects of new media on the presidential candidates of 2008?
• Which presidential campaign was most effective in their use of new media?
• What area of web 2.0-facebook, youtube, or blogs, has had the greatest influence on the public, and why?
Our study is significantly relevant because this is the first election where anyone and everyone have been given the opportunity to stand on a virtual soapbox to spout their political ideals and contribute to the overall conversation. New media is rising in popularity extremely fast, youtube, facebook, and (a search engine for blogs) are all within the top ten for the list of the top 500 sites on the web ( The public is contributing to these sites in record numbers; 70% of Americans logged into the Internet and 20% users worldwide ( the reach is only continuing to expand as technology becomes more accessible. YouTube, for example, became more accessible through the launch of YouTube Mobile available through a web interface at And since last summer, the public has been able to connect to YouTube on Apple TV and on the iPhone via Wi-Fi. All of these outlets are increasing traffic and content as the audience grows.
YouTube is a video sharing website that holds the capability for users to upload and share millions of their favorite videos, original and not. Founded on February 15th 2005 by Steve Chen, Chad Hurley and Jawed Karim, YouTube has only grown from there. An article in the “Wall Street Journal,” written by Lee Gomes in August 2006, stated that YouTube had more or less than 5.1 million videos at that time. In the state of South Carolina that is about one video posted per person. A month later, Gomes says that the number of videos posted had grown to 6.1 million, which is at least a 20% increase. As of April 9th, 2008, a YouTube search returned about 83.4 million videos and 3.75 million user created channels and YouTube continues to become one of the most popular social networking sites out there.
The social Impact of YouTube has been greater than any of the wizards behind the curtain could have ever imagined. There have been countless videos that have gained popularity for them and for their creators solely through posting to YouTube. A good example of this would be the Obama Girl video that was posted back in June 2007. With the success of her first video, “I’ve Got A Crush On Obama”, the notorious Obama Girl formed her own YouTube Channel “” that has had over four million channel views and over 82,000 channel subscribers. Although YouTube was just a way for her to break into the media world, causing a sensation in the news media getting plays on CNN and write-ups in Newsweek. Because of the success of the Obama Girl’s videos and her channel, she has been able to bring many of her original humorous and satirical political videos to the public by streaming them on this online network.
This past 2008 U.S. Presidential Election used YouTube as a method of advertisement to get out their candidates names and faces to the public. The people had direct access to information about their candidates via YouTube such as their statements, previous campaign speeches and interviews. During the primaries, Hilary Clinton used YouTube as a more creative outlet to interact with her supporters by coming up with a parody of the season finale of “The Sopranos” with her and her husband former President Bill Clinton. This video received millions of viewers on YouTube and also was shown on news channels all around the country putting her name out there and connecting her to the more human quality of humor. ( Creating this video as a method to connect her supporters with her campaign, trying to pick her campaign song, she made herself more available and more down to earth rather than just a US Presidential candidate.
Blogs, which was coined by Peter Merholz, began gaining popularity in early 2000. Blogs were seen as virtual diaries, with online entries maintained by the creator of the blog. Since then, we have seen the blogsphere reach popularity that even the experts couldn’t imagine. Blogs receive four times the number of visits compared to traditional news (Time). There are several categories of blogs, personal blogs, corporate blogs, media institution blogs, etc. With our study, we will focus on mainstream political blogs that have the greatest amount of online traffic. These blogs include, Huffington, which has 2,777,280 compete monthly visitors, that has 2,187,547 compete monthy vistors, and with 1,836,898 compete monthly visitors. We will also look at Obama’s and McCain’s blogs on their individual campaign websites.
Facebook, which was launched in 2004 by Harvard dropout Mark Zuckerberg is a social networking website that allows free-access to connect with others. Originally created for college students, facebook is now open to the public, as users create their own profiles and contribute to their friend’s profiles by wall posts. In the summer of 2007, facebook was attracting 26.6 million monthly visitors, as the visitors continue to spend more time on the site with an average of 186 minutes per month (Washington Post). With the intensity of this year’s election users of facebook become extremely more vocal in their support for the candidates. Many donated their facebook status to their candidate, with statuses that read as follows, “Kate Kidd has donated her status to remind everyone to vote for Barack Obama today. Donate your status:” By users donating their status, a record was set of the largest online rally in history with a total of 1,745,754 people and 4,896,031 status messages set. Specifically, 70 percent of users who participated donated their status to Obama while 21 percent donated their status for McCain. After being categorized as an apathetic generation, the medium of facebook was largely instrumental in getting the youth vote off of the sidelines and onto the main stage of the political platform.
We will conduct our study through a content analysis of facebook, youtube, and blogs. We will look at each of these forums individually. With facebook we will look at political stances taken through notes, statuses, and profiles. With youtube we will concentrate on viral videos, which videos have received the most hits, links, and comments. Lastly, with blogs, we will focus on the blogs that receive the most traffic and why. In addition to our content analysis, we will also conduct a survey through facebook to sample the popularity of new media.
Our sample will be a short with an open-ended format. A sample of it is as
• Did you use facebook, blogs, or YouTube to support your candidate? If so, how, and what was your favorite site? Did you donate your status, make blog posts, or create online videos, etc…?
• Why or why not did you support your candidate through these outlets?
• If you did support a candidate via facebook, blogs, or YouTube, do you think your contribution influenced other users opinions?
With this survey and the extensive content analysis, our study will be a well-rounded investigation of the effects and effectiveness of new media.

Sunday, October 26, 2008

Barbara West is a Sav!

A real reporter asks Joe Biden actually TOUGH questions. And valid ones too, despite Biden's scoffs.

She must not be a media elite.

Afterwards, the Obama campaign cried about the hawd questions and even cancelled Mrs. Biden's interview with the station to show them who's boss.

Tuesday, October 21, 2008

Obama Supporter Beats Up McCain Supporter... Media Silent

Obama Supporter Beats Up McCain Supporter... Media Silent

While the unsubstantiated reports of nasty remarks and advocacy of violence from attendees at McCain's rallies remains the buzz from the Old Media establishment and as the Old Media points its accusing finger at Gov. Palin, constantly calling her a racist, real violence has been perpetrated on a McCain supporter at the hands of an Obamaton. Yet, strangely enough, the media has remained silent on the incident.

Oleg Atbashian informs us that the District Attorney of New York has indicted an Obama supporter that ripped a McCain sign out of the hands of a McCain supporter and beat her in the face with the wooden stick to which the sign was attached.

The complaint reads, “Defendant grabbed the sign [informant] was holding, broke the wood stick that was attached to it, and then struck informant in informant’s face thereby causing informant to sustain redness, swelling, and bruising to informant’s face and further causing informant to sustain substantial pain.”

He rushed towards them, grabbed a McCain sign off a volunteer’s hands, and tore it apart. That didn’t seem enough.

(The Victim reports) I said, “What are you doing? You can’t do that!” And he was red in the face screaming, “You people are ridiculous!” And I said, “Yeah, whatever, but you can’t do that.”

So I reached for the sign that he ripped up, and he grabbed another sign, broke it, and ripped it to shreds. And when I said, “You can’t do that,” he took the stick from the sign and started beating me on the head with it. He broke the skin on my head, he scratched my wrist, and almost broke my glasses, and then he left.

The victim, a small middle-aged woman, flagged down a policeman. They confronted the Obamamaniac and he admitted his attack. And now the DA has brought charges.

More information can be seen on a blog named "The 'Silent' Majority No More".

So, while the media chases myths and "bedtime stories" (as Atbashian puts it) about mean, rotten, dastardly Republicans -- the ones not even the Secret Service can find -- they are completely ignoring a real assault by a real, unhinged Obama supporter.

But, who can blame the Old Media, huh? After all, everyone just knows that Obama supporters are better people than McCain supporters, right? Gosh, we can't let just one real-life Obama supporter make all the rest look bad, could we? No, better to write about mean ol' McCainiacs that don't really exist, eh?

That's our media for you.

MSM Bias... What else is new?

CBS and NBC Refuse to Scold Obama’s False Slam on McCain

Photo of Rich Noyes.

Over the past few days, the Obama campaign has been claiming — both in ads and in statements by Barack Obama himself — that John McCain would “cut” Medicare benefits by “$882 billion,” a charge that the Associated Press called “shaky” and that bluntly dismissed as “bogus” and “false.”

Yet of the three broadcast networks, only ABC News has thus far joined the condemnation of Obama’s deceptive ad. NBC on Monday would only go so far as to say “McCain’s advisors say that’s not true...” — implying that it’s merely a partisan difference of opinion — while CBS has thus far refrained from questioning Obama’s truthfulness on this issue.

For weeks now, the networks have complained about the McCain campaign’s supposed nasty and unfair campaign attacks against Obama, so when will NBC and CBS join ABC in punishing this nasty and unfair charge from the Democrats?

ABC’s Jake Tapper in a “Fact Check” that aired on Monday’s Good Morning America, as transcribed by the MRC’s Scott Whitlock:

JAKE TAPPER: Good morning, Robin. Well, in the closing weeks of any political campaign, as candidates careen through battleground states in their campaign buses, they tend to leave the facts by the side of the road. In Virginia, Senator Barack Obama launched a new attack, saying John McCain plans to gut Medicare to pay for his health care proposal.

SENATOR BARACK OBAMA: It turns out, Senator McCain would pay for part of his plan by making drastic cuts in Medicare, $882 billion worth.

TAPPER [Big red “FALSE” stamp appears onscreen]: That's false. The $882 billion number comes from a liberal think tank. The McCain campaign says the savings would not come from cutting benefits, but from program changes such as encouraging the use of more generic drugs.

On Friday’s World News Tonight, ABC’s David Wright had slammed the Obama claims as a “distortion,” but gave McCain a verbal kick in the shins at the same time:

WRIGHT : Today Barack Obama accused John McCain of undermining Medicare.

BARACK OBAMA: Time and again, he's opposed Medicare. In fact, Senator McCain has voted against protecting Medicare 40 times.

WRIGHT: That's a distortion of McCain's record, just as McCain distorts Obama's record when he claims Obama voted 94 times to raise taxes.

On Saturday’s Good Morning America, ABC’s John Berman discussed Obama’s ads, but instead of questioning their accuracy, he saluted the Democratic campaign’s incredible financial resources:

With just two weeks to go until Election Day, Barack Obama is unleashing a three-pronged attack, with his voice, his wallet, and his airplane. The latest front, the new charges about Medicare, claiming McCain would cut spending....It's a sensitive issue in key states with a lot of seniors, such as Florida and Pennsylvania....This new ad is just one of the multimillion dollar barrage from the Obama campaign. He has spent about $60 million more on ads than McCain. And he's outspending him three to one in Virginia, four to one in Florida, and eight to one in North Carolina.

On Monday’s NBC Nightly News, in a longer piece about the candidates’ health policies, reporter Mark Potter raised the issue Obama’s ad but would not condemn it as factually flawed:

POTTER: A recent Obama ad running in Florida and other states...

OBAMA AD: 882 billion from Medicare alone

POTTER: ...accuses McCain of threatening to cut Medicare benefits. But McCain's advisers say that's not true, arguing any cuts in Medicare spending will only come from attacking waste and fraud. Despite its importance, though, neither candidate has made Medicare a campaign priority.

On Saturday, the Associated Press put out a “fact check” headlined: “Obama's claim of benefit cuts suspect.” Reporter Kevin Freking found little basis for Obama’s incendiary claim:

Obama's charge is built on a shaky foundation. The campaign's evidence that McCain would make such cuts relies on a Wall Street Journal article where no specific cuts were mentioned.

In what little detail McCain discusses Medicaid and Medicare on his campaign Web site, he makes no mention of cutting benefits. He says this about the two health programs, the first for the poor, the second for the elderly and disabled: "We must reform the payment systems in Medicaid and Medicare to compensate providers for diagnosis, prevention and care coordination. Medicaid and Medicare should not pay for preventable medical errors or mismanagement."

Then on Monday,’s Brooks Jackson came out even stronger against the Obama claims:

In a TV ad and in speeches, Obama is making bogus claims that McCain plans to cut $880 billion from Medicare spending and to reduce benefits.

● A TV spot says McCain's plan requires “cuts in benefits, eligibility or both.”

● Obama said in a speech that McCain plans “cuts” that would force seniors to “pay more for your drugs, receive fewer services, and get lower quality care.”

These claims are false, and based on a single newspaper report that says no such thing. McCain's policy director states unequivocally that no benefit cuts are envisioned. McCain does propose substantial “savings” through such means as cutting fraud, increased use of information technology in medicine and better handling of expensive chronic diseases. Obama himself proposes some of the same cost-saving measures. We’re skeptical that either candidate can deliver the savings they promise, but that’s no basis for Obama to accuse McCain of planning huge benefit cuts.

Every election year, Democrats seek to convince senior citizens that Republicans are scheming to cut Social Security and/or Medicare benefits, and the media typically provide only a half-hearted pushback against such scare tactics. So far, this year seems little different.

Prop 8 Supporter Hopes Old People Die so Prop 8 is Defeated

Liberal Activist on California Prop 8: If Only Lots of Old Voters Died Before Election

Photo of Ken Shepherd.

If only elderly voters in California would die off in large enough numbers before November 4, then the final nail could be hammered in the coffin of California Proposition 8, a ballot initiative that would define marriage as between a man and a woman. That according to liberal activist Kristina Wilfore, the executive director of the Ballot Initiative Strategy Center, "an advocacy organization that specializes in using ballot initiatives to further liberal causes." Her comments were buried deep inside Michael Lindenberger's October 21 item at

Wilfore says she's prepared to take the long view in California. "I am not going to be discouraged if we lose," she says. Victory will come over time in the courts, as demographics works its influence on the nation's voting patterns, she says, noting that young people support gay marriage far more than their parents and grandparents do. "A lot of people are going to have to die" before Election Day is an easy day for gay marriage, she says.

While Wilfore was not wishing for the deaths of thousands of elderly conservative voters per se, one can imagine the ire the media would focus on such a statement of say a conservative activist annoyed with elderly voters blocking Social Security reforms.

Lindenberger quoted Wilfore in the penultimate paragraph of his article, using the final graf to herald the in-your-face activist liberalism of the mayor of San Francisco, who violated the Golden State's laws on marriage in a famous 2004 act of civil disobedience:
But not everyone has such patience. San Francisco mayor Gavin Newsom, whose office has officiated over marriage ceremonies for thousands of gays since the California Supreme Court decision, told TIME recently that he thinks the outcome of the marriage vote will impact far more than just who can marry and who can't. "We're going to have a chance to find out whether America, and California, is ready for the change embodied in Barack Obama's campaign," said Newsom. "Or does it simply stop with him?" The country will know soon enough.

—Ken Shepherd is Managing Editor of NewsBusters

The Media's Double Standard

uess Who Sees MSM Double-Standard on Biden's Latest Gaffe?

Photo of Mark Finkelstein.

Guess who said the following this morning about Joe Biden's latest gaffe—his statement that America would be faced with a major international crisis within the first six months of an Obama administration as foreign forces seek to test the young new president: "certainly if Sarah Palin had said this, it would be above the fold in most newspapers today."

1. Brent Bozell
2. Rush Limbaugh
3. McCain adviser Nancy Pfotenhauer
4. Dan Rather

If you guessed 1, 2 or 3, you'd be a rational NewsBusters reader . . . but wrong. Yes, the answer is 4, Dan Rather. In true man-bites-MSM mode, Rather made the remark on today's Morning Joe.

View video here.

The show led with a discussion of Biden's vainglorious gaffe.

WILLIE GEIST: Let's listen to Joe Biden in his own words, and then we can discuss it.

Cut to audio clip of Biden in Seattle, Washington yesterday.

JOE BIDEN: The whole world is waiting, folks. The whole world is waiting. I know almost every one of those major leaders by their first name, not because I'm important, because they were young parliamentarians when I was coming up and we've been hanging around a long time. I'll tell you what, mark my words, within the next, first six months of this administration if we win, you're gonna face a major international challenge, because they are going to want to test him just like they did young John Kennedy. They're going to want to test him, and they are going to find out this guy has got steel in his spine.

After Joe Scarborough reported that the Obama campaign is furious with Biden, Mika Brzezinski noted that there was only spotty coverage of Biden's remarks in the morning's papers.

MIKA BRZEZINSKI: Well you know it's interesting, because I'm going through the papers. I figure there's got to be, just as you analyzed, Joe, political ramifications to that comment, gaffe, however you want to make it—two in a row, though—but I'm seeing spotty media coverage. I feel like half the media covered this. I'm just going through the papers and seeing if it plays highly, and I'm not finding it in the [Washington] Post so far.

JOE SCARBOROUGH: Well, let us just say it's surprising, and I would just throw it back to you-all and tell you what the McCain campaign is saying this morning, and what a lot of Republicans, they're asking really a question: what if Sarah Palin had said electing John McCain would create an international crisis because of his age. Would that be above the fold on the front page of the New York Times, the Washington Post? Would that be a lead story? We've got somebody who's an expert in the media who I think, Mika, knows a lot better than we do, Dan Rather. Dan, talk about the double standard. Are there times that you would cover this story differently if Sarah Palin said it rather than Joe Biden? Not you, but the media.

DAN RATHER: Well I think the point is well taken, Joe, that certainly if Sarah Palin had said this it would be above the fold in most newspapers today.

Rather expanded on his comment, and while he was putting it in the mouths of "what happens on the internet," he clearly seemed to be adopting it as his own opinion.

RATHER: But let me point out that what happens on the internet may be as important or more important than what's happening in the newspapers. And I'll be surprised, and you know, Joe, I'm frequently surprised, but I'll be surprised if this doesn't have a run on the internet, with among the points two that you raised. Number one, if Sarah Palin had said this, the newspapers would have jumped all over it and so would have the major television outlets. And number two, they can't be happy inside the Obama campaign about this, and let me emphasize I've not spoken with them this morning.

SCARBOROUGH [who clearly had been in touch with the Obama campaign]: They are not.

You live long enough, you see everything. Let me write words I never imagined I would: I'll let Dan Rather's statement speak for me.

Note: I just heard from the McCain campaign that Biden is off the campaign trail, with no scheduled events today. Now why would that be?

Aside: If only Dan would have spiced up his commentary with some of his classic down-home shtick, perhaps something along the lines: "gosh knows if I were still at the Evening News desk, I'd of buried this story deeper than a large-mouthed bass on a Ju-ly afternoon."

—Mark Finkelstein is a NewsBusters contributing editor and host of Right Angle. Contact him at

Monday, October 20, 2008

Biden's Comments

“Watch, we’re gonna have an international crisis, a generated crisis, to test the mettle of this guy," Biden said. "And he’s gonna have to make some really tough -- I don’t know what the decision’s gonna be, but I promise you it will occur. As a student of history and having served with seven presidents, I guarantee you, it’s gonna happen.”

“They're going to want to test him, just like they did young John Kennedy,” he said Saturday night in San Francisco.” They're going to want to test him. And they're going to find out this guy's got steel in his spine.”

Media Ignores Biden's Claim That Other Countries Will Intentionally "Test" Obama After Election

Twisting in the knife. While Barack Obama gets gushing coverage (ABC's Jake Tapper marveled on Monday's World News over Obama's “rather unbelievable weekend where he had his largest campaign crowd ever -- 100,00 in St Louis -- he announced record-breaking fundraising, $150 million in September and, of course, he secured the endorsement of that Republican Secretary of State, retired General Colin Powell”), ABC and CBS took gratuitous shots at John McCain and Sarah Palin, twisting upbeat events and a Joe Biden gaffe into negatives for the Republican ticket while NBC skipped over Biden's warning Obama's election will invite “an international crisis.”

ABC reporter Ron Claiborne cited McCain's “concentrated attack on Obama as not just a tax raiser, but someone whose policies are socialist. McCain never utters the S-word himself. That's left to his running mate.” But, he warned, “Palin may be a damaged carrier of the McCain message.” Claiborne then paired her Saturday night success with a negative poll finding as he noted “her appearance this weekend on Saturday Night Live was a boost for the show's ratings, but an ABC News poll finds that 52 percent of voters said McCain's choice of Palin made them less confident of his judgment.”

Over on the CBS Evening News, Chip Reid highlighted how a CBS News poll determined “over the last month, 23 percent of voters say their opinion of McCain has gotten worse. Why? 32 percent of those blame his attacks on Obama.” Reid proceeded to bury the Biden misstep under a McCain attack: “Late today, McCain added a new attack to his stump speech, seizing on a recent remark by Obama running mate Joe Biden who suggested that foreign powers would create an international crisis to test the mettle of a President Obama.”

ABC's World News didn't mention Biden's suggestion, at a Sunday fundraiser in Seattle, that the election of Obama will lead to “an international crisis,” though Tapper put it in his blog, and only the NBC Nightly News aired any audio of Biden -- though edited to avoid airing the more damaging portion.

In his Political Punch blog on ABC Tapper reported:

"Mark my words," the Democratic vice presidential nominee said at a Seattle fundraiser Sunday, "it will not be six months before the world tests Barack Obama like they did John Kennedy. The world is looking. We're about to elect a brilliant 47-year-old senator president of the United States of America. Remember I said it standing here if you don't remember anything else I said. Watch, we're gonna have an international crisis, a generated crisis, to test the mettle of this guy."

But instead of airing that prediction of how Obama's election will lead to a crisis, Andrea Mitchell's NBC Nightly News story featured a clip which painted Obama as tough: “They're going to want to test him, just like they did young John Kennedy. They're going to want to test him. And they're going to find out this guy's got steel in his spine.”

Portions of the Monday, October 20 ABC, CBS and NBC stories:

ABC's World News:

RON CLAIBORNE: ...In his latest campaign mantra, McCain once again invoked Joe the Plumber as someone he says would have his taxes raised by Obama. This despite questions whether Joe Wurzelbacher would really face a tax increase under Obama's proposals. In Columbia, he met with some small business owners who McCain claims will also suffer under Obama's tax proposals, and his campaign invited the public to send him 30-second home videos to explaining why they, too, are like Joe. It's all part of a concentrated attack on Obama as not just a tax raiser, but someone whose policies are socialist. McCain never utters the S-word himself. That's left to his running mate.

SARAH PALIN: Now is not the time to experiment with socialism.

CLAIBORNE: But these days, Palin may be a damaged carrier of the McCain message.

[SNL clip]

CLAIBORNE: Her appearance this weekend on Saturday Night Live was a boost for the show's ratings, but an ABC News poll finds that 52 percent of voters said McCain's choice of Palin made them less confident of his judgment...

CBS Evening News:

CHIP REID: ...Over the last month, 23 percent of voters say their opinion of McCain has gotten worse. Why? 32 percent of those blame his attacks on Obama. Late today McCain added a new attack to his stump speech, seizing on a recent remark by Obama running mate Joe Biden who suggested that foreign powers would create an international crisis to test the mettle of a President Obama.

JOHN McCAIN: We don't want a President who invites testing from the world in a time when our economy is in crisis and Americans are already fighting in two wars.

REID: McCain is now spending most of his time in states like Missouri, states that were once reliably Republican but to you could go ert way. Tomorrow he heads for Pennsylvania, one of the few Democratic states he's still contesting. Chip Reid, CBS News, Missouri.

NBC Nightly News:

ANDREA MITCHELL: ...Sunday McCain's long-time friend Colin Powell endorsed Obama and criticized the choice of Sarah Palin.

COLIN POWELL, ON MEET THE PRESS: I don't believe she's ready to be President of the United States, which is the job of the Vice President.

MITCHELL: Powell could boost Obama's foreign policy credentials. But today the McCain camp seized on something Joe Biden said, that Oama would be tested in his first months in office.

AUDIO OF JOE BIDEN: They're going to want to test him, just like they did young John Kennedy. They're going to want to test him. And they're going to find out this guy's got steel in his spine.

JOHN McCAIN: We don't want a President who invites testing from the world at a time when our economy is in crisis.

MITCHELL: Meanwhile, McCain's running mate, fighting the image war, confronted her double on Saturday Night Live...

—Brent Baker is Vice President for Research and Publications at the Media Research Center

Wednesday, October 15, 2008

Real Answers, Not Rhetoric!

Commentary: Give real answers on the economy

By Campbell Brown

NEW YORK (CNN) -- On the eve of the third and final debate, a plea to the presidential candidates: Please don't tell us that as president you are going to have to make some tough decisions.

Yes, you are. We get that. We know that. We're in the middle of a financial crisis that analysts keep telling us is unlike anything we've been through as a country since the Great Depression. Families are at this moment losing their savings, losing their homes, losing their jobs.

We understand that if elected president you are going to have to make some tough decisions. That was Barack Obama's answer at the first debate when he was asked what he would give up among all his proposals and promises, given the financial mess. Video Watch Campell ask for specifics »

His response was about as nonspecific an answer as I have ever heard. And he only gave that answer after he was asked the question by the moderator three times.

At the second debate, his answer was even less helpful. He ignored the question entirely, again talking in vague generalities. I assume Sen. Obama has a sense of the magnitude of the economic challenges we are facing, but those answers sound like they are coming from someone living in la-la land.

John McCain also tried to avoid the question at first and then fell back on a plan he had proposed in April, well before the financial crisis.

At the first debate it took three tries for Sen. McCain to answer, finally repeating his call for a freeze on all discretionary spending with a few exceptions. Whether you love or hate his idea, that is a separate debate, but compared to what we are getting from Obama, McCain at least has offered something concrete.

From both candidates, we need real answers. And please don't tell us that you are going to cut pork barrel spending and scrub the waste out of every bloated federal agency. I mean, name a political candidate who hasn't promised to cut the fat and eliminate waste in government. Please, no bull. Be straight with us, we can take it. Americans understand the stakes. Just give us brutal honesty, because so far we are not really getting it.

The opinions expressed in this commentary are solely those of the writer.

Michelle Obama Has a Temper Temper

Will MSM Investigate Alleged Angry Phone Call by Michelle Obama to African Press International?

So far this story about Michelle Obama's temper tantrum when she called African Press International (API) hasn't been reported by the mainstream media but it is a very hot topic in the Blogosphere. Your humble correspondent checked on the credentials of API and it has been in existence for a little over two years and has filed numerous stories in that period. Additionally, this story has been posted at World Net Daily. If the MSM wants to verify this story they can contact API directly to investigate its veracity. Perhaps they don't want to check out this story because Michelle Obama comes off with an extreme case of bad temper. This API article starts out with Michelle article making accusations of disloyalty against that organization in a phone call (emphasis mine):

Accusing API of colluding with American internet bloggers in an effort to bring down her husband, Mrs Obama said she decided to call API because of what she termed, API’s help to spread rumours created by American bloggers and other racist media outlets in their efforts to damage a black man’s name, saying she hopes African Media was mature enough to be in the front to give unwavering support to her husband, a man Africans should identify themselves with.

When API told her that our online news media was only relaying what the American Bloggers and other media outlets had discovered through their investigations, Mrs Obama was angered and she came out loud with the following: “African press International is supposed to support Africans and African-American view,” and she went to state that, “it is strange that API has chosen to support the racists against my husband. There is no shame in being adopted by a step father. All dirt has been thrown onto my husband’s face and yet he loves this country. My husband and I know that there is no law that will stop him from becoming the president, just because some American white racists are bringing up the issue of my husband’s adoption by His step father. The important thing here is where my husband’s heart is at the moment. I can tell the American people that My husband loves this country and his adoption never changed his love for this country. He was born in Hawaii, yes, and that gives him all the right to be an American citizen even though he was adopted by a foreigner; says Michelle Obama on telefon to API.”

Wow! Talk about a red hot temper! But will the MSM even ask Michelle Obama about this? This article is chock full of more shocking information:

This is a very interesting turn of events. The American man Dr Corsi was recently reported to have been arrested in Kenya because there was fear that he might reveal information on Obama when he wanted to hold a press conference in Nairobi.

The question now is why he was arrested and who ordered his arrest. Was Obama’s hand in this in any way? We will never know the truth but what is clear is that Dr Corsi was seen as a threat while in Kenya.

When API asked Mrs Obama to comment on why Dr Corsi was arrested by the Kenyan government and whether she thought Kenya’s Prime Minister Mr Raila Odinga was involved in Dr Corsi’s arrest, she got irritated and and simply told API not to dig that which will support evil people who are out to stop her husband from getting the presidency.

When asked who she was referring to as the evil people, she stated that she was not going to elaborate much on that but that many conservative white people and even some African Americans were against her husband, but that this group of blacks were simply doing so because of envy.

On Farakhan and his ministry, Mrs Obama told API that it was unfortunate that Mr Farakhan came out the way he did supporting her husband openly before the elections was over. That was not wholehearted support but one that was calculated to convince the American people that my husband will support the growth of muslim faith if he became the president, adding “even if my husband was able to prove that he is not a Muslim, he will not be believed by those who have come out strongly to destroy his chances of being the next President. Do real people expect someone to deny a religion when 80 percent of his relatives are Muslims?; Mrs Obama asked.

Mrs Obama asked API to write a good story about her husband and that will earn API an invitation to the innoguration ceremony when, as she put it , her husband will be installed as the next President of the United States of America next year.

Double WOW! As I stated, African Press International has been in existence for over two years and has filed over a thousand stories. So will the MSM investigate this? Meanwhile this story is gaining enormous steam in the Blogosphere.

UPDATE: Because of the high level of interest in this story, API has just posted a phone number where they can be contacted for verification. Calls must be made between Oct. 16 and 18. Here is the number posted on their site: 004793299739. To call from the USA, the number is: 011-4793299739.

UDATE #2: Jeff Schrieber, of the America's Right blog, after expressing initial skepticism over this story has an UPDATE:


Listen, I'll be the first to admit that I was wrong. And I think I was wrong.

I just got off the phone with a very reputable source that says there is absolutely, positively an audiotape showing that Michelle Obama did in fact say what she said.

I cannot say more right now, as to the source, but let's put it this way -- If you want to know something about Obama, you talk to this guy.


Okay, Jeff, will do. Now waiting for that audiotape...if there is one.

—P.J. Gladnick is a freelance writer and creator of the DUmmie FUnnies blog.

The Rush to Smear

Smearing Palin, Olbermann Makes Stupid Error

D'oh! In his haste to condemn Republican vice presidential candidate Sarah Palin last night far-left MSNBC anchor Keith Olbermann made a particularly elementary reading comprehension error.

The mistake, caught by our friends at Olbermann Watch, involved a report of a person at a McCain-Palin shouting out to "kill" Democratic presidential nominee Barack Obama.

Rushing to tag the GOP ticket with this as much as possible, Olbermann expressed outrage that "as usual, [Palin] does nothing about it."

Unfortunately, however, Palin wasn't even on the stage at the time the remark was made as the Pennsylvania newspaper that the MSNBC ranter used as his source for the report stated. The comment was made at 1:25 ET, more than a half-hour before Palin and her husband Todd showed up at the event.

Don't hold your breath waiting for a correction.

Tuesday, October 14, 2008

Nobody Yelled “Kill Him” About Obama at a McCain or Palin Rally

Nobody Yelled “Kill Him” About Obama at a McCain or Palin Rally

Filed under: General — Patterico @ 6:54 am

Everyone in the country seems to think someone yelled “Kill him!” at a McCain/Palin rally, about Barack Obama. It’s just not true.

The “Kill him!” phrase was originally reported by the Washingon Post — and it was clearly yelled about William Ayers and not Barack Obama.

I quoted the relevant language in this post:

“And, according to the New York Times, he [referring to Ayers -- P] was a domestic terrorist and part of a group that, quote, ‘launched a campaign of bombings that would target the Pentagon and our U.S. Capitol,’” [Palin] continued.

“Boooo!” the crowd repeated.

“Kill him!” proposed one man in the audience.

That is unambiguously a call to kill Ayers, not Obama. As TNR writer Michael Crowley said in a comment to this post of his (h/t L.N. Smithee):

I took “kill him” to mean Ayers–not Obama. It’s just a far, far likelier explanation given the context. That’s still an ugly thing to shout–but on the other hand Ayers probably would have gotten the death penalty had his bombs actually taken a life. If I thought people were actually yelling that about Obama I would feel very differently.

Indeed. [UPDATE: Dana Milbank, who originally reported this, agreed. According to a Politico blog entry: "Milbank said that his impression was that the man meant Ayers, not Obama." Thanks to "no one you know."]

And yet outlets across the country are reporting that the man yelled “Kill him!” about Obama. For example, the New York Times reported:

Crowds in Wisconsin and Pennsylvania have repeatedly booed Mr. Obama and yelled “off with his head,” and at a rally in Florida where Ms. Palin appeared without Mr. McCain, The Washington Post reported that a man yelled out “kill him.”

The implication is clear that “Kill him!” was yelled about Obama. This implication is made explicit in an article from the Associated Press:

The Secret Service confirmed Friday that it had investigated an episode reported in The Washington Post in which someone in Palin’s crowd in Clearwater, Fla., shouted “kill him,” on Monday, meaning Obama. There was “no indication that there was anything directed at Obama,” Secret Service spokesman Eric Zahren told AP. “We looked into it because we always operate in an atmosphere of an abundance of caution.”

Like many AP articles, this article has been reprinted in numerous publications, leading to the widespread myth that someone yelled “Kill him!” about Obama.

Incidentally, the stories are also reporting that someone yelled “Off with his head!” in reference to Obama. I’m not sure why I should believe them, since they’re lying about the “Kill him!” phrase. But let’s accept that as true for the sake of argument, and put this single isolated incident of a yelled threat to Obama in context. I have an isolated incident of Obama supporters threatening the life of someone on the McCain ticket, too. Obama supporters yelled Let’s stone her, old school!” outside a Palin rally, about Sarah Palin.

Oh, the ugliness of the left!

Ah, you say, but there has been widespread ugliness on the right, going beyond a single random call for violence against Obama. We’ve seen people calling Obama an “Arab” (not really an insult, but never mind that) or a “terrorist” or a “liar.” And you guys on the left don’t do ugly stuff like that, right?


We have the plethora of insults and booing of McCain at Obama rallies, including screaming that he is a “liar”; the ugly and profane T-shirts about Sarah Palin; and much more nasty and violent behavior from the left.

That’s the point I was making in my post yesterday, in which I wrote a story about the ugliness of the left in the same style as the media has been writing stories about the ugliness of the right.

We on the right have our random fringe lunatics, and so do you on the left. Stop pretending you’re better.

There’s only one difference between your fringe lunatics and ours: the media reports about ours.

Monday, October 13, 2008

Obama Supporters Call Sarah Palin a C**t; Where Is the Media?

Reprinted with full permission from Wake Up America:

The media has been busy reporting the “anger” of the conservatives at the McCain/Palin rallies, how supporters want McCain to get tougher on Obama and force Obama’s terrorist associations into the eyes of the public and how McCain has been forced to “defend” poor little Barack Obama…..but where are the media reports about Obama supporters wearing t-shirts calling Sarah Palin a c*nt?

Have you seen this reported anywhere at all?

Please let me know where and I will add the link as an update.

This picture came to me via email, the email text is below:

I was at a Sarah Palin event in Philadelphia, at the Park Hyatt Hotel - late Saturday afternoon (Oct. 11th). If you are easily grossed out by the “C” word, I am sorry. But as Andrea says below, if McCain supporters wore a shirt that said “Obama is a N*g&^r” or even “Obama is a B*stard” or “Obama is a Terrorist” at an Obama Rally, they would either be thrown off the premises, have their heads kicked in, or even be detained at the local police station (I know this for a fact: I just had on a McCain button at a recent Obama event and I didn’t think I was going to get out alive).

Sorry the picture is not clearer. But these four young people were right in front of the hotel. They have on the nicest shirts. There were worse. There was group as well carrying around a fake dead fetus - exclaiming that “abortion should have been the path for Bristol(?) Palin”. And quite a few smoke bombs, etc. etc.

I also had some nice words thrown at me.

There were about 500 organized protesters. And about 500 not so organized at this event. The police and hotel security and secret service were letting me all the way up to the hotel steps. In a few cased … a few protesters got into the lobby.

In my family, the “C” word is about as bad as you can get.

Was this reported on the Philadelphia News. No!. Was anyone outraged? No!. All that was on the Philadelphia local news last night was: Obama was at several rallies in Philadelphia earlier in the day (but went home Saturday night to be with his children). Obama and Palin were in Philly on the same day. And was there any mention of Palin - No!. In the Sports section of the local evening news at 11:00PM, they did mention that Palin was at the Philadelphia Flyers game “dropping the first (hockey) puck”. The guy said it with a smirk. Then he added that Sarah Palin WAS NOT going home to spend the evening with her children.

Sorry the attached picture is not clearer. I need a new camera. Please circulate this to as many people as possible and let them see the double standard.

Not good stuff for a Sunday morning. But this is the REAL AMERICA!.

- Frank (Last name redacted for privacy by WUA management).

A PS from Andrea (last name redacted by WUA):

Calling Sarah Palin a cunt would be the equivalent of a group of protesters calling Obama a n*g*&r. If that ever happened you know we would be seeing it for weeks replayed endlessly with discussions about how the race is still close because Americans are racist.

I wonder what is taking the media so long to report something this obvious?

Want more horrifying sh-t?

Crush the Obamedia narrative: Look who’s “gripped by insane rage”

By Michelle Malkin • October 12, 2008 11:50 AM

The Obamedia is attempting to set yet another false narrative: The narrative of the McCain “mob.” McCain-Palin rallies are out of control, they wheedle. Conservatives are mad! They’re yelling mean things about Obama and calling him names! It’ scaaaaary!

Paul Krugman is trembling: “Something very ugly is taking shape on the political scene: as McCain’s chances fade, the crowds at his rallies are, by all accounts, increasingly gripped by insane rage…What happens when Obama is elected? It will be even worse than it was in the Clinton years. For sure there will be crazy accusations, and I wouldn’t be surprised to see some violence.”

Frank Rich decries “Weimar-like rage” and the “violent escalation of rhetoric.”


Let’s talk about “insane rage” and “violent escalation.”

This is insane rage — Madonna bashing Sarah Palin and shrieking “I will kick her ass:”

This is insane rage — Sandra Bernhard bashing Sarah Palin and cursing her head off with hate warping her crazed face:

This is violent escalation — Palin-hating artwork designating her an “M.I.L.P.” (Mother I’d Like to Punch). Hat tip: Edge of Forever:

This is insane rage and violent escalation — trendy “ABORT Sarah Palin” stickers:

This is self-admitted insane rage: Why Sarah Palin Incites Near-Violent Rage In Normally Reasonable Women.

This is insane rage — the Democratic Underground indulging in name-calling the MSM ignores:

Reader Monica M. sent me a link to the Democratic Underground’s latest thread for commenters to come up with nicknames and posters to slime GOP Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin — and then to “spread [them] all over the ‘net.” There are now nearly 100 filthy, hate-filled responses and counting. Among the “nicer” entries: “Cruella,” “Gidget,” “Governor Jesus Camp,” “VPILF,” “Fertilla the Huntress,” “Iditabroad,” and “KILLER PYSCHO FUNDIE BITCH FROM HELL!!”

…Peer with me further into the liberal sinkhole again and behold P.D.S. in full bloom. Note that this site is raising money for Barack Obama and that an ad for their fundraiser appears at the top of the thread. Is Obama going to accept their cash? Know your enemy:

…The Photoshop entries getting thumbs up from DU commenters:

And the sickest attack of them all — mocking Palin for being a nursing mom:

This is insane rage — deranged left-wing photographer Jill Greenberg sabotaging an Atlantic magazine photo shoot of John McCain and defacing the pictures on her website:

This is insane rage and violent escalation — pointing a fake gun at the head of a Sarah Palin likeness sitting next to a cardboard cutout of her daughter in a museum display:

The Obamedia diaper-wetters are gripped with fear over a few over-the-line catcalls at McCain-Palin rallies. Ana Marie Cox is even making things up to advance the narrative.

But, as Glenn Reynolds notes, they’ve looked the other way at the last four years of anti-Bush assassination chic — a subject I covered extensively in Unhinged and on this blog:






Death of a President

ABC News Edited Out Key Parts of Sarah Palin's 1st Interview

A transcript of the unedited interview of Sarah Palin by Charles Gibson clearly shows that ABC News edited out crucial portions of the interview that showed Palin as knowledgeable or presented her answers out of context. This unedited transcript of the first of the Gibson interviews with Palin is available on radio host Mark Levin's website. The sections edited out by ABC News are in bold. The first edit shows Palin responding about meeting with foreign leaders but this was actually in response to a question Gibson asked several questions earlier:

GIBSON: Have you ever met a foreign head of state?

PALIN: There in the state of Alaska, our international trade activities bring in many leaders of other countries.

GIBSON: And all governors deal with trade delegations.

PALIN: Right.

GIBSON: Who act at the behest of their governments.

PALIN: Right, right.

GIBSON: I’m talking about somebody who’s a head of state, who can negotiate for that country. Ever met one?

PALIN: I have not and I think if you go back in history and if you ask that question of many vice presidents, they may have the same answer that I just gave you. But, Charlie, again, we’ve got to remember what the desire is in this nation at this time. It is for no more politics as usual and somebody’s big, fat resume maybe that shows decades and decades in that Washington establishment, where, yes, they’ve had opportunities to meet heads of state … these last couple of weeks … it has been overwhelming to me that confirmation of the message that Americans are getting sick and tired of that self-dealing and kind of that closed door, good old boy network that has been the Washington elite.

Next we see that Palin was not nearly as hostile towards Russia as was presented in the edited interview:

GIBSON: Let me ask you about some specific national security situations.

PALIN: Sure.

GIBSON: Let’s start, because we are near Russia, let’s start with Russia and Georgia.

The administration has said we’ve got to maintain the territorial integrity of Georgia. Do you believe the United States should try to restore Georgian sovereignty over South Ossetia and Abkhazia?

PALIN: First off, we’re going to continue good relations with Saakashvili there. I was able to speak with him the other day and giving him my commitment, as John McCain’s running mate, that we will be committed to Georgia. And we’ve got to keep an eye on Russia. For Russia to have exerted such pressure in terms of invading a smaller democratic country, unprovoked, is unacceptable and we have to keep…

GIBSON: You believe unprovoked.

PALIN: I do believe unprovoked and we have got to keep our eyes on Russia, under the leadership there. I think it was unfortunate. That manifestation that we saw with that invasion of Georgia shows us some steps backwards that Russia has recently taken away from the race toward a more democratic nation with democratic ideals. That’s why we have to keep an eye on Russia.

And, Charlie, you’re in Alaska. We have that very narrow maritime border between the United States, and the 49th state, Alaska, and Russia. They are our next door neighbors.We need to have a good relationship with them. They’re very, very important to us and they are our next door neighbor.

GIBSON: What insight into Russian actions, particularly in the last couple of weeks, does the proximity of the state give you?

PALIN: They’re our next door neighbors and you can actually see Russia from land here in Alaska, from an island in Alaska.

GIBSON: What insight does that give you into what they’re doing in Georgia?

PALIN: Well, I’m giving you that perspective of how small our world is and how important it is that we work with our allies to keep good relation with all of these countries, especially Russia. We will not repeat a Cold War. We must have good relationship with our allies, pressuring, also, helping us to remind Russia that it’s in their benefit, also, a mutually beneficial relationship for us all to be getting along.

We also see from Palin's following remark, which was also edited out, that she is far from some sort of latter day Cold Warrior which the edited interview made her seem to be:

We cannot repeat the Cold War. We are thankful that, under Reagan, we won the Cold War, without a shot fired, also. We’ve learned lessons from that in our relationship with Russia, previously the Soviet Union.

We will not repeat a Cold War. We must have good relationship with our allies, pressuring, also, helping us to remind Russia that it’s in their benefit, also, a mutually beneficial relationship for us all to be getting along.

Palin's extended remarks about defending our NATO allies were edited out to make it seem that she was ready to go to war with Russia.

GIBSON: And under the NATO treaty, wouldn’t we then have to go to war if Russia went into Georgia?

PALIN: Perhaps so. I mean, that is the agreement when you are a NATO ally, is if another country is attacked, you’re going to be expected to be called upon and help.

But NATO, I think, should include Ukraine, definitely, at this point and I think that we need to — especially with new leadership coming in on January 20, being sworn on, on either ticket, we have got to make sure that we strengthen our allies, our ties with each one of those NATO members.

We have got to make sure that that is the group that can be counted upon to defend one another in a very dangerous world today.

GIBSON: And you think it would be worth it to the United States, Georgia is worth it to the United States to go to war if Russia were to invade.

PALIN: What I think is that smaller democratic countries that are invaded by a larger power is something for us to be vigilant against. We have got to be cognizant of what the consequences are if a larger power is able to take over smaller democratic countries.

And we have got to be vigilant. We have got to show the support, in this case, for Georgia. The support that we can show is economic sanctions perhaps against Russia, if this is what it leads to.

It doesn’t have to lead to war and it doesn’t have to lead, as I said, to a Cold War, but economic sanctions, diplomatic pressure, again, counting on our allies to help us do that in this mission of keeping our eye on Russia and Putin and some of his desire to control and to control much more than smaller democratic countries.

His mission, if it is to control energy supplies, also, coming from and through Russia, that’s a dangerous position for our world to be in, if we were to allow that to happen.

That answer presented Palin as a bit too knowledgeable for the purposes of ABC News and was, of course, edited out. Palin's answers about a nuclear Iran were carefully edited to the point where she was even edited out in mid-sentence to make it seem that Palin favored unilateral action against that country:

GIBSON: Let me turn to Iran. Do you consider a nuclear Iran to be an existential threat to Israel?

PALIN: I believe that under the leadership of Ahmadinejad, nuclear weapons in the hands of his government are extremely dangerous to everyone on this globe, yes.

GIBSON: So what should we do about a nuclear Iran? John McCain said the only thing worse than a war with Iran would be a nuclear Iran. John Abizaid said we may have to live with a nuclear Iran. Who’s right?

PALIN: No, no. I agree with John McCain that nuclear weapons in the hands of those who would seek to destroy our allies, in this case, we’re talking about Israel, we’re talking about Ahmadinejad’s comment about Israel being the “stinking corpse, should be wiped off the face of the earth,” that’s atrocious. That’s unacceptable.

GIBSON: So what do you do about a nuclear Iran?

PALIN: We have got to make sure that these weapons of mass destruction, that nuclear weapons are not given to those hands of Ahmadinejad, not that he would use them, but that he would allow terrorists to be able to use them. So we have got to put the pressure on Iran and we have got to count on our allies to help us, diplomatic pressure.

GIBSON: But, Governor, we’ve threatened greater sanctions against Iran for a long time. It hasn’t done any good. It hasn’t stemmed their nuclear program.

PALIN: We need to pursue those and we need to implement those. We cannot back off. We cannot just concede that, oh, gee, maybe they’re going to have nuclear weapons, what can we do about it. No way, not Americans. We do not have to stand for that.

Laughably, a remark by Gibson that indicated he agreed with Palin was edited out:

PALIN: But the reference there is a repeat of Abraham Lincoln’s words when he said — first, he suggested never presume to know what God’s will is, and I would never presume to know God’s will or to speak God’s words.

But what Abraham Lincoln had said, and that’s a repeat in my comments, was let us not pray that God is on our side in a war or any other time, but let us pray that we are on God’s side.

That’s what that comment was all about, Charlie. And I do believe, though, that this war against extreme Islamic terrorists is the right thing. It’s an unfortunate thing, because war is hell and I hate war, and, Charlie, today is the day that I send my first born, my son, my teenage son overseas with his Stryker brigade, 4,000 other wonderful American men and women, to fight for our country, for democracy, for our freedoms.

Charlie, those are freedoms that too many of us just take for granted. I hate war and I want to see war ended. We end war when we see victory, and we do see victory in sight in Iraq.

GIBSON: I take your point about Lincoln’s words, but you went on and said, “There is a plan and it is God’s plan.”

Gibson took her point about Lincoln's words but we wouldn't know that by watching the interview since it was left on the cutting room floor. I urge everybody to see just how the unedited version of the first interview compared to what we saw on television by checking out the full transcript. It is a fascinating look into media manipulation via skillful editing.

—P.J. Gladnick is a freelance writer and creator of the DUmmie FUnnies blog.