LITTWIN: Obama trip likely to rob McCain of, well, limelight
By Mike Littwin, Rocky Mountain News (Contact)
Friday, July 18, 2008
As I've traveled around the country of late, taking - as they say - the pulse of the American voter (still remarkably strong, all told, particularly when discussing the new Batman movie), I've made an important discovery:
It's almost impossible to get anyone to have a productive conversation - meaning, one lasting longer than 30 seconds - about John McCain.
Seriously.
You start the conversation, you get in maybe one joke about McCain and the Internet, and then the talk drifts inevitably to gas prices or foreclosures or whether it's true that Obama, when president, will allow Brangelina to have only Muslim children - and McCain is quickly forgotten.
This can't be good if you're still technically a candidate in the presidential race, even if, like McCain - and this is the strange part - you're only a few points down in the polls and running well ahead of generic Republicans and/or Bob Schaffer.
The campaign has clearly come down to Obama vs. Obama, unless, of course, it's Obama vs. Bush or even at times, for nostalgia's sake, Obama vs. Clinton. But where does McCain fit into all this? And, more to the point, why doesn't anyone seem to care about the answer?
It all begins with what they're calling the enthusiasm gap in this election. An AP-
Yahoo poll has actually measured it: 38 percent of Obama's supporters are enthusiastic about the presidential race compared to only 9 percent of McCain's.
This sounds about right, except that I'm still looking for the 9 percent.
And now, the gap is certain to grow even wider - as wide as one of your major oceans - when Obama takes his trip to all places foreign, with all three network anchors trailing along. It's going to be the most analyzed foreign trip by an American politician - In Which Obama Meets the World and the World Meets Him Back - since Nixon went to China, and you can see how that has turned out.
Obama will tour European capitals, he'll go to war zones, he'll go to the Middle East. He'll meet with heads of state, face large crowds, and give each network anchor an interview in a different foreign locale. And what Obama hopes to do is to show that it's possible for the rest of the world to like an American president again - and to do it in style, even with the weak dollar. (I saw a piece in The New York Times where a three-star restaurant in Paris is selling a hamburger and fries for $70. Let's just say that's some Le Big Mac.)
McCain can't decide whether it's better to call the trip a stunt or whether, since he has been criticizing Obama for not going to Iraq, simply to applaud him for finally going back. But whatever McCain does, it won't matter. The trip itself will be the only thing anyone - by which I mean people who have their own talk shows - can talk about.
Not that there aren't risks for Obama.
Obama could make a major gaffe - say, throw up at a state dinner. Or call a country a nation of whiners.
He could fail what I'll call the Krauthammer test. Charles Krauthammer wrote: "For the first few months of the campaign, the question about Obama was: Who is he? The question now is: Who does he think he is?" And so, there's the need for Obama to be both properly humble (since he's not yet president) and not all that humble (since he might be, and who are these European effetes to tell an American how to act)?
Oh, and, of course, the cameras will be rolling at all times just in case Obama engages in any terrorist fist bumps.
The question, for some, is whether all this attention is unfair to McCain, who, you'll recall, recently went to Colombia and Mexico, on the straight-flying express, and got as much attention as if he'd gone to, well, Colombia and Mexico - and in the off-season.
The big story was the hostage rescue, which seemed, at first, to work for McCain, who was, of course, famously a prisoner himself. But I don't remember what else happened on McCain's trip, and I doubt if anyone else does.
What you can guess is that McCain will watch helplessly - as Hillary Clinton did before him - as Obama will play this trip as if he were a Kennedy. And McCain, not so Kennedyish, was left joking on Conan O'Brien's show that he arrived late for the 5:30 taping because he had had dinner and a nap.
Obama's campaign needs the lift. He's had a few issues recently, and not just the current one of The New Yorker. But, with this trip, he gets to put behind him the cover cartoon and, for that matter, the Ryan Lizza New Yorker story - it's a must read - about his life as a more-conventional-than-you'd-ever-guess Chicago politician.
He gets instead a huge parting gift from none other than George W. Bush, who announces to all the world an agreement on a "time horizon" for the reduction of troops in Iraq.
A "time horizon" is apparently not a "timetable" for troop reductions. A "timetable" would be what "Obama" and other war critics have been calling for and a "time horizon" is, well, "not."
If you're confused, the "time horizon," we were told by a White House spokesman, is an "aspirational" goal and not an "artificial" timetable.
I have no idea what that means, either. But I do know that when I told my editor we should no longer think in terms of artificial deadlines, but rather in time horizons, he told me exactly what I could aspire to.
Post your comment
Registration is required. Click here to create your free user account, or login below.
Comments are the sole responsibility of the person posting them. You agree not to post comments that are off topic, defamatory, obscene, abusive, threatening or an invasion of privacy. Violators may be banned. Click here for our full user agreement.
July 19, 2008
10:50 a.m.
Suggest removal
GetReal writes:
Not surprising that Littwin barely touches on the fact that all three network news anchors are accompanying Obama for his entire trip, even sharing his personal plane. How cozy.
We will be bombarded with nightly satellite fed "reports" on how "Stately, Diplomatic and Presidential" Obama is viewed, complete with selected video of fainting foreign fans.
In contrast, the Repub nominee John McCain has made three trips overseas since March, with little coverage if any.
In his most recent, he went to the middle east and Europe for a week and the networks didn't send any anchors at all, and had a total of four small stories in their nightly newscasts, one of which was dedicated entirely to a verbal slip by McCain.
If anyone ever represented the Mass Media, it would be Williams, Couric and Gibson.
They are behaving like cheer-leading political groupies, and the whole trip will be nothing but a travelling press release for the Obama campaign.
This glaring double standard highlights the imbalance of coverage by the supposedly neutral Mass Media-
But apparently it isn't important to Littwin, for obvious partisan reasons.
July 19, 2008
11:20 a.m.
Suggest removal
fastnloose writes:
Obama is the vote of the media,no doubt.But a 6 to 8 point spread when he should virtually be turning out the lights right now is a problem.As Dimwin points out in his article, know one talks about McCain and yet the polls have him hangig around.Glad to see Obama meet the boots on the ground and talk with the generals in charge over there.He formulated a plan for the past year,all the while never having a glue.
July 19, 2008
12:06 p.m.
Suggest removal
jbowen43 writes:
McCain only creates news when he takes his foot out of his mouth.
July 19, 2008
2:07 p.m.
Suggest removal
BroadwayCarl writes:
Get Real said: "...In his most recent, he went to the middle east and Europe for a week and the networks didn't send any anchors at all..."
Anchors were originally scheduled to go, but when they saw "Czechoslovakia" on the itinerary, they decided to forego the trip, realizing (as McCain shold have multiple times) that Czechoslovakia doesn't exist anymore!
July 19, 2008
4:46 p.m.
Suggest removal
T1anda writes:
Will Obama be cued with the answers from a teleprompter when interviewed by the three kiss-arse anchors? He can't seem to say anything without it being scripted first!!
It's amazing how the liberal biased media made sure this "out of no where guy" got the nomination.
Obama supporters are starry-eyed zombies!!! Neither candidate is a good choice for President. However I will be voting for John McCain!!!
I will take experience over clueless, socialist, any day!!
July 19, 2008
5:16 p.m.
Suggest removal
GetReal writes:
BWCarl-
I call B.S. with your explanation of why the Network Anchors didn't go with McCain, or are you just being cute?
Why do the anchors even have to go?
Obama outlined his policy on Iraq right before he left the U.S., without waiting to even talk to any commanders on the ground for updated, first hand information.
I saw today's big overseas accomplishment was he played basketball.
Get ready for this important live report and video by Katie and Co. on tonight's CBS, NBC, and ABC newscasts.
You want to see how Katie, Brian and Charlie will behave on Air Obama?
Just like these hypnotized, star struck, swooning, giggling, and fawning "journalists" did earlier this year, when they witnessed OBAMA WEARING JEANS!-
http://www.cnn.com/video/#/video/politics/2008/05/08/obama.jeans.cnn
And yes, CNN interrupted it's regular programming with that as a "BREAKING NEWS" video.
I kid you not. Look at the scroll at the bottom.
So much for impartiality.
July 19, 2008
5:43 p.m.
Suggest removal
GetReal writes:
T1anda-
It doesn't matter what Obama says or does, he is immune from criticism in the eyes of the liberally slanted Mass Media, and anybody who tries to question his many questionable associates or activities is instantly branded a racist.
The press, when not outright ignoring his many controversies and gaffes, will actually make excuses for them providing what they see as needed cover.
What ever happened to journalistic standards?
How about just sticking to the Who, What, When, Where, and Why?
To get an idea of the sheer number of Obama's non-teleprompter screw-ups, most of which have yet to be reported on by the MSM-
http://gaffenation.wordpress.com/cate...
Dan Quayle was villanized for misspelling potato,
Why does Obama get a pass?
Three words-
MISPLACED WHITE GUILT
July 19, 2008
7:35 p.m.
Suggest removal
BroadwayCarl writes:
GetReal-
Once again it is proven that sarcasm is lost on Republicans. Yes, I was making a joke at the expense of McCain and the fact that he can't seem to remember that Czechoslovakia ceased to exist as a country since 1993.
And you're not really serious in comparing Obama's teleprompter gaffes to McCain's, are you? Really?
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/06/us/...
T1anda-
As far as non-teleprompter gaffes, you really need to start watching something other than Fox News. Did you miss McCain fumbling for an answer asked by a reporter about health insurance companies covering Viagra but not birth control? Or are you just conveniently forgetting that?
Besides the fact that either McCain can't really remember how he voted on certain positions when asked, or doesn't want to answer where he stands on the issues now for fear of contradicting his vote!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D6IlGX...
July 19, 2008
7:45 p.m.
Suggest removal
BroadwayCarl writes:
GetReal-
I just checked out the link you provided regarding McCain's town hall meetings. Perhaps Obama would be more apt to participate if the audience was a true mix of citizens and not just invitees of the McCain campaign.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/06...
July 19, 2008
8:57 p.m.
Suggest removal
GetReal writes:
Carl-
I saw that lame article by the loony NY Times and couldnt help but laugh at the irony.
Obama has at least two dozen documented gaffes in the last 9 months and all occurred without the help of his beloved teleprompter.
The NYT's and the rest of the old media ignored virtually every one.
Do YOU really want to compare gaffes?
For every one you have on McCain I can show you 10 recent ones on Obama.
The guy is a walking gaffe machine when forced to think on his feet.
Concerning the Town Hall Meetings-
Are you that naive that you honestly believe Obama doesn't do the same?
Or were you one of the many chosen "faintees" conveniently dropping like flies at The Messiah's numerous appearances?
Wait until the debates start to see your boy fold like the cheap suit he is.
That is if he ever has the nuts to actually show up.
July 20, 2008
8:02 a.m.
Suggest removal
Tom writes:
Yes, all the neocons can frantically rally to trot out phrases like "misplaced white guilt" and whine about the liberal media (that's like, so 1990s).
But Mike Littwin's sense of humor is really wonderful to read. Many of his examples of the hapless fortunes of Mr. McCain come right out of the news and are spot-on and never mean-spirited.
The mean spirits belong to some of the Obama-bashers who must flail about in these posts. Come to think of it, that's pretty funny, too.
July 20, 2008
8:37 a.m.
Suggest removal
BroadwayCarl writes:
GetReal -
You keep saying you can show me the "many" Obama gaffes and I'm sure there are some. But you have yet to show any examples.
And by gaffe, I don't mean a misreading of a teleprompter, like "Lex-eeg-ton Project" or vetoing "beers." I'm talking about major mistakes like confusing Sunni and Shia when trying to make the false claim that Iran is helping Al-Qaeda.
http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archiv...
Or using "Czechloslovakia" mulitple times on different days. You'd think someone in his campaign would correct him after the first time so he doesn't make the same mistake, but there his is, the very next day saying "Czechoslovakia."
So please give me some examples of Obama gaffes. If you really think you can name 10 Obama gaffes to every 1 of McCain's, I'll be expecting at least 300 or 400 examples. And please back up your argument with links to reinforce your stance, like I've done above.
I'll come back to this page over the next couple of days to look for your repsonse.
July 20, 2008
10:48 a.m.
Suggest removal
nbarone writes:
Mike
Please stop writing about McCain. We really don't care. We are looking forward to your follow up on Obama's trip.
July 20, 2008
1:31 p.m.
Suggest removal
BroadwayCarl writes:
T1anda wrote: "...I will take experience over clueless, socialist, any day!!"
Here's some more Obama "cluelessness" for you:
Republicans love to portray Obama as naïve when it comes to foreign policy. http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalrad...
Let's go to the scorecard.
Iraq: Prime Minister Maliki just announced he supports Obama's troop withdrawal plan. http://www.reuters.com/article/vcCand...
Afghanistan: Obama has long argued that Iraq has been a dangerous distraction from what should be the real focus of the war on terror, Afghanistan, and has recommended sending additional troops there.
http://edition.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/...
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/25676250/
McCain, who has opposed sending additional troops, did an about-face on Tuesday, all but yelling "Me too!"
http://www.thecarpetbaggerreport.com/...
Iran: Obama has taken a lot of GOP fire for his willingness to negotiate with Tehran. This week, we learned the Bush administration has decided to send a top diplomat to a meeting with Iran's top nuclear negotiator, and is planning to open an "interests section" in Tehran.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/arianna...
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_eas...
Score three for naiveté.
July 20, 2008
2:39 p.m.
Suggest removal
KarlCheney writes:
Obama Gaffes,
Where have you people been for 7 1/2 years. Bush has never been able to put an entire sentence together, he is the worst public speaker and gaffe machine ever. But you sudden Obama complainers just explained Bush is a bad communicator. I can't believe the hypocrisy coming form the right, of all the people who should not be able to complain about public speaking it should be a Bush supporters. Also, the jealousy regarding his energized base does not suit you well, it just drives you righties crazy that he can fill a stadium.
July 20, 2008
8:02 p.m.
Suggest removal
GetReal writes:
BWCarl-
Here are just a few, do a quick YouTube or Google search yourself for many others. They are not hard to find, except if all you watch is the MSM.
Funny how none of these made the evening news like McCain's Sunni/Shia gaffe.
Bristol Va. brain melt-
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eI5Eo9...
Dead people in audience-
http://www.youtube.com/watch?
v=2ogexqs4XVQ&feature=related
Al Qaeda not in Iraq-
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a_gJpP...
57 states of America-
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OrsBKG...
10,000 dead Kansans-
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tjO8Qc...
Hugo Bush1 flub-
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dxrhWT...
Compilations of lies and gaffes-
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IErnij...
http://youtube.com/watch?v=xZ8ykt1Ry5M
Look for more to come with any unscripted speaking appearances, that is if his advisers let him.
Obama said he would debate anytime, anywhere.
McCain requested 10 debates and Obama now says maybe one. He now has extremely limited press access and his wife has finally been muzzled, ala Theresa Heinz Kerry.
Why do you think that would be?
July 20, 2008
8:40 p.m.
Suggest removal
GetReal writes:
BWCarl-
Regarding McCain's "Czechoslovakia" slip, and the slew of stories it generated implying he is senile or losing it-
Sam Nunn, a veteran retired senator, former chairman of the Senate Armed Forces Committee and an oft-mentioned Democratic vice presidential running mate or sec of State/Defense within the Obama admin,
Has made the same gaffe three times just recently-
http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/washi...
Where are all the stories critical of Nunn?
Personally I think it is an honest mistake, done out of habit and no big deal.
I will also admit SOME of Obama's gaffes are that also, no big deal, but the number of larger "misstatements" seem to happen anytime he opens his mouth to talk candidly.
July 21, 2008
8:12 a.m.
Suggest removal
BroadwayCarl writes:
Get Real -
Thanks for the list. I will admit there are some doozies on that list, although they can be easily explained, for example:
"57 states gaffe" (obviously he meant to say 47 states)
10,000 dead Kansans (he meant to say "at least 10" and corrected himself in the same appearance which was absent on the video:
"As the Illinois senator concluded his remarks a few minutes later, he appeared to realize his gaffe.
“There are going to be times when I get tired,” he said. “There are going to be times when I get weary. There are going to be times when I make mistakes.” http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/18564159/)
Of course the larger point he was trying to make was that 60 percent of the Kansas National Guard's equipment is in Iraq, making the recovery process slower.
Your "Dead people in audience" link didn't work but I found it myself. Verbal flub? Yes, but obviously he was speaking to the LIVING veterans in his audience on Memorial Day.
Al-Qaeda not in Iraq - well, the video shows that this is a trip of the tongue was he was saying that there is "no Al-Qaeda LEADERSHIP in Iraq." If you want to argue that point, it's a separate debate, but if Bin Laden or his number two, Ayman al Zawahiri were in Iraq, don't you think we would have found them by now?
The compilations you linked I won't comment on as they can be easily edited to make gaffes seem worse than they are. The same goes for the other side. I try to avoid those and stick to any news items or unedited video. And I won't comment on Sam Nunn since we're comparing Obama and McCain. If we were to start debating on possible VP candidates and their flubs, we'd never finish.
The Va. Brian melt down? Yeah, I guess that's going to happen on occasion with both Obama and McCain in the midst of non-stop campaigning and very little rest. But as far as gaffes go, I'm not talking about a slip of the tongue or a teleprompter misread.
Let's go to my own McCain list (off the top of my head) to explain what I mean, starting with the Sunni-Shia gaffe on March 18, 2008.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fWf7w-...
This isn't just a flub. If McCain doesn't know or can't remember the fundamental difference between Sunni and Shia, and may make decisions based on that lack of knowledge or misremembering, I find that a major problem.
If he had done it once? No big deal. But he had said it on February 28, March 17, March 18, and then he did it again on April 8.
http://www.thecarpetbaggerreport.com/...
Here's McCain avoiding a question regarding his vote on health insurance companies covering Viagra but not covering birth control.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D6IlGX...
If you can't remember how you voted, that's one matter, but when you don't answer the simple question of "what is your stance now?" for fear of contradicting your vote or hoping not to anger the Religious Right base, that's another matter entirely.
July 21, 2008
8:13 a.m.
Suggest removal
BroadwayCarl writes:
GetReal - PART TWO
How about McCain as a comedian?
Bomb-bomb-bomb Iran - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o-zoPg...
Killing Iranians with cigarettes - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I9HuY_...
McCain's inmate joke and lawyer joke - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o2iqFh...
McCain's Chelsea Clinton joke: (This was back in 1998, but remember he ran for POTUS in 2000.)
http://www.salon.com/news/1998/06/25n...
McCain's Daily Show appearance and his IED joke : http://www.thedailyshow.com/video/ind...
Now, it may be okay for you or I to joke about these things (although I don't think it's something to joke about) but we're not running for President. When you are a nominee for President of the United States, then your words and their meanings and your JOKES are taken in a different context. It's not funny for a possible next President to joke about cigarette exports to Iran as a way of killing its civilians or to joke about giving Jon Stewart an IED as a gift. It's embarrassing. It's not funny. It's. Not. Presidential.
Let's also not forget the events of the past week (which I've posted above, July 20, 1:31pm), as the White House has sent Secretary of State Rice to meet with leadership in Iran, the agreement with the White House and Iraq for a "general time horizon" which is doublespeak for a withdrawal timetable, and McCain's flip-flop on sending troops to Afghanistan; all positions that Obama has held long before they happened. For someone who's wet behind the ears and doesn't have any forgeign policy experience, he was pretty spot on.
I'm going to assume that we're going to agree to disagree. That's fine. But please don't assume that every Obama supporter is a "faintee conveniently dropping like flies at The Messiah's numerous appearances." This is just my opinion but the difference I've seen between Dems and Reps is that Dems don't automatically follow in lockstep for who the party tells us to follow. Why do you think it took so long to get the primary race over with?
I have been disappointed in some choices Obama has made, the FISA vote in particular. We don't believe Obama is the next coming or that he's perfect and infallable. But if my choice is between Obama and McCain, I'll vote Obama every time. We've seen what's happened over the last 7½ years and in my opinion, a President McCain would be more of the same. And even Republicans have to acknowledge that more of the same isn't what we need.
July 21, 2008
10:19 a.m.
Suggest removal
Don_Lopez writes:
I can understand the difference between a timetable (arbitrary dates that, once established, cannot be adjusted) and a time horizon (dates determined by changing conditions on the ground).
But what I’m having problems understanding is this: “And what Obama hopes to do is to show that it's possible for the rest of the world to like an American president again..”.
Has the election been held already?
Other than, of course, in Mr. Littwin’s mind.
July 21, 2008
10:07 p.m.
Suggest removal
BJG writes:
Mikey:
Why bother to even have an election? The media has crowned the next king of the U.S. We the people didn't even have a chance to make up our minds who we would like as our next president. Somebody should tell the guy that the media is gonna turn on him as soon as he's yesterday's news, cause that what vultures do, they attack when the prey isn't watching.
July 22, 2008
12:35 a.m.
Suggest removal
mike_littwin writes:
don_lopez: Here's the definition I found of "time horizon" in Wikipedia: A time horizon, also known as a planning horizon, is a fixed point of time in the future at which point certain processes will be evaluated or assumed to end. It is necessary in an accounting, finance or risk management regime to assign such a fixed horizon time so that alternatives can be evaluated for performance over the same period of time.
I'm not sure how that fits your understanding of the Bush policy in Iraq. When listening to politicians of left or right, I usually simply assume the point is obfuscation.
As for your problem understanding "hopes to show that it's possible," I guess it is possible not to understand the idea of modeling a possible future, but I'll assume you were attempting to be funny. Believe me, I know how hard it is.
And to BJG:
As I understand it, vultures don't attack their prey. They scavenge.
Thanks to everyone for playing along.
July 22, 2008
8:07 a.m.
Suggest removal
Don_Lopez writes:
Mr. Littwin,
You can’t believe how flattered I am that of all the posted comments I was one of only two you responded to.
I’ll treasure this day, always!
And don’t underestimate your ability to be humorous. I laugh at your columns all the time.
I realize you have little choice but to defend your rather ill-formed sentence—which, by the way, you failed to quote correctly—but the sentence in question does strongly suggest that Senator Obama is already president.
At least it did to this undereducated and unwashed reader. Remember, it’s folks like me that you had to explain the New Yorker cover to. And I’m glad you did. Who knows how much time I’d have wasted trying to figure that one out.
Who’da thunk it: satire! Well, I’ll be.
July 22, 2008
11:15 a.m.
Suggest removal
BJG writes:
Mikey:
They wait on their prey until an opportunity arises and then strike. Just a the media waits. This primary season has been a particularly good example of the vultures circling around candidates not of their choice. They then go in for the kill when the candidate slips.....except for BO, who somehow has duped them to thinking he is the man. Of all of the candidates he is most disconcerting, because he usually rides the fence on issues until he can jump to one side. He's a fraud, and the media has bought into his game.
July 22, 2008
11:59 a.m.
Suggest removal
rjnova writes:
So Litwin, Obama in a 1 week trip to Iraq has become an international expert. Oh how you media guys fall all over yourselves trying to make Obama go down as qualified. The man is a rookie at best and the voters are not going to let you media liberals annoint this guy president.
By your reporting He became an expert at politics with 3 years of law school. A human relations expert working the south side of Chicago. And now an international expert with 1 trip to the middle east.
Please spare us this effort to make his holiness the President of a country he blames for being attacked by a few poor Islamist, who happen to all have been from wealth and privilege but religeous bigots willing to murder 3000 decent Americans. Obama is a total incompetent.
July 22, 2008
12:17 p.m.
Suggest removal
mike_littwin writes:
don_lopez:
OK, if I respond to the comments, I'm being somehow condescending? And if I don't, I'm -- what? An elitist who ignores what people have to say about my columns?
I enjoy the back and forth. On a lot of days, I get too many e-mails to properly respond to, and this is one way to be in the conversation.
Oh, and one more thing: I noted that I wrote this in the same column: "And so, there's the need for Obama to be both properly humble (since he's not yet president) and not all that humble (since he might be, and who are these European effetes to tell an American how to act)?"
I mean, just in case, you actually were confused that I was trying to say he was already the president.
and to bjg: I'm no expert on animal behavior. But I thought I understood the whole vulture metaphor. Here's a description from answers.com: Any of various large birds of prey of the New World family Cathartidae or of the Old World family Accipitridae, characteristically having dark plumage and a featherless head and neck and generally feeding on carrion.
July 22, 2008
1:05 p.m.
Suggest removal
Don_Lopez writes:
Mr. Littwin,
First of all, you shouldn’t be responding to your readers comments at all but there’s something especially disturbing about your sending a response to my comment at 35 minutes after midnight. There MUST be something better to do at that hour even if it’s only practicing putting on your gas mask in preparation for next month’s DNC.
Secondly, you’ve had your chance to prepare your column so once it’s published your readers should get their chance to pick it apart like, well, vultures.
But if you feel obligated to respond then spread it around and direct some of your journalistic jabs at those comments that agree with you and, believe it or not, there are those.
July 22, 2008
1:51 p.m.
Suggest removal
BroadwayCarl writes:
Don_Lopez wrote: "But if you feel obligated to respond then spread it around and direct some of your journalistic jabs at those comments that agree with you and, believe it or not, there are those."
Well, I for one am pleasantly surprised that the writer of the article is reading the comments and glad that he's taking time out to respond. It shows that he cares what his readers think, otherwise there's no point in a "Comments" section.
But Don, why would he direct his "journalistic jabs" at those who AGREE with him? There's no debate if we're all in agreement.
July 22, 2008
2:09 p.m.
Suggest removal
Don_Lopez writes:
Now this is more like it!
Me and BroadwayCarl in a steel cage death match.
I don't think the columnist should get two bites at the apple. He's had his chance. He wrote the column and he--I hope you're sitting down for this--actually gets paid to do it.
Then he gets to respond to readers who, in many cases, make a better point, in a way that's more understandable and better written and the readers don't get paid to do it.
July 22, 2008
10:27 p.m.
Suggest removal
BroadwayCarl writes:
Thanks, Don. I'll have my wrestling tights and mask ready, but point taken. Still, it's nice to know that this particular writer at least reads the comments on his work. The reader feels there's a connection to the original issue at hand, especially when you're directing a comment specifically to the writer.
July 23, 2008
6:21 p.m.
Suggest removal
RIverGirl writes:
Mike,
I think McCain has answered the question of where to find the mysterious 9 percent:
When discussing the 9 percent approval rating of Congress he often asks for hands of anyone in that 9 percent (he never gets any). Then he likes to say that the 9 percent basically boils down to staffers and blood relatives.
So, I guess you can apply that same rule to McCain’s enthusiastic supporters! For what it’s worth, I’ve never met one!
July 24, 2008
3:45 p.m.
Suggest removal
Ezana writes:
I can look at how much better Obama has run his campaign then McCain and Clinton and know he'll make better choices! He's walked a higher road from the beginning, he has chosen better advisers and has not reversed his positions NEARLY as much as McCain has. Remember when McCain wasn't pretending to care about global warming, or foreclosures? Remember when he was a maverick and not taking it the way the GOP gives it! He has the same people who slandered his daughter in 2000 working for him now! what a hypocrite he is!
If McCain wins this thing it will be because of deception. Obama could very well have been the least liberal of all the Dem. yet one flawed study (most liberal in the Senate is presented as fact)Go to senate website for yourself and see how many of bill cosponsors have R's next to their names!His voting record makes him about the 43rd most liberal. Hillary has him beat hands down!
http://www.progressivepunch.org/membe...
Obama is no more socialist then you. People believe he will raise taxes on the middle class-since when is 250,000 a year middle class?!? One in ten think he went to a madrassa (even Fox admits it's untrue), yet i'm getting push polls on my phone that treat it like it's a fact! If McCain wins it will be because of lies! Period. I hope you all enjoy watching you're social security squandered in the stock market, decades of war, a continuation of the effects unregulated mortage lenders, and Roe vs. Wade overturned.