I don't know why O'Reilly did the interview instead of Brit Hume. If I were Obama, I would have specified that I would only speak to the news anchor. It doesn't make sense for him to go on attack television. Personally I wish ALL the candidates would frost out all the commentators and only do business with actual reporters. Let the commentators do their thing with the sound bytes from "real" interviews.

I'm sorry. I do have an issue with Americans that believe Sean Hannity and Larry King are news reporters. They are not.

And Jess- I'm a Georgia fan but I make a point of watching any SEC game on television so I was watching that game. I get chills everytime an SEC team plays out of conference and chants "SEC SEC SEC". I love it! Harvin looked good for you guys.

I agree with 90 percent of what you say.

However, about the SEC!! Big 12 Big 12.

http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/09/08/pal...stor/index.html

Sarah Palin's Alaskonomics (TIME)

http://www.time.com/time/politics/article/...ite-cnn-partner

I don't know why O'Reilly did the interview instead of Brit Hume. If I were Obama, I would have specified that I would only speak to the news anchor. It doesn't make sense for him to go on attack television. Personally I wish ALL the candidates would frost out all the commentators and only do business with actual reporters. Let the commentators do their thing with the sound bytes from "real" interviews.

I'm sorry. I do have an issue with Americans that believe Sean Hannity and Larry King are news reporters. They are not.

O'Reilly got the interview instead of Brit Hume because the interview is only a ratings gimmick for Fox. O'Reilly ended up with his second highest show ratings for the first segment. It probably plays better for Fox viewers overall to have him shouting, ranting, and raving at Obama. That was probably easily juxtaposed against the extremely soft interview with Keith Olberman.

Charlie Gibson's three segment interview with Palin is also going to be warm and fuzzy. The Democrats can be thankful once again that ABC didn't get a debate.

O'Reilly got the interview instead of Brit Hume because the interview is only a ratings gimmick for Fox. O'Reilly ended up with his second highest show ratings for the first segment. It probably plays better for Fox viewers overall to have him shouting, ranting, and raving at Obama. That was probably easily juxtaposed against the extremely soft interview with Keith Olberman.

Charlie Gibson's three segment interview with Palin is also going to be warm and fuzzy. The Democrats can be thankful once again that ABC didn't get a debate.

But why would a candidate do that? It gives credence to the commentators. They are only "legitimate" to the American people because the candidates pander to them. McCain and Obama should grant interviews to the legitimate press and let the commentators claw their critiques from reviewing sound bytes created by the folks that went to journalism school and believe in the importance of impartiality in news reporting. I would get a heck of a lot more information from Brit Hume asking Barack Obama his military plan going forward in Iraq and how he plans to execute that plan than I would from Freakshow Bill screaming at Obama to admit he was wrong about the troop surge. Am I wrong?

Honestly, I miss the days when we didn't know the political affliliations of any news anchor. I miss the days when shows were clearly distinguished as a newscast and political opinion was clearly political opinion. That line has been blurred too much and contributes to the "us" and "them" mentality that is destroying American politics. The irony of the whole thing is that there are similarities with candidates and their positions but people see "republican" or "democrat" first and automatically from that point the average voter picks a side and everything the other side says is wrong EVEN IF IT IS THE EXACT SAME THING. Nobody listens to anybody and it's all based on a party label.

I know I sound a little kumbaya here but I think it's valid. It's time for us to stop demonizing the "other" side. Commentators are fabulous at doing just that and the American people accept it as news. It hurts my heart to see it.

Edited September 9, 200817 yr by wiccachick_1

Co-sign wiccachick_1. I agree

But why would a candidate do that? It gives credence to the commentators. They are only "legitimate" to the American people because the candidates pander to them. McCain and Obama should grant interviews to the legitimate press and let the commentators claw their critiques from reviewing sound bytes created by the folks that went to journalism school and believe in the importance of impartiality in news reporting. I would get a heck of a lot more information from Brit Hume asking Barack Obama his military plan going forward in Iraq and how he plans to execute that plan than I would from Freakshow Bill screaming at Obama to admit he was wrong about the troop surge. Am I wrong?

Honestly, I miss the days when we didn't know the political affliliations of any news anchor. I miss the days when shows were clearly distinguished as a newscast and political opinion was clearly political opinion. That line has been blurred too much and contributes to the "us" and "them" mentality that is destroying American politics. The irony of the whole thing is that there are similarities with candidates and their positions but people see "republican" or "democrat" first and automatically from that point the average voter picks a side and everything the other side says is wrong EVEN IF IT IS THE EXACT SAME THING. Nobody listens to anybody and it's all based on a party label.

I know I sound a little kumbaya here but I think it's valid. It's time for us to stop demonizing the "other" side. Commentators are fabulous at doing just that and the American people accept it as news. It hurts my heart to see it.

Co-sign.

I would have to say looking at the polls and the news coverage over the past two weeks that McCain made the better choice as VP. I was wrong when I said women would see through the pallin pick as trying to rally the hillary supporters because the polls indicate otherwise they are flocking to pallin. White women voters prefer McCain to obama 53% to 40 %, that is a huge lead, considering obama had been leading in that category for months. The media has made this woman a victim by investigating every inch of her life and I think that has more than anything to do with McCain's lead. I think obama wanted Biden to be his pitbull and attack the GOP, if he attacks pallin its gonna back fire.imo Pallin is no hillary because she is more likeable and isn't polarizing like hillary, so obama's hillary tactics won't work either. I think obama's camp maybe in trouble.

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2008/...o-eye-on-palin/

And I'm glad Obama is staying on message and not bowing to whatever BS the MSM is feeding him. When these polls even again......I wonder what people will say about the "Palin Effect" then?

http://money.cnn.com/2008/09/09/news/econo...dex.htm?cnn=yes

Aint this something.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/26616212/

http://elections.foxnews.com/2008/09/09/ob...form-proposals/

Here is an issue where both candidates see eye to eye. This is Barack Obama's latest on education reform. I will see if I can find McCain's online as well. It's pretty much the same thing.

The real test will be if either one of them actually pursues it after being elected. The teacher's union is a very strong lobbyist in Washington.

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2008/...play-barracuda/

Apparently, the campaign wasn't listening.

http://abcnews.go.com/politics/MatchoMatic...page?id=5542139

Interesting little match your candidate quiz.

The new Gallup poll shows McCain now with a 5 point lead.

It was 10 points the other day..........I wonder what happened?

http://abcnews.go.com/politics/MatchoMatic...page?id=5542139

Interesting little match your candidate quiz.

Neat quiz! Uh oh. I matched Obama! ....Just kidding, I picked McCain 11-2.