This is a fun read. I love the "Male Lesbian for Rush '96" button.

http://www.buzzfeed.com/mjs538/things-i-learned-at-the-republican-national-conven

The media isn't having fun! It's not fair!

http://www.politico....04.html?hp=t2_3

If you ever need a reminder of just how out of touch the Beltway is with real problems:

“Until the candidates restore joy, it’s impossible for us to be joyful,” NBC News senior White House correspondent Chuck Todd told POLITICO

Edited September 4, 201213 yr by CarlD2

Carl, the media sucks. They are lazy and inefficient. It's not a good campaign unless a candidate is plauged by infidelity, had sex with goats, etc.

Sounds to me like the media can't nail any serious dirt on Obama or Romney, so it's dull for them. And the candidates are PROTECTING themselves from the crap-shoveling media, not allowing them to sink their nasty fangs into anything. Maybe instead of attempting to incite a pissing contest between the candidates and their respective parties, the media should attempt to incite discussions and debate on real policy issues we voters care about.

Anyone see the media actually establishing a sensible dialogue about the issues? I sure haven't... Maybe if our news organizations handled coverage more befitting a serious political campaign than a simple-minded Access Hollywood piece, the candidates would allow more access and we could be a better informed voting populace.

I think the real reason why the media hates this campaign is because it is not the same cakewalk for Obummer that 2008 was. Their excuse that they hate this campaign because it isn't exciting is hard to believe, since 1980 was a very exciting campaign, yet they hated it cause Reagan was elected. And I don't recall hoards of media reporters lamenting back in 1996 about what a boring campaign that was, since they seemed perfectly content with a Democratic president easily winning re-election.

Edited September 4, 201213 yr by Max

I think the real reason why the media hates this campaign is because it is not the same cakewalk for Obummer that 2008 was. Their excuse that they hate this campaign because it isn't exciting is hard to believe, since 1980 was a very exciting campaign, yet they hated it cause Reagan was elected. And I don't recall hoards of media reporters lamenting back in 1996 about what a boring campaign that was, since they seemed perfectly content with a Democratic president easily winning re-election.

I don't think it has to do a thing with Obama the person what they liked was that Obama energized the audience and capitalized on that. He doesn't do that now and try as they have to try and make Romney exciting and have bent over backwards to give him some media appeal it hasn't worked. No one is energizing anyone in the media between the 2 candidates. Last election it was Obama and Palin to an extent

Edited September 4, 201213 yr by JaneAusten

I think the real reason why the media hates this campaign is because it is not the same cakewalk for Obummer that 2008 was. Their excuse that they hate this campaign because it isn't exciting is hard to believe, since 1980 was a very exciting campaign, yet they hated it cause Reagan was elected. And I don't recall hoards of media reporters lamenting back in 1996 about what a boring campaign that was, since they seemed perfectly content with a Democratic president easily winning re-election.

1980 wasn't exciting at all. Everyone knew Jimmy Carter was gonna lose and lose big. It was a bit of a surprise just HOW big he lost, everyone knew what was going to happen going into it. But then, sensationlism wasn't nearly rampant then. To be honest, Patty Hearst's release from Prison, 3 mile island, and the Iran hostage crisis garnered the lion's share of the news.

I don't think it has to do a thing with Obama the person what they liked was that Obama energized the audience and capitalized on that. He doesn't do that now and try as they have to try and make Romney exciting and have bent over backwards to give him some media appeal it hasn't worked.

Jane, in the past you have made a fair point that the Republicans are giving people far more reasons to vote against Obama as opposed to voting for Romney. But, I'm glad that you mentioned that the president fails to energize his audiences anywhere near the extent he did in 2008. Rather than laying out an optimistic agenda for the second term, the vast majority of what I am seeing from Obama and the Democrats are reasons to vote against Romney.

1980 wasn't exciting at all. Everyone knew Jimmy Carter was gonna lose and lose big.

Alphanguy, in hindsight, it sure seems like it Carter was destined to lose big in 1980. But the strange thing was that the polls were neck-and-neck for most of the campaign, as just about all the late deciders broke Reagan's way. Most everyone thought that Carter sucked, but the conventional "wisdom" that Reagan was too "extreme" resulted in the two men running just about even in the polls.

While "exciting" is not the right word (as the campaign was filled with moments of tragedy and turmoil), the 1968 campaign was about as newsworthy as any could get. And while the press is complaining that the 2012 campaign doesn't have enough unscripted and unpredictable moments, I doubt the media as a whole ever thought that 1968 was the most interesting campaign to cover, since the man they hated most--Nixon--was elected president.

Edited September 4, 201213 yr by Max

1980 wasn't exciting at all. Everyone knew Jimmy Carter was gonna lose and lose big. It was a bit of a surprise just HOW big he lost, everyone knew what was going to happen going into it. But then, sensationlism wasn't nearly rampant then. To be honest, Patty Hearst's release from Prison, 3 mile island, and the Iran hostage crisis garnered the lion's share of the news.

1980 was a really exciting election year thanks to Ted Kennedy. His speech to the convention has to rank as one of the best ever. The republican convention was also interesting because Reagan was trying to get Ford to be his VP but Ford sort of made impossible to accept demands to be a co-president instead of just a vice. That is when Reagan went to Bush. The thing is even as recently as 1980 conventions had interesting elements to them. Now it is all so staged it takes a Clint Eastwood to provide anything interesting.

I think these presidential nominees are wrong to announce their VP picks before the conventions. Save it for the night the VP is nominated so there is a little suspense.

Edited September 4, 201213 yr by quartermainefan

I think these presidential nominees are wrong to announce their VP picks before the conventions. Save it for the night the VP is nominated so there is a little suspense.

I certainly think that it is a mistake to announce weeks before the convention, since it makes people less likely to watch. I think it would be OK to announce the first day of the convention (instead of the day the VP is nominated), as this was customary prior to 2004.

I think the real reason why the media hates this campaign is because it is not the same cakewalk for Obummer that 2008 was. Their excuse that they hate this campaign because it isn't exciting is hard to believe, since 1980 was a very exciting campaign, yet they hated it cause Reagan was elected. And I don't recall hoards of media reporters lamenting back in 1996 about what a boring campaign that was, since they seemed perfectly content with a Democratic president easily winning re-election.

Do you remember how the media went hogwild in 2000? They loved McCain. They cried bitter tears for him every day and every night. They adored W. They loathed Al Gore and did everything they could to make him look awful, even making up the pettiest lies about him.

In 2008, the media was doing cartwheels over Sarah Palin, and lipstick on a pig, and how she was going to remind everyone of real America. Only her abject stupidity caused the backlash against her.

Yeah, the media loves McBain. How many times did we have to hear Wolf Blitzer call him a maverick? And there was nothing maverick about him except the bold way he went crawling on his knees to Jerry Fallwell looking for votes from the freakish fundies. Only in the American press is it mavericky to be against torture.

The press likes who it likes. They don't like Mitt but they do like Ryan.

I think the real reason why the media hates this campaign is because it is not the same cakewalk for Obummer that 2008 was.

Obummer? Really? We don't agree on politics but I always thought you were better than the "let's make fun of his name" crowd.

Yeah, the media loves McBain. How many times did we have to hear Wolf Blitzer call him a maverick? And there was nothing maverick about him except the bold way he went crawling on his knees to Jerry Fallwell looking for votes from the freakish fundies. Only in the American press is it mavericky to be against torture.

The press likes who it likes. They don't like Mitt but they do like Ryan.

McBain? LOL! What an appropriate typo for this board.

Yeah, the media had a thing for McCain. I have to admit that I used to respect the guy even if I didn't agree with him but the campaign turned him into a craven suck-up who did everything but grind against a pole for votes. I've saw a flash of respectable McCain when he called out Michele Bachmann but he can't ever undo the fact that he unleashed Sarah Palin on this country. He'll never get clean of that.

McCain, McBain...too much GH! (which has been really really good lately)

Whenever I think of McCain and the media I think of the stories about how they went to his house and had a barbecue! and a tire swing!! This is our media. I'm not saying they just do this with Republicans, but it's nauseating and shows how sheltered and delusional the most influential journalists are today.