The Iowa Thread

[Hawkamania!]

He is gone because he lacks the support of Clinton and Obama in the other 49 states. There is no way that he can make ground with his lack of funds. Nationally Clinton was leading Obama last week in combined polls by a margin of 44.6% to 24.4%. Edwards was at 14.0% which is too far behind.

His best expected state finish was Iowa, which was one of Clinton's expected worst states. Coming into Iowa, he was a chance to win it, but he is not expected to do that well again in any other state. The Democratic nomination is between two candidates although Edwards will continue to compete for as long as he can afford it.

Its true that Hillary was leading the polls. Even going into Iowa, Hillary was a slight favourite over Obama with Edwards lagging behind. What isn't discussed some media outlets is her unpopularity with a lot of US voters. This may have been the deciding factor leading to her third placed finish in Iowa.

Another plus has been his wife Michelle. She is looked on favourably by the public and media at this early stage.

Hopefully a trend has been set for the rest of the campaign trail.

http://www.nohillaryclinton.com/

 

[KissStephanie]

Its true that Hillary was leading the polls. Even going into Iowa, Hillary was a slight favourite over Obama with Edwards lagging behind.

Please stop making things up. Obama led the polls going in to Iowa, and I already responded to this similar post of yours in the New Hampshire thread.

What isn't discussed some media outlets is her unpopularity with a lot of US voters. This may have been the deciding factor leading to her third placed finish in Iowa.

A lot of the American voters you say? Ha ha ha ha ha! It was the tiny state of Iowa for goodness sake! She was expected to finish second or third there before the caucus began.

The facts against Hillary is that she came third in a caucus that had her leading in a few polls (a few reported it as too close to call)

Do you know what the Iowa caucus is? It would appear not. It is a two hour meeting where people discuss, negotiate, and dissuade others from choosing certain candidates, and to support other candidates. It is not an election, but it is a sales pitch. Then when that is done, some members then choose a second time for a different candidate which is a bonus extra vote. Opinion polls are not conducted in this way, and they have nothing in common with how the Iowa caucus was conducted.

That said, Obama led in four of the six major polls that were conducted between the 26th of December and the 2nd of January, which gave him an overall lead in the opinion polls for Iowa. He was definitely favourite to win, especially when he had been dealing with other Democratic candidates for second-choice votes which cannot occur in New Hampshire. Iowa was arguably Clinton's weakest state, and for a while she considered not even campaigning there. Anybody that says otherwise is just anti-Clinton spin.

and that she is the most unpopular democrat candidate when polling US voters across the political spectrum.

She can't be too unpopular considering her nationwide lead over Obama is still around 44.6%-24.4%. That will change I expect, but not a lot yet I wouldn't think. I also notice that you've been visiting the Fox News anti-Clinton web site. Which Republican would you like to see win then?

 

[Hawkamania!]

Please stop making things up. Obama led the polls going in to Iowa, and I already responded to this similar post of yours in the New Hampshire thread.A lot of the American voters you say? Ha ha ha ha ha! It was the tiny state of Iowa for goodness sake! She was expected to finish second or third there before the caucus began.Do you know what the Iowa caucus is? It would appear not. It is a two hour meeting where people discuss, negotiate, and dissuade others from choosing certain candidates, and to support other candidates. It is not an election, but it is a sales pitch. Then when that is done, some members then choose a second time for a different candidate which is a bonus extra vote. Opinion polls are not conducted in this way, and they have nothing in common with how the Iowa caucus was conducted.

That said, Obama led in four of the six major polls that were conducted between the 26th of December and the 2nd of January, which gave him an overall lead in the opinion polls for Iowa. He was definitely favourite to win, especially when he had been dealing with other Democratic candidates for second-choice votes which cannot occur in New Hampshire. Iowa was arguably Clinton's weakest state, and for a while she considered not even campaigning there. Anybody that says otherwise is just anti-Clinton spin.She can't be too unpopular considering her nationwide lead over Obama is still around 44.6%-24.4%. That will change I expect, but not a lot yet I wouldn't think. I also notice that you've been visiting the Fox News anti-Clinton web site. Which Republican would you like to see win then?

Wow. Working for Hillary's campaign has really brainwashed you. As far as my political leanings go, I'm very much in the middle and I distrust Hillary with a passion. I see a lot of Bush Jr in her.

As far as candidates go, Obama is my least disliked on the democrat faction and it's between McCain and Paul for the republican faction. These guys are much better candidates than Hillary in my eyes.

As far as the polls go, I have been following them since July and could see a trend of building support of Obama. I have access to one set of polls that is very accurate and Hillary, along with Romney, are the two most disliked candidates across all voters (both scored an unfavourable 47%).

We shall see how the polls go and hopefully the trend towards Obama continues and Hillary is vanquished.

And just for you KS, I will add a couple more links for you and your brainwashed buddies to read. They are very Faux News orientated.

http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/11/13/clinton.planted/index.html

http://www.thedailyshow.com/video/index.jhtml?videoId=91724&title=clusterf@

 

[Blue York]

Dunno where you get this "antipathy" to the Clintons idea from? That's like saying there is media antipathy to Bush?

Maybe stories like this give people these ideas.

Hillary on the press bus
Hillary stepped onto the parked press bus in Indianola for about 90 seconds to deliver bagels and coffee, and I'm not sure what this says about Clinton and the press — the chill, I think, comes from both sides — but it was a strange moment. She expressed her sympathies that we're away from our families and "significant others," tried a joke at the expense of her press secretary, and paused. Nobody even shouted a question, whether because of the surprise, the assumption that she wouldn't actually answer, or the sheer desire to end the encounter.
One reporter compared the awkwardness to running unexpectedly into an ex-girlfriend.
"Maybe we should go outside and warm up," said another, as Clinton exited into the freezing air.

http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/0108/Hillary_on_the_press_bus.html

There is plenty of evidence to suggest the media has a personal dislike of Hilary.

 

[KissStephanie]

Wow. Working for Hillary's campaign has really brainwashed you.

I'm not working for anybody's campaign, so please don't try that line. Unless of course you have evidence of that. I will volunteer for the Democratic Party for the Presidential election after a candidate has been nominated, whoever that may be. Which part of what I said are you actually disputing, and I'll be glad to further clarify it?

As far as my political leanings go, I'm very much in the middle and I distrust Hillary with a passion. I see a lot of Bush Jr in her.

Ha ha ha! Good one! I suppose that explains the reasons that the pro-Bush dislike Clinton. Which policies do you find similar? I haven't seen any, so please elaborate. I'm always interested in learning new things. Here is a very long list of her policies and Senate voting record. She is most definitely a liberal thinker, and has nothing in common with Bush...

Hillary Clinton: Policies and Senate Voting Record

As far as candidates go, Obama is my least disliked on the democrat faction and it's between McCain and Paul for the republican faction. These guys are much better candidates than Hillary in my eyes.

I like Obama and I definitely relate to a lot of his policies myself. I also think Obama would be great when he is 54 years of age in 2016, and if he doesn't win the nomination this time, then I'm sure he will then. That said, I'm sure he will beat any of the Republicans in the presidential election if given the chance, and that would be great! Ron Paul's policies on the other hand would be more suitable to the 1800's.

I oppose his pro-gun, anti-abortion, anti-FDA stance, and his tax plan would further aid the rich and put further strain on the middle and lower class as it had under Bush. John McCain is pro-life, favours private social security accounts, opposes socialised health care, and supports capital punishment and health care reform. He has far more in common with Bush Jr than any Democrat of course.

As far as the polls go, I have been following them since July and could see a trend of building support of Obama.

I just checked again, and nationwide, Clinton's overall poll average lead is 44.6%-24.4%, and that has not changed much at all compared to May, and her lead in New Hampshire has just been updated today to an overall average of 1.2%. It's very close. I saw on the telly before that a number of voters in New Hampshire were stating that Barack Obama's over-confidence of stating that he is definitely going to win in New Hampshire to be the deciding factor in their decision to vote for Clinton this coming Tuesday, and I wonder if others may feel the same way.

I have access to one set of polls that is very accurate and Hillary, along with Romney, are the two most disliked candidates across all voters (both scored an unfavourable 47%).

Please share this poll because I'd like to read it, although I don't doubt it. I don't think that matters too much though, as long as her support remains as high as it currently is, because their isn't an 'unpopular' option on any voting ballot. If she wins the nomination and the presidency, then I feel confident that her popularity rating will increase. Romney on the other hand is irrelevant. He is trailing McCain in New Hampshire, and he is trailing Giuliani, McCain, and Huckabee nationally.

We shall see how the polls go and hopefully the trend towards Obama continues and Hillary is vanquished.

The polls don't determine who becomes a party nomination, and there are quite a number of states that her lead is so great that it couldn't possibly change. If Obama wins in New Hampshire, then he becomes a formidable candidate at that point, but it still won't be over. Clinton could quite realistically win at least 20 states on Super Duper Tuesday, and she really only needs to win one before then to remain in it. New Hampshire is very important though.

And just for you KS, I will add a couple more links for you and your brainwashed buddies to read.

Brainwashed? My mates and colleagues have differing political views, and how did you come up with "brainwashed" anyway? Clinton has been around for a while, and has had a successful political career to date, while Obama is the inexperienced phenomenon with the rhetorical talent. Wouldn't you think that people jumping on the bandwagon of the unproven Obama to be more likely to be brainwashed? I would certainly think so. He wasn't even a Senator when the war in Iraq began.

They are very Faux News orientated.

Outrageous! If that is the worst that a politician can do during a presidential campaign, then the world would be a much better place.

 

[Palmer Stoat]

Dunno where you get this "antipathy" to the Clintons idea from? That's like saying there is media antipathy to Bush?

I'm not sure if you're being sarcastic or not, GJ. But taking the question at face value... The treatment of the Clintons by the media was scandalous while Bill was in the White House. That's been documented numerous times. Gene Lyons did it in Fools for Scandal. And also wrote Hunting the President with Joe Conason. Bob Somerby, on his site, The Daily Howler, has exhaustively documented at least some of the press hostility to the Clintons (though his main focus was the extraordinary anti-Gore performance through '99 and 2000.)

Link to study of Dem newspapaer coverage: http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/horsesmouth/2007/12/study_bill_clin.php

Bill Clinton himself said a few days back that the media tilted the playing field against Hillary:
http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/0108/Bills_reason_to_go_negative_media_bias.html

A symptom of media hostility is her relationship with the campaign reporters who follow her around:
http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/horsesmouth/2008/01/reporters_hilla.php

She was set upon by Tim Russert, Brian Williams, and Chris Matthews (who has a longstanding Clinton hatred) at one of the Dem debates a couple of months back:
http://www.dailyhowler.com/dh110107.shtml

And that doesn't even scratch the surface. A few minutes googling will unearth lots more material.

Interesting belief that the media would turn on Obama if McCain was the Repub nomination. Why do you think this?

As you suggest, the media coverage of Obama will harden should he win his way through the nomination process into the general election. This will particularly be the case if his opponent is McCain, who the media have a longstanding love affair with. One of the reasons McCain has such high approval ratings among independents and even many Democrats is because of the absurdly fawning coverage he gets from the traditional media. If you google 'Saint John McCain" or "St John McCain" (which is what progressives call him due to the media coverage he gets), you'll find a stack of stuff detailing all the media fluffing that the "Straight Talk Express" gets. Breaking through the media filter against McCain would be a huge problem for any Dem should McCain win the Repub nomination, which is a real chance if he gets over Romney in NH.

 

[GuruJane]

I'm not sure if you're being sarcastic or not, GJ. But taking the question at face value... The treatment of the Clintons by the media was scandalous while Bill was in the White House.

About ranks with the treatment meeted out to Dubya.

Bill and Hill got a tough press because of the scandals that followed them. Dubya got it because of the question marks over his election in 2000 and then his foreign policy after 9/11.

Both were continuously and viciously attacked by their respective political opponents which also in both cases provided fodder for the media. They were both polarising presidents; Billary because the Repubs could never accept being robbed of power in '93, and the Democrats because they couldn't accept being robbed in 2000.

One significant difference though: Bill and Hill have never ceased moaning about the treatment handed out to them; but I've never heard or seen Dubya complain.

 

[Palmer Stoat]

About ranks with the treatment meeted out to Dubya.

Bill and Hill got a tough press because of the scandals that followed them. Dubya got it because of the question marks over his election in 2000 and then his foreign policy after 9/11.

Both were continuously and viciously attacked by their respective political opponents which also in both cases provided fodder for the media. They were both polarising presidents; Billary because the Repubs could never accept being robbed of power in '93, and the Democrats because they couldn't accept being robbed in 2000.

One significant difference though: Bill and Hill have never ceased moaning about the treatment handed out to them; but I've never heard or seen Dubya complain.

I (respectfully) disagree with most of what you say here, GJ. Whitewater, to take one example, was a completely bogus scandal created by the media (liberal and conservative) in connivance with Republicans. Untold column inches and resources and airtime were expended on Whitewater -- and for what?

While I have ambivalent feelings about the Clintons, to suggest that there's anything like an equivalence between the Clinton-era scandals and the rolling catastrophe that has been the Bush Adminstration is batshit insane. The biggest scandal of the Clinton era was the baseless Whitewater witch-hunt and Bill getting a blowjob and lying about it. How anyone can compare that to cooking intelligence reports to pave the way for an unprovoked war; unconstitutional surveillance; flubbing an emergency response while a major US city is washed off the map; tax cuts to the rich while tens of millions are below the poverty line; politicising the public service; the Plame affair; the Abramoff scandal; war profiteering; Iraq in general... (to name a few examples off the top of my head) has got me knackered.

Dubya, and his surrogates, do their fair share of complaining -- I remember, for example, him making a not-so-veiled complaint in one State of the Union address! And the truth is that, despite polling at near-record levels of unpopularity, he's been given a scandalously soft ride by many sections of the media. The notion that the media is liberal-slanted is nothing more than a myth. It may once have been true, but no longer.

The Dems WERE robbed in 2000. Gore polled 500,000 more votes nationally and, had all the votes in Florida been counted properly, would've won the presidency. That result, and the decision by the SCOTUS that enabled it, was a disgrace and ushered into power a historically awful administration. I'm not sure what 'robbery' took place in '93. Clinton was elected in '92, and it was fair and square. There have been no allegations of voting improprieties as far as I know.

To pretend that there's an equivalence between the malfeasance of Bush and the Republicans on one hand and Clinton and the Democrats on the other is utterly detached from the reality of the last 15 years. And to pretend that the media have given equal coverage to said malfeasance is equally wrong.

IMO.

 

[GuruJane]

I (respectfully) disagree with most of what you say here, GJ. Whitewater, to take one example, was a completely bogus scandal created by the media (liberal and conservative) in connivance with Republicans. Untold column inches and resources and airtime were expended on Whitewater -- and for what?

While I have ambivalent feelings about the Clintons, to suggest that there's anything like an equivalence between the Clinton-era scandals and the rolling catastrophe that has been the Bush Adminstration is batshit insane. The biggest scandal of the Clinton era was the[/b] baseless Whitewater witch-hunt and Bill getting a blowjob and lying about it. [/b]How anyone can compare that to cooking intelligence reports to pave the way for an unprovoked war; unconstitutional surveillance; flubbing an emergency response while a major US city is washed off the map; tax cuts to the rich while tens of millions are below the poverty line; politicising the public service; the Plame affair; the Abramoff scandal; war profiteering; Iraq in general... (to name a few examples off the top of my head) has got me knackered.

Dubya, and his surrogates, do their fair share of complaining -- I remember, for example, him making a not-so-veiled complaint in one State of the Union address! And the truth is that, despite polling at near-record levels of unpopularity, he's been given a scandalously soft ride by many sections of the media. The notion that the media is liberal-slanted is nothing more than a myth. It may once have been true, but no longer.

The Dems WERE robbed in 2000. Gore polled 500,000 more votes nationally and, had all the votes in Florida been counted properly, would've won the presidency. That result, and the decision by the SCOTUS that enabled it, was a disgrace and ushered into power a historically awful administration. I'm not sure what 'robbery' took place in '93. Clinton was elected in '92, and it was fair and square. There have been no allegations of voting improprieties as far as I know.

To pretend that there's an equivalence between the malfeasance of Bush and the Republicans on one hand and Clinton and the Democrats on the other is utterly detached from the reality of the last 15 years. And to pretend that the media have given equal coverage to said malfeasance is equally wrong.

IMO.

Er, you wouldn't be a partisan Democratic supporter by any chance?

 

[Palmer Stoat]

Er, you wouldn't be a partisan Democratic supporter by any chance?

Of course.

But that's hardly a rebuttal to anything I've written.

 

[GuruJane]

Of course.

But that's hardly a rebuttal to anything I've written.

Of course it is, because it's what you would say. An equally partisan Republican would say the opposite. The fact is Presidents Clinton and Bush both received equally hostile treatment from the media, you are just too biased to admit it.

 

[Qsaint]

He is copying Martin Luther King in tone and rhetoric.

If he becomes the front runner, I expect the Dem leaning MSM to go after him. The Dem establishment prefer Billary or even Edwards I suspect, even if the rank and file don't.

I don't know you can here it a littlein his now famous 2004 Democratic convention keynote address.

[YOUTUBE]MNCLomrqIN8[/YOUTUBE]

[YOUTUBE]56-m8wx1mwo[/YOUTUBE]

 

[Palmer Stoat]

Of course it is, because it's what you would say. An equally partisan Republican would say the opposite. The fact is Presidents Clinton and Bush both received equally hostile treatment from the media, you are just too biased to admit it.

That's absurd, GJ.

By your rationale we should discount any criticism that John Edwards levels at Mitt Romney because he's a Democrat and Romney is a Republican. And vice versa.

While we're at it, just discount anything Howard said about Rudd because, well, they're both 'partisans' and so therefore anything they say about each other is just propaganda!

There are little things called 'facts' and, believe it or not, they sometimes support one argument over another. How about weighing arguments based on corroborating facts rather than simply dismissing every argument as 'partisan' and therefore wrong?

Otherwise, we might as well not bother talking about politics or engaging in debates. There's no point if we're just going to evaluate arguments based on the allegiances of the arguer and not the merit of his or her argument.

Jeez.

 

[Palmer Stoat]

The fact is Presidents Clinton and Bush both received equally hostile treatment from the media, you are just too biased to admit it.

No, I just don't fall for the fallacy that each side of politics -- whether we're talking the Republicans vs Democrats, or the ALP vs the Coalition, or whatever -- is equally poorly dealt with, equally well-intentioned, equally this or that. That a-pox-on-both-their-houses! view is lazy thinking, is easily manipulated, and breeds cynicism.

 

[camsmith]

Bush has completely tarnished the Republicans. Clinton has high negatives but these are far outweighed by the negative of simply being a Republican. Any friction in the Republican coalition will make it impossible for them to mount an effective campaign to overcome the advantages of simply being the democratic candidate.

And the fact is she far outpolled Huckabee.

Which is why some Republicans (McCain for one) are leading Clinton in various national polls..

As for voting numbers, I think it shows you how many Republicans are unhappy with the current field of candidates (more so than with Bush). Especially ones in Iowa. Also the Dems had MUCH higher than expected which didn't help the GOP match the numbers with the Dems simply because Obama did a great job getting people out to vote.

 

[camsmith]

Not sure how seriously I would take that poll..

Note to self: Next time take the Des Moines Register poll (the one I was dismissing above) seriously.

This was their last poll a few days before the caucus:

Huckabee - 32, Romney - 26, McCain - 13, Thompson - 9, Paul - 9, Giuliani - 5 (Huckabee +6.0)

Obama - 32, Clinton - 25, Edwards - 24, Richardson 6, Biden - 4 (Obama +7.0)

Not bad eh?

 

[Palmer Stoat]

Note to self: Next time take the Des Moines Register poll (the one I was dismissing above) seriously.

This was their last poll before the caucus:

Huckabee - 32, Romney - 26, McCain - 13, Thompson - 9, Paul - 9, Giuliani - 5, Huckabee +6.0

Obama - 32, Clinton - 25, Edwards - 24, Biden - 4, Richardson - 6, Obama +7.0

Not bad eh?

Yeah, they made the other pollsters look silly. When they predicted a turnout of 200k for the Dems they were ridiculed. In fact, even they underestimated the turnout. They were also ridiculed for predicting so many first-time caucusgoers and independents. Again, they predicted trends that no one else did. Home ground advantage perhaps?

 

[camsmith]

Walter Mondale If the GOP choose Huckabee then they really are stuffed.

Is it just me, or does everyone struggle to understand the US electoral system? Whether it be the caucuses and primaries or college voting I have tried to understand US electoral politics and have failed.

The GOP wont choose Huckabee. Some people are really getting carried away with the Iowa result.

Remember, Romney won the vote among voters who didn't class themselves as "evangelical conservatives" (by a 3-1 margin I believe). And of all those who voted 60% classed themselves as evangelical. It sort of tells you something..

There aren't many states like Iowa ahead, so I dont see Huckabee getting far at all, as much as many on here and MOST democrats would love him to win (as it would assure the Dems victory and make a respected religious leader look silly), I highly doubt it.

 

[camsmith]

Yeah, they made the other pollsters look silly. When they predicted a turnout of 200k for the Dems they were ridiculed. In fact, even they underestimated the turnout. They were also ridiculed for predicting so many first-time caucusgoers and independents. Again, they predicted trends that no one else did. Home ground advantage perhaps?

Yeah exactly, thats what they banked on, high numbers of first time and independent voters and thats exactly what happened (credit to Obama for that).

Will be watching their polls closely next time.

 

[KissStephanie]

Yeah exactly, thats what they banked on, high numbers of first time and independent voters and thats exactly what happened (credit to Obama for that).

Even without the Independents that took part in the Democratic Iowa caucus meetings, more than 200,000 Democrats turned up to vote. The small Republican turnout, in what was a Republican state in 2004, clearly shows they're not happy with any of their candidates.

 

[Qsaint]

Even without the Independents that took part in the Democratic Iowa caucus meetings, more than 200,000 Democrats turned up to vote. The small Republican turnout, in what was a Republican state in 2004, clearly shows they're not happy with any of their candidates.

To be fair to the Republicans they didn't seem too interested in the ones that turned up except perhaps Huckabee and with the others joining in other states the numbers will lift

Turnout for the Dems was purely due to Obama

 

[GuruJane]

No, I just don't fall for the fallacy that each side of politics -- whether we're talking the Republicans vs Democrats, or the ALP vs the Coalition, or whatever -- is equally poorly dealt with, equally well-intentioned, equally this or that. That a-pox-on-both-their-houses! view is lazy thinking, is easily manipulated, and breeds cynicism.

Which you assess from your perspective as an admitted Democrat partisan

If you were an admitted Republican partisan saying the opposite (eg IntheNet or Camsmith), then your views on this issue would carry equally as little weight because of their bias.

When politicians of any complexion start whingeing about the media the correct response is a horse laugh.

 

[GuruJane]

That's absurd, GJ.

By your rationale we should discount any criticism that John Edwards levels at Mitt Romney because he's a Democrat and Romney is a Republican. And vice versa.

While we're at it, just discount anything Howard said about Rudd because, well, they're both 'partisans' and so therefore anything they say about each other is just propaganda!

What do you think politics is all about? Partisans of either side will always discount the other side!

There are little things called 'facts' and, believe it or not, they sometimes support one argument over another.

True, but one politicans fact is another politicians lie, depending on which side you sit.

How about weighing arguments based on corroborating facts rather than simply dismissing every argument as 'partisan' and therefore wrong?

Indeed. On this issue the facts are that George W Bush and Billary Clinton have both been vilified and pursued by large chunks of the media in a way say George H Bush was not.

When this is pointed out to you, you respond with a long rant to the effect the media was right to pursue George W Bush but wrong to pursue Bill and Hill.

That is your opinion, it is not necessarily a statement of fact. And your opinion is biased by your own admission.

Otherwise, we might as well not bother talking about politics or engaging in debates. There's no point if we're just going to evaluate arguments based on the allegiances of the arguer and not the merit of his or her argument.

Jeez.

When testing the merits of an argument in politics you always have to take into account the allegiences of the arguer! That doesn't preclude agreeing with the merits advanced by one side or the other at the end of the debate.

 

[Palmer Stoat]

What do you think politics is all about? Partisans of either side will always discount the other side!

My point is that you can adjudicate between arguments based on how firmly rooted in fact they are. To dismiss an argument because it's advanced by someone with political allegiances is lazy and cynical. Evaluate the argument on its merits.

True, but one politicans fact is another politicians lie, depending on which side you sit.

No, there is something that I live in -- which I call reality -- which allows an independent thinker to evaluate competing arguments. Two politicians describing each other's arguments as 'lies' doesn't somehow result in a nil-all draw that leaves both arguments invalidated.

Indeed. On this issue the facts are that George W Bush and Billary Clinton have both been vilified and pursued by large chunks of the media in a way say George H Bush was not.

When this is pointed out to you, you respond with a long rant to the effect the media was right to pursue George W Bush but wrong to pursue Bill and Hill.

You're ignoring my point. Namely that Dubya's administration has been almost unprecedentedly cynical, incompetent, and lawbreaking. I provided a long laundry list of scandals as an example. Given the huge disparity in competence and wrongdoing between the Clinton and Dubya administrations, Dubya has had a scandalously easy run in the media. Given this same comparison, Clinton faced a scandalously hostile press. You must judge their treatment relative to their performance. That is my point. And you haven't presented a rebuttal; you've just made assertions that, as far as I can tell, are utterly unbuttressed by examples that prove your case.

That is your opinion, it is not necessarily a statement of fact. And your opinion is biased by your own admission.

Why is your opinion any more persuasive than mine? I have, at least, presented an argument and corroborated it with examples. Because you don't profess a party allegiance that somehow makes you impartial or reliable? Give me a break. Your positions seem dictated by this notion that both sides are equally bad and that the media are equally justified in slapping them both equally hard. That simply doesn't make sense, and isn't borne out by the facts.

When testing the merits of an argument in politics you always have to take into account the allegiences of the arguer! That doesn't preclude agreeing with the merits advanced by one side or the other at the end of the debate.

Despite what you say, you're not taking anything else into account. Your response to my 'rant' was to ignore the 'merits of my argument' in favour of dismissing me as a partisan. That's not argument. That's not adjudicating on the merits. That's just glib dismissal.

 

[Palmer Stoat]

Which you assess from your perspective as an admitted Democrat partisan

If you were an admitted Republican partisan saying the opposite (eg IntheNet or Camsmith), then your views on this issue would carry equally as little weight because of their bias.

Ah, for god's sake. Do facts have no place whatsoever in your view of politics?

You persist in saying that views articulated by anyone with a political allegiance carry 'little weight' because of that political allegiance! I find this almost inexpressibly wrongheaded.

Sometimes -- often even -- the facts do support one side or other. Not that you'd perceive it, because you assimilate (or not) the argument based on the identity of the person making it, not on facts or logic.

Show me the person who doesn't have a vested interest of some sort or other -- even if it's only their own egotism -- in an argument and I'll show you someone living in denial. We're all influenced by character and circumstance and environment. Political orientation is only part of the equation.

If we're going to dismiss the arguments of those who profess political allegiance because they're 'biased', why stop there? You seem absurdly wedded to this both-sides-are-equally-bad narrative. This slants all your arguments. Why do you think that makes your arguments less tendentious than someone with a political allegiance?

The best solution is to pay heed to the merit of the argument not the allegiance of the arguer. What's so difficult about that?

When politicians of any complexion start whingeing about the media the correct response is a horse laugh.

Why? You just merrily discount the notion that the media can give some administrations and some politicians a tougher run than others? I suggest you look at how the media treated the campaigns of Dubya and Al Gore in 2000. Or given that you'll just dismiss this as a 'partisan' example and therefore automatically invalid, you could look at how they're treating Clinton vis a vis Obama right now. Or McCain vs the rest of the Republican field.

Then get back to me and tell me that the media hold all to equal account.