Network News

X My Profile
View More Activity

The Hannity-Palin Infomercial

I watched Sean Hannity's interview with Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin last night, but prudence suggested I wait for a transcript before offering thoughts about what I thought I had just witnessed. Now, having had a chance to read's rush transcript this morning, I can state, without fear of contradiction, that Hannity's "exclusive" interview with Palin was 100 percent pure infomercial.

Oh sure, the format was made to resemble a real TV talk show. But it was clear from Hannity's set-up questions and Palin's seemingly well-rehearsed answers -- many designed to derogate Barack Obama -- that the viewing audience was be treated to a political advertisement aimed at serving the interests of the Republican presidential ticket.

A sample:

HANNITY: "Is Senator Obama then using what happened on Wall Street this week? Is he using it for political gain? Is there a danger of a presidential candidate is saying to the world that America's situation of economic crisis is the worst that we've seen in decades-which was words [sic] that he was using yesterday—is there a danger in terms of the world hearing that?"

PALIN: "Well, there is a danger in allowing some obsessive partisanship to get into the issue that we're talking about today. And that's something that John McCain too, his track record…he can surpass the partisanship that must surpassed to deal with an issue like this."

There's more like this. It doesn't keep me awake at night. But in my neighborhood, fair warning is fair play.

I just wish that before the Hannity-Palin infomerical got underway, Fox News had run a disclaimer warning that "the following program is a political advertisement."

The evening's biggest winner going away was the John McCain campaign. It didn't have to pay a cent for the prime-time ad that lasted almost a full hour -- and continues tonight.

By Colbert King  | September 18, 2008; 10:16 AM ET
Categories:  King  | Tags:  Colbert King  
Save & Share:  Send E-mail   Facebook   Twitter   Digg   Yahoo Buzz   StumbleUpon   Technorati   Google Buzz   Previous: Ditch the Surrogates
Next: Debate Foreshadows the Debates


LOL - For someone who has been in the tank for Obama, ignoring his relationships with contemtible figures, his lack of legislative feats and inexperience in leadership roles, well, it is like the pot calling the kettle, oh, better not go there.

Posted by: Anonymous | September 18, 2008 11:01 AM | Report abuse

The Gibson interview and the continued servile attitude of the MSM toward Palin have been more valuable to McCain than a predictable Fox infomercial.

Every day that US "journalists" put up with the ridiculous and surreal demand by the GOP ticket that Palin be "kept under glass" this close to a national election only proves that they learned NO lessons after their shameful behavior before the Iraq War.

Americans -- non GOP base Americans -- are disgusted beyond words.

Posted by: Louise | September 18, 2008 11:04 AM | Report abuse

Once again, Fix News offers it's viewers only the right-wing pablum it's viewers expect. Of course, when it's Hannity doing the "interviewing", what else would you get?

Posted by: Jenny | September 18, 2008 11:08 AM | Report abuse

The Fox News audience is overwhelmingly Republican. No one else is really paying attention.

Posted by: Chester | September 18, 2008 11:15 AM | Report abuse

Yes, this was a friendly interview....oh no!!
Obama has had his boots licked by the mainstream media and you have an issue with this?! Have you played Gibson's interview with Obama recently? He might as well have been massaging the Messiah's shoulders during the 'interview'. I am happy that Palin went on friendly ground. Fix news? Wow that is sooo clever. I know you need to ignore the reality of how in the tank ABC, NBC and CBS are for this false god of yours.

Posted by: Jay M | September 18, 2008 11:15 AM | Report abuse

One neglected to mention the interview Keith Olbermann had with Obama, which had the same kind of mind-blowingly dull and leading questions.

If the two interviews were in court, every question would be "leading the witness."

I think MSNBC and FOX are two sides of the same coin in coverage of this election.
One is liberal, one is conservative, and both stink!

The media has been incomprehensible in its coverage....For "journalists" to complain about the this race not being about "issues," they sure are asking some tough follow-up questions (sarcasm included)!

When the media stops asking questions about what a campaign staffer said, and rather say, "what is you economics policy? Okay, do you see any flaw in your policy, and what compromises will you make when going into legislation?"

If theses people in the media are being paid million dollar salaries, I expect more!

Posted by: John | September 18, 2008 11:18 AM | Report abuse

This is just rich. The MSM throws rose pedals in front of Obama as he walks into their studios but lambasts a non-combative interview, for once, with Sarah Palin.

You guys are just too much to believe. get over yourselves and your self-importance.

Posted by: Anonymous | September 18, 2008 11:32 AM | Report abuse

McCain has a problem with the Republican base. The Hannity interview was preaching to the choir, just like the selection of Palin itself was.

While I throughly disagree with their politics, it is clear that Romney or Ridge would at least be knowledgeable enough of national issues, to address them. Joe Leiberman only agrees with Republicans on Iraq. The problem is Romney is Mormon and Ridge is pro-life; talk about a sure-fire way to Obama elected!

No, McCain had to reach all the way to Alaska to find a right wing zealot who has not been thoroughly discredited. If she has no clue about foreign affairs or economics, who gets them elected an that's all that matters right!?

Posted by: Anonymous | September 18, 2008 11:36 AM | Report abuse

Mr. King, did you expect anything more? Dim bulb vs. dim bulb Q&A was the best you could have hoped for...
Just be glad no one other than you watching has enough brain cells to make a difference.

Posted by: voodoodiver | September 18, 2008 11:39 AM | Report abuse

Head of State

Tuesday, September 16, 2008
Watching Palin

I'm watching Palin speak right now in Vienna, Ohio.

She looks as if she is about to burst into tears.

The outcome of this election will be frightening if she and McCain are victorious.

She was placed in a position where she was unready for the tasks she was to engage in.

Now, she is being buffeted by questions that she is unable to respond to, and she is wholly unready for this and cannot deal with the outcome or ramifications.

She is like a hurt young person rather than a Vice Presidential candidate.

She looks as if her head will burst with anger and hate and hurt.

This is closer to the Palin we have heard of in Wasilla and as Governor.

Kay Bailey Hutchinson and other candidates would not have responded in this way.

She is clearly not ready for the Presidential status she aspires to and cannot be let to have this position for the sake of the nation. This is not only valid and obviously true, but must be understood by anyone who cares about the future of this nation

She is not only unprepared, but likely to be overwhelmed by the provocations that regularly come to the President and cannot plausibly respond to issues in economic or any other area of substantive policy.

If we blindly stagger into this through the usual gathering at the trough of excitement, we will not only have a potential tragedy in the making, but a final aspect of America consuming itself through its fascination with novelty and short-term thinking in the face of an utterly unprepared holder of the nation's highest office.

Head of State

Posted by: Emily | September 18, 2008 11:43 AM | Report abuse

It's so sad that your benchmarks for television journalism are NBC, CBS and ABC. Extreme liberals who either spread outright lies (as Dan Rather and his falsified letters did just before the last election) or are totally in the tank for Obama (like Chris Mathews who gets tingly legs just listening to the Messiah and wants one of Obama's speeches heard by all elementary school children) cannot be relied on to give accurate reports. Although my all time favorite is the NY Times who buried the story about the arrest of the Muslims planning to bomb JFK Airport back on page 30 something. It's more important to bury any news that would give credit to the Bush Administration than enlighten any of the Times' readers, many of whom use JFK Airport and might like to know that folks who were planning to kill them have been arrested. Unfortunately, journalism is more or less dead and today's "journalists" merely report on whatever is to their candidate's advantage.

Posted by: Anonymous Conservative | September 18, 2008 11:46 AM | Report abuse

"Emily" writes:
"She is clearly not ready for the Presidential status she aspires to and cannot be let to have this position for the sake of the nation."
I'm sure BJ (Bill Jefferson) Clinton was just fine with you, doing you-know-what in the Oval Office, lying under oath, selling pardons, refusing to arrest Bin Laden when he was given the chance, etc. I'd regard Sarah Palin as a breath of fresh air in comparison. She would really have to work at it to sink to Clinton's level!

Posted by: non-elitist non-Democrat | September 18, 2008 11:54 AM | Report abuse

What do you expect? Even Larry King would have asked tougher questions.

Hannity would have been apopletic if any other elected official, especially a Democrat charged rape victims for their rape kits.

Soft on crime Republicans, corporate and otherwise.

Posted by: MRF | September 18, 2008 11:57 AM | Report abuse

I'm sure I've never seen a softball interview for Obama, right? I love all of the scrutiny of Palin. A lot of it is weak but it's good that it's out there. I'm still waiting for the same scrutiny of Obama. Remember he's actually going to be the President if he's elected. Unfortunately you'll need to do your own research for that.

To everyone that is terrified about Palin's ability to be President you really need to demand the same examination of Obama. The information that the press has ignored. I read article after article about Palin but nothing but a padlock on Obama's past. I mean what do any of you really know about who he is besides some speeches and slogans? I'd like to be a lot better informed about the man that IS going to be President if he wins.

Posted by: Nathan | September 18, 2008 12:10 PM | Report abuse

A fan of Keith Oberman myself, he does the same thing for Obama on MSNBC. Of course, I believe he is entirely correct about McCain and Palin. People who watch Hannity probably feel the same way about what he shows. I've never seen the Hannity show (or anything on Fox (Fix) News) and have no intention of never tuning to that channel. In other words, both Oberman and Fox preach to the choir. Oberman is a lot of fun too!

Posted by: Greg | September 18, 2008 12:19 PM | Report abuse

Ok - Obama sat down with O'Reily

So - when's Caribou Barbie going to set down with Oberman? Or Mr. McCain?

Posted by: TWM | September 18, 2008 12:33 PM | Report abuse

So now King has finally openly admitted to
his being just another phony WAPO Obama
Shill,that begs the question is ther anyone
working for WAPO that isnot of the Obama
or DNC Payroll?

Posted by: Ralphinphnx | September 18, 2008 12:39 PM | Report abuse

Democrats for John McCain and Sarah Palin in 2008

Posted by: Julie | September 18, 2008 12:40 PM | Report abuse

It reminds me that Sean Hannity is such a puppy dog, wants to lick Sarah Palin's face, like he would love her to death. I agree with you that the interview is Infomercial. I know the fox news is the only one out there. I think everyone is just a guilty. I think the danger is that they are more and more media and the blogs are confusing to allot people can't even tell if thats a real news or not. I don't like the ways its going this country. Its allot noise pollution.I don't think it will never get a green sound.

Posted by: Kevin | September 18, 2008 12:52 PM | Report abuse

Forget the stump speeches. Look at objective sources to see how the candidates tax, health care, and social security plans are really going to affect your family. One good nonpartisan source is Click on the 2008 executive summary. Don't be bamboozled by what the politicans say. Vote for your family. What strengthens the vast majority of families in the middle will strengthen the country.

Posted by: akindependent | September 18, 2008 12:56 PM | Report abuse

Why doesn't Biden offer Colmes a "cable exclusive"? Just go on with Colmes (only) and talk about whatever and then leave Colmes to kick it around with Hannity?

He'd get in a little dig about the Palin set up and add a little humor to the proceedings. Fox would probably ignore the embarrassment and take him up on it just to have a candidate on.

I don't think Caribou Barbie can be on Olbermann. He only has guests that have passed the Olbermann litmus test. I doubt if she has, or could be trusted to hue the line on live television.

Posted by: jr | September 18, 2008 12:57 PM | Report abuse

The Fox News infomerical validates the reality that the cable program has more in common with the Comedy Channel than with any legitimate news program.

The interview was a waste of both the Caribou Barbie's time and that of Sean Hannity. Their time would have been better spent reading one of the rafts of books about the critical issues facing this nation now in the 21st century. The interview did nothing to change the minds of anyone who watched the pathetic program. Those uneducated voters who are willing to waste their vote on the inexperienced and unqualified Sarah Palin are going to do so because they do not want facts to stand in their way.

Posted by: Fl Voter | September 18, 2008 12:59 PM | Report abuse

Take heart, liberals. Does anyone believe Sean Hannity would conduct a real interview with any Republican? That he would ask penetrating answers intended to get at the candidate's views, policies, goals and ambitions?
Please. No disclaimer is needed-- this is one of Fixed Noise's highest profile and highest paid flacks we're talking about, not a reputable figure in the realm of journalism or political commentary.

Posted by: DB | September 18, 2008 1:05 PM | Report abuse

BTW, "Caribou Barbie"? Priceless.

Posted by: DB | September 18, 2008 1:06 PM | Report abuse

I read on another blog using an extremely vulgar word beginng with f------- over and over. Where was the oversight?
I think Mr. King's articles are excellent and "fair and balanced" which might have a different meaning as it is used elsewhere.

Posted by: Ann Bier | September 18, 2008 1:06 PM | Report abuse

And no, Palin would never appear on Keith Olbermann's "Countdown"-- she wouldn't last a minute and her Rovian handlers know it.
But it sure would be fun to watch her try.

Posted by: DB | September 18, 2008 1:07 PM | Report abuse

Why in the world would anyone ever listen to the likes of Olbermann? The guy is a total joke. From what I've heard, he spends half his show ranting about O'Reilly, another idiot, because he's jealous of his ratings. I suppose if Olbermann could get two more watching him, he'd double his ratings. Watch Olbermann? I mean really, are you a house bound invalid who has no life? Sheesh!

Posted by: informedvoter | September 18, 2008 1:10 PM | Report abuse

Sean Hannity is a disgrace to all news reporters. How is it Chris Matthews and Keith Olbermann get removed from election coverage for so-called perceived bias but this GOP NEOCON Swaztica continues to berade, degrade, and use his Fox News Platform and some kind of GOP Love Fundraiser. No unbiased reporting of anykind. Hell, even I had to give it to Bill O'Reilly for being tough but fair to Barack Obama in his interview. This interview with Palin by Hannity showed him drooling like an 9th grader drooling over a Senior he know he can never have. It was dispicable but then it was FOX NEWS. What do you expect from such trash.

Posted by: 2pacolypse Now | September 18, 2008 1:14 PM | Report abuse

I would not watch her on Fox news because you know its a setup mess. This is the my main problem with Fox or NeoCons, they generally HATE the other side. Look at the venom they use when 'reporting' on the Democrats. Everyone knows S. Palin is not qualified to be VP or god-forbid Prez. They hide her, why? The cuddle her but then scream of sexism! You cant have it both ways. I say lets stop the LYING(McCain camp) and start talking about the ISSUES.

OMG, this McCain guy is talking about regulators were asleep at the wheel. If it was up to him there would be NO REGULATORS. His just said in March that he wants to get rid of regulators to free up moving flowing into banking, etc. Now he expects YOU ALL to believe he is NOW for Regulation.. COME ON, AMERICA, regardless of your Partisain standing-how are you going to let someone just lie in your face. This guy use to be someone I admired, he is just a "..oh I want go there.."(if i can quote the ...., Anonymous | September 18, 2008 11:01 AM )

Posted by: Andre | September 18, 2008 1:33 PM | Report abuse

At first I thought Sarah Palin was another Erin Brockovich, taking on the establishment. How wrong I have been. Sarah would best serve Alaska by going back to Wasila to teach junior hi phi-ed classes in marksmanship.
The old McCain morphed into a GOP Dennis Kucinich when he chose Palin.
I knew Erin Brockovich, and Sarah is no Erin Brockovich.

Posted by: Jack Kaufman | September 18, 2008 1:37 PM | Report abuse

The partisanship of all the pundits - left or right is getting wearisome - but Sean Hannity is just downright in love with Sarah Palin! The only other time I have witnessed anything quite like that is with Obama and the girls on "The View"

Posted by: Nancy Z. | September 18, 2008 1:40 PM | Report abuse

Don't get me wrong, Palin on Olbermann would be a lot of fun for a couple minutes. Him, off camera, heard screaming that someone he didn't fully agree with had slipped through security. Her, reading her full knowledge of world issues off a couple of 3x5 cards.
Him, still off camera, firing whomever had purposely set this monstrous trap. Her...I guess looking to see if there was anything on back of the 3x5's.
I don't think either one of them could sustain a full 6-7 minutes though.

Posted by: jr | September 18, 2008 1:51 PM | Report abuse

Gay, liberal, elite, universal health care & abortion-loving Democrats for McCain-Palin in 2008!!!!!!!!!!!!

Because Palin may be a joke, but Obama is too, and he's running for PRESIDENT!

Posted by: Libs4palin | September 18, 2008 1:52 PM | Report abuse

PLEASE KEEP UP the attacks and smears on Palin. It will do wonders for McCain's margin of victory in Nov!

Posted by: w-martmom | September 18, 2008 1:54 PM | Report abuse

Hey, "informed voter" - you have never watched Olberman, but criticise his show based on "from what I've heard." Not too informed. You must be a "ditto head" who believes everything Rush Limbaugh says, never bothers with actual facts, and then you think you are "well-informed." Those are the folks who support the Republicans and then continue to blame the "liberal elitists" whe they get screwed by Republican programs. They are being played by the GOP fat cats for the fools they are.

Posted by: John | September 18, 2008 2:17 PM | Report abuse

Why in the world would anyone ever listen to the likes of Olbermann? The guy is a total joke. From what I've heard, he spends half his show ranting about O'Reilly, another idiot, because he's jealous of his ratings. I suppose if Olbermann could get two more watching him, he'd double his ratings. Watch Olbermann? I mean really, are you a house bound invalid who has no life? Sheesh!

Posted by: informedvoter | September 18, 2008 1:10 PM

Bill O'Reilly's on the air at the same time. Are his viewers housebound invalids with no lives?
Sheesh yourself, dummy.

Posted by: DB | September 18, 2008 2:25 PM | Report abuse

PLEASE KEEP UP the attacks and smears on Palin. It will do wonders for McCain's margin of victory in Nov!

Posted by: w-martmom | September 18, 2008 1:54 PM
Don't need to, Wal-Mart Mom. She's already losing popularity as people see who she really is. No attacks needed, just truth.

Posted by: DB | September 18, 2008 2:26 PM | Report abuse

O'Rielly made pudding out of Obama the other day. Obama got a little flustered. Hillary Clinton, AKA nerves of steel is better than all of these candidates and would have put the blocks to O'Rielly. Too bad, now we are stuck with Obama whom really sucks at talking when he has no note cards to read from. McCain does well under pressure I noticed. Palin, well she may crack but knowing how the Rethugs are about honest discourse, Palin will never face a serious interview. The Palin infomercial by Hannity will be dismissed as useless by Independents whom are actually looking for answers to serious questions.

Posted by: Pat | September 18, 2008 2:43 PM | Report abuse

Can anyone tell me why no "hockey moms" have complained about being treated as lipstick wearing pitbulls and why no pitbull owners have reacted about the inference that pitbulls are vicious. If Biden or Obama had made the remark the roof would have fallen in on them !!!!!!!

Posted by: aredee | September 18, 2008 2:46 PM | Report abuse

MSNBC and every other network on television played the same 30-second loop of a sermon of a certain preacher in an African robe yelling GD America not once, but a thousand times.

No one could produce any evidence that Obama had heard these words, but every single tv station persisted until not one man, woman or child could even look at Obama without seeing Rev Wight's face superimposed on his. MSNBC shoved Rev Wright at us just as much as any
network. How was this despicable programming helpful to Barack Obama?

Posted by: fanofann | September 18, 2008 2:48 PM | Report abuse

I agree that certain media treat Obama with the same deference that Palin received from Hannity. The difference is that Obama has been under fire for more than a year. He has had to endure various scandals on the way to getting the nomination. But, Palin, on the other hand, is handed her VP nomination out of the blue. We don't know who she is and her handlers are keeping her from talking to any media, other than a whopping TWO now. Obama has talked to all kinds of media -- national and local, right and left. If she does that, I won't accuse her of hiding anymore. But, right now, she's still in hiding, and time is running out. Obviously, the right is scared.

Posted by: Debbie | September 18, 2008 2:50 PM | Report abuse

Here's a prediction - if McCain/Palin get elected Ms. Palin will have done her duty and scammed the female vote. She will then disappear back to mooseland and never be heard of again unless she accidentally shoots a colleague whilst out hunting. McCain will form his Graham/Lieberman/McCain triumvirate and the USA will slide deeper and deeper into bankruptcy because of a debt he incurred but will never live to see paid.

Posted by: aredee | September 18, 2008 2:56 PM | Report abuse

Oh, you mean like the political informercials the mainstream media have been running for Obama? Get real.

Posted by: Lily | September 18, 2008 3:06 PM | Report abuse

No harm, no foul.
Only hard core politics junkies like me would pay attention, so you gotta figure that the only folks who tuned in/will tune in to the Palin-Hannity love in are those who are hard right or hard left.
Same goes for the Oberman-Obama mutual admiration society.
Useless diversion. Meanwhile, McSame continues his tumble down the polls.

Posted by: GoneFromTexas | September 18, 2008 3:10 PM | Report abuse

Mr.King is made of sterner stuff than I am, to be able to watch such rubbish. I could not even get through the transcript without being sick. And all things considered, Sarah Palin is being to feel less and less relevant to the situation at hand.

Posted by: Suzie Q. | September 18, 2008 3:11 PM | Report abuse

I think McCain - Palin could be effective, but if one choice is Barack Obama, I would vote for a dead fish before I would cast a ballot for the stuffed shirt gasbag Barack Hussein "duhh, I didn't know Jeremiah Wright said that" Obama!

Posted by: Stan | September 18, 2008 3:23 PM | Report abuse

Infomercial is right. Can Hannity interview Obama as well so we can compare their treatment?

Posted by: Bill J | September 18, 2008 3:36 PM | Report abuse

Is the Washington Post a 527 organization? Shouldn't there be a disclaimer at the end of each article?

Posted by: Concerned Citizen | September 18, 2008 3:36 PM | Report abuse

Is anyone really surprised that Slannity Hannity would do a fluff interview with Sarah "I'm so unqualified to be VP" Palin. I'm sure all of the slack-jawed rednecks that get all of their info from Fox Noise thought she went over well.

God, I miss Tim Russert......

Posted by: owiz | September 18, 2008 3:44 PM | Report abuse

Yes, the pit bull found a lap dog. Hannity earned his dog treats in the interview.

Fox News has nothing to worry about -- it's malicious, one-sided, vindictive reputation is secure, thanks to good work like this.

Posted by: somerseten | September 18, 2008 3:50 PM | Report abuse

"O'Rielly made pudding out of Obama the other day."

Yeah, all that 'deference and respect' for a candidate, huh? Actually, I took a different view away from that---O'Reilly's nasty attitude, in the face of Obama's cool---really made Obama look quite presidential. I was impressed.

I believe Olbermann would have Sarah Palin on the show if she would agree to an interview---but that won't happen.

Keith-please invite Sarah to join you. Live. Let's see what she says.

Posted by: Anonymous | September 18, 2008 3:54 PM | Report abuse

If it is okay to vote for Obama just because he is black which seems to be his main qualification for the highest office compared to Hillary and others why isn't it okay to not vote for him just because he is black.

Posted by: dagsboro1 | September 18, 2008 4:03 PM | Report abuse

I really do not think that most people feel that any of the news is credible on Fox News. Fox is simply a propoganda arm of the Republican Party, and I think that most everyone knows that - except maybe the people who regularly watch Fox News.

Posted by: Russ | September 18, 2008 4:10 PM | Report abuse

Yes, there have been fawning interviews with Obama - notably Olbermann, but he's not the only one.

BUT (a) Obama also went on O'Reilly, and he's faced plenty of other not so friendly interviewers and (b) we know a lot about him; he's been in the public eye for 4 years, we have him talking on the record about hundreds of issues.

Palin has been a totally unknown quantity until a few weeks ago, which makes it all the more important for the media to help us understand who she is and what she thinks.

The Hannity "interview" had nothing to do with this process - OK, fair enough, you can't blame the campaign for arranging it. But when are we going to see her talking to Rachel Maddox or Chris Matthews - or even Wolf Bitzer?

Posted by: simonbuc | September 18, 2008 4:21 PM | Report abuse

Obviously, McCain made a stupid comment, then made it even stupider by trying to 'change' or 'reform' it... and then attacks Obama for making such disparaging remarks about 'the workforce'. Hmmm, change (or reform) the definition (unilaterally and illogically) after-the-fact, then accuse your adversary based on your unilaterally changed (or reformed) definition of disparaging the newly defined object of your changed (or reformed) definition (against all prior universal understanding of the economic term)! Nice tricked up tactic! I'll bet a lot of morons actually swallow it, but most see through it (I hope) as the stupidity it is. Add it to the Rovian list of lies.

While she is in Florida, I suggest she catch a flight high enough so that she can see Cuba, then she can be a Cuban expert as well.

Posted by: michael4 | September 18, 2008 4:22 PM | Report abuse

Obama has no experience.
Obama has not championed anything while in the Senate. (co-sponsoring is meaningless)
Obama did little in the Illinois legislature.
Obama is naive on foreign policy.
Obama offers little more than a "hope and change" slogan. Few plans.
Obama has a radical activist past.
Obama consorted with anti-Americans and did nothing.
Obama wants to talk with our enemies.
Obama wants to pull back troops regardless of success. That's wimpy.
Obama talks like an elitist, in carefully scripted ways.
Obama is a manufactured candidate -- the only goal is to get elected.
Obama's advisors are many of the same insiders he criticizes.
Obama says he doesn't take lobbyist money. He just takes bags of their PAC money.
Obama isn't readily able to espouse patriotism, the flag, and prayer.
Obama will raise taxes. Raising taxes in tough economic times never works!
Obama wants to expand government programs. More waste, debt, and inefficiency.
Obama's wife is far from every-woman.
Obama seems weak, indecisive, and unprincipled.
Obama's formation was non-American.
Obama is hiding his record at Columbia and Harvard.
Obama's community activism was usually counter-cultural -- that's not American.
Obama chose as a running mate the type of person he said he despises

Posted by: Dubs | September 18, 2008 4:29 PM | Report abuse

Hannity on FOX is no different than ABC's George Stephanopolous or NBC's twits, and CNN being in the tank for Obama ... the news services and networks are a disgrace to journalism this election year!!

Posted by: Cassandra Washington | September 18, 2008 4:37 PM | Report abuse

Even by Fox News' rock-bottom journalistic standards, this was laughable.

Posted by: Enemy Of The State | September 18, 2008 4:44 PM | Report abuse

Obama has no experience.
Obama has not championed anything while in the Senate. (co-sponsoring is meaningless)
Obama did little in the Illinois legislature...
blah blah blah blah blah

Posted by: Dubs | September 18, 2008 4:29 PM

Ladies and gentlemen, I give you McCain's campaign manager...

Posted by: DB | September 18, 2008 4:46 PM | Report abuse

I'm not certain what the problem is.

The entirety Fox is as clear in its support as much as MSNBC is.

I go to one or the other whether I seek to be inflamed or comforted.

Uncommitted people who tune in one or the other for objectivity, should probably have their right to vote suspended.

Posted by: TJGPDX | September 18, 2008 4:46 PM | Report abuse

Caribou Barbie... Well done!

That's better than Lipstick Blowhard, Moose Twit, Screeching Sara, or Hockey Puck.

Posted by: michael4 | September 18, 2008 4:49 PM | Report abuse

So, Dubs, I was wondering what you think of Obama. Can you give me a list of talking points so I can share it with my ill-informed friends? Mmm, yeah. Thanks.

Posted by: J | September 18, 2008 5:00 PM | Report abuse

BTW, Mr. King, if you actually listened to the whole infomercial AND read the transcript, you are a better man than I.

Obviously you can handle torture. I'd be retching in the toilet...long, laborious heaves of nausea, followed by a putrid stink...

Posted by: michael4 | September 18, 2008 5:01 PM | Report abuse

So, Dubs, I was wondering what you think of Obama. Can you give me a list of talking points so I can share it with my ill-informed friends? Mmm, yeah. Thanks.

Posted by: J | September 18, 2008 5:00 PM
I'm not sure, but I think she's undecided.

Posted by: michael4 | September 18, 2008 5:02 PM | Report abuse

Let's be fair. I thought Sean did a very good job of asking the questions that the McCain campaign prepared for him. If we are so blessed to have John and Sarah win the election, perhaps Mr. Ailes will arrange for him to be appointed the White House Press secretary.

Posted by: brendy1 | September 18, 2008 5:31 PM | Report abuse

michael4 wrote: BTW, Mr. King, if you actually listened to the whole infomercial AND read the transcript, you are a better man than I.

Obviously you can handle torture. I'd be retching in the toilet...long, laborious heaves of nausea, followed by a putrid stink...

It's his all-out dedication to his craft.
Like, wow. I feel I almost can't handle that kind of commitment. He's so REAL.

Posted by: Yakkety Sax | September 18, 2008 5:32 PM | Report abuse

Infomercial? You mean like the ones CBS, NBC, ABC, CNN and MSNBC tape with Obama? Asking The Prophet challenging questions has clearly been declared off-limits for the media.

Posted by: mhr | September 18, 2008 5:51 PM | Report abuse

FIX NEWS is where the redneck crowd goes to get its daily political pablum. To call Hannity a journalist is LOL funny. The Karl Rove boys know what they are doing and they will keep the lipstick queen in her cocoon and away from anyone with any intelligent question related to foreign policy, the economy, or anything else she has not been trained and given 3 X 5 flash cards for. Mc Cains darling soulmate running mate is losing her sheen and will be seen as a knee jerk attempt to fool Americas women. Too bad for Johnnie Mc Same it wont work in any substantial way. Vote hpe and not the fears the Republican clowns manufacture for you by the day. Expect an Osama tape to be released within a two week before the election time frame. Mc Same we have not forgotten you tried to derail the GI bill Mr. fellow veteran. Your Hanoi Hilton buddies all say your temperament is the wrong one to lead our country and veterans are overwhelmingly in favor of Obama. Hint?

Posted by: Col Joe Bento US Army | September 18, 2008 6:05 PM | Report abuse

It's not so much the questions -- I expected those -- it's the fact that she can't even answer a softball question with a coherent answer!

Posted by: Anabel Adams | September 18, 2008 6:10 PM | Report abuse

Right. And when the networks sent their anchors to breathlessly cover Obama's every pontification on his Grand Tour of Europe, that was NOT an infomercial. Thanks clearing that up.

Posted by: Leopold1 | September 18, 2008 6:17 PM | Report abuse what.Obama has been enjoying this kind of treatment for so long as i can remember,and now u are crying over the Hannity-Palin interview.Pleease.Save me the tears.Obama has had a pass on countless issues.He went into the senate and did not vote over 48% of the time.If he can't do a simple job we pay him to do,how is he going to be President.No journalist has asked him that so far as i can remember...and u talk about Palin's experience...PLEASE

Posted by: Osbert | September 18, 2008 7:25 PM | Report abuse

Palin has become an instant celebrity. She is a MUCH MUCH bigger celebrity than Obama. It is a shame that in this country of 300 million people, GOP could only have this moronic person as a VP. Here is why she is an abomination to society:
1. She is a thief, she charged Alaska for nights at home
2. She is a traitor. Watch her address to Alaska Independence Party which wants independence from USA.
3. Palin painted the current war in Iraq as a messianic affair(What!!?!) in which the United States could act out the will of the Lord. /palins-church-may-have-sh_n_123205.html
4. Palin said she is for limited Government, but she increased the size of the City of Wasilla payroll by hiring a CIty Manager as SHE WAS INCOMPETENT TO RUN IT ON HER OWN. Her predecessors did not need anyone to run the city.
5. She said she will change Washignton. Well, she hired Jack Abramoff's firm to lobby for the city. For a city of 6000, she could get ear-marks for $27 million!!
6. She said she will cut cost, well she ran her city of ZERO DEBT to $22 mil debt when she left

Posted by: Anonymous | September 18, 2008 7:31 PM | Report abuse

Real Brother here.

While I support the best candidate the one with the most relevant experience the one who is the most intelligent the most learned the one who is right on the War, the Economy, Foriegn Policy, States Rights, Energy and every other issue that matters, I still have to say I welcome any opportunity that the world gets to see how DUMB and STUPID McCain is for picking such an Idiot as Palin.

And while Barack Obama has more experience knowledege and qualifications in his pinky finger then Palin and McCain have in their entire bodies it still makes no sense that both McCain and Palin at this stage in their political careers are this damn DUMB.


Posted by: Realbrother | September 18, 2008 7:32 PM | Report abuse

I would like a news channel that was staffed by journalists as opposed to cable/tv personalities.

1. Just give me the facts.
2. Compare their positions on the relevant issues.
3. Put things in context and perspective. 4. Be above approach.
5. Identify political operatives for who they are.

The sooner we distinguish between entertainment and news the better off all of us will be. If you are a program that isn't unbiased and made up of journalists, no matter how dull - you should be listed as entertainment. CSPAN comes to mind as a place to see the unfiltered work. CNN is doing a little better on their no bull section and fact check. Everything else is entertainment.

Posted by: waukone | September 18, 2008 7:33 PM | Report abuse

Real Brother here.

Again, we need to give Sarah Palin as much exposer as we possibly can because the world gets to see how inept she and in turn McCain for choosing her are. Its still quite possible that the White Racists, Supremacists and Black man hating lesbians will be able to garner enough support to defeat Obama and if they do there MUST be a historical record of how DUMB that choice was. Interviews like the one Hannity conducted will serve as that record.


Posted by: Realbrother | September 18, 2008 7:36 PM | Report abuse

non-elitist, if we could put this country back in the shape it was,( before it was handed to Bush) I say bring on the BJ's!

Posted by: Anonymous | September 18, 2008 8:05 PM | Report abuse

Hey people! those of you who aren't political junkies. Those who will make up their minds based on just a few pieces of information. Those who have not made up their minds. Think about this:

Todd Palin has just decided he is not going to answer any subpoenas. Imagine that! Do you think if you were subpoenaed would you not go? Do you think you might land in jail? I think I would. But, apparantly, Todd has the McCain campaign behind him to say you don't have to go. Hmmm, who does this remind you of? Harriet Myers you say? Or Andrew Card, or Karl Rove? Yes I agree it reminds me of them too.

So now we know what the McCain campaign or administration will be like. Meet the new boss, same as the old boss.

Four more years of the same. Not for me. I want the rule of law to be equal for all of us. I don't like Obama, You don't have to. But for our countries sake, vote him in! At least he respects our constitution!

Posted by: Narnia | September 18, 2008 8:44 PM | Report abuse

The thing to keep in mind is that, even with Sean Hannity licking her boots, and in spite of the fact that she clearly knew what questions were coming--Palin STILL could not say what the Bush doctrine is. Nevertheless, one has to give her credit for being a good politician. Not qualified to be vice president, but probably a great governor for Alaska. By the way--despite the mythology being repeared by previous posts, Obama has not been treated better by the media. What other candidate in the television era has gotten away with doing just TWO sit-down interviews with the media? What other candidate, asked some of the same questions in both interviews, still could not answer one of the most important?

Posted by: Mike C | September 18, 2008 9:30 PM | Report abuse

To walmart mom: Sarah Palin is the lady at Walmart who distracts you while her accomplice steals your wallet from your purse. She has nothing in common with honest people like you- she's just snother Republican distraction!

Posted by: once a real hockey mom | September 18, 2008 9:45 PM | Report abuse

Did we really expect anything else from Hannity? The packaging of Palin is an insult to the "intelligence" of the American public. But maybe Americans are as dumb as The Republicans think. Look at the last 8 years.

Posted by: ron | September 18, 2008 10:15 PM | Report abuse

See America. Things can start looking up again. What a difference a week makes.

Posted by: B. Rollens | September 18, 2008 10:21 PM | Report abuse

Thank God Hannity did not live in Germany in the 1930's.

Posted by: Rick | September 18, 2008 10:47 PM | Report abuse

Now that's an oxymoron

Posted by: Tess | September 18, 2008 10:54 PM | Report abuse

It's sad to see McCain at the point that he needs Sarah Palin to be along to get someone to show up to see him. He needs her ,though. because she remembers her lines better than he does. He can't remember what he said yesterday about the economy. "In crisis" or "fundamentally strong"? Please prompt me, Sarah!

She and Todd need to stay near McCain and his team of lawyers and lobbyists to avoid the supoenas for the investigation of abuse of power that might send them to jail. So they all need each other.
Given the circumstances we've come to, I suggest they rename the " Straight Talk Express" the "Hospice Express". Seems more fitting for this phase of the campaign.
Who can McCain or Palin fire tomorrow? I hope they find some "Hater" to fire.

Posted by: slysosme | September 18, 2008 11:01 PM | Report abuse

Well, this interview was the final nail for me. I've been a republican my entire life and there is no way I can vote for McCain/Palin. She reminds me of a teen trying to act as an adult. Unfortunately John, in his desperation to be president, picked a cheerleader. It speaks more about his terrible judgment than her ability ( which is seriously lacking).

So, this Nov., for the first time, I will vote for the Democratic option. Barack Obama and Joe Biden have more intelligence and ability than John McCain could ever dream of possessing.
Too bad the Republicans put up a weak, it's my turn dang it, angry man for president. Oh well, after the way they've been behaving they deserve to lose this time.

Posted by: Susan L. | September 18, 2008 11:10 PM | Report abuse

I can't help but be reminded of schoolyard politics. They don't end as we get older. Rednecks and idiots taunting "college boys." "Hey college boy, who's the smart one now," as they leave him beaten up in the dirt. Classes in high sschool included curious, engaged, students who did the reading assignments and were up to speed with the subject matter mixed in with defensive, overly confident, kids who would blurt out comments that padded what passed for answers with snide, dismissive insults. As if picking apart some aspect of the "smart" kids answer with a surly demeanor meant they had won the debate. We aren't attacking Palin. We're listening to her speak and wondering how anyone can't see what a preposterous candidate she is. Are you so blind that you cannot see? Where is all this inexperience and unreadiness you see in Obama? He's read a few books and he's written one as well, himself. His teleprompted speeches are often his own words. He's not parroting some Rovian jedi-mind tricks. Do you expect him to memorize a long speech? Man, some of you "conservatives" are so aggressive and loud about things you don't fully understand. You're so defensive about facts that are as plain as day. These are not opinions. You think that by simply winning the playground fight your outdoor bravado translates to and dominates in the classroom. I guess it's hard to know when you're not too smart or adept or thoughtful. I can see why you'd be defensive. But stick with what you know. This is not a slight. It's a suggestion. Some people know what's better for you than you do. Imagine that? Who is an elite? Elites are educated to govern. While common public education is often designed to educate the general population to produce knowledgeable and skilled citizens, the elite approach to education is often presented at a more intellectual and demanding level, and is geared to produce leaders of a sort. It can be idealized as an education geared to producing an individual capable of thinking at an intellectual level more advanced than the general population, consisting of diverse philosophical ideals and theories in order to enable the elite to logically evaluate situations.

Posted by: JIm Neill | September 18, 2008 11:20 PM | Report abuse

I am voting Republican in a Presidential Election for the first time ever for the simple reason that I think McCain is more qualified. However, I truly believe that Republicans feign injury by the MSM as a constant electioneering tactic. Oh, they complain about Charlie Gibson, Dan Rather and Keith Olbermann, but it's ok for Ruah, Hannity and their ilk to be as biased as possible to just balance things out. Hannity's obviously leading questions designed to make Gov. Palin look good are enough to turn my stomach. Hey, Republicans, go look at yourself in the mirror when it comes to bias.

Posted by: Rich from Harrisburg | September 18, 2008 11:54 PM | Report abuse

Well, it is funny: all the GOP responders here admit is was a softball game between Hannity and Palin.

At least we got that right

Posted by: | September 19, 2008 12:06 AM | Report abuse

Even worse was the fact that that leading question on Obama followed moment where Palin had just said, "When we see the collapse that we're seeing today, you know that something's broken and John McCain has a great plan to get in there and fix it."

ANY NORMAL INTERVIEWER (even -- no, especially -- a sympathetic one) WOULD HAVE FOLLOWED THAT COMMENT BY ASKING, "Could you describe his plan for our listeners?"

But no. Hannity jumped to a leading question about Obama.

And why?

Because it's blatantly obvious McCain has no such plan.

Posted by: herzliebster | September 19, 2008 12:28 AM | Report abuse

For once I agree with the right-wing bloggers about something: Olbermann DID pitch softballs at Obama - albeit he was pitching a real ball, while Hannity was pitching Nerf at Palin. But there is one big difference - and it's a difference in the candidates, not in the interviewers.

Palin was clearly prepped for Hannity's questions, and she gave prepared answers that took full advantage of Hannity's setups.

Obama, on the other hand, did something much braver. Over and over, Olbermann handed him opportunities to take cheap shots and McCain, and Obama declined. He stayed respectful and measured in his responses. I thought Keith's head would explode, he was so frustrated.

Now, I love Keith Olbermann and don't think he's in the same sleazy league with Hannity and O'Reilly at all. But I did lose some respect for him watching the Obama interview. Because he'd have done "his" candidate a much greater service - and served the cause of honest journalism better as well - by pitching Obama real fastballs and watching him knock them right out of the studio.

Posted by: Martimr1 | September 19, 2008 1:34 AM | Report abuse

FOX news has a 33 % Democratic/Independent audience. Maybe if everyone from CNN to CBS wasn't in Obama's pocket, FOX news wouldn't be smoking everyone in the ratings.

Posted by: Scott Ferrarello | September 19, 2008 1:40 AM | Report abuse

As a European who keenly watches US politics, I worry a lot about the safety of democracy in the modern world. The build up to the Iraq war was an example, where there were more facts in one Irish paper (the Irish Times) on the search for WMD than I could find in any US paper on the web. It appears as if the idea of the media as the 4th estate ensuring that our governments are accountable is history. The net result is that politicians lie and the people are not informed when they do lie.

Posted by: Alan Dublin Ireland | September 19, 2008 5:30 AM | Report abuse

The difference between the Palin/Hannity interview and Obama/Olbermann interview was the answers... the questions were set ups in many ways for both... but the answers. This is the difference I saw... Who needed the questions in order to sound like they had an answer and who gave an answer through, not rising to the bait, but independent thinking...

Posted by: vtcxc | September 19, 2008 6:05 AM | Report abuse

vtcxc wrote: The difference between the Palin/Hannity interview and Obama/Olbermann interview was the answers... the questions were set ups in many ways for both... but the answers. This is the difference I saw... Who needed the questions in order to sound like they had an answer and who gave an answer through, not rising to the bait, but independent thinking...
I feel the same way. It will be interesting to watch to the vice presidential debate.
I will be expecting to see one person prepped with zingers and and memorized lines and the other having prepared over years of actually having had to think about
and make decisions on the issues under discussion. As I know from my old school days, long past, you can cram on facts, and I have even skated on essay exams. Orals, though, are a different matter. And Gwen Ifill looks mean.

Posted by: Lou T. | September 19, 2008 6:30 AM | Report abuse

Mr King - You should work for MSNBC/NBC- the Obama network !!!! You fit the mold quite nicely- very biased, stubborn, naive and ignorant. The ultimate Obama zombie drinking the kool aid !!! I think you r just a little upset that folks are seeing right thorugh Bam Bam, but Mr King - you havent seen anything YET. You are going to get your October surprise- just wait. Your Bam Bam is going to make all of you media people look like fools for your unfailing support of this empty suit with all his racist, terrorist and criminal baggage. If you think Michlle is mad now - wait til you see her seething in October. Buys some popcorn now - you';ll need it for the show that you are about to see !!!

Posted by: jimbo | September 19, 2008 6:39 AM | Report abuse

So what if Mr. King thinks this interview was a love fest. Sean Hannity entertains his audience just like the MSM entertains theirs. They're all about entertainment and not going deep enough to create problems for their viewers or their favored candidates. Let the conservatives have theirs; liberals certainly have plenty of it too.

Posted by: rmpatera | September 19, 2008 6:43 AM | Report abuse

jimbo/rmpatera: Watch the debates. Or don't you need to?

Posted by: Lois Lane | September 19, 2008 7:44 AM | Report abuse

When is the so called Sarah Barracuda going to have a live press conference in front of real reporters?

Posted by: Steve O | September 19, 2008 7:45 AM | Report abuse

To be fair, Olbermann's interview with Obama was a comparable love-fest. But he's already been vetted by the press. We still know next-to-nothing about Palin aside from irrelevant fluff and the, um, "inconsistencies" between her talking points and her record. We, the voters, have the right to demand that we learn more about her than the Republicans are giving us because of the sheer importance of her office.

Posted by: Anonymous | September 19, 2008 8:25 AM | Report abuse

Why expect Faux News to be "FAIR AND BALANCED?" It is entirely against the grain? They never have been and never will be.

I am still taking bets that Sarah Palin will be a Rogers Ailes signed Pundit before 2009 gets going.

Posted by: kalpal | September 19, 2008 8:26 AM | Report abuse

Steve O: Interesting Barracuda facts from Wiki. Enjoy.

They are voracious predators and hunt using a classic example of lie-in-wait or ambush. They rely on surprise and short bursts of speed (up to 27mph (43 km/h)[3]) to overrun their prey, sacrificing maneuverability.

. . .Barracudas do not stick around to care for their young. . . Large barracudas have been known to eat young barracudas.

Being formidable hunters, they should be respected, as barracudas are perfectly capable of defending themselves against humans that harass them. Handfeeding or trying to touch them is strongly discouraged[citation needed].

Wearing jewelry and other shiny objects is discouraged as barracudas are quite attracted to things that glint and shine.[citation needed]

Barracudas are caught as both food and game fish. They are most often eaten as fillet or steak and have a strong taste like tuna or salmon. In southern Nigeria, West Africa they are smoked and used in the preparation of different soups.

Posted by: Lily Pons | September 19, 2008 8:32 AM | Report abuse

Funny. You can't find anything crooked in her background so now you just say anything. Gee. You probably could have received the Nobel Peace Prize if you would report on Obama and his associations and his quick study in the Senate. Being outdone only by Dodd in receiving the most money from Fannie Freddie is pretty significant in so short a period of time. I'm sure this does't keep you awake at night. The fact that Jim Johnson, his trusted advisor, made himself rich while Fannie Freddie was going down the crapper, we shouldn't pay any attention to that, huh? I'll say what someone else didn't want to say. That would be like calling the kettle black. You grease my hand, I'll grease yours. Crooked Chicago style politics. Thugs and all.

Posted by: Sunny | September 19, 2008 8:39 AM | Report abuse

Someone on this post says that Obama has been vetted by the press. Could you please tell me where I can find the information regarding Jim Johnson, one of his top advisers who has been tracking Fannie Freddie and received millions from them while he was sinking the American people? And, where can I find the information about just how much he has received from Fannie Freddie in his short tenure as Senator, if you can call it that. Also, I'd like some information about the failed Ayers-Obama-Wright Woods Foundation Project, you know, the one where if they had their way we'd be running our schools like Hugo Chavez runs his. Or an article about the $1 million he earmarked for his wife's employer right before she received a raise of over $200K a year. Gee, I could go on and on. I had to find these things on my own. And I did find these and much more. Unfortunately, you would think someone would report on this stuff. Oh, and besides being a community organizer, and fighting for the right to leave babies to die as a result of a botched abortion, could you please let me know exactly what or where his record is on anything. He seems to not leave a paper trail any where he goes. I wonder why?

Posted by: Rose Colored Glasses | September 19, 2008 8:47 AM | Report abuse

Sorry people. The only place you can get both sides of the story, and trust me I cannot stand liberal drival, is FOX. There are plenty of liberals to go around. However, we do get the other side. Watching NBC, CBS, ABC, MSNBC, CNN is like drinking liquid sugar with a mouth full of cavities. By the way, Joe Biden, a heartbeat away for the presidency, donated $3K to charties in the past 7 years. Gee. Barack Obama is useless as teats on a boar.

Posted by: Sunny | September 19, 2008 8:51 AM | Report abuse

By the way, FactCheck has just been busted. Give me a break. They are in the tank for Obama too. Otherwise, why didn't they tell the public that Obama has pushed for K-12 sex education that involves protection from AIDS and other STDS. No thanks, I perfer to teach this to my children as it was taught to me. They are not biased when I can find the answer myself at FACTCHECK is just another layer to fool the silly liberals. I don't think it takes that much though.

Posted by: Rose Colored Glasses | September 19, 2008 8:55 AM | Report abuse

Rose Colored Glasses: Google

Posted by: Anonymous | September 19, 2008 9:17 AM | Report abuse

The fact that Governor Palin will give speeches and do informercials, but not answer a single question from the unscreened public or from an unchosen reporter shows what she thinks of the electorate- that they're dupes to be treated with contempt.

If someone wants your vote, they should be willing to let you scrutinize them. The McCain campaign clearly has no faith in Palin's actual merit for office, so they're trying to get you to elect a made up package instead.

Posted by: Bullsmith | September 19, 2008 9:26 AM | Report abuse

The problem isn't that Palin did a puff interview on Fox. It's that she hasn't fielded a single question from anyone not pre-approved.

Think about that. What are they so afraid of they want her elected but won't let her do a press conference first?

Posted by: Bullsmith | September 19, 2008 9:32 AM | Report abuse

Oh how I wish Tim Russert were alive. Surely none of the four candidates could have avoided appearing before him and answering his probing question, as he played video clips revealing their flip-flops and contradictions. While he would have made all of them squirm, I think an interview with Russert would have destroyed McCain and Palin.

Posted by: Dave | September 19, 2008 9:36 AM | Report abuse

The Hannity interview was a joke. I agree the Olbermann interview with Obama was also a joke, it was more like a consulting session. I am only interested in seeing Obama/Biden interviewed by Fox news and Palin/McCain interviewed on MSNBC. Wait, Obama already did an interview with O'Rielly. So its McCain's turn, but we all know that will never happen. MSNBC can barely get a Republican surrogate that has any national name recognition at all, and then they just end up in tears like that Congressman from VA.

Posted by: Team Gallo | September 19, 2008 9:39 AM | Report abuse

you have to ask yourself, why do they keep treating the public with contempt, and yet they keep winning. should that tell us something? If so, what?

Posted by: Lola | September 19, 2008 9:42 AM | Report abuse

Excellent interviews by FOX:

Greta Van Sustern with Todd Palin, and Hannity with Sarah Palin.....

The hard questions were raised, RESPECTFULLY.........a refreshing set of interviews! Thank you FOX....perhaps you could provide some inservice to Charles Gibson, etc????

Palin wins my vote!!!!

Posted by: Paul | September 19, 2008 9:59 AM | Report abuse

After being savaged, insulted, and demeaned by the MSM, I was glad to see Sarah Palin get asked normal questions by a civil questioner. She had a chance to be treated somewhat like Obama is treated by virtually every MSM interviewer and was able to respond to the questions and not have to be on guard before uttering each word.

Mr. King is preaching to Senator Obama's choir, I know. I don't think Obama would still be in the race if he had been treated with an iota of the disrespect that was aimed at Senator Clinton and now at Palin. His forte is looking good and orating to the masses, not being able to withstand the heat of the kitchen that the presidency operates in.

I wonder what higher office he'll be looking for if he is elected and how soon until he starts campaigning for whatever that job would be.

Posted by: annetta | September 19, 2008 10:04 AM | Report abuse

It is increasingly obvious to Americans that to vote for the reckless Palin-McCain ticket (as she likes to call it) is simply unpatriotic.

As for the infomercial, last night the Daily Show spliced the Hannity-Palin interview with an actual infomercial for some kind of financial racket & the wording (or "verbage" -- as Palin calls it) of each was almost identical. Chilling!

Posted by: Marie Burns | September 19, 2008 10:08 AM | Report abuse

Hannity is such a fascist. McCain could have picked Charles Manson and Hannity would praise how Manson brings criminal justice and mental health experience to the ticket. However, I still watch Fox just because I feel superior when I disagree with them. Plus I delude myself into thinkg Julie Banderas is looking at me directly.

Posted by: Matt | September 19, 2008 10:15 AM | Report abuse

The Fox News audience is overwhelmingly Republican. No one else is really paying attention.

Posted by: Chester | September 18, 2008 11:15 AM

What about CNN, NBC, ABC , NYT, Time, Newsweek etc openly in the tank for Obama. Cafferty on CNN is so blatantly pro-Obama that he should be working for their campaign rather then being an objective journalist. Sarah Palin's family affairs are of a greater interest to the journalists than the Chosen One's associations with questionable anti-American pastors, felons and terrorists. Both Obama and McCain are indulging in negative and distorted ads about their opponents but the liberal press only criticizes McCain. Obama openly ridicules McCain's age in an ad but no one in the press bats an eyelid for this ageism. None of the press mentiones that Obama Campaign tries to make Palin insignificant by referring to her as "cute" "good looking" etc.

Posted by: Roger, CA | September 19, 2008 10:37 AM | Report abuse

Colbert King is right, of course. Palin's appearance on Hannity was an unpaid for political advertisement.

That's the bad news.

The good news is the people who watch Fox are, night after night, the same people – and they ain't voting for Obama/Biden.

So, at the beginning of the night, it doesn’t matter. No votes will be changed. Obama/Biden will still win, and with the Democrats in control at both ends of Pennsylvania Avenue come January 20, the people at Fox should fret about their network’s future.

George Mitrovich

Posted by: George Mitrovich | September 19, 2008 10:57 AM | Report abuse

I like Sean. He is completely opinion. Why expect anything else.
Gibson is main stream media.
Bill O has a reputation he cultivated with everyone except Neal Boortz who ate his lunch and the bag it was in.
But, there is good material in the interview.
One point about Obama. ACORN is part of his following. I met those folks over 30 years ago. I was one of them until I got well. I had hoped they would burn or smoke themselves out. Oh Well!

Obama - Osama the difference is the BS

Posted by: JWinGeorgia | September 19, 2008 11:11 AM | Report abuse

Wait...a journalist on Fox News threw softballs to Palin?


Posted by: Anon | September 19, 2008 11:20 AM | Report abuse

Here is a question, mr king.... how much did Barry Obama pay for the favorable appearance on The View earlier this week?? How much did Barry pay for being on Oprah's show and for her to run around and using her fame as a crutch for his campaign?

Also, what about the free coverage that Barry got when he went overseas. The network media sent all of its top TV anchors to follow him and made his trip into a media lovefest for him. How much did he pay for that?

I know this section is called Post-Partisan.... but do you and Robinson have to be this blatently biased??

Posted by: alutz09 | September 19, 2008 11:44 AM | Report abuse

One neglected to mention the interview Keith Olbermann had with Obama, which had the same kind of mind-blowingly dull and leading questions.

If the two interviews were in court, every question would be "leading the witness."

I think MSNBC and FOX are two sides of the same coin in coverage of this election.
One is liberal, one is conservative, and both stink!

The media has been incomprehensible in its coverage....For "journalists" to complain about the this race not being about "issues," they sure are asking some tough follow-up questions (sarcasm included)!

When the media stops asking questions about what a campaign staffer said, and rather say, "what is you economics policy? Okay, do you see any flaw in your policy, and what compromises will you make when going into legislation?"

If theses people in the media are being paid million dollar salaries, I expect more!

Posted by: John | September 18, 2008 11:18 AM
I thought this needed to be reposted as it is so on the mark.

I am very worried about racism in this election. I thoght we were past most of it, but now I am not sure.

Posted by: jetcitysteve | September 19, 2008 12:12 PM | Report abuse

Hannity is not a new reporter... He is the right side of a left and right comantator show.. He pours Kool Aid for the right to drink that is his job and he does it well.. If its a surprise that a right wing COMANTATOR was easy on the right wing candidate ya need to stop writing your political editorials and find a new job cause you don't have a real grasp on the real thing.. Gibson did an interview with Obama and pretty much patted the man on the back for doing a good job in the race. Where was your editorial on that one? Where is your editorials about the New York times and all its front page attacks on McCain and has never did a front page negative piece on Obama? Or the fact that most of the media leans to the left... Hannity preaches to the people who have the same view as him.. Is this the first time that you have seen him? Catch his radio show and you'll see he is one sided. If you did these things your not have wasted you time writing this op ed and had the time to look over you work and think 'you know what I'm just like Hannity except I play for the other team'

Posted by: Mavric | September 19, 2008 12:14 PM | Report abuse

I don't care who interviews Palin. She's still a political lightweight, who has no business being thrust into mainstream America with all of its complex problems for the only reason, but to elect McCain.

Posted by: Retsen | September 19, 2008 12:33 PM | Report abuse

To TWM- Caribou Barbie will never sit down with anyone from MSNBC or NBC - their campaign has already said they won't because Mr Williams won't defer to her. Defer to what-exactly? Doesn't it say in our Bill of Rights that we aren't supposed to have any Pres or Veep behaving like a monarch? Doesn't she put her pantyhose on one leg at a time just like I do? It's not like Keith or Brian would be rude- they're too professional to do that.

But I miss Tim Russert so much right now - he would have ended that Lipstick crap as soon as it got started.

Posted by: MER | September 19, 2008 12:45 PM | Report abuse

I don't care who interviews Palin. She's still a political lightweight, who has no business being thrust into mainstream America with all of its complex problems for the only reason, but to elect McCain.

Posted by: Retsen | September 19, 2008 12:33 PM

Retsen I have to disagree 1000% with you. If the party has nominated that individual then they have a right to be there. I don't see a qualification form in the Constitution! A Prez and VP are only as good as their advisors and the loyalty of those advisers to them.
Just because someone sits in the House or the Senate does that make them qualified. If we are applying this logic we should have got T. Boone Pickens or someone of that ilk.

Posted by: JWinGeorgia | September 19, 2008 12:46 PM | Report abuse

In this long series of comments, there is not one defending the interview as a serious interview -- not infomercial -- with honest evidence or even some wisp of sincerity. All we seem to get from Conservatives are childish taunts of "you did it, too." Nonsense.

When are folks from the right going to start defending their candidate with any evidence that she's qualified? Instead they weigh in endlessly missing the point with vicious attacks on everyone from the media (blame the messenger) to the candidate we've spent months and months watching in action.

There is simply no comparison! We don't need any more of the "blame everyone but those in charge" nonsense. We need a leader who admits, once and for all, that the buck stops at the leader's desk. Quit hiding and carping, Republicans. Show evidence!

Posted by: cturtle1 | September 19, 2008 12:53 PM | Report abuse

I have said it before, I dearly miss Russert. He would not let the B.S. prevail!

Posted by: J Lauber | September 19, 2008 12:59 PM | Report abuse

Interesting how many people think this "interview" was okay because they think others did the same with Obama. Fox News could justly bill itself as "the conservative alternative" or "making sure the conservative story is told" but they keep saying "fair and balanced" and "we report, you decide," as though they do not have a bias. If they admit that they are just as biased as others, fair enough, but they pretend they are much better (and keep saying so). BBC and CNN has biases, but at least they don't loudly run down Fox the way Fox hosts reguarly run down CNN, NBC, etc.

Posted by: Steve | September 19, 2008 1:01 PM | Report abuse

Sean Hannity lost credibility with me when I learned of his freindship with Hal Turner a neo-nazi/white supremacist.

Posted by: pam,s.c. | September 19, 2008 1:01 PM | Report abuse

So lets look at it.
Biden and MCCain are equal in experience?
Some say yes and some say no?
Obama - exactly what has he done? No side stepping. He ia attorney. Well might help.
Community organizer. Again what has he done?
Palin - a mayor and a govenor. Let's see who were governors. Clinton Reagan Carter. Wow is see more democrats in that group. In both cases the VP's are in some peoples minds more qualified than the Prez candidates are!
What say you?
I'm just a simple fellow here in NE Georgia.
Trying to get things into simplest terms.

Posted by: JWinGeorgia | September 19, 2008 1:06 PM | Report abuse

Hannity is not a journalist. Journalist at least pretend to be fair and balanced. Hannity cannot be mistaken for fair and balanced.
Why the witness protection for Palin. Japanese glasses wearing Pitt bull with a lipstick on should have nothing to fear from Brokaw, Stephanoupolous, etc. Most women don't have the opportunity to choose and hide from their would be employers.

Posted by: paul a | September 19, 2008 1:06 PM | Report abuse

I meant to say on one side the VP is more qualified than the Prez and on the other it is reversed. I like common sense and good advisers myself.
Giving great speeches is nice and being able to answer questions fast and say nothing is nice as well.
Why do we thing these candidates have to be an expert on everything?
What is wrong with saying I don't know?
I prefer honestly to double talk!

Posted by: JWinGeorgia | September 19, 2008 1:10 PM | Report abuse

Lois Lane:
I plan to, though I don't have high hopes. I'd like to see how things go before casting a vote, rather than listening to people whose minds are already made up.

Posted by: rmpatera | September 19, 2008 1:12 PM | Report abuse

rmpatera, probably the best way.

Posted by: Lois Lane | September 19, 2008 1:53 PM | Report abuse

If we're all upset about this "interview" we should really be upset that the Republicans and the Democrats have created an organization called the Commission on Presidential Debates (CPD) for the purpose of excluding third party and independent candidates from the political process.

Every four years, the two major parties negotiate a complex contract which excludes other presidential candidates from the national debates.

In previous years, this contract was made available to the public. This year, the two negotiators for the secret contract
were Senator Lindsey Graham (R-SC) and Representative Rahm Emanuel (D-IL). In order to protect the the Obama and McCain campaigns from public criticism, the Commission on Presidential Debates has refused to release this back-room contract for public inspection.

In order for your voice to be heard in this important presidential election, it is critical that this contract is made available to the general public before the debates. The two parties have put tools in place to limit freedom of speech and to limit the options that we hear as voters.

Get your mind prepared to present a polite but well-worded message. Call the Commission on Presidential Debates at 202-872-1020.

Posted by: dave g, minneapolis | September 19, 2008 2:15 PM | Report abuse

Does anyone remember the book, "The Peter Principle"- that theory that people some knowledge and an astute ability to "get by" move up the later to reach their level of incompetentcy?
The Female Version of that is "The Palin Principle".

Posted by: Heidi | September 19, 2008 2:19 PM | Report abuse

In a follow up to my previous post, I have to ask the question:

What is a debate?
This year's debate rules are not public.
But in '04 the rules @

Stated in Sec 5 (f):
"The candidates may not ask each other direct questions, but may ask rhetorical questions."

How is THAT a debate? Did Lincoln and Douglas do it this way?

The backroom dealings of the two parties amount to collusion to win the campaign (they essentially are agreeing that THEY must not let anyone else in). This is not American! This is not Freedom.

Posted by: dave g, minneapolis | September 19, 2008 2:29 PM | Report abuse

I saw the interview it kept reminding me of the scene in "Back to School" where "Dean Martin" (Ned Beatty) questions "Thornton Melon" (Rodney Dangerfield) in his office to find out if Melon was cheating: "I'm only going ask you this once... is this your work?" Melon answers, "Yes, it is." and Martin replies "I'm satisfied." When another professor (whose name escapes me) challenges that, Dean Martin says, "Well gee whiz, I just asked him if it was his work and he said yes. What do you want me to do, torture the guy?"

(I may have the quotes slightly wrong, I'm just typing it from memory) After Hannity's pathetic "bridge to nowhere" question and lack of follow up to Palin's even more pathetic answer, that scene from "Back to School" just kept playing over and over in my head...

Posted by: gkouye | September 19, 2008 2:43 PM | Report abuse


Posted by: Kathy | September 19, 2008 2:44 PM | Report abuse

I watched the interview.
If you haven't watched it, please shut it up!
If you watched it, please be silent!
She was very presidential during the whole interview.
Hannity's questions were straight and tough! And she answered them without a blink, very well and mature.
I liked when she joked about her baby fat. She referred it as thick skin to be tough to face any challenge.

Posted by: Polly from DC | September 19, 2008 2:44 PM | Report abuse


PALIN: "Well, there is a danger in allowing some obsessive partisanship to get into the issue that we're talking about today. And that's something that John McCain too, his track record…he can surpass the partisanship that must surpassed to deal with an issue like this."

This response is gibberish. She's not saying anything. It's like a super-sized Bushism.

Gads. These people CAN'T get in in November. They just CAN'T! We'll be so screwed!

Posted by: Bittercat | September 19, 2008 2:57 PM | Report abuse

Why is everyone comparing the Republican nom for VP to the Democrat nom for president? If you ask me your comparing the wrong to... maybe cause the two have about the same experience.. That both of them are unknowns basically in the political world till this election... Yeah we knew Obama's name but other than that what else? or the fact that it goes back to the Obama and Clinton (in which Clinton was the stronger candidate for the Dems and was by far cheated) being a black man against a woman for president.. and it also appears that its Obama Vs. McCane/Palin... Joe Biden who son was a lobbyist and if you look in to there is a few skeletons there.. or the fact that Biden is in support of taking peoples money and giving it out to those that "need it" and he himself in in the bottom percent of members of congress and the senate in donating to charity.. McCane's wife has given more in a month than Biden has given in the past 7 years.. How can he say "it time to jump on board and help" when he himself doesn't want to give freely... but no news on that on any of the networks.. even FOX... Or interviews that are given (Gibson was very guilty of this in the edited palin interview) is saying something is a direct quote but only quoting half of the sentence making it out of context.. The same thing goes true with what the Republicans do to Obama but they are in reporters in the news.. I just can't see how some one can say "A typical white person" and still stay in the running.. if McCane who has and adopted black child were to call his adopted daughter a typical black person he would have been destroyed by the media and his career would be over...

Posted by: Anonymous | September 19, 2008 3:01 PM | Report abuse

"I don't think Caribou Barbie can be on Olbermann. He only has guests that have passed the Olbermann litmus test. I doubt if she has, or could be trusted to hue the line on live television.

Posted by: jr | September 18, 2008 12:57 PM "


Olbermann would eat her alive. She wouldn't be able to handle him. If she was "about to bursn into tears" at the speech another commenter posted about, she'd have a meltdown on "Countdown."

On the other hand, I'm not sure Olbermann would stoop to having her on. She's a joke.

Posted by: Bittercat | September 19, 2008 3:06 PM | Report abuse

Why does anyone ever let their television stop on Fox? I set my tivo for the Gibson interview (which she flubbed) but knew what to expect from Hannity. There is never anything worth suffering through Fox for, not even Obama's O'Reilly interview. I knew I could always youtube it.

Posted by: ObamaSupporter | September 19, 2008 3:11 PM | Report abuse

Posted by: Bittercat

"This response is gibberish. She's not saying anything. It's like a super-sized Bushism."

Are you reading what she said... ok let me interpret.. I know you wouldn't understand cause there are no Greek colloms and the words "hope and change" was not thrown around in a meaningless manner

What she said is that it's dangrous to point fingers and yell that its all their (the Republicans) fault because you will need the effort of all to fix such a drastic problem. And that McCane has a history of working with the other party, one statment that Obama who votes over 95% with his own party can't clam..

And its almost moot to point at at one party because there is more than one branch of government and at the moment both houses of congress are under the control of Democrats (and has the lowest approval rating in the history of congress)

So to sum it up what she said is its not good pratice to quicly place blame.. best thing to do is work together and find the root of the trouble and fix it.. not as one party but as one goverment..

Posted by: Anonymous | September 19, 2008 3:19 PM | Report abuse

Mr. King,

It was real hard for me to figure out what political party you will be voting for!

Governor Palin answered questions she was asked. Were you really surprised by her answers?

If I am not mistaken, an infomercial wants me to send money as quickly as possible. I didn't get that message, but after reading your comments, I will get my check in the mail as soon as I can.

Sorry I missed the message and had to be informed by you, Mr. King.

Posted by: mollyclaire | September 19, 2008 3:31 PM | Report abuse

There is room for the Sean Hannitys of the world on the outer edges of today's media, the left certainly has its fair share of overblown idealogues, but let's not make the mistake of comparing Hannity and his Fox colleagues to the journalists at reputable news sources. While you could make an argument that the news coverage at ABC or The New York Times is biased, no one with an ounce of perception can say that these journalists are unapologetic cheerleaders for left-leaning candidates. Sean Hannity goes one step further: he isn't a right wing cheerleader, he's a right wing agitator. I wouldn't have a problem with this normally, but for him to present himself as "fair and balanced" and then to continually campaign for extremely conservative causes and candidates is preposterous. That there are those in this country (and on this message board) who think that Hannity is somehow concerned with presenting information objectively or truthfully is a sad statement on the intellectual capacity of our citizenry.

I realize that it's much more fun to just throw around accusations without any support, but I'll go through the trouble of presenting my case.

From the transcript of his Palin interview: "Do you think these attacks, ratcheting up these attacks by Barack Obama — I don't know if you had a chance to see the speech yesterday — and by Senator Biden, do you think these attacks will be effective?"

You can't even make this stuff up: Sean asked her if she thought her opponents attacks would work? What is she going to say - yes? How about asking how she would respond to the attacks? That's what grown-up journalists do, Sean. They ask their interviewees to respond to criticisms.

Another actual question: "You have 354 lawmakers got money from Fannie and Freddie — 354. If you look at the years from 1989 to 2008, the second top recipient was Senator Barack Obama.

Should there be an investigation in terms of the relationship between the political donations and then, of course, the bankruptcy that ensued and the impact on the economy?"

C'mon Sean, you're interviewing the Republican Vice Presidential Candidate. Can you please put aside your "everything that goes wrong is the Democrats fault" charade and at least try to act like a professional for an hour?

And just so we are all on the same page on the depths of Sean's partisanship. While listening to Sean's radio show yesterday afternoon, I heard him discuss a democratic radio advertisement in which a couple who lost their son during the war expressed their frustration with the current leadership. While Sean said he felt sympathy for the couple who made such a sacrifice for our country, he wondered whether the commercial wasn't aiding and abetting our enemies. That's a wonderful way to express sympathy, Sean. To call them traitors.

What won't he do for the conservative cause?????

Hannity and his ilk obviously have tapped into something to generate the following that they have. I don't begrudge him his ratings, but let's not make the mistake of categorizing his contribution to political discourse as "journalism."

Posted by: todd | September 19, 2008 3:39 PM | Report abuse

Now you know how conservatives feel every time they watch NBC, CBS, ABC, PBS, CNN, MSNBC,etc. Or see the covers of the big, glossy, entertainment magazines and news magazines. Or the New York Times or the Washington Post. 90% of our news and entertainment is pure, liberal propaganda.

Hannity is just trying to be fair and balanced in his own, small way.

Posted by: BattleGround | September 19, 2008 3:39 PM | Report abuse

"The backroom dealings of the two parties amount to collusion to win the campaign (they essentially are agreeing that THEY must not let anyone else in). This is not American! This is not Freedom.

Posted by: dave g, minneapolis | September 19, 2008 2:29 PM "

Thank you, Dave G for posting this information. The two candidates I actually WAS interested in were barred from the debates this cycle, and my family is very angry about that. This is important information for the sleeping masses to have.

I can only hope it will wake them up and shake them up enough to take action.

Posted by: Anonymous | September 19, 2008 3:52 PM | Report abuse

Battleground - You're making my point. 90% of our news is liberal propaganda? Did you pull that number out of a hat or did you hear it on Hannity's "fair and balanced" program? I'm open to the possibility that there is a liberal bias in many of the news sources you listed - but having a liberal bias is very different than churning out liberal propaganda. And just because Hannity & Co. have all their devoted listeners repeating the fact that 90% of news is liberal propaganda doesn't make it true. Support is most welcomed.

Posted by: Todd | September 19, 2008 3:57 PM | Report abuse

1. You spelled "column" wrong.

2. She talked in circles, and that's all she did. It was all non-specific pabulum. She said NOTHING.

3. I'm not who you are trying to paint me as. Words don't mean anything to me unless they MEAN something. The words, "hope" and "change," do not impress me until I see them manifested.

There's none of that in this campaign cycle. NONE. This cycle sucks.

Now, go back to watching FAUX.


"Are you reading what she said... ok let me interpret.. I know you wouldn't understand cause there are no Greek colloms and the words "hope and change" was not thrown around in a meaningless manner

What she said is that it's dangrous to point fingers and yell that its all their (the Republicans) fault because you will need the effort of all to fix such a drastic problem. And that McCane has a history of working with the other party, one statment that Obama who votes over 95% with his own party can't clam..

And its almost moot to point at at one party because there is more than one branch of government and at the moment both houses of congress are under the control of Democrats (and has the lowest approval rating in the history of congress)

So to sum it up what she said is its not good pratice to quicly place blame.. best thing to do is work together and find the root of the trouble and fix it.. not as one party but as one goverment.."

Posted by: Bittercat | September 19, 2008 3:58 PM | Report abuse

The only "news" Fox is good for is that presented on the Simpson's and Family Guy

Posted by: J Lauber | September 19, 2008 3:59 PM | Report abuse

JLauber: I know Marge Simpson, and Palin is NO Marge Simpson. Remember the Homer pet pig episode. Homer never tried to put lipstick on it!

Posted by: 2funny | September 19, 2008 4:14 PM | Report abuse

1. sorry.. I misspelled one word didn't think I was going to be graded on this

2. Obama does the same thing (I have to admit he is a better at it than she is) but I don't condone things by pointing out other things. but there was context in answer

3. I have not seen any other argument to back up Obama other than the words that he has said.. Where as people like Clinton have previous actions to back up what they say

I do not watch the Fox news network.. nor do I watch other news networks such as CNN. I'm not a liberal and I'm not a conservative.. I look up as much as I can on what I hear about the candidates looking for sources that can in some way confirm or deny the claims made..
I was pulling for Clinton and to me she was robbed by a man who's only attribute is that he is a good speaker.. but so is a used car salesman
I'm sorry if I sounded bitter in my post but I saw the message there that Palin was getting across.. I don't like Hannity I think he is rude an puts way too much sugar in the Kool Aid he serves

I just hate that people judge people only on what party they are on and to that fact any thing they say is wrong.. you can check my spelling I'm sure I got one or two wrong

Posted by: Anonymous | September 19, 2008 4:24 PM | Report abuse

Anonymous: I don't generally agree with your posts, but maybe this will make you smile.
After my sib and I left home and went off to college, my mom used to send us back the letters we wrote her with the misspelled words circled in red. Can you believe that?
To this day, she wonders why I never write her a letter, but call her instead. Let's stipulate that spelling errors are off the table--please! No one is perfekt--as the old saying goes.

Posted by: Miss Peller | September 19, 2008 4:48 PM | Report abuse

But if it's OK to call Palin, "Caribou Barbie", why was it wrong to call Obama "Curious George"? A caricature is a caricature, non?

Posted by: direse | September 19, 2008 5:54 PM | Report abuse

it is time to have a smart president

Posted by: l mck | September 19, 2008 6:03 PM | Report abuse

it is time to have a smart president

Posted by: l mck | September 19, 2008 6:03 PM | Report abuse

Well, Curious George was a character in a childrens book, as I recall, reading about the monkey came with an educational lesson.Usually known as a parable or some such thing.Caribou Barbie is merely an icon of indulgent consumerism for children. Far less elitist than Curious George with his moral to the story crap! Either way, its all just childs play.

Posted by: 2Funny | September 19, 2008 7:31 PM | Report abuse

Does anyone based in reality really watch Sean Hannity and think it's journalism? Hasn't he always been a neo-conservative talk show?
If it was part of a broader based "news" (though with Fox is anything really news)program I would be a offended, but partisan talk shows are partisan talk shows. What is more telling is her inability to deal with the press on a regular impromptu basis.

Posted by: jmc | September 19, 2008 8:04 PM | Report abuse

Since every other MSM outlet is in the tank for "The One" what do you expect from FOX, more of the same? Heck Obama has journalists at ABC (George S) having to remind him that he is not really a Muslim after Obama clearly stated "my Muslim faith." Obama may win, but the MSM has sold its soul to get him elected.

Posted by: PAL | September 20, 2008 12:20 AM | Report abuse

Well tight media control is how Sarah Stalin would operate isn't it?

Posted by: Girl from the north country | September 20, 2008 1:10 AM | Report abuse

Do you think McCain would consult Sarah Stalin if he got in? He wouldn't

Posted by: girl from the north country | September 20, 2008 1:13 AM | Report abuse

What scares me the most about Palin is that if McCain is elected, he will most likely die in office and Palin will be President. POTUS is one of the most stressful jobs in the world. I don't think a 72 year-old man can survive more than two years of this kind of stress. And Palin as President?!?! What a disaster!

Posted by: Robert | September 20, 2008 1:23 AM | Report abuse

Thank you Mr. King! You and many others that have spent more time critizing Palin than talking about the issues gives this INDEPENDENT more reason to lean toward the McCain/Palin ticket. Are you on their payroll? This bombardment on Palin will surely bring a fine decent person to Washington. Keep up the good work!!!!

Posted by: DDH | September 20, 2008 1:53 AM | Report abuse

I laughed when I saw that "interview" - what a joke!!
Anyway, the best place to get the real deal on the election is Comedy Central = "Daily show" and " Colbert Report". The tongue-in-cheek coverage is very funny and shrewd at the same time exposing the hypocrisy.

Posted by: JoeDobson | September 20, 2008 4:15 AM | Report abuse

My head hurts, and all I can think of is the movie "Idiocracy" (and though a true B movie, one that reminds me of the right in this, and the last 2 elections). Main points that makes me lose total faith with the populous:
- the Muslim question. It's been answered, Obama is not, so give it a rest. Frankly even if he were he is sworn to serve the constitution, not a religious dogma. A fact our current incurious George hasn't figured out.
- Every single sourse of news is wrong but FOX. Come on idiots...the population of the US is not so overwhelmingly left leaning, that this can be a sane argument. McSame is almost in a tie. News and TV rely on support from advertisers/public. Do the math.

Posted by: scottnrke | September 20, 2008 7:32 AM | Report abuse

DDH: Thank you Mr. King! You and many others that have spent more time critizing Palin than talking about the issues gives this INDEPENDENT more reason to lean toward the McCain/Palin ticket.

DDH: The above method of choice seemed like an odd way for
an independent voter to select a candidate, so I feel I must comment. I am assuming you are not only independent, but seek to be well-informed, as is typical of that class of voter.
Did you also watch the Hannity show and come away from that leaning toward Obama?
Just curious. I am an "independent" voter, too, but I keep choosing the same party because I feel that one of the parties has done a lot more harm to the public good than the other lately. And had a full 6 years unchecked to do that, pres. and congress. But if one is truly independent, where does one look for fair media coverage? CSpan, of course. But beyond that one source,there doesn't seem to be much. I think one has to listen to both the conservative and liberal news sources and then try to figure out what is really going on. It's awful for citizens to be placed in this position, but we are. Every source you consult has a point of view regardless how fair or balanced they say they are. The processing center of the information universe has to be you and me.

No doubt you'll be watching the debates, first one Friday night. News reviews of this event won't be enough, since, as you imply, media is biased(you surely mean all media, not just Mr.King column).
Anytime I read an opinion piece by someone who is not a regular columnist and whose name I don't recognize, I like to
scroll to the bottom to find out who is this person? Then google that name.
The Post ran an opinion piece yesterday recommending ways the candidates should handle the economic crisis. But it helped me to process this information better once I knew the Robert Glenn Hubbard is a supply-side economist who has worked for the Bush Administration and is currently a visiting scholar at the American Enterprise
Institute. I don't know much about economics, hardly anything, but at least I know what direction an economist is coming from can make a huge difference in the advice he/she gives. Has that person been part of the problem? Or have new solutions and ideas?

This country is in so much trouble we can't afford to make a mistake this time. DDH: I will see you at the debates, the only opportunity we the people are likely to have to see these candidates raw and unscripted, behaving presidential, or not.
Then may the best team win. I believe they will, if independent voters like you are truly paying attention and if you use your head in the voting booth. We live in hope.

Posted by: Birdie | September 20, 2008 8:15 AM | Report abuse

Love all the GOP bloggers on here pretending to be Democrats - the GOP way lie & distort. Like McCain's flip-flops all week on the economy. Challenging Obama's contributions from Fannie Mae & Ginnie Mae when McCain got 10-times more...and suddenly Obama's an DC insider when McCainj's been there 28-years & was a poster boy for all the deregulation. And he is surrounded by lobbyists for Fannie Mae and other Wall Street interests. Typical of McCain's whole campain. Soon to be forgotten as McPalin & Baked Alaska

Posted by: FlaJoe | September 20, 2008 8:19 AM | Report abuse

I watched the interview for about 15 minutes until I realized that it wasn't even trying to answer any of the serious questions I have in trying to make my decision about who will get my vote. FOX news is not only shamefully partison, but it's really doing a disservice to those of us who want more information - that's information, not propaganda.

Posted by: Anne | September 20, 2008 8:50 AM | Report abuse

There are a lot of posts her arguing that all the candidates confine their interviews to friendly interviewers. That is a total lie.

Obama has done a lengthy interview with Fox News' Bill O'Reilly. Both he and Biden have done countless appearances before neutral panels like Meet the Press. Both give speeches to open public audiences and take questions from all sides.

Other than the one interview in which she had the ability to rework her answers, since nomination Sarah Palin has never taken questions from a neutral panel. She has never been interviewed by Jon Stewart, let along Keith Olberman. She has never taken a neutral, let alone a hostile, audience question. She has done zero press conferences. She appears only before pre-screened friendly audiences.

So let's have no more claims that there is equally biased questioning on both sides. That is not the case.

Posted by: shermaro | September 20, 2008 9:07 AM | Report abuse

Maybe Mr. Hannity can have the good Rev. Peterson explain what he meant by The drunken drug addled welfare recipients of New Orleans had the suffering coming because they were too stupid to leave. That would impress Sarah, the icon of the religious right, whose Wasilla is the drug capital of Alaska and who attended party colleges.

Posted by: Jimbo | September 20, 2008 9:43 AM | Report abuse

Why doesn't Sean ask about the "fabricated stories" in the National Enquirer? How about a Monegan question? Maybe a view on Zadari, Gul and the real war theater?

Posted by: Jimbo | September 20, 2008 9:45 AM | Report abuse

1. husband was a member and speaker at the Alaskan Secessionist Party convention?
2. As mayor did you raise the sales tax and other individual taxes while cutting property taxes for big box stores?
3. Did you write a termination letter for a beloved librarian who was asked her thoughts on banning books, that got torn up when a 1000 signature and growing impeachment petition was started?
4. Are you being investigated for your alleged part in Monegan's firing who they settled out of court on his claim?
5. Did you hire a masher to replace Monegan that quit in disgrace after two weeks and got $10,000 in severance whereas Monegan got zilch?
6. Did you leave a 23 million deficit, built an unused sports complex, not complete sewage upgrades, not fund pensions properly?
7. Did you kill the funds for permafrost damage control and do you believe in global warming?
8. Are you creationist that wants intelligent design and evolution taught in the science classrooms?
9. Did you take a half billion in pork to build a gas pipeline for her friends the oil companies and switched the contract from an American company to a Canadian one?
10. Did you laugh at a vile sexist radio host interviewer call a female senator critic of Palin a b(female dog) and fat? 11. Did you then say it would be an honor to have him at the convention?
12. Did you say you hope it is Gods will that wants us to fight the war in Iraq, when the Vatican has a different view?
13. Did you say pray to build a pipeline, when Jesus drove those that would profit from religion from the temple?
14. Did you hack into an energy board members computer left computer after an ok from a quick call to a friendly assistant DA and said "I don't know what I'm looking for." and do you understand the 5th Amendment, illegal searches, probable cause?
15. Are you against stem cell research and abortions to save the life of the mother?

Posted by: Jimbo | September 20, 2008 10:04 AM | Report abuse

The only surprise here, Mr. King, is that you're surprised. Hannity is a towel boy. A toadying, sycophantic twit who was selected by the McCain campaign because they knew he'd play softball. Hannity can't wait to get his post-election exclusives with the new president, er, VICE president of the United States. Except that it ain't gonna happen. Obama is going to CREAM the Old Man and the Sock Puppet.

Posted by: Mark F | September 20, 2008 11:51 AM | Report abuse

It's not hard to see the KKK loving Palin is being interviewed with the grand wizard himself the honerable fare right radical right wing terrorist Hannity. No suprise.

Posted by: jamesp | September 20, 2008 12:20 PM | Report abuse

Anonymous says

a non-combative interview, for once, with Sarah Palin.

Uh, where are the combative interviews?
Gibson? Surely you jest. This woman is being kept hermetically sealed from the real press.

Posted by: scientist1 | September 20, 2008 12:32 PM | Report abuse

Another question: if McCain loses, will Palin become the front-runner for 2012?

Posted by: scientist1 | September 20, 2008 12:58 PM | Report abuse

Gov. Palin's interview with Hannity wasn't an interview; it was an "fluff" piece. Keep in mind that the Gibson - Palin piece was a "hatch it" job. Obama has had it easy because he chooses most of the time to be interviewed by the so-called mainstream media which is liberal (progressive, left-wing, or socialistic if you choose - they don't like to be called liberal). This is the way things are now. . .no one knows how to give a decent interview without showing a bias.

Posted by: Sticker | September 20, 2008 1:51 PM | Report abuse

No one except complete morons watch Fox and especially that illiterate Hannity. He and Palin are peas in a pod. Trailer trash attempting to appear knowledgeable. The only thing on Fox that has any semblance of reality are the cartoons!

Posted by: Ted | September 20, 2008 3:18 PM | Report abuse

Ted, you Rock! The cartoons are way more intelligent anyway. Intelligence is over rated anyway according to a recent poll of the Republican party. Stinking filthy elitist book readin', college goin', liberal crapola! There is a reason McCain dosen't want returning vets to go to college! It'll turn em elitist!!!

Posted by: 2Funny | September 20, 2008 3:50 PM | Report abuse

Dave wrote this morning, How I wish Tim Russert were alive and I agree. Al the Bull that is flying around wouldn't get very far. Why dosen't anyone call out these people on contradictions anymore? Well, I guess Palin would have to actually talk to someone. But everyone seems to have their own agenda, and the agenda is, tear down the other guy. If Tim were here, the choices would be so much clearer. I am voting Dem, but I don't think they are being asked the hard questions either. If everyone had to face someone like Russert, then maybe folks that are voting for the white guy, or the change guy ( sorry, I think there is only one) might just evaluate their choiches a little more. Better for all of us? Maybe we could work together to elect someone best for all. Just a thought and probably will buried by cynics.

Posted by: J Lauber | September 20, 2008 4:09 PM | Report abuse

The individual who preps Sarah Palin before interviews should consider comedy writing on November 5.

Posted by: Anonymous | September 20, 2008 4:23 PM | Report abuse

I certainly wasn't surprised by the obvious biasness in Hannity's interview, as Hannity is not a journalist, just an opinionated commentator. Unfortunately, the Republicans cannot afford for Palin to be interviewed by real journalists because most Americans will come to realize the obvious--- the emperor has no clothes on. The more the American people get to know Palin, the more many will come to realize that Palin appears to be a female, sexier version of Bush, but Bush nonetheless, lacking intellectual curiosity and depth in any subject of substance. If 8 years of Bush wasn’t enough for some, let's go ahead and create our bedlam by voting for McCain-Palin --- and then let's lie on it.

Posted by: Marve1 | September 20, 2008 7:50 PM | Report abuse

Oh come on people, you know that Palin said NOTHING. She used words to confuse the question. Pay attention, she nevers answer anything directly. Why? Because she doesn't know what the heck she's talking about. I bet any of the bloggers here could have done this Hannity interview a lot better and more detail. Learning that John McCain was 854 in his class, out of a class of 899 doesn't leave me with a good feeling. Knowing she went to 6 colleges doesn't make me feel better either.

Posted by: Pricen | September 20, 2008 10:18 PM | Report abuse

Hannity???? This person (or clown) has no business being in national news.

Posted by: Miker | September 21, 2008 12:07 AM | Report abuse

It is clear now that all fox employers should be marrioted!!

Posted by: jwh | September 21, 2008 8:17 AM | Report abuse

It is clear now that all fox tv-reporters should be marrioted!! They are the filthiest smearmachine in the world.

Posted by: jwh | September 21, 2008 8:19 AM | Report abuse

How interesting to see the Washington Post blasting on Sarah Palin from everywhere. Not a day goes by that they have a negative opinion of her. But not a single negative opinion of Obama. Who's in the tank for this man to be the next POTUS?

Go do some real journalism for once.

Posted by: Richard | September 21, 2008 11:15 AM | Report abuse

The Hannity interview was a joke, beyond softball setups and questions. I don't watch FOX but made an exception to watch the RARE Sarah Palin interview. I can see why the campaign is keeping her on a tight lease. She doesn't have a clue, except the talking points they give her to memorize. Sad commentary, cynical John McCain will do anything however rash and impetuous to win in Nov. this is NOT putting Country First! Sad shell of what he used to stand for, total sell out now.

Posted by: radio3142 | September 21, 2008 1:40 PM | Report abuse

Oh yes, I forgot all the tough questions and grilling Obama has had to endure from the Press.

Ever interview with Obama is an infomercial.

The cheerleading from Oprah. Dancing on Ellen. The softball interview from O'Reilly. The bowl of porridge that passed as an interview from Charlie Gibson.

I am waiting for SOMEONE to ask Obama the tough questions, in any format.

Didn't think so.

Posted by: Karen S | September 21, 2008 2:46 PM | Report abuse

Karen S. didn't see the same O'Reilly interview I saw with Bill actually shouting at Barack Obama. When Sarah Palin goes on Countdown, it will be even steven. Ready for that? Didn't think so.

Posted by: Judy | September 21, 2008 6:00 PM | Report abuse

Karen S. didn't see the same O'Reilly interview I saw with Bill actually shouting at Barack Obama. When Sarah Palin goes on Countdown, it will be even steven. Ready for that? Didn't think so.

Posted by: Judy | September 21, 2008 6:01 PM | Report abuse

It's only more evidence that the CORPORATE MEDIA heavily supports McCains campign and unabashedly refuses to tell us the American public exactly who is John McCain really. Here's a couple of interesting storiesa the Corporate media refused to touch....From "Fact Of The Matter at

Sunday, September 21, 2008
Does the Press Indeed Fear McCain and the Rebushagain Party?
As you will note in almost every POST, one question I continuously ask myself is this, "why does the press suppress the TRUTH about John McCain and not report on it? Why is the press that he receives almost 70% positive or apologetic or advice for him, when in fact the things that he does are not very positive at all. His stances against a woman's right to choose, his desire to overturn Roe vs Wade, his desire and agreement with conservative talker Michael Medved on doing away with the Department of Education, doing away with the Department of agriculture, (side note:

Republican presidential candidate John McCain opposes the $300 billion farm bill and subsidies for ethanol, positions that both supporters and opponents say might cost him votes he needs in the upper Midwest this November.His Democratic rival, Barack Obama, is making a more traditional regional pitch: He favors the farm bill approved by Congress this year and subsidies for the Midwest-based ethanol industry. McCain instead has promised to open new markets abroad for farmers to export their commodities.In his position papers, McCain opposes farm subsidies only for those with incomes of more than $250,000 and a net worth above $2 million. But he’s gone further on the stump.“I don’t support agricultural subsidies no matter where they are,” McCain said at a recent appearance in Wisconsin. “The farm bill, $300 billion, is something America simply can’t afford.”...side note ends)

Which is definitely a sign that he does desire to get rid of the Department of Agriculture. He opposes $300 million dollars for American agriculture needs, yet from day one he has supported this quagmire and occupation of Iraq. I'm definitely not the sharpest knife in the drawer, but I'm far from the dullest. He stated that it was really those farmers with $250,000 dollars of earnings or with farms worth over 2 million dollars, yet, he wants to make the Bush tax cuts for the wealthiest 1% permanent. So on the one hand if they are rich farmers give them no tax breaks but on the other hand if they are rich business owners (corporate) give them tax breaks? That's a tad confusing wouldn't you say? A sort of speaking out of both sides of the mouth or speaking with a forked tongue, if you will....This just more evidence that as Senator Kerry put it at the Democratic National Convention that, "Candidate McCain needs to finish the debate with Senator McCain,"...John McCain needs to finish the debate with him self. McCain is 2 faced.

McCain also agrees with Michael Medved's idea to get rid of the Department of Health care, Isn't that special? Problem with all these facts you will not hear a peep about in the press. Just as the Corporate Media kept it silent when it was discovered that Senator McCain's Campaign begin sending out millions of absentee ballots to guess who? Barack Obama supporters. This storey surfaced the first week of September and was first reported by a stand-in on the Tom Hartman show on Green960, the following day Newsweek reported it.

Here is an article the mainstream press refused to touch...

Monday, September 15. 2008
McCain's Absentee Ballot Mailer Fiasco Spreads - Could Disqualify Some Voters
Reports from around the country advise that John McCain's campaign has sent confusing or incorrect absentee ballot request forms to voters in ten states at least. Affected so far are Florida, Iowa, North Carolina, Ohio, Oregon (reported by blogger, not confirmed) Minnesota, Missouri, Pennsylvania, Virginia and Wisconsin so far. In each state, the mailers have a different error, in any of these cases, the voter could be disenfranchised by the error. In at least one state a voter could disqualify themselves or be vulnerable to election challenges if they mailed these forms in. Mailers sent to Wisconsin voters are encouraging voters to send their applications to clerks in communities where they do not live. If you receive an absentee ballot request form from the McCain campaign ( or any private entity) and you do want to vote absentee, then instead check with your County Board of Elections to get the correct information.

Florida Voter Caging Warning: McCain mailer w/absentee ballot requests September 9. 2008. Sasha Rethati of "Sound off with Sasha" on WGCU radio warns "snow birds" about a big caging scam in Florida. McCain mailers are sending people unsolicited absentee ballot requests. These mailers can be used to remove voters from the rolls.


Fraudulent Absentee Ballot Requests in Iowa? by mshakir1 Fri Sep 12, 2008 (blog, not confirmed independently)

Several days ago, I received an interesting piece of mail from John McCain 2008. It was a vote-by-mail application, which I thought was curious because I have never registered as a Republican or donated money to his campaign...After opening the application placard, I noticed that the application was asking for the usual info (name, address, date of birth, etc.), but was unusual was what else it was asking for.

At the bottom of the application, there were 3 check boxes that could be filled out, any one of which could serve to prove one's identity. One of the check boxes was for an OHIO driver's license number. This was curious for me, because as you have probably guessed by now, I live in IOWA. Then I looked at the back of the application card, and the mailing address was for the Director of the board of elections in Columbus, OHIO.


Although many other states have moved to give voters the right to cast their ballots in advance of Election Day, either in person or by mail, there is no provision for it under Pennsylvania law.

...An absentee ballot cast under improper circumstances — by someone who just didn’t want to be bothered to leave the house, for instance — could be subject to challenge and disqualification, she said.


Be careful if you receive unrequested absentee ballot application WDBJ7 September 10, 2008

"Why is a Republican, Democrat, anybody sending out an unsolicited request?" wonders Murdock.

McCain's mailer creates controversy By MARK PITSCH 608-252-6145 FRI., SEP 12, 2008

The state elections agency is investigating complaints about a massive campaign mailing Republican Sen. John McCain's presidential campaign has directed toward Wisconsin Democrats and other voters.

... in some cases, the incorrect clerk's address is printed on the application, leading some Democrats to wonder if the Arizona senator's campaign is deliberately trying to get them to apply for absentee ballots in places where they aren't eligible to vote.

"They're trying to knock me off the rolls," said Democrat Beverly Jambois, of Middleton. "I can't tell you how upsetting it is to me. This is how you win elections? By disenfranchising other voters?"

Her household received the flier this week addressed to her husband, Robert, a lawyer for the state Department of Transportation. The couple are registered to vote in Middleton, but the absentee ballot application was addressed to the city clerk's office in Madison....

A Wisconsin paper calls upon McCain campaign to set things right:

McCain camp must resolve mailing fiasco The Capital Times. An editorial — 9/15/2008

When it comes to the right to vote, it is not enough after a dramatically inappropriate move to say, "Oops."

The campaign of Republican presidential candidate John McCain has dispatched a mass mailing to Wisconsin voters -- including many Democrats and liberals who are not likely to be McCain backers -- that encourages eligible voters to send their applications for absentee ballots to clerks in communities where they do not reside.

Following the instructions of the McCain mailing could lead voters to run afoul of election rules and regulations -- and that might lead to the disqualification or even the prosecution of an innocent citizen for supposed wrongdoing.

UPDATE at 9:12 pm CDT September 15, 2008

State Republican Mailer Under Fire As Unfair Confusion Tactic Mailer Directs Voters To Return Absentee Ballot To Wrong Address

MADISON, Wis. -- Absentee ballot mailers are under fire from Democrats.
Democrats believe a mistake by the Republican Party could be an effort to mislead or even disenfranchise voters. More than a 100,000 mailers from the John McCain campaign were sent out with an application for an absentee ballot. The problem is that the mailers were sent to a particular address, but if the voters returned the application it was addressed to another city.

The state Republican Party called it an honest mistake......YEAH RIGHT, and John McCain's PROPAGANDA ADS are honest mistakes right? 26 honest mistakes in a row, WOW, either McCain and his camp are suffering from a group experienced bout of dementia and Alzheimer's or THEY ARE CROOKS AND LIARS. Yet the press refuses too report these huge stories that reveal the BASE CONNIVING and SCHEMING character of Candidate McCain. They keep it covered up.


Media Matters reported Friday September 19, this piece about the press and it's fear of McCain....

Despite attacks on media by McCain campaign, case studies show disparate coverage in McCain's favor

Summary: The media have for months reported complaints by the McCain campaign that they have favored his opponent in their coverage of the presidential race, while making little attempt to assess the accuracy of those complaints or to confirm or refute them. But in a review of the media's coverage of two stories negatively affecting or reflecting on Sen. Barack Obama and two stories negatively affecting or reflecting on Sen. John McCain -- specifically Obama's ties to Bill Ayers and Antoin Rezko, and McCain's dealings with donors whom he reportedly benefited and his association with G. Gordon Liddy -- Media Matters found that the five major newspapers and the three evening network news broadcasts have frequently mentioned Obama's ties to Ayers and Rezko, but have rarely mentioned McCain's dealings with donors and have ignored his association with Liddy.

Here's one more.....

CBS' Reid aired McCain attacking Obama for purportedly being in the "Washington culture of lobbying" without noting McCain's own lobbying ties

Summary: On the CBS Evening News, Chip Reid uncritically aired video of Sen. John McCain claiming that the "crisis on Wall Street, my friends, started in the Washington culture of lobbying and influence-peddling, and [Sen. Barack Obama] was right square in the middle of it." However, Reid did not mention McCain's own ties to the "Washington culture of lobbying." According to a Mother Jones report, "at least 83" McCain aides, policy advisers, or fundraisers "have in recent years lobbied for the financial industry McCain now attacks."

Here's just one more example....


"Media Matters"; by Jamison Foser

The media's counterproductive focus on negative campaigning

It's getting awfully hard to pick up a newspaper or turn on the television without seeing a news report about the presidential campaign turning negative. It often seems the media consider the tone of the campaign more important than the collapsing economy, the war, our continued failure to capture or kill Osama bin Laden, and the Bush administration's apparent disdain for the Constitution -- combined.

Before we go any further, let me be clear: I'm not saying that negative campaigning isn't as bad as the media makes it out to be.

I'm saying negative campaigning is essential to American democracy.

See, for voters to make good decisions, they have to have good information. And, unfortunately, candidates aren't in the habit of telling voters things they've done (or plan to do) that are unpopular, or of running ads about the flaws in their own proposals. And since voters need to know the candidates' weaknesses as well as their strengths, and the disadvantages to their proposals, they need somebody to talk about those things.

Oh, sure, we could rely on the media to do that. How have they been doing lately? Anybody think they did a good job of assessing the candidates' relative weaknesses in 2000? Of poking holes in the Bush administration's tragically flawed arguments for the Iraq war? Of putting down the doughnuts and barbecued ribs long enough to pin John McCain down on how long he's willing to keep fighting in Iraq, what, exactly, he plans on doing to Social Security, how he would pay for his tax cuts and wars, or how much you have to make in order for him to consider you "rich"?

Anyone who thinks we can rely on the media to tell us what the candidates don't want us to know should head over to the Swampland blog, where Time reporter Michael Scherer insists that it is unfair to bring up John McCain's lengthy history of voting and speaking in favor of Social Security privatization. Scherer says we should instead simply look at the position statements on McCain's campaign Web page (statements that actually don't provide any reason to think that McCain no longer supports privatization, though Scherer seems to think they do. See my posts on Media Matters' new blog, County Fair, for further explanation.)

So, we need candidates to engage in negative campaigning -- that is, in criticizing their opponents' positions, experience, and previous performance. That's far different from dishonest campaigning. Or from tactics that cross the line from "negative" to downright sleazy. Those tactics should be called out by the news media, and frequently. But the media's reflexive focus on simply "negative" campaigning is unnecessary and often counterproductive.

It is unnecessary because the question of whether a candidate or campaign is "too negative" is a visceral question, not a logical one. Voters don't need reporters to try to measure negativity for them or to keep reminding them of it. If something is too negative for them, voters will have a visceral reaction against it; if not, they won't. Either way, they are perfectly capable of coming to that conclusion on their own. (With the important exception that if a campaign is running a viciously negative below-the-radar campaign, such as a whispering campaign like the one George W. Bush waged against John McCain in 2000, voters can benefit from the media shining a light on those tactics.)

What voters can't easily do on their own is assess whether ads are true, false, or somewhere in between. That's where the media can be useful. They have the resources -- and, ideally, some expertise -- to assess the validity of claims made in campaign ads. That's how reporters can actually be useful -- by doing what the voters can't do for themselves, and doing it well.

Unfortunately, the news media often lump true criticism together with dishonest or sleazy criticism, as though all negative campaigning is equal, and equally bad. This week, a study concluded that a larger percentage of Barack Obama's ads since the political conventions have been "negative," bringing another round of news reports that drew false equivalence between very different tactics.

The Wisconsin Advertising Project looked at a single week's worth of ads in determining that 56 percent of McCain ads and 77 percent of Obama ads were "negative." Aside from the dangers in drawing conclusions from such a small sample of campaign ads, the findings are of limited value given that the project made no effort to assess the veracity or fairness of the ads in question. In fact, according to the San Francisco Chronicle, the study counted any ad that so much as mentioned the opponent's name as "negative."

I suppose it might be mildly interesting to know that 56 percent of John McCain's ads mention Barack Obama, or that 77 percent of Obama's ads mention McCain. But it doesn't really tell us anything useful. How did they mention each other? Did the ads criticize policy positions or personality? Were they honest? The answers to those questions are essential to any meaningful assessment of the candidates' campaign tactics. (If you do find the project's findings compelling, you should keep in mind that in July, based on a much larger sample, the project found that more of McCain's ads were negative.)

Despite the study's failure to even attempt to assess the validity of the ads it declared "negative," several news organizations hyped the findings. Worse, some suggested the finding that more of Obama's ads have been negative undermines the recent conclusions of many impartial observers that the McCain campaign ads have been more dishonest than those of the Obama campaign.

The New York Post, for example, reported that the results of the study "clash with recent media coverage accusing McCain of distorting Obama's record in ads." Nonsense. That's like saying that the fact that this is September clashes with the fact that it is Friday.

On Hardball, MSNBC's Chris Matthews also touted the study:

The McCain camp's been getting a lot of attention for some recent hard-hitting ads. In fact, the Wisconsin Advertising Project, a group that studies politics ads nationwide, deems that 56 percent of the ads aired by the McCain campaign last week were negative. That's 56 percent of McCain's ads, negative.

But here's a number that may surprise you. How many of Obama's ads in that same time period last week were negative? Seventy-seven percent -- an indication, perhaps, that Obama intends to come out swinging -- or these are the next couple months. He's going to be doing it. Nearly four out of five ads Obama aired last week were negative -- tonight's "Big Number."

But the more significant "attention" McCain has been getting has not been for negative ads -- it has been for false ads. Matthews disappears that criticism, suggesting that the criticism of McCain has been for negativity rather than dishonesty.

On Race to the White House, Matthews' colleague David Gregory said, "Obama says he wants a new kind of politics. Why is he running more negative ads than Senator McCain?" Later, Gregory played an Obama ad accusing McCain of dishonest attack ads -- but look at how Gregory characterized the Obama ad:

GREGORY: That is a new campaign ad from the Obama campaign. It is out this week, taking a swipe at John McCain for his negative ads. Take a look at this, a new study from the Wisconsin Advertising Project says that it is Obama slinging the most mud on TV; 77 percent of Obama's ads after the GOP convention were negative, compared to 56 percent of McCain's.

No. Obama's ad took a "swipe" at McCain for dishonest ads, not merely for negative ads. By changing Obama's criticism, Gregory was able to use the Wisconsin study to paint him as a hypocrite. And note the phrasing Gregory used to describe the study's findings -- the loaded phrase "it is Obama slinging the most mud on TV." Remember, the study made no effort whatsoever to assess the content of the ads; it simply counted as negative any mention of the opponent's name. On that flimsy basis, Gregory accuses Obama of "slinging the most mud" -- even as the consensus among neutral observers has been that McCain is leveling more false attacks.

Lumping all negative statements together as "slinging mud," without differentiating between true claims and false (or fair and unfair) doesn't inform viewers; it is a false equivalence that serves only to advantage truly dishonorable attacks by making them appear no worse than run-of-the-mill factual criticism. It plays into the hands of liars and smear merchants. And it penalizes honest and fair criticisms -- though such criticisms are essential to the voters' ability to make informed decisions.

What does this say to us about the CORRUPT CORPORATE MEDIA? There is obviously an agenda being pursued here...The facts state this, McCain is being aided by a CORPORATE AGENDA WHILE HE STANDS ON THE STUMP and pretends to condemn the very ones who hold his purse strings.

Conclusion, I don't think the media ands the press are afraid of McCain no to the contrary, they have thrown a full throttled support behind, Chris Matthews, David Gregory, The Wisconsin Advertising Project (biased agenda), The New york Post, John McCain and the Rebushagain party give you a full throttled SHOUT of, "THANKS FOR UNABASHEDLY SUPPORTING US"

These Press corps and Anchorman or in need of an unequival reproof, censoring, and sanctions

Posted by: need4trth | September 22, 2008 3:46 AM | Report abuse

This "interview" probably caused more nausea and diarriah than E.coli.

Yuck...can't get rid of the smell!

Posted by: Donny | September 22, 2008 9:46 AM | Report abuse

This wasn't an interview. Her lack of knowledge of anything paired with the total cluelessness of mcCain is showing those who are still not sure who to vote for, who is the better candidate. All this smoke screen about Obama this and that is just a way to deflect that conversation away from things the the palin/mccain camp know that they don't have any idea about, EVERYTHING. If they can't talk about Obama then their message is lost. They only have attack Obama offense. That's why they are going to lose, they don't have anything of substance to talk about.

Posted by: let | September 22, 2008 9:51 AM | Report abuse

I've been an Independent voter all my life, sometimes voting for the Democratic, but usually for the Republican. So, I'm perplexed. Let's see, this is a complex world, so we need someone very smart with intellectual agility. Sen. Obama graduated with honors from Columbia University and was THE top student at Harvard. Joe Biden has a law degree. Sen. McCain got into the Naval Academy (father and grandfather were Naval officers, maybe that helped with his application) and graduated 5th from the bottom of a class of more than 800. It took Gov. Palin five tries at different colleges to get a BA degree. Hmmm... someone real smart, I'll have to think about it.

Posted by: jba | September 22, 2008 1:10 PM | Report abuse

Awww..... poor Mr. King, he's so distraught.

Sarah Palin gave an interview to a friendly interviewer. Mr. King deems it an "infomercial."

Well, considering Mr. Obama's 500 million interviews with friendly mainstream media types (with or without tingly legs), I figure Sarah Palin only needs about 499,999 more friendly interviews to match the kowtowing the "objective" (ha ha) media has given the "New Messiah."

Objective journalism in this country is dead. Most of us now view formerly great papers as the Post as tabloids.

Posted by: Tim | September 22, 2008 1:10 PM | Report abuse

My twice-elected mayor and current governor outranks your community organizer.

To be honest, the entire WaPo newspaper is a friendly interview for "The One."

Posted by: Tony | September 22, 2008 1:16 PM | Report abuse

Did someone actually expect a real (or competent) interview from Sean Hannity, a complete moron and racist?

Posted by: Jon | September 22, 2008 1:25 PM | Report abuse


In Ft Myers the crowd was 60000 plus, the phony baloney Obama Rama ding dong would love to have such a turn out---

But folks, this was the VP....not even supposed to be the major event!

Barack Obama will need to bring his whole alphabet, not just his A game to meet this!

Posted by: Anonymous | September 22, 2008 7:40 PM | Report abuse

Fair is fair. MSNBC is a 24/7 infomercial for Obama.

Posted by: John K | September 22, 2008 11:23 PM | Report abuse

Well, at least Palin has let her hair down from that scary old fashioned bee-hive do she has been sporting. Any woman who would wear her hair up like that in the year 2008 is not a woman that I think can relate to anyone but the most Stepfordian women in this country. She is scary, unprepared, dishonest, and does not represent any soccer moms I know. Her interview seemed to be alternately scaring her and angering her.....

Posted by: oregonvoter | September 23, 2008 9:06 PM | Report abuse

Check out his rise to glory below:

Obama 1996 - 2000
Senator Obama: promoted to Senior Lecturer in constitutional law at the University of Chicago Law School. Elected to the Illinois Senate. Sponsored more than 800 bills. In 2000, lost a Democratic primary run for the U.S. House of Representatives to four-term incumbent Bobby Rush by a margin of two to one.

What mattered was that, beginning on Jan. 2, 1996, his campaigners began challenging thousands of petition signatures the other candidates in the race had submitted in order to appear on the ballot. Thus Mr. Obama would win his state Senate seat, months before a single vote was cast. Note that when he finished he was the ONLY democrat on the ballot. Republican candidate had to step aside for political reasons.

The 800 bills he ALLEDGEDLY sponsored were actually submitted by other democrats and all OBAMA did was date and stamp. He voted present 130 times on bills that would require him to step out of the box. Gained a reputation that the ‘then’ governor would make him a United States Senator.

2001 - 2004
Obama: reelected in 2002 and became chairman of the Illinois Senate's Health and Human Services Committee.
Initially the committee was looking at Health Care for all residents of Illinois. After accepting funding from insurance lobbyists he insured that universal healthcare became merely a policy goal instead of state policy, Basically learned how to again use his power to benefit himself at the expense of doing what was right for the residents of Illinois.

Publicly spoke out against the invasion of Iraq BEFORE the congressional authorization in 2002, and then again before the actual invasion in 2003. This was a given speech that sounded great but was actually a speech that was critical of the war BECAUSE it was distracting from the real issue regarding the black community in the United States. (Note he was given ORDERS by one of his Wealthy Supporters in Chicago to SPEAK OUT AGAINST THE WAR. Being a good Chicago Politiocian, he naturally followed the orders and took credit for speaking out.. but not on his own.)

Wrote and delivered the keynote address at the 2004 Democratic National Convention.
The Black Elite in the DNC decided along with the good ole boys… that to put a Democrat President in the White House in 2008 that they needed to attract the black vote… and that a Black Harvard Lawyer named Obama was the one that they needed. He was seen as an upcoming star because he won the Illinois US Senate Seat. (See the real facts of how he won by such a large number.) No one knew the Republican Candidate)

November 2004: elected to the US Senate, receiving over 3.5 million votes, more than 70% of total.

Now this is an interesting election even by Chicago standards. Seems that the front runner (Hull) mysteriously become involved in a domestic abuse trial and withdrew his name from the race. (Sounds like the Chicago Political Machine may have dropped a dime on Blair.) So Obama had a cake walk to get the democratic nomination for the U.S. Senate Seat. (Reminds me of how he won his State Senate seat by having his legal team disqualify his opponent’s signature petitions. At the same time Jack Ryan won the Republican Nomination, but announced his withdrawal from the race — four days after the Chicago Tribune succeeded in persuading a California court to release previously-sealed child custody records containing embarrassing allegations by Ryan's ex-wife. Now how is that for being one LUCKY politician. Obama walked into the US Senate Seat, when the Republicans brought in the little known Keyes to run as a Republican. Now it looks like the Chicago Political Machine along with Ayers, Jackson, Rezko Wright and the rich and wealthy Black community in Chicago loaded the deck in Obama’s favor.

Also note that for a 'white middle-class individual to be considered for entrance into Harvard' they would have to be number one in their High School class. Be the top student at Occidental just to get into COLUMBIA, and the odds of them getting into HARVARD LAW school ARE SO GREAT.. they probably would win the lottery first.

Yet Obama has us believe (on FAITH) that he performed so brilliantly that he (had a 'B' average in High School) performed so brilliantly at Occidental, that he got into Columbia, and that he EARNED a slot into Harvard Law School. Then he and HARVARD expect us to believe that he PERFORMED SO BRILLIANTLY ACADEMICALLY that he EARNED his right to be EDITOR of THE HARVARD LAW REVIEW. (Now I challenge the Obama Campaign and any supporter to valid that he was the BEST CANDIDATE excluding the fact that he was BLACK instead of BI-RACIAL.)

Amazing that there are no thesis papers, no legal briefs, no academic records, no scholarships received, no national test scores, no IQ scores, no legal briefs from his teaching in Chicago, or ANY LEGAL writings that was required of Editors of the Review... UNTIL Obama was selected.
I suspect that he received 'special' grants, scholarships, academic treatment not because he was brilliant... but because of the fact that these institutions... needed to promote black scholars at the expense of better qualified female, and white male candidates. ( I would hope that somewhere, someplace there would be documentation that would prove me wrong. )

And the amazing thing is... the MSM does not question any of this.

Shame on the MSM and shame on the Obama Supporters that BELIEVE in his Lies.

Remember he is spending over 600 million of YOUR dollars to BUY each and every American Vote that he recieves. Amazing to think that you are being BOUGHT and selling out OUR Country to the RICH AND POWERFUL.

Posted by: Bob Miller | September 24, 2008 12:00 AM | Report abuse

Palin's experience in just twelve minutes:

Posted by: Hokuto | September 24, 2008 6:04 AM | Report abuse

She is a pathetic, unfunny, joke.

I just hope that, after she loses VP, she loses her governorship and goes back to being a private citizen who few remember in 20 years.

Posted by: libarbarian | September 24, 2008 2:25 PM | Report abuse

The comments to this entry are closed.

RSS Feed
Subscribe to The Post

© 2010 The Washington Post Company