Who you leaning towards in 2008 Presidential Election?

[lurch70]

do you think this was a smart move 2 days before the election?

http://www.nbc.com/Saturday_Night_Live/video/clips/mccain-qvc-open/805381/

 

[MFJ]

no

 

[swizzlenuts]

I thought that was awesome. Are people taking it too serious?

 

[MFJ]

it was definitely funny, don't get me wrong. he's just trying to poke some fun at himself so everyone will be like "oh shit, john isn't so bad. let's vote for that hilarious scoundrel."

 

[skeptik]

I don't think it makes a difference, really. I have a feeling that, if anything, it would help him more than hurt him, but he really doesn't have much of a chance unless Obama rapes a white woman some time between now and Tuesday.

 

[MFJ]

I don't think it makes a difference, really. I have a feeling that, if anything, it would help him more than hurt him, but he really doesn't have much of a chance unless Obama rapes a white woman some time between now and Tuesday.

5 stars. it might happen, you never know.

 

[EricT]

The portion during weekend update was much funnier, I thought:

http://www.nbc.com/Saturday_Night_Live/video/clips/update-sen-mccain/805401/

 

[EricT]

Also, the "Center for Media and Public Affairs" has finally declared a bias in the media for Obama.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20081101/ap_on_el_pr/campaign_media

Only took a year, but finally someone with a say actually said it.

 

[skeptik]

Most complaints of media bias are, in my opinion, bullshit. Now obviously there are some instances of blatant bias, but let's agree that Barack's campaign is objectively, by most polls, doing a better job than McCain, is the media any less biased then to report evenly that McCain is faring just as well as Obama?

Sometimes reality is biased, to report things evenhandedly is a fallacy. It's like the evolution/Intelligent Design "debate", if the media reflected reality then for every one ID proponent on TV there should be 99 pro-evolution scientists, to reflect the massive support for evolution in the scientific community. This isn't the case, and as a result we see ID and evolution portrayed as an even debate, which is not the reality of the situation.

To portray the presidential campaign "fairly" is to pervert the reality, which is that Obama has run the more popular and positive campaign than has McCain.

This.

What I posted earlier on the topic elsewhere:

The media has had more positive coverage of Obama because Obama has done a lot more positive. He has bigger events and infomercials and speeches, whereas at McCain rallies there's people chanting "my pals" and "lynch him". The facts of REALITY is that there is more positive to cover about Obama and more negative to cover about McCain. This whole love affair bullshit is really annoying already. He's not a god damn rock star and he doesn't pretend to be. He receives the coverage that any political figure of his stature doing the things that he has done in the past two years should get. If the media is so in love with Obama, then why did CNN refuse to allow Obama to buy their air time, and, during the time that it was airing, air an interview with McCain? And I'm pretty sure I don't have to mention that Fox is not in love with Obama. But you know who else loves Obama? A lot of prominent conservatives and Republicans. They have become so sickened with McCain's negative campaigning and failed policies that they're backing the Democrat. See: Christopher Buckley, Colin Powell, Lincoln Chafee, Wick Allison, Susan Eisenhower, Julie Nixon, Rita Hauser, Larry Hunter, John Hutson, Paul O'Neill (not the Yankee), etc.

 

[EricT]

Most complaints of media bias are, in my opinion, bullshit. Now obviously there are some instances of blatant bias, but let's agree that Barack's campaign is objectively, by most polls, doing a better job than McCain, is the media any less biased then to report evenly that McCain is faring just as well as Obama?
.

Firstly, it wasn't an "opinion" piece I posted, but a scientific analyzation of the current media using the source of hundreds of news articles as main data. It's not a complaint or another, it's a study.

Secondly, the article/study in question refers to the way that certain media sources portray Obama as an only positive campaigner with very little negative over the past few months, and certain media sources have deemed certain stories on Obama unacceptable for their broadcast.

Thirdly, the reflection of a majority portion (65% to 31%) of the media on Obama's positive only has definitely helped the man get to where he is. If you had 10 minutes to decide to vote and for this decision you had to tune into CNN and they reported the following on the two candidates:

Obama - "Today, this man kissed a baby and proclaimed a system to cure world hunger!"

McCain - "This guy is a fascist bastard who's out to rape your children and eat your food stock"

Who would you vote for?

This is how it is for most Americans. How often do they watch the news that isn't local (actually, how often do they watch the local news even)? There are only about 10 million viewers on average total for the major news only networks, nobody reads newspapers anymore, and anything more than a paragraph on the internet (that isn't a bad chain email) is "TL;DR LOLCAKES MORE LOLCATS AND STUPID YOUTUBE VIDEOS!"

Now, if the country were ideal, everyone would keep themselves informed. The sad aspect is that a large chunk of the people can't even tell you what's going on in the country outside of something mentioned in an SNL skit. And the only exposure to the media they get is when they're channel surfing during commercials for "Dancing With The Stars". They end up on CNN and for that commercial time all they hear is "Obama is so great!", and their vote is based off of that. They can't even tell you what he does, but they're going to vote for him "Because he's a good guy who's going to fix this country".

And then there's the other group, which of course stumbles upon fox news (they ignore CNN because they got a chain emailing saying that CNN is working with the new Nazi Party to take away their guns and trucks) Sean Hannity during that commercial break, and all they hear is "OBAMA IS A TERRORIST... TERRORIST! TEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEERRRRRRRRRRRRROOOOOOOOOOORRRRRIST!" So of course you get that voter "I'm voting for McCain because Obama is a TERRORIST ARAB".

After that, the political ads that play don't have any effect because either: Nobody watches them or they just ignore them because "FOX/CNN told them otherwise!".

This is what is wrong with the Media and the American voting institution in general.

And no, I can't remember what the fuck I was talking about when I started writing this post. And I have no idea what the hell I'm writing now. I'm too busy getting drunk and watching football.

 

[skeptik]

This is what is wrong with the Media and the American voting institution in general.

Agreed. There is no doubt that the media has a disproportionately large influence on the way that people and issues are framed for the average person. It's an unfortunate reality that the media takes advantage of the overall ignorance of the people as a whole and places in their minds whatever they want there, for the most part.

 

[EricT]

http://media.newsbusters.org/storie...s-sf-chronicle-he-will-bankrupt-coal-industry



You'll probably be getting a lot of these links over the next 48 hours, since I'll probably post em as I get em if they're credible. (that includes anti-mccain ones, if they do come out. I think this 48 hours is gonna be about obama though).

And the response from the coal industry:

Coal official calls Obama comments 'unbelievable'

CHARLESTON - At least one state coal industry leader said he was shocked by comments Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama made earlier this year concerning his plan to aggressively charge polluters for carbon and greenhouse gas emissions.

"What I've said is that we would put a cap and trade system in place that is as aggressive, if not more aggressive, than anybody else's out there," Obama said in a Jan. 17 interview with the San Francisco Chronicle that was made public today first on the Web site newsbusters.org, which calls itself "the leader in documenting, exposing and neutralizing liberal media bias." The story later was linked on The Drudge Report.

An audio excerpt from the interview can be found at YouTube.

"I was the first to call for a 100 percent auction on the cap and trade system, which means that every unit of carbon or greenhouse gases emitted would be charged to the polluter," Obama continued. "That will create a market in which whatever technologies are out there that are being presented, whatever power plants that are being built, that they would have to meet the rigors of that market and the ratcheted down caps that are being placed, imposed every year.

"So if somebody wants to build a coal-powered plant, they can; it's just that it will bankrupt them because they're going to be charged a huge sum for all that greenhouse gas that's being emitted."

Calls and e-mails to West Virginia Obama campaign officials seeking comment for this story were not returned as of Sunday evening.

According to the West Virginia Office of Miners' Health, Safety and Training, the coal industry provides about 40,000 direct jobs in the state, including those for miners, mine contractors, coal preparation plant employees and mine supply company workers.

West Virginia is the second largest coal-producing state in the country behind Wyoming and accounts for about 15 percent of all coal production in the United States. The Mountain State leads the nation in underground coal production and leads the nation in coal exports with over 50 million tons shipped to 23 countries. West Virginia accounts for about half of U.S. coal exports.

In addition, the coal industry pays about $70 million in property taxes in the state annually, and the Coal Severance Tax adds about $214 million into West Virginia's economy. The coal industry payroll in the state is nearly $2 billion per year, and coal is responsible for more than $3.5 billion annually in the gross state product.

"The only thing I've said with respect to coal, I haven't been some coal booster," Obama said in the San Francisco Chronicle interview. "What I have said is that for us to take coal off the table as an ideological matter as opposed to saying if technology allows us to use coal in a clean way, we should pursue it."

The senior vice president of the West Virginia Coal Association called Obama's comments "unbelievable."

"His comments are unfortunate," Chris Hamilton said Sunday, "and really reflect a very uninformed voice and perspective to coal specifically and energy generally."

Hamilton noted other times Obama and vice presidential candidate Joe Biden have made seemingly anti-coal statements.

"In Ohio recently, when Joe Biden said 'not here' about building coal-fired power plants -- this is exactly what will happen," Hamilton said. "Financing won't be directed here. It will all go aboard for plants elsewhere in the world. The United Sates is importing more coal today from Indonesia, South Africa and Colombia than we ever have.

"If we're going to create a situation where coal-fired power plants are at that much of a disadvantage, there will be new ones built. But as Biden said, just not here."

Republican presidential candidate John McCain's state director said Obama's statements are troubling, especially for West Virginians.

"I think this clearly shows the attitude the Obama-Biden ticket has toward coal," Ben Beakes said Sunday. "Rhetoric is cheap, but behind closed doors what they tell their supporters - that's what we have to take as gospel.

"They're definitely not friends of coal."

Beakes noted other examples of Obama and Biden making seemingly anti-coal statements, such as in February when Obama said he'd like to tax "dirty energy" such as coal and natural gas.

"And their cohorts in Congress make similar statements," Beakes said. "(Senate Majority Leader) Harry Reid (D-Nevada) said this summer that 'coal makes us sick.'

"This is an attitude and view that, to me, shows their hatred of coal. And therefore, their view would cost West Virginians thousands upon thousands of jobs."

Beakes touted McCain's view toward coal.

"John McCain has embraced coal," Beakes said. "He doesn't agree with everything in the coal industry, but his view of coal is positive. He will make it part of his energy policy. He's met with leaders in the coal industry and let them know that. He's sought advice from coal industry leaders.

"McCain understands that coal supports about 49 percent of our electricity in this country. He'll continue to make coal important. He wants to reduce our foreign dependency on oil."

Hamilton also said the Obama campaign needs to find varied sources for coal and energy advice.

"If they're victorious Tuesday, they'd better go to someone other than Al Gore on energy and environmental matters," he said. "They've tipped the balance way -- unnecessarily so -- toward protecting the environment."

 

[J.]

"They've tipped the balance way -- unnecessarily so -- toward protecting the environment."



I love the commercial that states "The best way to impact the environment is to have as little impact as possible."

environment>commercial interests

 

[EricT]

Yeah, because hundreds of thousands of jobs provided by coal aren't important as compared to the air being a slight bit cleaner and the cut of about 3/4 of those jobs. Not to mention the states that depend on coal for both their power and large portions of their funding (Utah, for instance).

 

[cthulufhtagn]

i find this misleading, if coal power CAN be utilized (as "clean coal" advocates claim) with methods that limit the amount of greenhouse gases emitted, then why is a cap-and-trade system going to bankrupt the coal industry? if it can't, then why should we continue to invest in it so heavily? the time has come to quit hemming and hawing about carbon emissions, we need some concrete action. solar and wind power is not "decades off"; if given the proper funding and manpower renewable energy has the potential to not only reduce our dependence on foreign oil/gas/coal in the long term but create a bunch of jobs in the short term.


not in response to this in particular, but i feel like the biggest obstacle to conservation is peoples' sense of entitlement to a lifestyle that simply can't be sustained at the current rate. it's just not feasible to plow through such a huge amount of resources and expect it to last forever. sooner or later either shit is gonna hit the fan or there's going to be a cultural shift in terms of environmental consciousness, and perhaps we'll be more fulfilled people for it. as opposed to starting a nuclear war with china over dwindling oil reserves.

 

[J.]

Yeah, because hundreds of thousands of jobs provided by coal aren't important as compared to the air being a slight bit cleaner

Exactly! I'm tired of people living in the now. Live for the future generations. Ethical Egoism sucks!

I thought people in Utah didn't need power. Don't y'all live on farms and live like the Amish?

 

[J.]

Looks like McCain is no friend to coal either. C'mon Palin, tell it like it is:



From CNN:

In the interview, Obama said that his “aggressive” cap-and-trade plan would charge polluters for every unit of carbon or greenhouse gas they emit, a plan that would render polluting coal plants financially unviable.

“So if somebody wants to build a coal-powered plant, they can,” he said. “It’s just that it will bankrupt them because they’re going to be charged a huge sum for all that greenhouse gas that’s being emitted.”

In the interview, Obama also made the case for alternative energy sources, adding that he does not believe coal production will be eliminated, and that he supports carbon capture and sequestration technologies.

John McCain also supports a market-based cap-and-trade proposal to reduce carbon emissions.

 

[EricT]

Sure is funny CNN brings up McCain's Cap-and-Trade policy now without criticizing it as a give away and too lenient and not fast enough, unlike a few months ago:

http://money.cnn.com/2008/06/27/news/economy/election_green.fortune/?postversion=2008063005

(Fortune Magazine) -- What senators McCain and Obama believe about U.S. energy policy matters - hugely. To fight global warming, the next President will oversee the transition to a new, green economy, which will result in one of the biggest business transformations of the 21st century and potentially one of the largest transfers of wealth since the creation of the income tax.

Both candidates agree that a carbon cap-and-trade law is the best way to make industries reduce their emissions of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases that cause climate change. Under such legislation, Washington puts a cap on carbon emissions that is lowered every year, and creates permits allowing industry to emit greenhouse gases just up to those limits. McCain favors reducing America's carbon dioxide output to 60% of the 1990 level by 2050, whereas Obama sets his target at 80%.

The trouble is, limiting greenhouse gases will raise energy prices, because industries are forced to pay for cleaner technology - a hard sell at a time gas prices have hit an average of $4 a gallon. Politicians like cap and trade - vs. a straight-forward levy on gasoline, coal, and other carbon fuels - because it is essentially an invisible tax and therefore has less chance of raising the ire of voters.

Where the candidates differ most is over money. McCain takes a Milton Friedman-esque approach to energy that counts heavily on the private sector to figure out solutions to global warming. McCain would give away most of the carbon permits - currently estimated to be worth $100 billion a year, or a staggering $4 trillion between now and 2050 - to big energy producers. If the utilities and oil companies don't have to pay the government for their permits, McCain's thinking goes, they will have more to invest in carbon-reducing technology, and energy prices probably won't rise as much.

Obama's camp attacks McCain's program as a huge government giveaway. Says Jason Grumet, Obama's principal advisor on energy and the environment: "McCain, in contrast to his self-description as a fiscal conservative, would give hundreds of billions of dollars of emissions permits away to the energy industry in the hope that they would pass the savings on to consumers."

By contrast, Obama would auction 100% of the carbon permits to industry. Some of the $100 billion raised annually would go to low-income Americans to buffer the shock of rising energy prices. Some would fund green R&D and speed the commercialization of solar, wind, and other green tech. Because it funds aggressive federal clean-tech programs, Obama's version of cap and trade is more likely to help the nation meet its global warming goals. Yes, McCain would also auction off some permits to raise money for similar uses, but he hasn't made clear exactly how much money he would raise and when that might happen - it could be years.

Obama's plan does have a weakness, which McCain's supporters are quick to point out. The $100 billion pouring into the U.S. Treasury annually would be mother's milk to special-interest groups. A chunk of the money, for instance, would be earmarked for green-collar training - whatever that is. Senator John Kerry has suggested that federal funds be used to protect New England's lobster industry from the effects of global warming. Says Douglas Holtz-Eakin, McCain's senior policy advisor: "There's no reason to turn this into a big cash cow for the federal government." And he's right. Once low-income citizens, green R&D, and the business incentives have been taken care of, the rest of the revenue should be returned to the U.S. taxpayer, which could help offset some of the drag on the economy that cap and trade is likely to create. And even better, cutting taxes would make such a bill easier to sell to the American people.

 

[cthulufhtagn]

 

[EricT]

So, it's pretty funny how this is gearing to be another election decided by Florida. If Obama gets florida's 27, then McCain will need to pick up atleast one of Obama's "clinch" states to win as well as most of the other swings.

If McCain wins Florida, then it's gonna be a late night race.

I'm hoping for the latter, because that gives me more time to drink beer and yell at the results on the TV. Florida closes at like... 5 my time. Fuck that. I'm haven't even changed into my beer shorts by that time.