Discussion: Are Obama Critics Trying To Have it Both Ways Regarding Iraq?

I do think Obama's trip to the middle east is big political news. I do think 3 major anchors going with him and not going with McCain raises legitimate questions about neutrality.

I also think it news that he hasn't gone until now but has made lots of political statements about what he will do without all of the facts necessary to make those calls.

His first trip to the region is a big story but I feel that the criticism is justified. They are fawning over Obama's trip like he is the first one ever going. He has made so many statements on the war (quite contradictory ones at that) without ever really seeing the conditions. For all the posturing he has done over the primary season, he should have gone a few more times.

Every little thing Obama does is being blown out of proportion while McCain's coverage is push aside. The Access Hollywood thing, him playing basketball or bowling.

Politicians are going to get criticized no matter what they do. They can't please all of the people all of the time. Obama is slicker than Bill Clinton was in that somehow he brushes off the criticism and no one pushes the issue.

There is not concrete proof. Its more the tone of the coverage. This is all just my opinion and they way I see the coverage. Major anchors do not follow McCain around on his trips to Europe and the Middle East. He is a presidential candidate as well whose actions will affect the region and us just as much as Obama.

I fully agree that Obama should be there and its amazing that he finally is. My criticism is they media touts it as only amazing and no one really brings up the fact that its about time besides McCain.

I honestly think its in part because we know McCain and where he stands on many issues. When he does something, it is not a surprise because we already know his answers. Obama has so many unknowns on so many positions, it makes him more exciting to talk about. This bias goes all the way back to Clinton vs. Obama. Its not going to change and I can only hope the country doesn't get swept up in it. Hopefully people choose a candidate for his positions on issues and not the media love fest.

"Can you cite proof or evidence of either said fawning or anyone saying like that this is his first trip? Do you think this is NOT a big deal, with a possible future president visiting the region whose unpopular war may play such a huge role in the election not to mention the next decade or so?"

Do you not think the multiple trips McCain has made, as a possible future President, is just as important as the trip from the other possible future President? It's not about whether going is important, it's about why one person making one trip is more important than someone in an equal position who is making multiple trips and getting little to no coverage for it. Proof or evidence of fawning? Of course, check yesterday's neews, and the day before that, and the day before that, and the day before that, and so on and so on.

"Were those trips not covered? I remember the coverage well - do you?"

Actually, no, the majority were not. Over a dozen trips made in the past year were not even given a single mention by the press, only his released schedule showed us that where he was and what he was doing. Covering one or two in the tiniest, most minute detail is NOT coverage.

To answer your general headline question: Some people are trying to have it both ways and they will complain about Obama no matter what he does, like the author of the first article. So we should be blame the media more as we have stated to do in this discussion.

It's not Obama fault that the media loves him and puts barely any pressure on him. It's just a sad state of affaris that this is the world we live in. People will pay attention to whatever coverage is there. Few stories on McCain means that there is less for people to pay attention to. When Obama make a trip and some very heavy hitter reports go with him, it brings more attention to the story than normal.

McCain was gone for a week when he visited Europe. None of these guys stay in one place that long. If they are just going to Iraq, they only stay for a day or two. If they a touring a region, it takes days.

Even if McCain didn't tell them he was going (which I find doubtful), they are reporters... it's their job to find out this stuff and report on it. I'm sure the trips McCain took were mentioned but that fact that we have to think if they were or not shows that such a fuss was not made when it happened. Obama can't go to the bathroom with all of us knowing.

Frankly, I'm sick of hearing every little thing he does. I'm just waiting for him to tell us some stances on issues and how he intends to pay for them or how he is actually going to change things. Then I might actually listen... I'll probably disagree but I would actually listen.

Couldn't the same question be asked about any trip McCain would take?

It seems to me that they may be wanting to be part of the story in lieu of reporting on the story. These companies have large staffs for gathering the information, the talking heads are not really necessary for good quality coverage.

"The difference is Obama's trip has garnered top names but that's because this trip has more historic proportions"

McCain's trips have garnered the same top names. What more historic proportions exist for Obama making the trip than for othes who have already made the trip multiple times? If McCain and Obama both make the same trip, speaking to the same people, Obama gets more coverage, period. It has nothing to do with "historic proportions," especially with both holding an IDENTICAL stance on the war after the Iraq people resisted and Obama was forced to concede that there could be no timetable.

"That's more a matter to criticize the media for, not Obama?"

If the polls are right, that's exactly what 80% of the population is doing. Criticizing Obama is just another matter we're discussing as well, but the media is still a big topic.

Now we are trying to have it both ways. Either we are all equal or we aren't. If we need to move past race, as his eloquent (HA!) speech on race said we much do, then this is not historic. Its two Washington politicians (yes, obama is a politician like all the rest) running for president. If we get swept up in the glamour of a black (well half black) president, then that's all we get... a black president. Let's look past it and see it for what it is

I would like a president voted in on his positions not the color of his skin. Maybe this is where the media bias comes in. They can't see past the historical aspect so they break news every time he talks. Its unfair to give him more coverage just because he is more "historic"...

I do this regularly and yes there is coverage of both candidates.

My sense has been that the coverage is slightly biased and weighted to one candidate over another in virtually all of the major newspapers.

"When McCain does something truly newsworthy and Obama has a slow week then those roles will be reversed."

Of course it won't. McCain does something newsworthy when Obama does nothing and yet another opinion piece on Obama is thrown on the front page. It doesn't change when McCain does something newsworthy. The only way to know when something newsworthy happens for him is to actually look at his schedule and listen in on his speeches, or read his writings. You probably don't know when he's done something newsworthy because you just look at the front page instead of following the candidates themselves. Both candidates have actually had newsworthy times that were ignored, positive and negative times. McCain just has the majority of positive times ignored.

I personally enjoy political satire.

As in everything, I prefer to have a balance. I find both of our candidates amusing and worthy of poking fun at.

I do also believe that a certain level of respect for the office is appropriate and that it is possible to go over a line that I would find unacceptable on a personal level but that wouldn't bother others.

"Do you agree with this author that all's fair with political satire?"

Absolutely, as long as a measure of respect is maintained at the same time. I don't believe the New Yorker was over the line at all. They were satiring not the candidate, but impressions of him. That act crosses no lines, and displays nothing about the candidate himself. There are several aspects of him personally they could have chosen to satire, which could ahve crossed boundaries. Instead, they poked fun at impressions instead of the candidate or any facts associated with him. To me, that's about as far from any line as they could have gone.

I enjoyed the MSNBC piece. Senator Obama has funneled himself into this situation through his statements on key issues since January. We've watched him struggle to, diplomatically,adjust his views without being called a "flip-flopper. The Republican machine has recognized this and is, just,beginning to use it as ammunition. We are going to see one of the most interesting runs to the finish line since 2000. Thanks for sparking an interesting discourse.

So has McCain he has changed/flip flop (however you wish to use it) his views so many times between his first run to now and because of this there is plenty of ammunition to use against him as well if not more.

I find this a hilarious satire piece regarding McCain and Obama. Do you?

Yup

How is it noteworthy? Senators travel all the time to countries and talk to heads of state. It is (not maybe) presumptous as hell for him to be having press conferences over there like he is the president. The media feeding into it instead of poinitng out his presumption is the biggest piece of evidence that there is a bias. It is unusual to see this type of action because presidential candidates don't pretend to be president. Where does he get off talking policy to these guys when he has no right to make it yet? When McCain goes over (as he has many, many times), I'm sure its not to talk about HIS policy but the policy of the president and to gather information.

The gaul and arrogance of Obama is really starting to irk me as well as the media's inability to ask him a difficult question.

So again we go back to the media. He has plenty of media access and some judgment should come into play as to when to hold a press conference. As I have put in other posts, Obama's judgment is is quite lacking before the fact and spot on after the fact.

McCain was the most liberal of the republican candidates so he got the love of the press. Now that Obama is out there in left field (though moving towards the center on so many positions), the press loves him. McCain should suck it up some more and not complain as much (or keep a lid on his staff's complaining) because it doesn't help.

Of course if we just got back to the issues and stopped all the complaining on both sides, this would be a much better election season.