CNN.com uncritically reported on "McCain is right" ad without noting Obama's criticisms moments later
SUMMARY: In a post on CNN.com's Political Ticker blog, CNN associate political editor Rebecca Sinderbrand wrote: "Before John McCain walked off the stage, his campaign already had a new Web video up featuring footage of the first debate -- clips of Barack Obama agreeing with his Republican rival." However, Sinderbrand did not note that the ad omitted Obama's criticisms of McCain moments later on the subjects which Obama purportedly "agree[d] with his Republican rival."
In a September 26 post on CNN.com's Political Ticker blog, CNN associate political editor Rebecca Sinderbrand wrote: "Before John McCain walked off the stage, his campaign already had a new Web video up featuring footage of the first debate -- clips of Barack Obama agreeing with his Republican rival. On the McCain campaign Web site, spokesman Michael Goldfarb noted mid-debate that journalists were already describing that refrain as fodder for a new ad: 'It's like they have the place bugged,' he said." However, Sinderbrand did not note that the ad omitted Obama's criticisms of McCain moments later on the subjects which Obama purportedly "agree[d] with his Republican rival."
McCain's September 26 ad:
McCAIN: I'm John McCain, and I approved this message.
NARRATOR: Barack Obama's answers at the first presidential debate:
JIM LEHRER [debate moderator]: Do you have something directly to say, Senator Obama, to Senator McCain about what he just said?
OBAMA: Well, I think Senator McCain's absolutely right that we need more responsibility, bu --
OBAMA: Well, Senator McCain is absolutely right that the earmarks process has been abused.
OBAMA: John mentioned the fact that business taxes on paper are high in this country, and he's absolutely right.
NARRATOR: Is Barack Obama ready to lead? No.
Wall Street
McCain's ad quoted Obama stating that, regarding Wall Street, "I think Senator McCain's absolutely right that we need more responsibility, bu --." However, the ad omitted Obama's remarks moments later in which he said: "[B]ut we need it not just when there's a crisis. I mean, we've had years in which the reigning economic ideology has been what's good for Wall Street, but not what's good for Main Street," and "Ten days ago, John said that the fundamentals of the economy are sound." From the debate [remarks which the McCain ad quoted are bolded]:
LEHRER: Do you have something directly to say, Senator Obama, to Senator McCain about what he just said?
OBAMA: Well, I think Senator McCain's absolutely right that we need more responsibility, but we need it not just when there's a crisis. I mean, we've had years in which the reigning economic ideology has been what's good for Wall Street, but not what's good for Main Street.
And there are folks out there who've been struggling before this crisis took place. And that's why it's so important, as we solve this short-term problem, that we look at some of the underlying issues that have led to wages and incomes for ordinary Americans to go down, the -- a health care system that is broken, energy policies that are not working, because 10 days ago, John said that the fundamentals of the economy are sound.
Earmarks
McCain's ad quoted Obama stating that "Senator McCain is absolutely right that the earmarks process has been abused." However, the ad omitted Obama's criticisms of McCain moments later in which he said: "But let's be clear: Earmarks account for $18 billion in last year's budget. Senator McCain is proposing -- and this is a fundamental difference between us -- $300 billion in tax cuts to some of the wealthiest corporations and individuals in the country, $300 billion." From the debate:
OBAMA: Well, Senator McCain is absolutely right that the earmarks process has been abused, which is why I suspended any requests for my home state, whether it was for senior centers or what have you, until we cleaned it up.
And he's also right that oftentimes lobbyists and special interests are the ones that are introducing these kinds of requests, although that wasn't the case with me.
But let's be clear: Earmarks account for $18 billion in last year's budget. Senator McCain is proposing -- and this is a fundamental difference between us -- $300 billion in tax cuts to some of the wealthiest corporations and individuals in the country, $300 billion.
Now, $18 billion is important; $300 billion is really important.
And in his tax plan, you would have CEOs of Fortune 500 companies getting an average of $700,000 in reduced taxes, while leaving 100 million Americans out.
So, my attitude is, we've got to grow the economy from the bottom up. What I've called for is a tax cut for 95 percent of working families, 95 percent.
And that means that the ordinary American out there who's collecting a paycheck every day, they've got a little extra money to be able to buy a computer for their kid, to fill up on this gas that is killing them.
And over time, that, I think, is going to be a better recipe for economic growth than the -- the policies of President Bush that John McCain wants to -- wants to follow.
Business taxes
McCain's ad quoted Obama stating: "John mentioned the fact that business taxes on paper are high in this country, and he's absolutely right." However, the ad omitted Obama's remarks moments later in which he said: "Here's the problem: There are so many loopholes that have been written into the tax code, oftentimes with support of Senator McCain, that we actually see our businesses pay effectively one of the lowest tax rates in the world." From the debate:
OBAMA: Now, John mentioned the fact that business taxes on paper are high in this country, and he's absolutely right. Here's the problem: There are so many loopholes that have been written into the tax code, oftentimes with support of Senator McCain, that we actually see our businesses pay effectively one of the lowest tax rates in the world.
And what that means, then, is that there are people out there who are working every day, who are not getting a tax cut, and you want to give them more.
It's not like you want to close the loopholes. You just want to add an additional tax cut over the loopholes. And that's a problem.
Just one last point I want to make, since Senator McCain talked about providing a $5,000 health credit. Now, what he doesn't tell you is that he intends to, for the first time in history, tax health benefits.
So, you may end up getting a $5,000 tax credit. Here's the only problem: Your employer now has to pay taxes on the health care that you're getting from your employer. And if you end up losing your health care from your employer, you've got to go out on the open market and try to buy it.
It is not a good deal for the American people. But it's an example of this notion that the market can always solve everything, and that the less regulation we have, the better off we're going to be.
OBAMA (not):Well you know Jim I've said many times John is nothing if not one of the most consistent people I've had the distinction of having served with in government. Consistently in the pocket of the of the Military-Industrial complex and big business generally. Consistently wrong, whether we're talking about his judgment to support the preemptive invasion of Iraq or his deregulatory impulses going back to the S& L crisis to his support as head for all the deregulation that's landed us in today's mess. Consistently ill tempered and mean spirited---I wouldn't hire the guy to cut my lawn The man is a veritable walking WMD.
This is douchebaggery aimed at the simpletons. I flipped around to several channels after the debate, and this was the take I kept hearing; that Obama was "weak" for agreeing with certain points of McCain's.
Grampy was following a traditional GOP line of debate-- start with a broad platitude or a stating of the obvious, followed up with some talking points using that point as a jumping-off point. Ex: America needs to be strong on terror-- we should nuke Iran.
If the opponent simply says "I disagree", it's a sound bite saying they don't think America should be strong on terrorism. Finding the common ground on the broad points is what we need right now( as opposed to the childish leadership we've had for the past 8 years, knee-jerk disagreement with everybody not in the Cult.)
I saw a whiny old man talking in platitudes, and his opponent recognizing that those happy-talk cliches were fine, just not coupled with the specifics that McCain was piling on top of them.
It's a dividing point in this country, I guess. Telling your opponent repeatedly that "they just don't understand" because they disagree with you is seen as strength, telling your opponent that you can see some common ground is "weakness".
Obama: stop the "Wall Street" vs. "Main Street" stuff. corny.
Grampy McCain: Enough with the "Miss Congeniality" joke, it's over. The "Criminal or Paternity" joke about the tax money to study bear DNA wasn't bad the first time, but it's pretty tired , especially when you said "paternal" and fvcked up the joke tonight.
COL., What the HELL was Obama thinking? He "agreed" with almost everything McCain said. Even though he added counter-remarks and substantive disagreements he framed his remarks in his usual polite and stumbling delivery to take away the power of what he was actually saying. McCain, like all Right-Wing nuts, never faltered, never stuttered, never showed any reticence when he spoke. This is the kind of public display that suckers people in. "He is "decisive" and has all his "facts" down pat." All in all, Obama flubbed it, as far as I can see. He didn't come across as a strong and confident leader. I feel betrayed by Barack Obama tonight.
I have to disagree with you here, Maddog. OK, Obama could have probably gotten away with laying into Grampy harder, but I don't think his "agreeing" came off as weak to anybody except those already solidly in the McCain camp.
McCain came across, to me anyway, as the same sort of simple-minded, insecure pinhead that we've had in the White House for the past 8 years.
I saw Obama as giving mcCain as much rope as he needed.Grampy spouted his talkin points, and probably didn't lose any of the Kool Aid drinkers. Obama didn't lose any of the people who are paying attention, and may have gained some of those who have been fed a couple years worth of "Radical black guy" BS.
My take is what the print press declared. There were no knockout punches.
That said, since I have never seen McCain debate before, he appeared to be a good debater. Not that I agree with his points, but he let them be known.
Obama appeared to hold his ground and if his idea was to be not look weak on foregin policy, he accomplished it.
McCain appeared more at unease with the debate than Obama. He had this condescending tone throught. He said ear marks a 100 times, like I would give a damn. He mislead when he said he opposed Bush (may be lied too).
Obama was good most of the time except for may be 5% of the time he looked uncertain. This was time he seemed to be pondering like deciding to say (as in My Cousin Vinny) 'everything the other guy just said is bull....' or stay civil.
It seemed that way at first, but apparently, polls show otherwise. I think many people were looking for a reason tonight to like Obama, and they found it.
Obama corrected McCain when needed, and strongly. At the same time, we've had fourteen years of bitter partisanship in Washington. Obama did the right thing by talking to McCain as a person and not being unnecessarily hostile. If he had been excessively confrontational, he would be criticized for promoting the same sort of partisanship we've had all this time. That criticism would be more valid and effective than this nonsense about agreement.
I understand but I think that Senator Obama's strategy could be to show the obvious here, that he's able to evaluate a situation and respond thoughtfully.
McCain and the present occupant of the White House both share the same weakness. Both just flail about and lash out at what they perceive to be dangers. Often making the situation much worse.
It's this contrast in styles and temperament that will show America that a vote for McCain will indeed be a third Bush term.
I agree. Obama needs to be himself and that's a reasonable, thoughtful person who works hard to build consensus instead of demonizing an opponent.
any voter with a functioning mind and heart would agree with this approach. Voters who still need to whine and act like a petulant child will identify with McBush.
He sort of had to say things like that.
Think about it.
McCain says, "Our troops are doing a great job in Iraq"
Obama can't say, "No,.......etc." in any way. Think of how people and the media would twist that, "Obama Hates military" or something like it would be all over Fox and CNN in seconds.
No, Obama had to say, "Yes John is right, but I don't believe the troops should have been there to begin with."
Of course the Repubs will twist either any way they can.
I'm completely utterly perplexed by the new McCain commercial. I honestly don't the logic of attacking an opponent for agreeing. Someone please explain... because if they are calling Obama wrong then they are calling their own candidate wrong... secondly, if it's weak to agree with an opposition, how can you be a strong maverick?
what a stupid frigging ad. is obama supposed to say no, i don't agree that the earmarks process has been abused? of course it has, that's part of the criticism of palin the democrats have been making, as in the bridge to nowhere she supported. the theory behing this ad seems to be that the ability to "lead" means an automatic disagreement with your opponent on everything.
behind this ad
-- the pundits are full of it. They don't know any more than you do and many of them have a vested interest in tilting the scales one way or another. After the debate ends, if you want to know who won, turn off the TV. You can figure it out for yourself. -- Judd Legum/Huffpo
That pretty well sums up my attitude. I took the obligatory peep at the pundits after the debate. Flipping to FOXnews found most of the boob pundits spouting kudos for McCains performance.
Over at MSNBC...guess what? Their lineup of boob pundits spewing praise for Obama.
If you need someone to validate your opinions...then go to the appropriate venue and cheer your ass off. It won't accomplish much...but it'll make you feel better.
My conservative take on the debate...edge to Obama. Having said that, it also reinforced my opinion that neither candidate is worth much...long on simple minded sound bite attacks and partisan talking points...short on demonstrating leadership qualities.
After viewing the first debate was I influenced to change my voting preference? Nope...0% chance that I'll vote for Obama...40% chance that I'll vote for McCain...60% chance that I'll write in another candidate, the list could include snoopy, tommy, worrierking, or maybe even Col. Sanders...all just as capable as the two major party candidates.
In summary, I'll dust off this old joke...What do you have when Obama, McCain, and Dolly Parton are in the same room?
Two big boobs...and a country music singer!
Thank you Wesley.
And if you decide to vote for me, I'll do my best to bring the American Dream to each and every American and to continue to earn your trust.
I will be picking the Colonel as my running mate though.
I'm also going to offer each American either a puppy or a kitten. And if anyone has a pet dander allergy, I'll be offering, that voter, three gold fish.
If selected, I will gladly accept your nomination as running mate, Worrierking. And once in the office of VP, my first major move will be to displace you and enact a spending freeze, not through wimpy legislation, but via a brutal bloody CIA-assisted coup. The re-animated corpses of Milton Friedman and Ronald Reagan will comprise my entire cabinet.
Oops, I probably shouldn't bring that stuff up yet. Disregard that, I'll help you to build a stronger America and reach across some sort of aisle while building bridges to somewhere or other.
You should decline the nomination. First off, California is going to go blue without you, so WK should pick someone from a red state. Second, you're overloading the ticket with military experience. A POW and a colonel? He's already got that area covered.
You should definitely lobby for Secretary of State, though. I expect you'd go to Mexico dressed as Pancho Villa.
Brabantio, Did you say you are drafting the real POW, moi, to run? I must humbly declined this ridiculous offer as I have been born to my lofty position and need not be subjected to what the infidels think of me or my self-centered policies. Now if John McCain, the other POW asks for me to join him, we can be the Pow-Pow ticket..of course, he will be the Pow listed second.
I just wanted to reassure you Prince that you're still on my short list of VP candidates. I think that a ticket with a king and a price couldn't lose.
I think it's time we stopped fooling ourselves and grow up. This little experiment with Democracy has been an abject failure. We've gone from a country that elects Abraham Lincoln to a nation who chooses a paranoid, venal little prick like Dick Nixon.
Since then we've been electing people we would feel comfortable with if they were sitting on the bar stool next to us.
I'm advocating a return to monarchy.
I understand your points,Brabantio, and I may seem redundant, but you're not considering some of my other strong points;
Long time membership in an Orange County seccessionist party, with plans to set up a junta in Nixon's old San Clemente palace, and--
I plan to really "gay it up" between now and the election.
Your generous and patriotic offers are certainly just as effective as the current candidate's offers...and a helluva lot cheaper!
Count me in for the puppy list.
Not if you're puppy-rich, Wesley. I may very well take 1/2 of your puppies and redistribute them to those who haven't earned puppies. After I "disappear" Worrierking, that is.
Best take on the debates I've heard was this morning on Fox & Friends, the blockhead (Gutfeld?) from Fox "comedy" show RedEye describing the energy and charisma of McCain. He seemed to have put a lot of though into it.
I will be geting some more input today, as I'm going to go hang some drywall in my mom's bathroom. She's got a dozen years on McCain, and seems to be getting frightened of everything.My mom's a very nice old SoDak farm girl, but last time I took her to lunch, she went all Lou Dobbs on my ass about the Mexicans taking over.I'm going to try to get her take on which candidate is better equipped to resist the Reconquista.
Col, good luck with the South Dakota farm girl. Oddly enough, that's a description of my own late mom. She wasn't afeard of brown people though, she lived through the depression in a lonely farm taking care of her bedridden mother, and was one tough mother ;-) She also was a lifelong Republican but don't know what she'd think of this current bunch of crooks.
hmm ... CNN says McCain immediately has a new ad out (web-only, so a person has to know where to go to see the ad) ... and then plays it for free ... giving McCain some free advertising ...
How many times will the McCain limited-viewership ad be the news item that will get national news coverage and national airtime? For free???
There were several coments last night on a couple sites that "MaCain is right" would shortly appear in his ads. A no brainer I guess.
Effective?
While I sincerely appreciate the many points made by my friends at MMFA about my criticism of Senator Obama's performance at the debate, I must clarify my position. I certainly agree with all of you that Obama took a moral and reasonable approach, the voters you described as "pinheads, simple-minded, and insecure" would not see it that way. My deep, DEEP, distrust of that portion of the voting public you all so aptly named fills me with "fear and loathing". One has only to look back at the last 8 years, or even beyond. I have friends who still love Ronnie and think he was a great President. Thanks, anyway, for trying to re-assure me.
I laughed when I learned about this--talk about desperation! The right whines so much about being quoted “out of context,” but does that stop them from producing this bit of nonsense which is so ridiculous, so transparently false?
Who came up with this stunt? Will they showcase the times Obama said, “but” with their next ad so that they can sit around and snicker like Beavis and Butthead?
CNN associate political editor Rebecca Sinderbrand wrote: "Before John McCain walked off the stage, his campaign already had a new Web video up featuring footage of the first debate -- clips of Barack Obama agreeing with his Republican rival."
There is absolutely no need for Rebecca Sinderbrand to confirm or deny the truth of the ad as is the case with all ads either by McCain or Obama. the newsworthiness of the ad was the fact: "Before John McCain walked off the stage ..."
Nice try though MMFA
May I politely reply that you do enjoy having intercourse with jelly donoughts. There is absolutely no need for others who report about this new revelation to confirm or deny the truthiness in it because it's the 'newsworthiness' that matters. Oh, and by the way, since you are sooo good at splitting hairs, you may want to consider working on splitting the atom even further to get America off its addiction to oil and coal.
This ad came out Friday morning. Those who didn't see the debate only know that McCain won the debate....apparently BEFORE he even announced that he would attend.
(HUFFINGTON POST) "...a McCain campaign web ad released this morning declaring "McCain Wins Debate!" -- put out even before the candidate had announced he was planning to debate."
Chris Cillizza, Washington Post, The Fix: ....." Another ad spotted by our eagle-eyed observer featured a quote from McCain campaign manager Rick Davis declaring: "McCain won the debate-- hands down."............"