The Obama Presidency - 2008 & 2012

[molson]

It's not so much that people get their actual information from shows like the Daily Show, it's more that they get their talking points, cynical attitude, and style of argument. Similar to Limbaugh.

And I looked around the Onion website for political substance, and serious interviews with politicans and military figures, but didn't find anything. The closest thing to political commentary I found on the front page was "Obama's Fifth Gulf Coast Visit Really Helps A Lot." Though I think that's really more making fun of people who consider these visists important, rather than any kind of political commentary.

[JediKooter]

Originally Posted by molson

He's more comedian than say, Chris Matthews, and Michael Moore, but certainly less than David Letterman or the Onion (the latter being Rainmaker's favorite comparison). Letterman and the late night shows are somewhat closer, because those shows do, while having plently of non-policial comedy, on occasion, have serious interviews with policial figures, and express a specific point of view. Will Rodgers would be a decent comparison also.

I was just stating an opinion in response to a question. Criticizing Stewart is the only one from the list that causes people here massive butt-hurt for some reason.

If Chris Matthews and Michael Moore, they are both political commentators. One has a TV show and the other does poorly done documentaries. Now, if you are saying Michael Moore is a joke, I would have to agree with you. Chris, I haven't ever really watch him because all I hear is him yelling and immediately change the channel.

(Just me) I wouldn't even put Letterman and the Onion in the same category. And as you've stated, Letterman from time to time will have politicians on, but, is not strictly a political show and the Onion is just 100% pure satire regardless of the subject.

Haha! I wasn't actually responding to your post, I just saw the names and went from there. I'm not sure of the criticism of Stewart, but, if someone was criticizing him for not being a comedian, I can understand people disagreeing with that. He IS a comedian and his show IS a comedy show with a political theme, but nonetheless, it is a comedy show unlike say, Hardball or 20/20. Now the Colbert Show, it is a political comedy show and there's nothing ambiguous about it being a political comedy show.

Then you have people like Will Rogers and Mark Russell. Which, to me, are in their own category as political satirists. Whether or not someone finds them funny, is a different story all together.

[molson]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

I remember David Letterman getting torched for jokes about Sarah Palin. I remember SNL being cast as holding a political bias for making fun of her too. For groups you are claiming to be "just comedy", they sure get a lot of play in political circles.

The problem with partisians is that if someone makes a joke about them, maybe points out their hypocrisy, they are automatically labeled as being for the other side and holding some political bias. You have to do that because it's much easier to just say someone is a hack and the enemy, than it is to say they're calling us on our bullshit.

All those people are comedians. They use political news as their inspiration. Calling them political hacks is just a sad way of trying to label someone on the other team because you can't take a joke about your own party.

I wasn't talking about his bias. Stewart can do a liberal-themed comedic political commentary show all he wants. And as you've pointed out before, Stewart satirizes Democrats on occasion also.

Here's the last episode summary from TV.com:

Full Recap

Jon reviews the polite way to ask for papers, Olivia Munn looks at Arizona's radar program, and Marilynne Robinson talks scientific faith. (01:03)

LeBron James announces where he is going to play basketball in the first 10 minutes of the ESPN show. (01:33)

Arizona police officers can't arrest you for not carrying your papers, but if you don't have them, you can be detained. (06:33)

Olivia Munn explores the debate between Arizona's highway safety and the invasion of privacy. (05:19)

Marilynne Robinson believes the quality of science and religion determines the nature of the conversation. (05:10)

Jon congratulates the technical video crew on their Emmy nomination and offers a tribute to David Javerbaum's amazing 11 years. (01:46)

....

That ain't Walter Kronkite, but it ain't the Onion, SNL, or Letterman either.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by molson

And I looked around the Onion website for political substance, and serious interviews with politicans and military figures, but didn't find anything. The closest thing to political commentary I found on the front page was "Obama's Fifth Gulf Coast Visit Really Helps A Lot." Though I think that's really more making fun of people who consider these visists important, rather than any kind of political commentary.

So your issue isn't with the fake news/satire part of the show, but with the actual interviews? The Jim Cramer interview was sort of a rare thing that had about a month of cracks at one another preluding it.

[molson]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

So your issue isn't with the fake news/satire part of the show, but with the actual interviews? The Jim Cramer interview was sort of a rare thing that had about a month of cracks at one another preluding it.

I just don't like him, that's all I said. And the think I dislike the most is the schtick that he's "just a comedian" when he clearly revels in this politically relevant personna he's created. I find him very disingenuous.

SNL does politics maybe 5-10% of the time, and 95% of that is of the simple "Palin is dumb, Clinton is sex-crazed" variety. Onion, as far as I can tell, is 0% political commentary, almost 100% satire of humanity in general. The late night talk shows are mostly satire of the entertainment industry and celebrities, but they delve into politics when politics goes mainstream, and when politicans become celebrities.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by molson

That ain't Walter Kronkite, but it ain't the Onion, SNL, or Letterman either.

You have seen the show, right? Just looking at a couple of those clips from that show you posted a summary of online, I don't see how any of it can be misconstrued as news.

The first has Olivia Munn interviewing people about speed radar cameras. She basically teases the guy who is for it with the red light on the camera. When the guy who is against it mentions loss of revenue if truckers avoid the state, she mentions something about blowjobs from lounge lizards.

If I had to classify it, I'd say it's a mix of SNL and Punk'd (minus the reveal at the end).

[sabotai]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

What has changed? The show seems to be the same as it was 10 years ago. Probably a bit less funny as they lost a lot of their best talent (Carell, Colbert, Helms, Black).

Not sure if anything did change. They might have intended to make The Onion TV, but that's not what happened. Whether it changed over time, or turned out differently than they intended from day 1 is completely irrelevant. I read The Onion and I watch The Onion videos, and The Daily Show has pretty much nothing in common with them.

Really? Young people aren't getting their news from the internet? Someone tunes in at 10pm and finds out Michael Jackson died? Or that a black man was elected President? I hardly ever watch the news anymore as I'm finding it out instantaneously online. I didn't realize I was the only one.

LOL...wow....is this you doing your best MBBF impression?

Here's what you said:

"No one gets their political news from the show. Their age demographic gets their news from the internet."

You used absolutes. You said no one gets information from The Daily Show (that part that I LOL'ed about), and implied that everyone within The Daily Show's demographic only gets news from the internet. (The part I left out hoping you'd be smart enough to conclude that since it was left out, that I wasn't laughing at the idea of people getting their news off the internet. I clearly gave you way too much credit.)

The idea that none of the people who watch the Daily Show believe any "news", political or other, that they see is what I was laughing at, MBBF-part 2.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by molson

I just don't like him, that's all I said. And the think I dislike the most is the schtick that he's "just a comedian" when he clearly revels in this politically relevant personna he's created. I find him very disingenuous.

SNL does politics maybe 5-10% of the time, and 95% of that is of the simple "Palin is dumb, Clinton is sex-crazed" variety. Onion, as far as I can tell, is 0% political commentary, almost 100% satire of humanity in general. The late night talk shows are mostly satire of the entertainment industry and celebrities, but they delve into politics when politics goes mainstream, and when politicans become celebrities.

That's fine. I don't think he's as great as people make him out to be. I always thought the strength of the show was in the supporting cast which has largely moved on to other things. I do find some of their skits/segments funny, but mostly in a "I'll view it online" type way.

SNL isn't a political show. The Daily Show is built around political and news satire. I don't see how you don't see the parallels to The Onion. They both take events in the news and satirize it and point out the absurdity of it.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by sabotai

LOL...wow....is this you doing your best MBBF impression?

Here's what you said:

"No one gets their political news from the show. Their age demographic gets their news from the internet."

You used absolutes. You said no one gets information from The Daily Show (that part that I LOL'ed about), and implied that everyone within The Daily Show's demographic only gets news from the internet. (The part I left out hoping you'd be smart enough to conclude that since it was left out, that I wasn't laughing at the idea of people getting their news off the internet. I clearly gave you way too much credit.)

The idea that none of the people who watch the Daily Show believe any "news", political or other, that they see is what I was laughing at, MBBF-part 2.

You are the one that came out and claimed people got their news from that show. The Daily Show's audience is young adults. An audience that has been shown to get more and more of their news through the internet.

I take back the absolute, it was just used to prove a point that I don't think young people are waiting till 10pm to gather their daily news.

[Flasch186]

theyre not, but the new girl they've brought on for some skits is hawt and terrific.



and doing a google images search for her is even better

[JonInMiddleGA]

In a broader sense, didn't the discussion about Stewart-as-journalist-to-young-people really kick off about 2007 when the survey listed him as a favorite journalist among the under-30 set?
Today's Journalists Less Prominent: Summary of Findings - Pew Research Center for the People & the Press

And is there really any realistic argument that it's not primarily a political show, considering it's content being close to 50% political?
http://www.journalism.org/node/10953#fn1

And while the amount of news from the internet is still growing, television still dominates as a source of political news. Even with the shift toward the internet, one-third of voters (33%) under 40 plan to get most of their political news from the Internet. , that still leaves 2/3rds getting most of the political news elsewhere. But alongside that figure from the same soruce you see that Nearly one-third of Americans under the age of 40 say satirical news-oriented television programs like The Colbert Report and The Daily Show with Jon Stewart are taking the place of traditional news outlets.
59% Plan To Rely on TV For Political News in 2010 - Rasmussen Reports™

For all intents & purposes, the internet & Stewart-esque shows are running side by side statistically as sources of political information.

[sabotai]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

You are the one that came out and claimed people got their news from that show. The Daily Show's audience is young adults. An audience that has been shown to get more and more of their news through the internet.

I take back the absolute, it was just used to prove a point that I don't think young people are waiting till 10pm to gather their daily news.

Bolded the important part. That is certainly true, but just because someone does get their news from the internet doesn't mean they get ALL of it from the internet, and it doesn't mean they won't be shown something on The Daily Show that they had not seen before and believe it in whatever context TDS presented it in. That's what I meant, not that they sit and wait until The Daily Show is on to "get their news" as a daily routine.

And does anyone "get their news" anymore? I watch Nightline and 20/20 with some regularity (TiVo), but I wouldn't say I do anything to "get my news" like read the newspaper front to back or go to news websites every day and read them thoroughly. I'll quickly look through ScienceDaily for anything interesting (but ironically, not everyday), read a few blogs, but I more or less just take it in bit by bit as it comes to me.

[sterlingice]

Originally Posted by molson

I voted for a county coroner earlier this year. That was pretty awesome. I just wish there had been a debate.

Gold

SI

[sterlingice]

Poor Hillary Clinton- can't even crack a discussion about "Dem that is most fiercely hated by Republicans" any more.

SI

[Greyroofoo]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

You are the one that came out and claimed people got their news from that show. The Daily Show's audience is young adults. An audience that has been shown to get more and more of their news through the internet.

I take back the absolute, it was just used to prove a point that I don't think young people are waiting till 10pm to gather their daily news.

The Daily Show is also on Hulu.

Maybe it's because I'm in my mid-20s, but I do know people who primarily get their news from Jon Stewart. These people are generally the "government sucks and the mainstream media sucks" crowd. They find "regular" news dry and find that the entertainment shell of The Daily Show appealing.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by molson

I voted for a county coroner earlier this year. That was pretty awesome. I just wish there had been a debate.

I've seen at least a couple of those, or at least what amounted to a debate under the label of "candidate forum".

One of the more contentious local races I ever covered was a county coroner's race, pitting two employees of rival funeral homes against each other. Was actually sort of issues oriented, with the key points being qualifications/ training, fiscal responsibility, response time, and relationships/service to both law enforcement & families of the deceased. That campaign was one of the more expensive I can recall at the local level up to that time, plenty of radio & newspaper ads to go along with the yard signs.

Then again, I've also watched from two counties away as a former county coroner eventually became sheriff. To my surprise, he turned out to be a pretty decent sheriff for them, breaking a long run of corruption (IIRC they had three consecutive sheriff's end up jailed on drug/corruption charges).

[molson]

Originally Posted by Greyroofoo

The Daily Show is also on Hulu.

Maybe it's because I'm in my mid-20s, but I do know people who primarily get their news from Jon Stewart. These people are generally the "government sucks and the mainstream media sucks" crowd. They find "regular" news dry and find that the entertainment shell of The Daily Show appealing.

I'm ripping this off from Wikipedia, but it kind of sums up the influence of the show, not just as a "news source", but as something of a inspiration for cynicism and political attitudes of people in their 20s.

"Another consequence of the show's increasing popularity and influence in certain demographics has been increased scrutiny of how the show affects the political beliefs and attitudes of its viewers. Michael Kalin has expressed concerns that Jon Stewart's comedy comes at the expense of idealism and encourages American college students to adopt a self-righteous attitude toward politics, rendering them complacent and apathetic, and deterring intelligent young people from considering political careers. "Stewart," Kalin argues, "leads to a 'holier than art [sic] thou' attitude [among students]...content to remain perched atop their Olympian ivory towers, these bright leaders head straight for the private sector."

I wouldn't go as far as all that, but I think that shows like the Daily Show give people who even 10-20 years ago wouldn't have cared about politics at all, a new self-righteous confidence that they're smarter than everyone else. (There was a ton of this during the Bush years) Maybe the Daily Show just tapped into what was there and reflects it in it's show, but I think there's some kind of connection.

[lungs]

So I've got a contested race for Coroner in my county coming up. Both are Republicans so they will face off in a primary in September.

The only thing I have to go by is that one is a carpenter and home builder and the other couldn't be bothered to return a response to the newspaper.

What makes a carpenter qualified to be coroner? Should I throw my hat in the ring? I'm a dairy farmer. I know when a cow is dead. I'd run as a Democrat so I don't face a primary challenge.

[JPhillips]

We definitely need a coroner dynasty.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by lungs

So I've got a contested race for Coroner in my county coming up. Both are Republicans so they will face off in a primary in September.

The only thing I have to go by is that one is a carpenter and home builder and the other couldn't be bothered to return a response to the newspaper.

Wiki isn't really specific but it seems to do a decent enough job of explaining things in this case. Basically many county coroners are treated as part of the executive branch, kind of administrative more than judicial and much more administrative than anything medical.

Coroner - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Coroners in the United States are usually county-level officers, are often elected (rather than appointed) officials, and usually do not need to hold any medical qualification. As finders of fact, they retain quasi-judicial powers such as the power of subpoena, and in some states they also have the power to impanel juries of inquest, but unlike their British equivalents, they are not judicial officers, instead considered to be executive branch officials.

In some states the coroner and the sheriff are one and the same.

Many jurisdictions have replaced the elected coroner with a Medical Examiner (often referred to by the initials "M.E."), who must be a physician, and is most often a specialist in pathology or forensic medicine. In some jurisdictions, a medical examiner must be both a doctor and a lawyer.

The medical examiner is most often an appointed official. This has been part of a move toward professionalizing a job increasingly involved with advanced scientific techniques. In larger cities (for instance, New York City) and more populous counties, the post may be that of "chief medical examiner", heading an office with M.E.s and deputy M.E.s on staff to handle individual cases.

Other jurisdictions, such as Monterey County, California, have merged the legal competencies of a coroner into the office of the Sheriff, whose medical duties as coroner are then delegated to a professional forensic staff of medical examiners, technicians, and such.

Duties always include determining the cause, time, and manner of death. This uses the same investigatory skills of a police detective in most cases, because the answers are available from the circumstances, scene, and recent medical records. In many American jurisdictions any death not certified by the person's own physician must be referred to the medical examiner. If an individual dies outside of their state of residence, the coroner of the state in which the death took place issues the death certificate. Only a small percentage of deaths require an autopsy to determine the time, cause and manner of death.

In some states, additional functions are handled by the coroner. For example, in Louisiana, coroners are involved in determination of mental illness of living persons. In Georgia, the coroner has the same powers as a county sheriff to execute arrest warrants and serve process, and in certain situations where there is no sheriff (described in Title 15, Chapter 16, Section 8 of Georgia law), they officially act as sheriff for the county. In Kentucky, section 72.415 of the Kentucky Revised Statutes gives coroners and their deputies the full power and authority of peace officers. This includes the power of arrest and the authority to carry firearms.

I'd run as a Democrat so I don't face a primary challenge.

If you already know who is meeting in the primary, odds are you've already missed the qualifying window to run.

[RainMaker]

I think the funnier part is that you have to be part of a political party to be coroner. Are there really issues that divide the parties in this field?

[lungs]

Yeah, it's too late for me to jump in the race.

What I do know about our county Coroner is that when there is an accident with a fatality, the Coroner is called.

Last weekend an infant died in a campground and the Coroner was the one that released the cause of death. No idea what she actually does though.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

I think the funnier part is that you have to be part of a political party to be coroner. Are there really issues that divide the parties in this field?

Fiscal responsibility (or claims thereof) would be the most obvious, although ethics/values claims (or at least assumptions made by voters about those) would also come into play most likely.

In reality, the most likely reason is much more practical: to weed down the field or even settle a race entirely, without waiting until November. In those cases it's also often cheaper to buy regulated (i.e. broadcast TV & broadcast radio) advertising during primary season rather than November, as well as having less competition for attention paid to advertising during primary season (depending upon your location).

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Pretty amusing comments from the Senate Leader. Evidently the auto bailout saved Ford.........

RealClearPolitics - Video - Harry Reid: Auto Bailout Probably Saved Ford

[King of New York]

Originally Posted by lungs

So I've got a contested race for Coroner in my county coming up. Both are Republicans so they will face off in a primary in September.

The only thing I have to go by is that one is a carpenter and home builder and the other couldn't be bothered to return a response to the newspaper.

What makes a carpenter qualified to be coroner? Should I throw my hat in the ring? I'm a dairy farmer.

The carpenter can provide his own saw--that would save money

[JPhillips]

Originally Posted by Mizzou B-ball fan

Pretty amusing comments from the Senate Leader. Evidently the auto bailout saved Ford.........

RealClearPolitics - Video - Harry Reid: Auto Bailout Probably Saved Ford

I know it's ha-ha funny that Harry Reid doesn't know what he's talking about, but in the real world Ford did benefit from the bailout even though they didn't directly take funds. From the WSJ in Dec. of 2008.

DETROIT — As the lone Big Three automaker passing on a federal bailout, Ford won't have to undergo an intrusive government review of its books and its business plans to become a viable company in order to qualify for — and keep — the low-interest loans authorized Friday by the Bush administration.

At the same time, the Dearborn, Mich., car company is likely to benefit from many of the concessions that General Motors and Chrysler exact from the suppliers, unions, dealers and debt holders shared by all three companies.

"The clear winner in this game is Ford," Kimberly Rodriguez, a principal at Grant Thornton consulting firm and an adviser to Ford senior management, told the Wall Street Journal in an interview Friday.

I'm not sure if Ford would have failed, but there is a good argument that government intervention helped the company.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

I know it's ha-ha funny that Harry Reid doesn't know what he's talking about, but in the real world Ford did benefit from the bailout even though they didn't directly take funds. From the WSJ in Dec. of 2008.

I'm not sure if Ford would have failed, but there is a good argument that government intervention helped the company.

Certainly an interesting spin on the situation, but the fact is that they did not participate in the bailout. Anyone who makes a post assuming that Harry Reid had a clue about any far-reaching, indirect effects is lost in space, much like Harry Reid. He's just another dumb politician claiming to have done everything including reversing the spin of planet Earth.

[JPhillips]

I hate how the WSJ doesn't know anything about business.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

I hate how the WSJ doesn't know anything about business.

Another interesting attempt to spin my comment into something that I didn't say. I didn't refute anything that the WSJ said, but feel free to carry on in defense of another stupid politician who didn't have a clue what he was talking about.

[JPhillips]

It's the WSJ that's saying Ford will benefit from the bailout and you call that idea, "spin".

But Harry Reid thinks he can reverse the spin of Earth, so you win.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

It's the WSJ that's saying Ford will benefit from the bailout and you call that idea, "spin".

But Harry Reid thinks he can reverse the spin of Earth, so you win.

Which, again, is incorrect. I didn't call the WSJ information 'spin'. I called the insinuation by you that Reid had a clue about any of that 'spin'.

I find it an interesting commentary on many partisan supporters that they would defend some of the idiotic comments by our politicians that would be head-scratching at best if it came from someone we actually considered intelligent.

[Passacaglia]

I've been wondering why the Sun was rising in the West lately.

[JPhillips]

Why is it head-scratching that Reid said something that is partially backed up by real world economists? I'd imagine he overplayed the danger to Ford, but the underlying premise that the bailout helped Ford even though they didn't directly receive funds seems solid from what I've read.

But we're supposed to believe that Reid has no idea that there's evidence supporting his position and hat even though there is evidence Reid 's statement is still somehow wrong?

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by Mizzou B-ball fan

I find it an interesting commentary on many partisan supporters that they would defend some of the idiotic comments by our politicians that would be head-scratching at best if it came from someone we actually considered intelligent.

Jesus Christ, the irony in this is knee deep.

Nonetheless, the Reid statement is stupid. Maybe they did benefit from the bailout, but it was an inadvertent benefit. They took extremely risky loans instead and it paid off from a public perception standpoint. Reid taking credit for their success is just ridiculous. If he's looking for something to boast about, he could point to the cash for clunkers although I'm not sure how much that helped Ford.

And it's not like that's the only reason they did well. Toyota shitting on themselves helped and Ford actually is making some pretty good vehicles these days compared to where they were 5-10 years ago.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

Jesus Christ, the irony in this is knee deep.

Nonetheless, the Reid statement is stupid. Maybe they did benefit from the bailout, but it was an inadvertent benefit. They took extremely risky loans instead and it paid off from a public perception standpoint. Reid taking credit for their success is just ridiculous. If he's looking for something to boast about, he could point to the cash for clunkers although I'm not sure how much that helped Ford.

And it's not like that's the only reason they did well. Toyota shitting on themselves helped and Ford actually is making some pretty good vehicles these days compared to where they were 5-10 years ago.

No real irony here. I've taken the Republicans to task on a regular basis as well. There's plenty of buffoons on both sides right now. Anybody who denies that has to be deeply partisan.

Agreed with most everything else. Ford made plenty of good moves when others did not and that's why they did so well. And it certainly didn't hurt that Ford has improved their product tremendously.

I would disagree with the Cash for Clunkers disaster. Spent WAY too much money for what was accomplished. Taxpayers shouldn't have to pay $24,000/car just for a swap-out.

[DaddyTorgo]

Originally Posted by Mizzou B-ball fan

No real irony here. I've taken the Republicans to task on a regular basis as well.

LMAO.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by Mizzou B-ball fan

I would disagree with the Cash for Clunkers disaster. Spent WAY too much money for what was accomplished. Taxpayers shouldn't have to pay $24,000/car just for a swap-out.

I wasn't talking value to the taxpayer, but whether Ford benefited from the government program. You can also throw in the tax credits for new cars as well as helping. And if you really want to get picky, a lot of the credit they did secure were from banks that wouldn't be around without a government bailout.

Reid's comment is still stupid, but Ford did benefit from the government in many ways.

[flere-imsaho]

Classic MBBF comedy on this page. Well done!

Looks like we can now add the WSJ to the list of entities who know less about the world than MBBF. This now includes:

Nate Silver (polling and statistics in general)
Barack Obama, David Axelrod & David Plouffe (running a campaign)
Any Nobel Laureate in economics (economics)
...and many others.

You're a smart guy, MBBF.

[flere-imsaho]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

They took extremely risky loans instead and it paid off from a public perception standpoint.

Very low-interest, government-backed loans are "extremely risky"?

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Originally Posted by flere-imsaho

You're a smart guy, MBBF.

Good to see we agree.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by flere-imsaho

Very low-interest, government-backed loans are "extremely risky"?

Talking about Ford. They basically leveraged their entire business to get some loans.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Good lord. At least take some accountability and admit that your Ag Secretary made a knee-jerk decision. It's not always someone else's fault.

Obama Blames Media For His Administration's Firing Of Shirley Sherrod

[JPhillips]

Do you even read what you post?

President Obama said Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack erred in pushing out Shirley Sherrod over allegations of racism that later proved unsubstantiated, but the real culprit, he told ABC News, was the media.

"He jumped the gun," Obama said of Vilsack, "partly because we now live in this media culture where something goes up on YouTube or a blog and everybody scrambles."

Obama's charge was broadcast by ABC News Thursday night, excerpted from a longer interview scheduled to run Friday on "Good Morning America."

"I've told my team and I told my agencies that we have to make sure that we're focusing on doing the right thing instead of what looks to be politically necessary at that very moment. We have to take our time and, and think these issues through," Obama said.

"If there's a lesson to be drawn from this episode," the President continued, it's to avoid "jumping to conclusions and pointing fingers at each other."

[Dutch]

So DT, Rainmaker, and Flere are bashing MBBF for being too partisan. Hilarious.

[flere-imsaho]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

Talking about Ford. They basically leveraged their entire business to get some loans.

I hope you will recall that at the time they took these low-interest, government-backed loans, the credit markets were essentially frozen. Car companies rely a lot on the credit markets to provide day-to-day liquidity for their operations. This money was offered, and Ford took it, in a large part, to shore up their own liquidity, plus do some internal investing.

Sorry, I still don't see the "extremely risky" part. Ford has been very prudently managed since Mulally took charge.

Originally Posted by Dutch

So DT, Rainmaker, and Flere are bashing MBBF for being too partisan. Hilarious.

So Dutch is defending someone who, among other things, thinks he knows economics better than Nobel winning professional economists, just because they're on the same partisan side. Hilarious.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

Do you even read what you post?

So your argument is that the leader of our free nation said the media partially affected his administration's decision-making and you're OK with that? We've obviously had a sharp downturn in what is required of our nation's leader. Thankfully, the criticism I made appears to be in the majority, with multiple liberal news makers leveling the same criticisms. Real leaders don't even partially let something like that affect their decisions.

[cartman]

Keep shifting your argument, MBBF. Eventually something might stick.

[miked]

Originally Posted by Mizzou B-ball fan

So your argument is that the leader of our free nation said the media partially affected his administration's decision-making and you're OK with that? We've obviously had a sharp downturn in what is required of our nation's leader. Thankfully, the criticism I made appears to be in the majority, with multiple liberal news makers leveling the same criticisms. Real leaders don't even partially let something like that affect their decisions.

I don't understand your beef. He's admitting that Vilsack made a rash decision based on something they didn't fully investigate. Luckily it only led to the forced resignation of 1 person and not the death of thousands of troops.

On a side note, I think Brietbart and the right-wing media deserve a chunk of blame here as well (as does the left-wing media and the administration). I don't understand how that guy thinks he's a journalist. How hard is it in most political rallies to find a 20 second clip that, out of context, clearly makes the wrong statement. What he did isn't journalism, and I love how he says he never meant it to come back to her. According to his interviews, he did it out of retribution to the NAACP because they've come out hard lately against the racist elements in the tea party and their denial of it and refusal to distance themselves from it (except the actions of last week). So in retaliation, he edits a speech down to 20 seconds to change the context of what somebody was saying...and Fox News (and eventually the rest of the media) eats this up??

That's what you should be equally outraged about.

[rowech]

If people aren't strong enough to investigate something and make a rash decision because of the press, they have no business being in power positions. No matter what level we're talking about.

[flere-imsaho]

Originally Posted by cartman

Keep shifting your argument, MBBF. Eventually something might stick.

Well, we're going on 4 years now and nothing has yet, so....