scott mclellan
 

so i'm watching larry king live and i see "mcclellan drops bomb" and bam, Scott McClellan, former press sec under GWB...endorses Barack Obama.

wow.
just..
wow.
wow.

so instead of saying which republicans endorse obama, does anyone know the ones that support mccain are?

pat buchanon and dick morris don't count...

Yes... approximately 50% of the voting population support either Obama or McCain.

BTW - Republicans wrote off Scott McClellan back when he wrote his Bush book. I don't think they really care about him anymore.

i think that the numbers of moderate republicans who will endorse obama will keep growing over the coming days. in the end, it was probably a bad idea for the mc-cain campaign to pitch hard right in this context. think more of colin powell and charles fried. even christopher buckley.

but mc-clellan is perhaps not the belleweather to use. otto's right about the conservative view of him, and of his view of contemporary conservatism (by extension)

The spies are coming out for Obama

CQ Politics | Rank-and-File Spies Seem to Be Leaning Toward Obama

Man, Scott McLellan is/was a liberal plant. When are you guys gonna get it???????





they planted him.

Newspaper endorsements are disproportionately for Obama as well:

rb & i made similar posts in other threads. Aside from McClellan, there's Powell, William Weld, Arne Carlson, Ken Adelman, & Fried this week.

LOL...those pesky "liberal plants" are everywhere!!!!!

yea, i could see how diehard republicans wrote off mclellan bc of the book, but i could see some people in the middle who remember him solely for selling the iraq war now coming out for obama.

I just found it very telling bc he's in the vein of the goldwater/chicago tribune/diiiiieeeehard republican vein.

The Tribune endorsed Obama. It's the first time they've endorsed a Democrat.

Like McClellan, they've changed. In McClellan's case, it's for the better, but the NewsFree! Trib with Lots of Big Pictures! is in many ways a worse paper than it was under McCormick.

I found a Bush tomato plant... this could explain a few things.

http://bp0.blogger.com/_KOANLi2W44U/...mato+plant.JPG

This thread gets a D- for its discussion value.

hal....I didnt know we had a rating system for threads now.

I suggest we deduct a grade each time someone makes a baseless claim (eg a liberal plant) or contributes a pic that adds no value to the discussion.

Its up to everyone who participates in the thread to make it something more than mindless drivel.

But really, how much will this sway other Republicans?

Powell and McClellan have been openly discredited and their professional reputations destroyed by the administration. Will this really bring the typical Fox News viewer to vote for Obama?

No matter how many endorsements Obama gets from republicans, the average conservative will not vote Obama.

The Fox News viewer tends to think that McCain is too liberal. Many label McCain as an old school democrat and Obama (an abortion-friendly, baby-killing, gay-loving, over-taxing, fiscally irresponsible, non-citizen) Socialist. Obama supporters would do better to hope McCain loses votes to third party candidates.

I know quite a few Republicans who are unable to vote for McCain in good concience. They find him far too liberal. So they're voting for either a defunct presidential candidate like Ron Paul or the Libertarian ticket.

I knew he was voting for Obama the last time he was on Bill Maher. He made it perfectly obvious.

I wonder if this partly explains the reporting bias in the press?

I wonder if biased reporting contributes to the declining trends in newspaper circulation? The NY Times is suffering while the WSJ (I admit a conservative bias, I read it everyday - I read the Sunday NY Times when I visit my in-laws and I believe it has a liberal bias). My local paper endorsed Obama, I don't know anyone who knows or cares about the endorsement. High school football gets more coverage than national politics and most of the political stuff they have is AP, nothing unique.

http://www.marketwatch.com/news/story/wall-street-journal-individually-paid/story.aspx?guid={540604E1-BDB9-4507-AA5D-E5D895E5B124}&dist=hppr

ace....the same papers that were nearly evenly divided between Bush and Kerry that are now nearly 2-1 for Obama....is because of reporting bias now that didnt exist four years ago?

Almost as much of a stretch as McClellen is a liberal plant.

liberal plant.
like my geranium.

damn it, the jokes still do not fit within the rules.


ace--i don't really see what argument you're making. i don't follow the logic at all. could you try again?

Many news papers endorse Obama.
Many of these same newspapers have a reporting bias in favor of Obama.
My first question was based on these two bits of information. I don't know the answer.

Many newspapers have declining circulation.
Many of these same newspapers have a reporting bias.
I recognize a number of factor contribute to this trend, so I give an example of one paper with a left bias and declining circulation and another that has a right bias not having declining circulation.
My second question was based on these bits of information. I don't know the answer.

I comment on my local newspaper, their endorsement, the fact that I see the endorsement as having no value. I point out that my newspaper's primary focus is not national politics. The intent here is to minimize the value in the point raised concerning the number of endorsements for Obama.

For those interested in the source of data used concerning the circulation of the WSJ, I gave a link. The WSJ is often the target of criticism when I cite information from the editorial page. I just find it interesting what is happening to the WSJ and the NY Times. I assume most already know the current financial condition of the NY Times.
-----Added 27/10/2008 at 11 : 57 : 20-----
In your view is there a print media bias in favor of Obama?

ace..I dont think the print media bias (or the perception of bias by the right) is dramatically different than it was in 2004.

If anything, it would probably be fair to say that the media is more favorabally disposed towards McCain than they were to Bush.

You are pushing the "media bias" button a little too hard to try to explain how the newpaper endorsement went from nearly even in 2004 to 2-1 for Obama in 2008.

But we agree that they have little impact other than window dressing (sorta like dressing Palin up in a $2500 suit)

Don't confuse causation and correlation. There's no direct evidence that a supposed liberal bias is responsible for a lower rate of circulation. I would venture a guess that the internet is more responsible than anything else, and if you check Alexa, you can see that the newspaper websites are very popular. The NYT website gets a ton of hits per day, and it's on the rise.
There is a bias toward radical conservative ideology and centrism in media. Obama is centrist.

well
my dad has had a paper for 40 yrs delivered....two years ago, he canceled everything when he learned how to bookmark the local papers' websites....

so yea, when it comes down to it, the internet with FREE news trumps a $20/month paper.

this is a transparent meme from the mc-cain people aimed at forestalling a drop in voter turnout.
if the conservative faithful believed reality, they'd stay home in droves.
so there must be some "problem" with the reporting.
i'm surprised that you bothered to repeat the talking point, ace.
like dc said, there's nothing beyond the tactical situation of the mc-cain campaign that suggests much of anything has changed except for the tactical situation of the mc-cain campaign.

actually, i'm trying to find the story that shows mccain sending out absentee/mail in voter registration cards that end up getting rejected bc some box isn't checked. has anyone seen it? i'm serious, i think i found it through a link from pollster.com

Yes, I know something about that case, paq, if you're thinking about the problems in Colorado. Some people didn't check the "I'm a citizen" box, apparently, and there are a few other difficulties with the voting purges.

How do you explain the conservative WSJ circulation to individuals going up? Also, subscribers to their on-line edition pay for that as well. They grow in spite of the internet.

And, again I find it interesting how frequently the WSJ editorials are summarily dismissed on the board, but we talk about editorials from publications with declining reach and influence.
-----Added 27/10/2008 at 01 : 54 : 28-----
You think they feed me talking points and I repeat them? If that were true, I would suggest people stop reading what I post. Personally, I see no value in talking points, and I actually think that most people, including me, post what they believe.

no, ace, i don't think "they" feed you talking points.
i think you reproduce them when you think it's convenient or interesting for whatever reason to do it.
for example, in this thread.

i don't have anything else to say about this particular topic, i don't think.
i'm more interested in other aspects, like the steady stream of post-mortems for mc-cain that you see coming from various sectors of the right. in general, these folk are at least trying to face (while framing in particular ways) the reality that you see to want to avoid.

You just answered your own question. People are going online to see the news because it's free. The online edition requires money, so the circulation of the physical paper stays up.
The WSJ was in trouble in the 90s, if I remember correctly. Perhaps it's cyclical? I dunno.

I think the McLellan/Powell/Chicago Trib endorsements are less about supporting Obama and more about voicing displeasure with the state of the Republican party. Their message is pretty simple: if McCain/Palin is the best you can come up with, you've got a whole lot of work to do between now and 2010 (or else even more congressional seats will move blue)