CAMPAIGN 2008

Stacking the Deck

Factcheck.org deconstructs the Dems' debate

By Brooks Jackson | factcheck.org
Jan 16, 2008 | Updated: 5:52  p.m. ET Jan 16, 2008

« Return to Article

 
Discuss
 
Member Comments
  • Posted By: stanjz @ 01/18/2008 1:59:15 AM

    Comment: This is blatant manipulation of Obama's words. Let me ask you a question. Can a bill be the largest investment investment in clean energy to date that is, and yet still not rise to the point of what the candidate considers serious enough???

    What if we spent only two thousand dollars in the past on clean energy and Obama said he voted for a bill that was for two million because it was the largest to date. Could Obama also say that it isn't two million still wasn't a serious effort, of course he could.

  • Posted By: VotingRightIn08 @ 01/17/2008 10:46:26 PM

    Comment: Edwards is not angry he is passionate and clearly the best candidate for president.

    People who judge a book by its cover rather than its contents are destroying the back bone of our country, so why don't you VoteResponsibly08 by checking on the facts, just the facts! By the way we all should be angry with the past seven years of deceit from our current administration! They have destroyed the American good name, we have lost lives over their lies. We have been duped and if we express our descent we are un-American not supporting our troops. By God it is our inallienable right to speak freely and many soldiers have died to protect this right.

    We need a President who will heal the economy, resolve the war in Iraq, protect our borders and our sovereignty! Edwards is our man for President in 2008..he shares the American peoples PASSION!

  • Posted By: mikekohr @ 01/17/2008 7:09:18 PM

    Comment: The one true example of Hillary's "experience factor," is her debacle on health care in the early 1990's. Given responsibility to deliver health care for all American, she orchestrated a secretive, contolling effort that alienated even the Democrat contoled Congress. The Rube Goldberg-, 1,000 page monstrsity was shot down in flames. A track record like that leaves a lot to be desired. That's why I am supporting the Democrat with a record of accomplishment, and the promise of hope.

    OBAMA 08 -Believe-
    mike kohr

  • Posted By: rebdem72 @ 01/17/2008 3:33:23 PM

    Comment: Edwards falsely implied that immigrants generally can become citizens without being required to learn English.
    Edwards: I think if you want to become an American citizen and earn American citizenship, you should learn to speak English.

    The reason why Edwards said the quote above is that he was asked if he felt that immigrants must speak English before gaining citizenship. He said yes... so what? He wasn't falsely implying anything he was answering the question!!!

  • Posted By: rebdem72 @ 01/17/2008 3:27:49 PM

    Comment: Edwards falsely implied that immigrants generally can become citizens without being required to learn English.
    Edwards: I think if you want to become an American citizen and earn American citizenship, you should learn to speak English.

    The reason why Edwards said the quote above is that he was asked if he felt that immigrants must speak English before gaining citizenship. He said yes... so what? He wasn't falsely implying anything he was answering the question!!!

  • Posted By: rboos @ 01/17/2008 12:07:48 PM

    Comment: I thought the debate was crap! Of course the whole things for the most part centered around Obama, and Clinton. I could care less what they think of each other. It was apparent from the get go that MSNBC only cared about a slug fest. Why would they allow internet questions, thousands as they said they received, and then only ask four of them? I thought Edwards did the best job even though he faltered a bit on Yucca Mountain, but that was b/c Hilary tried to throw him under the bus.
    The media is spinning this thing toward Hilary; you know that???s true when Chris Matthews immediately following the debate literally stumbled on his words talking about the big ???power play??? by Hilary. It???s also ridiculous how much she is shown on the highlights. Please for the sake of true democratic integrity make this a fair political process!

  • Posted By: TruthJusticeTheAmericanWay @ 01/17/2008 10:50:23 AM

    Comment: thank you for a frank analysis. It is amazint how the people who want the power of the Presidency continue to mislead so that the other people look bad. I am beginning to wonder if Clinton will say anything at any time just so that she WINS. Unfortunately, it has become quite obvious that the media wants Hillary in office and will do anything they can to get her into the White House. So, your work is refreshing. Again, thank you for the great analysis and please, do not stop!!

    • Posted By: vince.stewart @ 01/17/2008 2:13:45 PM

      Comment: If hillary wins then I will be an expatriate!
      I hear Vancouver is nice.

  • Posted By: PissedDEM @ 01/17/2008 10:13:53 AM

    Comment: Frankly, I find this analysis refreshing. People look to pundits to hear who "scored points" without ever reflecting on the accuracy of these points. I'm glad that Obama had a chance to clarify his religion and his patriotism, but one important point was never raised, which is, "So WHAT if Obama WAS a Muslim??" I mean granted he is not, but who says the President of the United States must be a Christian to be a good God loving American. BTW, I am neither Christian nor Muslim personally but this bothers me. This article also confirmed my earlier impression that obama appears the most honest and Clinton the least. A few of Obama's statements were flagged as misleading but not wildly inaccurate. Half of Clinton's appear to be, pardon the expression, FAIRY TALES. Keep it up Newsweek: I wanna hear the truth, which is one reason I tend to lean towards Obama. :)

  • Posted By: Lescine @ 01/17/2008 9:16:48 AM

    Comment: To start the debate off with questions geared towards race and Mr. Obama was unfair and seemed like it was a deliberate attempt by Russert And Williams. Then to ask Mr. Obama about internet rumors about him being Muslim, not holding his hand over his heart for the Pledge of Allegiance and attending a school as a child that promoted terrorism was the most unfair thing I've seen in my history of watching politcal debates. It was an attempt to instill in the American people's head about these rumors so that they can vote for Hillary. Think that I'm reaching? Four things come to mind.

    1. Why was Hillary sitting in the middle of both candidates giving her the power position during the debate?

    2. Why wasn't Obama allowed to ask Hillary a question and was cut off for a break. Russert stated after the debate that Obama notified him that he felt slighted about not being able to ask Hillary a question?

    3. After the debate, the cameras were fixated on Hillary until she left the stage.

    4. Chris Matthews declared Hillary the winner immediately following the debate while critsizing Obama.

    As a democrat, I know that Hillary voted for this war with no reservations at the time of the vote. She stated in 2002 that "America" will bring down Saadam Hussein with all it's might per the video shown by Russert during their interview on Sunday. Now she wants to claim she doesn't want this war! Well Missy, you were a supporter of this war and a major booster. Don't forget, she also voted last year to declare the Iranian Guard a terrorist state giving "W" the authority to wage war on Iran any time he wants despite the democratic leadership's opposition to this measure. She didn't even follow her party's direction and she's qualified for President! Why isn't this brought up in the debate?

    Putting her in the Oval office will bring back Slick Willy along with her. Do we want another embarrassing administration with those two? Why is he allowed to freely offer his opinions and diatribes without anyone questioning him on his adulterous nature? He preyed on a young intern in the White House and took advantage of her while abusing his authority as Commander in Chief! He cheated on his wife in the Oval Office on numerous occasions and he wants to play holier than though! Please! He brought shame to the White House!

    Hillary's crying about how the media is being hard on her and not on Obama and started crying to the media, appealling to white people that this black man is hurting me. Yeah, some of us are smarter than you think with her little subliminal messages and Slick Willy's. Tell me! How will she be able to be an adjent of change when she will not get anything done due to Conservatives hatred towards her and old Slick Willy. Do we have a short-term memory? He lied to the American People, his wife, Congress, God.

  • Posted By: SouthernBiologist @ 01/17/2008 8:45:05 AM

    Comment: Oceans23--if you were familiar with Arkansas, you'd realize that an all-white golf club is not a rarity. In much of the state it would be a big challenge to find one that's not. In most cases it's not an issue of exclusion--it just so happens that many areas in Arkansas have absolutely no black people in the population. I grew up in a town of 6,000 in a county of over 20,000 and not a single black person lived within the county...not uncommon in parts of Arkansas. So even though Clinton's club may have appeared racist, it's not the only explanation.

    • Posted By: ublair @ 01/17/2008 11:26:05 AM

      Comment: Her husband cheated on her and lied to her. Stop blaming the victim you are acting as if she was in bed with him while he was doing his dirty ways.

      • Posted By: dewcooper @ 01/17/2008 1:01:17 PM

        Comment: Her husband cheated on her IN the house, and she first claimed to know nothing about, but she was in charge of the white house, and then claimed that she knew about it all along and made Bill sleep in another room. She tried to spin the Jennifor Flowers affair the same way, along with all of Bill's other dalliencies...

  • Posted By: ntense_1 @ 01/17/2008 8:30:13 AM

    Comment: i don't hold my hand over my heart when I say the Pledge of Allegiance and I don't clasp my hand when I pray either but I do both. Pray and Pledge. If this is the test for Patriotism then when are at a sad time in history. All three candidates are worthy of serious consideration. Obama has a slight lead on my scoresheet.

  • Posted By: Frenchie @ 01/17/2008 6:43:38 AM

    Comment: Obama cannot hold his hand over his heart to respect the American Flag and if he can't and will not say the Pledge Allegiance to the American he will never get my vote. I have seen the Phoograph and a picture is worth more than a thousand words, enough said, wake up people

    • Posted By: rerickardjr @ 01/17/2008 8:19:48 AM

      Comment: Frenchie, did you actually watch the debate. Obama not only respects the flag, but leads the Pledge in the Senate on occasion. There is video of him reciting the pledge, hand over heart, all over YouTube. Check your facts, the lies that have been put out about Barack Obama are just that, lies.

      • Posted By: dewcooper @ 01/17/2008 1:03:24 PM

        Comment: So they found the one time that he actually did. Obama has been quoted as saying that some times he does and sometimes he doesn't depending on the audience. So sometimes he respects the flag and sometimes he doesn't. Sometimes he respects America and sometimes he doesn't. Sometimes he wants to be commander-in-chief, and sometimes...

  • Posted By: rdepontb @ 01/17/2008 6:26:45 AM

    Comment: Newsweek, this one is way too blatant a pile of fouled beachhead even for a Fox analysis. The writer claims an actual tax _increase_ on oil and gas, not a huge cut. In fact, the actual "increase" in taxes is $300M over 11 years; there go the second helpings in the executive breakfast room.

    How about we include the royalty-fee-free access to, say, currently-protected areas of the Alaskan cooast? Are those fees taxes that might be paid, or some other incentive to pluck our citizens' resources for the pockets of big oil?

    Do Google the 2005 Bill, scan it or read it in depth, and also look at other interpretations of what the industry put over on us.

    Newsweek, this article brings shame upon your many fine staffers and entire organization. Even Fox News would would have to agree----and we know where they come from, they know we know, and that does balance out----this :analysis" article's writers and editors just don't make the cut.

  • Posted By: rdepontb @ 01/17/2008 6:09:49 AM

    Comment: Newsweek, you have really stepped in it this time, and so blatantly that you must be up to something else even more disingenuous. You say that taxes on energy companies were actually _raised_, not cut: your own number puts the raise at $300M over 11 years. You leave out the royalty-fee-free part of the deal, including for areas such as off the Alaskan coast that to now had been protected. Let's see now, fees or taxes, how should we parse ye today?

    I agree: Google the 2005 Bill, look at it yourself, and see what some of the many other interpretations of the bill find in the end. Newsweek, you insult yourself and entire organization with this kind of article, while raising the hairs on fairminded readers.
    rdepontb, bel air md

  • Posted By: abadreview @ 01/17/2008 2:46:26 AM

    Comment: This article is shockingly inaccurate. Just google the 2005 Energy Bill. President Bush and his buddies could give a rats *** about the environment or clean energy. They love oil so much that they sent our children to die for it. It's all about the money people. By the way, the writer of this article should not be trusted. Not now, not ever.

  • Posted By: Nuculer George @ 01/17/2008 1:25:00 AM

    Comment: Newsweek would not let me post a link to the 2005 energy bill.

  • Posted By: Nuculer George @ 01/17/2008 1:24:27 AM

    Comment: Don't get duped by Newsweek. Go read the 2005 energy bill for yourself.
    Google it.
    Hillary hit the nail on the head. The taxes on energy industries were cursory -- placed there so those like Newsweek could make this claim.

  • Posted By: Nuculer George @ 01/17/2008 1:23:01 AM

    Comment: This is a generic comment.

  • Posted By: ocean123 @ 01/17/2008 1:10:15 AM

    Comment: Do you remember that Bill Clinton gave up his free membership in Arkansas to an all white Golf club after media reporting in his 1992 presidential bid? I am quite shocked that it had bothered neither Bill nor Hillary that the only color in the Golf club was white.

  • Posted By: ocean123 @ 01/17/2008 1:09:50 AM

    Comment: Do you remember that Bill Clinton gave up his free membership in Arkansas to an all white Golf club after media reporting in his 1992 presidential bid? I am quite shocked that it had bothered neither Bill nor Hillary that the only color in the Golf club was white.

  • Posted By: alibidrain @ 01/17/2008 12:33:36 AM

    Comment: The Joint Committee on Taxation may be "nonpartisan", but it is an arm of Congress, headed up by members of Congress. How honest do you really expect these estimates to be?

    Factcheck should look into some of the INDEPENDENT estimates of what these bills cost instead of relying on the say so of people who have a vested interest in lowballing their numbers.

  • Posted By: Arizonasbigest fan @ 01/17/2008 12:01:10 AM

    Comment: We are a congregation which is Unashamedly Black and Unapologetically Christian... Our roots in the Black religious experience and tradition are deep, lasting and permanent. We are an African people, and remain "true to our native land," the mother continent, the cradle of civilization. God has superintended our pilgrimage through the days of slavery, the days of segregation, and the long night of racism. It is God who gives us the strength and courage to continuously address injustice as a people, and as a congregation. We constantly affirm our trust in God through cultural expression of a Black worship service and ministries which address the Black Community.

    The Pastor as well as the membership of Trinity United Church of Christ is committed to a 10-point Vision:

    1. A congregation committed to ADORATION.

    2. A congregation preaching SALVATION.

    3. A congregation actively seeking RECONCILIATION.

    4. A congregation with a non-negotiable COMMITMENT TO AFRICA.

    5. A congregation committed to BIBLICAL EDUCATION.

    6. A congregation committed to CULTURAL EDUCATION.

    7. A congregation committed to the HISTORICAL EDUCATION OF AFRICAN PEOPLE IN DIASPORA.

    8. A congregation committed to LIBERATION.

    9. A congregation committed to RESTORATION.

    10. A congregation working towards ECONOMIC PARITY.

    Barack's Church

    • Posted By: dewcooper @ 01/17/2008 1:11:42 PM

      Comment: 'We are an African people, and remain "true to our native land," the mother continent, the cradle of civilization.' May be why he doesn't pledge alegiance to the US.

      'God has superintended our pilgrimage through the days of slavery, the days of segregation, and the long night of racism.' God does not grant privelege by skin color, but through salvation (it is by faith that you are saved, not works).

      'It is God who gives us the strength and courage to continuously address injustice as a people, and as a congregation. We constantly affirm our trust in God through cultural expression of a Black worship service and ministries which address the Black Community.' Isn't the Great Commandment to go out to all people, not just the ones who look like you?

      Point 7 is rather interesting, given the traditional definition of diaspora...

  • Posted By: MChieco @ 01/16/2008 11:54:05 PM

    Comment: 1. Exxon Mobil
    The oil giant racked up $39.5 billion in earnings last year, the largest-ever profit in U.S. history. That figure topped the previous record of $36.1 billion, also set by Exxon Mobil, in 2005. Profits were up 9.3% from the previous year, while sales rose 2.2%. Got Gas ?

  • Posted By: MChieco @ 01/16/2008 11:34:18 PM

    Comment: The bill exempts oil and gas industries from some clean-water laws, streamlines permits for oil wells and power lines on public lands, and helps the hydropower industry appeal environmental restrictions. For example, it exempts oil and gas companies from Safe Drinking Water Act requirements when they inject fluids -- including some carcinogens -- into the earth at high pressure, a process known as hydraulic fracturing. Betty Anthony, director for exploration and production at the American Petroleum Institute. "This bill will allow America's most profitable companies to pollute our water supplies," said David Alberswerth of the Wilderness Society. "They're the kings of Capitol Hill."

    House Majority Leader Tom DeLay (R-Tex.) also managed to insert at least $500 million in subsidies over a 10-year period -- with the option to double the amount -- for research into deep-water oil and gas drilling, a grant that many lawmakers expect to go to the Texas Energy Center in DeLay's home town of Sugar Land. Source Washington Post

  • Posted By: ragtopdodge @ 01/16/2008 11:20:17 PM

    Comment: Of course, Clinton has to lie about the energy bill that Obama voted on. If Clinton had her way, there would be NO incentives for clean energy.

    No bill is perfect; especially w/an a-hole Prez that will veto anything good. But for Clinton to suggest that Obama was pro-Dick Cheney and pro-big oil is nasty, dirty, and dishonest.

  • Posted By: MChieco @ 01/16/2008 11:17:45 PM

    Comment: Who is this fact checker ? Sean Hannity ?

  • Posted By: MChieco @ 01/16/2008 11:17:44 PM

    Comment: Who is this fact checker ? Sean Hannity ?

  • Posted By: pinkpanther87413 @ 01/16/2008 11:11:11 PM

    Comment: FACT FOR A FACT, IF THESE ARE THE ONLY LIES TOLD BY THE DEMS DURING THE DEBATES!! IT PALES IN COMPARASON, TO THE LIES WE HAVE HAD TO EAT ALLREADY, TOLD TO US BY THE GOP!! IN FACT FOR A FACT, I CAN'T SEE ANY PARTY TYING TO LIE AS MUCH AS THIS ADMIN EVER AGAIN, TO MANY EYES IN THE PIE, BUT FOR OUR BLACK BAG INDUSTRY! THE GOP LIES COST LIVES!! THE DEMS LIES DON'T COME CLOSE! SORRY FOR POOR SPELLING, I KILLED WHEN I SHOULD HAVE BEEN IN HIGH SCHOOL!

  • Posted By: SouthernBiologist @ 01/16/2008 10:29:08 PM

    Comment: --In fact, the law already requires, with few exceptions, that applicants for citizenship "must be able to read, write, speak, and understand words in ordinary usage in the English language."--

    This is true, but it is not universally enforced. I personally know a number of individuals who gained citizenship despite their inability to meet the language requirements of the citizenship program. I've also assisted citizens in their responses to jury summonses because they were unable understand simple conversation in English, much less the intricacies of a legal case.

    I think you'll find that Edwards and most others who find this issue troubling are more concerned about the practical issues facing immigrants and new citizens rather than the legal obligations. After all, Texas prints their ballots in both English and Spanish--a necessity to ensure that all citizens can participate in the process. Most places in the US don't make these accommodations, and logistically it would be impossible to make allowances for all languages.

  • Posted By: SouthernBiologist @ 01/16/2008 10:27:46 PM

    Comment: --In fact, the law already requires, with few exceptions, that applicants for citizenship "must be able to read, write, speak, and understand words in ordinary usage in the English language."--

    This is true, but it is not universally enforced. I personally know a number of individuals who gained citizenship despite their inability to meet the language requirements of the citizenship program. I've also assisted citizens in their responses to jury summonses because they were unable understand simple conversation in English, much less the intricacies of a legal case.

    I think you'll find that Edwards and most others who find this issue troubling are more concerned about the practical issues facing immigrants and new citizens rather than the legal obligations. After all, Texas prints their ballots in both English and Spanish--a necessity to ensure that all citizens can participate in the process. Most places in the US don't make these accommodations, and logistically it would be impossible to make allowances for all languages.

    • Posted By: pinkpanther87413 @ 01/16/2008 11:03:55 PM

      Comment: ENFORCED YOU PEGGED THAT ONE TO THE TEE AND IS A PROBLEM IF IT SLIDES WHAT ELSE DOES IN THE PROCESS?

  • Posted By: the ross dog @ 01/16/2008 10:21:28 PM

    Comment: I find it interesting that these candidates appear to play loosely with the facts, but I am going to analyze a few of the cited references and check the fact checker before making my own accuracy judgements.

    A cursory review of the references reveals the appearance of a legitimately conducted journalistic endeavor, and I am curious if I will discover that the fact checker is more accurate than our candidates are. I encourage others to also examine the facts and not cast unsupported dispersions on the author.

    • Posted By: Arizonasbigest fan @ 01/17/2008 12:04:14 AM

      Comment: We are a congregation which is Unashamedly Black and Unapologetically Christian... Our roots in the Black religious experience and tradition are deep, lasting and permanent. We are an African people, and remain "true to our native land," the mother continent, the cradle of civilization. God has superintended our pilgrimage through the days of slavery, the days of segregation, and the long night of racism. It is God who gives us the strength and courage to continuously address injustice as a people, and as a congregation. We constantly affirm our trust in God through cultural expression of a Black worship service and ministries which address the Black Community.

      The Pastor as well as the membership of Trinity United Church of Christ is committed to a 10-point Vision:

      1. A congregation committed to ADORATION.

      2. A congregation preaching SALVATION.

      3. A congregation actively seeking RECONCILIATION.

      4. A congregation with a non-negotiable COMMITMENT TO AFRICA.

      5. A congregation committed to BIBLICAL EDUCATION.

      6. A congregation committed to CULTURAL EDUCATION.

      7. A congregation committed to the HISTORICAL EDUCATION OF AFRICAN PEOPLE IN DIASPORA.

      8. A congregation committed to LIBERATION.

      9. A congregation committed to RESTORATION.

      10. A congregation working towards ECONOMIC PARITY.

      does this sound like reverse discrimination

  • Posted By: Francene @ 01/16/2008 10:09:31 PM

    Comment: Some would say that Dennis Kucinich lost in his failure to be included in this debate. In fact, democracy lost. We all lost. We are all diminished when a strong, courageous, compassionate voice such as the voice of Dennis Kucinich is silenced by corporate power and systemic blindness or corruption or whatever it is that causes those in positions of power (such as the Nevada Supreme Court) to allow a corporation (NBC) to change its rules merely to exclude an important though not terribly popular voice.

    John Edwards says it well when he speaks to the fact that only a fraction of a percent of Americans have voted so far. And yet those of us who have not had an opportunity to vote are also being denied a full opportunity to hear all of the candidates debate. This is not merely sad for our democracy, it is tragic.

  • Posted By: ThinkPatrick @ 01/16/2008 9:46:16 PM

    Comment: This "fact checking" was done as poorly as those the author would claim to be scrutinizing...

    Quite simply, every "check" should have been checked, as the above relies either on very brief comments that indicate either no real understanding of cited circumstances, a need to push a political agenda, or the desire to produce a fast and semi-literate document to justify a position on the website staff.

    This work should have been checked by a better editor.

  • Posted By: Gezelda @ 01/16/2008 8:29:55 PM

    Comment: Is this America if a qualified candidate is denied the right to speak along with other qualified candidates? Kucinich would have offered some contrasting opinions, which is what we need. Does a corporation have the right to determine what candidates the public hears? What about freedo of speech?

  • Posted By: Gezelda @ 01/16/2008 8:27:34 PM

    Comment: Is this still America if a candidate is denied the chance to have equal broadcast time with other candidates? Do we still have freedo of speech if a news corporation can deny a qualified candidate equal rights with other candidates? If Kucinich had been allowed to speak he would have offered some opinions in contrast to others. That's what we need and it shouldn't be squelched.

  • Posted By: uscppg @ 01/16/2008 7:53:16 PM

    Comment: As a women, I am offended that people feel Hillary is being "picked on" as a women. The fact that she is beeing attacked has nothing to do with the fact that she is a women, and everything to do with the fact that she has a lot of money, and is one of the front runners.

    The definition of discrimination: "Treatment or consideration based on class or category rather than individual merit"

    I think the fact that Hillary is being agressively questioned on her stance is an indication that she is being treated as an equal to all of the other candidates. As women....isn't that what we want. An equal shot, not preferencial treatment?

    For anyone to call on folks "to stop picking on Hillary" means that she is not capable, or should not be held to the same standard as every other candidate. That is the same things men used to say to women!

    So stop crying about it- let her "woman up" and stand on her own two feet like every other candidate. That is what I look for in the female leaders I admire.

    • Posted By: pinkpanther87413 @ 01/16/2008 11:00:48 PM

      Comment: NOT PICKED ON FOR BEING A WOMAN PICK ON FOR BEING IN DC FOR A LOT OF YEARS ON A LOT OF POLICY!

    • Posted By: Francene @ 01/16/2008 10:02:13 PM

      Comment: What you meant to say was "As a woman..." (not "women"). Apparently, you are a woman. Hillary and you and I are women. Woman is singular. Women is plural. Your comments are worthy of consideration but your failure (and this is a common one among writers these days) to use the singular "woman" rather than the plural "women" when you are referring to one woman weakens your message. But keep speaking up. Your voice is an important one.

      By the way, if you were a man and referred to yourself as "men" I would have had essentially the same comment. No sexism here. : )

  • Posted By: Aware! @ 01/16/2008 7:49:55 PM

    Comment: I used to get Newsweek Magazine but because of biased articles like this, I am glad I discontinued it!

  • Posted By: VoteResponsibly08 @ 01/16/2008 7:37:15 PM

    Comment: EDWARDS WAS THE WORST..HE IS TO ANGRY...TIME FOR HIM TO MELO IN HIS 38,000 SQ FT HOME AND JUST RELAX...TOOOOOOOO ANGRY TO BE OUR COMMANDER AND CHIEF. ITS VERY ANOYING TO SEE
    HOW VERY ANGRY AND DISTORTED HIS FACE GETS WHEN HE IS ONLY TRYING TO PUT A THOUGHT OUTHERE, CAN WE IMAGINE HOW HE WOULD GET WITH THE TRUE CHALLENGES THAT FACES OUR COUNTRY???

    • Posted By: VotingRightIn08 @ 01/17/2008 10:33:17 PM

      Comment: People like you who judge a book by its cover rather than its contents are destroys the back bone of our country, so why don't you VoteResponsibly08 by checking on the facts, just the facts! By the way we all should be angry with the past seven years of deceit from our current administration! They have destroyed the American good name, we have lost lives over their lies. We have been duped, we have had fear instilled in us all and if we express our descent we are un-American not supporting our troops . By God it is our inallienable right to speak freely and many of our forefathers and soldiers have died for us to have this right. We must have checks and balances! And there are little few now..oh by the way guess who we have to thank for that in part Hillary and Obama. They both rushed to give Bush the Presidential authority to declare war without the support of either house! Edwards is our man for President in 2008..he shares the American peoples PASSION! Thank God he does!!

    • Posted By: Francene @ 01/16/2008 10:30:04 PM

      Comment: Where to begin? Where to begin?

      Dear "VoteResponsibly08",
      As your name suggests, it is indeed important, even imperative, to "vote responsibly" and you are perhaps aware of that. But it is also important to speak responsibly, to write responsibly, to interact responsibly. I hope when you re-read your note you see that you could have written more responsibly and endeavor to do so at your next opportunity.

      Edwards is not "the worst". He is not "too angry". He is passionate and perhaps his style does not appeal to you. He has a really big house but I don't believe it is 38,000 square feet. And your comment is probably irresponsible. It certainly lacks persuasive power. He has a beautiful face at rest and a highly animated face when he speaks out strongly about the things he believes. So, take a deep breath and try not to be quite so annoyed. Okay? He need not be your candidate but you add little to the public debate by attacking his facial expressions and by extrapolating that because his face is animated that necessarily means he would be a bad and irresponsible commander in chief. Yes, "commander in chief", not commander and chief.

      Responsibility rests in all of our hands, not merely those of the candidates, and it extends to how we speak and write as well as how we vote.

      Here's to a highly responsible electorate and a highly responsive elected.

      Peace.

      • Posted By: pinkpanther87413 @ 01/16/2008 10:59:05 PM

        Comment: YOU SPEAK MUCH TRUTH. HE IS PASSIONATE, NOT ANGRY. AS FACTS GO OBAMA SUPPORTERS IN THERE OWN WAY ALSO CLAIM, ANGRY, IS THERE ADJECTIVE THEY LIKE TO USE, BUT I'M WITH YOU PASSIONATE, AND RUNNING ON THE PEOPLES MONEY ONLY!! UNLIKE THE OTHERS. HE IS ALSO THE MOST UNCONTRVERSIAL OUT OF THE THREE AND AS SUCH COULD WIN THIS TIME AROUND. WHO EVER IS THE DEM PICK, VOTE FOR EM, ITS BETTER THAN THE GOP, STILL! I'LL PUT IT THIS WAY, IF THESE ARE THE LIES OF THE DEMS! THEY PALE IN COMPARESION TO THE ONES WE HAVE ALLREADY BEEN TOLD BY THE GOP!

  • Posted By: VoteResponsibly08 @ 01/16/2008 7:30:41 PM

    Comment: #1 IF YOU ARE GOING TO ATTACH THE CANDIDATES, WHY MUST IT ALWAYS BE MORE DIRECTION TOWARDS CLINTON? IS IT BECAUSE YOU CAN GET AWAY WITH IT BECAUSE SHE IS A WOMAN?
    YOUR REMARK "Hillary's oil slick, Again" IS DEMEANING AND IT SEEMS TO ME YOU ARE GETTING AWAY WITH YOUR MANIPULATED COMMENTS AGAINST THE CANDIDATES

  • Posted By: Ponzi @ 01/16/2008 7:28:58 PM

    Comment: I hope your 8 am class reads the article...it seems you didn't. There are two contradictions attributed to Clinton and Edwards, one sole to Obama, and one (troop status) to all three candidates. If there were other contradictions unreported, please feel free to share them. If not, is your argument the journalist didn't fabricate a contradiction.

  • Posted By: leelandT @ 01/16/2008 7:26:21 PM

    Comment: Senator Obama did not contradict himself in regards to his criticism of President Bush???s ???having done nothing serious about alternative fuels or raising fuel efficiency.??? The original bill passed the Senate on an 85-12 vote; it passed the House 249-183. Bush???s hands were tied; how is it you give his administration credit for this?

  • Posted By: JLINATLANTA @ 01/16/2008 7:25:39 PM

    Comment: Okay Brook - how about a fact check on your fact check. To say that Bush has signed 'major bills' to encourage use of alternative fuels or raise fuel efficiency of automobiles doesn't provide the whole story. After many veto threats of this democratic led bill, he very recently signed a comprimised bill to raise fuel efficiencies. To give Bush any credit for leading any environmental cause is very misleading. Try adding a little more context to your 'fact check' next time.

  • Posted By: leelandT @ 01/16/2008 7:25:06 PM

    Comment: Senator Obama did not contradict himself in regards to his criticism of President Bush???s ???having done nothing serious about alternative fuels or raising fuel efficiency.??? The original bill passed the Senate on an 85-12 vote; it passed the House 249-183. Bush???s hands were tied; how is it you give his administration credit for this?

  • Posted By: Francene @ 01/16/2008 7:23:34 PM

    Comment: You need to fact check your fact checking. There is too much spin in your analysis. You are unfair to Hillary Clinton in her criticism of the Bush administration's policies toward returning soldiers. You fail to state that John Edwards was specifically asked about the requirement that citizen's speak English. And you're wrong in your defense of the Bush administration's actions in regard to energy policy. Stick to the facts and leave out the spin or you lose all credibility. It is clear the author and publisher of this purported analysis have their own dog in this fight.

  • Posted By: pinkpanther87413 @ 01/16/2008 7:21:10 PM

    Comment: PERSONALY I LIKE THE FACT, THAT NOW WE ALL KNOW IF ONE OUT THERE IS TELLING, THE MOST TRUTH, IT'S EDWARDS, AND THEY [MEDIA] DO LIKE TO PICK ON FRONT RUNNERS. ALL IN ALL, NO LIES IN HERE, ARE AS BAD AS THE LIES WE HAVE ALLREADY BEEN TOLD, FOR ALMOST 16 YEARS [BOTH BUSH ADMINS] SO IT'S A NO BRAINER, WHO IS THE BEST CHOICE!

  • Posted By: eidiva @ 01/16/2008 7:12:35 PM

    Comment: As a long time democrat, communication professor, and supporter of John Edwards, I am beginning to believe that the media has found a favorite in Obama. Though I have preached and taught in the media's dedication to 'fact checking', I am nonetheless aware of a rhetorical spin or biased framing when I see it. Somehow, Clinton is constantly framed as a lying shrew, Edwards as an also ran, with Obama riding to save the day. I have a bet with my 8am class, can you point to one article written in your publication that is critical of the junior senator from Illinois?

    • Posted By: ragtopdodge @ 01/16/2008 11:18:37 PM

      Comment: Nothing to be critical of; that's why. Deal w/it.

      • Posted By: dewcooper @ 01/17/2008 11:48:00 AM

        Comment: Paid one-third the asking price for his home while a mobster's wife bought the adjacent lot in order for Obama to close the deal.

        Obama got elected to the Senate by forcing his opponent to unseal his private divorce papers, yet Obama will not release his visitors log showing which lobbyists visited him and how often.

        Obama refuses to show the proper respect to the US flag, but still wants to be the commander-in-chief.

        Obama chose to vote 'present' because he didn't have the stones to vote 'no' on recognizing that a child born alive following an unseccessfully abortion is a living person.

  • Posted By: eidiva @ 01/16/2008 7:09:15 PM

    Comment: Here is what is interesting...Newsweek has spent a considerable amount of space and effort trying to diminish the record of Hillary Clinton. As a life long democrat and a supporter of John Edwards, I am dismayed at the media's love for all things Obama. Newsweek has certainly done its share to ramp up the rhetoric of "Obama as savior". As a communication professor, I am growing more and more worried that my defense of the fine profession of journalism may indeed be for naught.

    • Posted By: ragtopdodge @ 01/16/2008 11:21:03 PM

      Comment: Deal w/it. Obama is the best thing to happen to American politics in 40 years.

      • Posted By: VotingRightIn08 @ 01/17/2008 11:21:10 PM

        Comment: That is a crock of sh__! Deal with it, he is an inexperienced Jr Senator who has a long way to go and we need someone who will beat the GOP for the Presidential office! The Republicans want him to win the Democratic nomination, because they will beat him and then we will all have to DEAL WITH IT! Wise up!

 
 
Reply
Cancel
 
 
Report Abuse

Enter comments if any for reporting abuse

Cancel
 
The Peek
 
 
STRATEGIES
Daniel Lyons

Isn't it ironic: Xerox is hoping it can profit by teaching companies how to reduce their printing.

Sponsored by
 
 
 
 
JUSTICE
Michael Isikoff

Related Stories

Sponsored by
 
 
 
loadingLoading Menu