Today is the Iowa Caucus

[Conan71]

Obama kicked the **** out of them.  

On the GOP side, Thompson was a distant third w/ 14% and Giuliani finished behind him- ouch!

I don't see Huckabee having a good run in New Hampshire or anywhere on the east coast except maybe NC, SC, and GA.  Rudy could bounce back there, but I think Romney will win New Hampshire.

Obama's got some great momentum.  I'm still having a hard time picturing the Clintons getting humiliated in New Hampshire though.  Richardson pissed the Clintons off by getting his supporters behind Obama.  Sounds like he's figured out who he wants to be veep for.

[tulsacyclist]

quote:Originally posted by wavoka

I'm about as conservative as you can get and there is no way I could vote for Huckabee.

Who could you vote for?

[Conan71]

quote:Originally posted by we vs us

Originally posted by rwarn17588


And as for bias, I've got to tell you, Conan that there're worlds of difference between the bias that Fox News is spouting and what the NYT runs with.  I can agree that bias exists in all of our media, but that doesn't mean that the bias is obscuring the facts 100% of the time and in all places.  It's a matter of degree.  Having read the NYT off and on for years, I wouldn't say that its bias obscures the reporting of fact, and they work hard to keep their opinion separate from their fact.  Believe it or not, the Wall Street Journal is the same way.  Good reporting, lousy opinion.

Fox News, though, is entirely different.  They don't give a rip about fact at all.

Fox News is actually pretty balanced.  If you are thinking about commentary programs like Hannity & Colmes (Colmes is just the set up guy for Hannity) or O'Reilly, no those are stacked decks for the RNC, just like Olbermann is for MSNBC.

Just because one news outlet reports on, or does more feature stories on let's say some positive things happening in Iraq, and another tends to focus only on the negative aspects of war, which one is more right?  Which is least biased?  Neither if we throw out our personal paradigms.

Yes, NYT has published a few positive stories on the last year on Iraq, but those have been few and far between.

I tend to get my news from a variety of places and question what I'm reading and hearing.  I'm a cynic by nature, can't you tell? []

[Ibanez]

quote:Originally posted by we vs us

quote:Originally posted by wavoka

I'm about as conservative as you can get and there is no way I could vote for Huckabee.

Could you vote for Obama?

Of the Democrats he and Richardson are the only ones I would vote for.

[Chicken Little]

Obama shocked 'em with help from new, young voters and independents.  If you went with regular Democratic voters, he would have edged Hillary by a point.  But guess what, Indy's can vote in the NH primary next Tuesday.  He may shock 'em again.

[we vs us]

quote:Originally posted by Conan71

Originally posted by we vs us

Originally posted by rwarn17588



Just because one news outlet reports on, or does more feature stories on let's say some positive things happening in Iraq, and another tends to focus only on the negative aspects of war, which one is more right?  Which is least biased?  Neither if we throw out our personal paradigms.

That's some hardcore relativism there.  "Neither [is right] if we throw out our personal paradigms."  I mean, isn't the right answer, "the one that is factual is the one that's correct?"

I don't know how it happened, but somewhere along the way, it became conventional wisdom to believe that everything that gets reported is not just biased but is also factually wrong.  I'm gonna catch hell for this, but have you thought that maybe no one was reporting good things about Iraq because nothing good was happening in Iraq?  Or more accurately, the occasional good thing was being overwhelmed by the tidal wave of bad?  Why do we have to bend over backward and create this huge conspiracy of falsehood when in fact the truth might be as reported?

[we vs us]

One of the crazy things about Huck is that he seems -- not just proud -- but defiant about his evangelicism.  And he's not aiming it towards the Dems, he's aiming it at other Republicans.  I guess what I don't get is, why is he having so much success when he's quite obviousy looking to split the Republican party down the center?

[FOTD]

quote:Originally posted by Chicken Little

Obama shocked 'em with help from new, young voters and independents.  If you went with regular Democratic voters, he would have edged Hillary by a point.  But guess what, Indy's can vote in the NH primary next Tuesday.  He may shock 'em again.

http://my.barackobama.com/page/community/group/ObamaHQFeature

A change is going to come. Who will go against beating back the politics of fear?