WP: President Obama Continues Hectic Victory Tour

[Tastes Like Chicken]

That statement, on an island, sounds arrogant.

When taken in context, it's much different.

Obama does have an arrogance issue. This doesn't seem to be the most egregious example.

[techboy]

This is just the latest right-wing attack on Obama, and they're hoping it sticks.

What makes you think that Dana Milbank is a right-winger? Have you read any of his previous pieces?

[BRAVEONAWARPATH]

What makes you think that Dana Milbank is a right-winger? Have you read any of his previous pieces?

Yep. I've never heard of Milbank being referred to as a right-winger either.

Granted, I'm not sure he's a far-left guy either.

Either way, Obama's words were taken out of context but the perception of arrogance is something he needs to watch.

[DjTj]

What makes you think that Dana Milbank is a right-winger? Have you read any of his previous pieces?

He is part of the growing chorus of jilted left-leaning reporters who aren't getting enough attention from the Obamessiah ... Just look over to your right, Dana, there is a lonely old man sitting in the corner that will let you sit on his lap.

[Prosperity]

I'll be honest, I am a bit worried that Obama and his supporters (myself included) are getting a bit too ****y... McCain is a decent candidate, he could easily win if Obama ****s up.

The actual REAL quote - which the liberal Washington Post seemed to cut out reads as follows:

‘It has become increasingly clear in my travel, the campaign, that the crowds, the enthusiasm, 200,000 people in Berlin, is not about me at all. It’s about America. I have just become a symbol of the possibility of America returning to our best traditions,”

The Washington Post only published "I have just become a symbol of the possibility of America returning to our best traditions."

His entire point was it was NOT all about him. Amazing. :doh:

http://thepage.time.com/

The Post is definitely not a pro-Obama paper... it's fairly balanced to slightly pro-McCain

[ChocolateCitySkin]

I think he's taking it a little bit too far... but heres the logic I see. Obama's public perception is that of a president. McCain right now looks like an out of touch old man with little to no confidence. It makes voters for McCain feel hopeless and like its not worth showing up b.c. right now McCain doesn't look anything like a leader.

[twa]

In recent polls of Americans its a relative dead heat around 35% believing one candidate or the other is getting favorable treatment by the press. :2cents:

Thats understandable since both candidates were pushed by the press to reach this point....not a good thing at all imo

[ChocolateCitySkin]

I'll be honest, I am a bit worried that Obama and his supporters (myself included) are getting a bit too ****y... McCain is a decent candidate, he could easily win if Obama ****s up.

The Post is definitely not a pro-Obama paper... it's fairly balanced to slightly pro-McCain

not according to ES posters.

[Sarge]

This reeks of pure jealousy to me. Does Milbank want some cheese with that whine? Stop crying into your keyboard about it.

Let's face it - if McCain weren't making Bob Dole look like Ronald Reagan right now, it might actually be a race. McCain has nothing to offer himself that would appeal to a majority of the electorate, so he has to criticize Obama or wait for Obama to make a mistake. Milbank is just carrying the GOP's water here by this latest attack -- "Obama is doing so well and is so well liked, it just isn't fair."

*Marsha Marsha MARSHA!!*

Please....

That would be why the polls show them tied

[karmacop]

That would be why the polls show them tied

Um.... No. Obama has been consistently ahead by at least 2-4 points, sometimes more.

Pollster.com has a composite chart including all polls. Please tell me how this chart shows a tie:

http://www.pollster.com/polls/us/08-us-pres-ge-mvo.php

[karmacop]

And here's pollster.com's summary from July 29:

If you have paid any attention to the news in the past month, you have had a hard time avoiding some journalist or pundit noting that the presidential race is currently a "statistical dead heat" or "essentially tied." The news media, of course, love to cover the horserace aspects of the campaign, particularly in a way that emphasizes how close the election is. But when you step back and gain a little perspective on the big picture, you realize that this race isn't quite the dead heat that it is made to be.

...

In fact, according to national poll results listed on Pollster.com, Obama had been tied or ahead in 50 consecutive national polls through Sunday. Sure, many polls may show Obama holding a lead within the statistical margin of error, but if Obama and McCain were actually tied, we'd expect as many polls showing McCain ahead as show Obama ahead. Based on some basic calculations, the probability that 50 consecutive national surveys would show Obama tied or ahead if the candidates were actually tied is .0000000000000009. In short, this race is not a "statistical tie," despite what a few scattered surveys (drawing disproportionate attention from the pundits) indicate.

This is not a tie. Obama is clearly ahead.

http://www.pollster.com/blogs/statistical_dead_heat_depends.php

[Kilmer17]

Obama is clearly ahead by 4 points or so.

But he SHOULD be ahead by 15-20.

[karmacop]

Obama is clearly ahead by 4 points or so.

But he SHOULD be ahead by 15-20.

Only in a bizarro world can a sustained, statistically significant lead be somehow turned into a "negative" for the man in front. Bush's lead over Kerry in the tracking polls was much less than this in 2004.

I suppose if Obama were up by 10, people would say he should be up by 30.

You must really think McCain is garbage if you think Obama should be beating him by 20.

[Kilmer17]

Only in a bizarro world can a sustained, statistically significant lead be somehow turned into a "negative" for the man in front. Bush's lead over Kerry in the tracking polls was much less than this in 2004.

I suppose if Obama were up by 10, people would say he should be up by 30.

You must really think McCain is garbage if you think Obama should be beating him by 20.

Nope, but with the media lovefest and the hatred for Bush, this should be a slamdunk for any Dem.

The fact that it's not speaks volumes.

[Heisenberg]

Nope, but with the media lovefest and the hatred for Bush, this should be a slamdunk for any Dem.

The fact that it's not speaks volumes.

:laugh:

I love how even in a thread about an anti-Obama article in a "liberal rag" you guys still complain about how the media says Obama can do no wrong.

Hilarious.

[Henry]

I think it speaks of McCain's viability. He has a strong appeal to the middle, and he's probably the best candidate the GOP could hope to field to take on a very popular, but very liberal Dem candidate. McCain is still in this race because he's grabbing people like me, who would vote Dem had most any other GOP Candate won the primary.

But that's just my opinion.

[BRAVEONAWARPATH]

Nope, but with the media lovefest and the hatred for Bush, this should be a slamdunk for any Dem.

The fact that it's not speaks volumes.

But does it speak volumes about Obama, McCain or the voters in general?

[Fifty Gut]

When you live through 8 years of Bush anyone the Dems put up for election would look like Jesus. I don't think it's an arrogant statement.

[karmacop]

I love how even in a thread about an anti-Obama article in a "liberal rag" you guys still complain about how the media says Obama can do no wrong.

In fact, the nonprofit, nonpartisan Center for Media and Public Affairs recently reported that the media has been more negative on Obama than McCain during the few six weeks of the general campaign:

The researchers found that most statements by anchors and reporters were neutral, but when opinions were expressed 28 percent of statements about Obama were positive while 72 percent were negative. The study indicated opinions about McCain were 43 percent positive and 57 percent negative.

http://www.upi.com/Top_News/2008/07/27/Study_Media_rougher_on_Obama/UPI-43191217211564/

There's no "liberal bias" at all. If anything, there's a "liberal bias" bias.

John McC[ompl]ain's talking point about how the media loves Obama is just more whining.

[@DCGoldPants]

I think it speaks of McCain's viability. He has a strong appeal to the middle, and he's probably the best candidate the GOP could hope to field to take on a very popular, but very liberal Dem candidate. McCain is still in this race because he's grabbing people like me, who would vote Dem had most any other GOP Candate won the primary.

But that's just my opinion.

McCain reminds me of an old car that you just don't want to get rid of. You know its no good for a cross country trip. Hell, it probably can't make it up some steeper hills.......and in the snow? Forget about it. Still, you remember the time you had a crazy road trip.....and it still has the dents to show.

But, you know what you're getting with it. Some people want the comfort level.

[DieselPwr44]

Some people want the comfort level.

Or alot of people are trying to decide who's the lesser of the two evils.

[Oldskool]

I cannot remember a candidate that has acted this presumptuous of his own victory at all.

First the co-op of the White House seal and now this. :doh:

[gube79]

"no arrogance detected over here captain..."

[RabidFan]

Totally full of himself.

I get what he was "trying" to say. But, like I heard on MSNBC this morning. You didn't hear Jackie Robinson talking about how symbolic it was that he's the 1st black baseball player in MLB.

You DID THOUGH HEAR Halle Berry say that after her Oscar win. :doh:

[techboy]

In fact, the nonprofit, nonpartisan Center for Media and Public Affairs recently reported that the media has been more negative on Obama than McCain during the few six weeks of the general campaign:

http://www.upi.com/Top_News/2008/07/27/Study_Media_rougher_on_Obama/UPI-43191217211564/

There's no "liberal bias" at all. If anything, there's a "liberal bias" bias.

John McC[ompl]ain's talking point about how the media loves Obama is just more whining.

I wrote this in another thread (which was about this study):

You clearly haven't read Lichter's previous work.

I shall now amuse myself by watching conservatives, who were previously thrilled and totally persuaded by such studies, now reject them as silly and far too subjective to be useful, while liberals, who previously rejected these studies as silly and far too subjective to be useful, are now thrilled and totally persuaded. :laugh:

That thread got derailed, denying me my fun. Maybe I can get that here...