Quote:
Originally Posted by moe.ron
One thing that people seems to forget, Obama went through a harsher and longer primary. Everything that could've came out about Obama came out during the primary. By the time the election came around, there was nothing new to talk about. It was the same thing with McCain. However, Palin is a different story. She was a clean slate and with McCain and Obama completely vetted out, Palin was the next person to be vetted.
Nothing about biases, just that Palin was an unknown and she had a story to be told. McCain camp messed up royally and did not told the story well.
|
I disagree. Other than the Reverend Wright stuff, I don't think most Obama stuff got much actually critical coverage even in the primary by the traditional media, to the point that the Clinton folks were pretty angry about it. I also think Biden got off really lightly considering how many ridiculous things he said during the campaign. If you know about them, it might be a reflection of your willingness to watch Fox or your reading on the internet.
It may be possible to justify extra scrutiny of Palin from her nomination onward for the reason you suggest. But it doesn't really explain why there was so little coverage of any of her actual governance. I think people know troopergate, Wasilla rape kits, and maybe interest in removing books from the Wasilla. They also know the fact checking on the Bridge to Nowhere story. Can anyone report any other action by Palin in her elective history? Does that make sense if it's an unbiased press?
We need to know about her husband's flirtation with the Alaska Party and hear critics from the lower 48 of her Predator Control programs, but nothing about successful programs that contributed to her initially high approval ratings in Alaska?
Is it really reasonable to just assume that there weren't any?
Threaded Mode
