Quote:
Originally Posted by texas*princess
Because the story I read about that several months ago said "right". Sorry you took offense to that
|
Well, I guess it never hurts to get in a shot against the other side, right?
Quote:
Originally Posted by texas*princess
The tone of the campaign wouldn't have been different. Every 4 years SNL mocks the candidates. The same happened last year - all of the candidates were impersonated - not just Palin. So I don't really get the "awww poor Palin! If it wasn't for SNL, she'd be in the White House or things would be different for her!" sentiment....
Blame the media or whoever you want (since someone other than Palin must be blamed!), but voters should know everything they possibly can about someone before going out there and voting.
|
Again, I think you're overstating things, at least for the purposes of this thread. No one here is saying that Palin would have been VP if the SNL stuff didn't happen, or if the (perceived) media issues weren't there. They are just saying it was a factor.
That's not really all that extreme of a concept - people have been talking about the effect of the media on campaigns for years, back to the Grover Cleveland illegitimate child scandal in the late 19th century, and before that. So, for people to claim that media coverage had an effect on the campaign isn't surprising, or all that unique.
Threaded Mode
