DISQUS

AMERICAblog: <strike>ABC's</strike> TIME's Mark Halperin is vewy vewy angwy that the media was mean to John McCain

  • ducky 1515 · 1 year ago
    This is just the case of the Right "working the refs" so that Obama's honeymoon is shorten, if not eliminated. They can't stand the thought of 30 years of carefully constructed conservative sabotage being eliminated in the first 100 days.
  • tbhull · 1 year ago
    Fuck Mark Halperin. Who really cares?

    Back to the bailout. Obama should put pressure on Bush/Paulson by immediately promising to make the bailout completely transparent and calling for the same from Bush/Paulson.

    This would include a promise to disclose each and every company receiving bailout money and disclosing each and every asset the government has purchased with taxpayer dollars, what company it was purchased from, what price the government paid, the price the comnpany initially paid, the price the government gets for it when sold, who bought it from the government and the method used to determine the government's purchasing and selling price, all in real time.
  • larry · 1 year ago
    poor Halperin....the truth is that those in the MSM who picked up the Bush poop for seven and half years are returning to there more natural state...irrelevance.. The had hoped that they could extend there time at the big table with a McCain victory but alas, back to the card table so the competent adults can reclaim the nation.
  • pc · 1 year ago
    halperin is an embarrassment to the journalism profession, of course since mark is more concerned about supporting the candidate he likes rather then reporting the facts that should come as no surprise to anyone, maybe mccain will hire him as one of his gophers on his senate staff because thats all he really is now anyway.
  • KarenMrsLloydRichards · 1 year ago
    Halperin is emblematic of everything that Time, Inc. stands for, and what is wrong with it. Fumbling for relevance, unthinking, unimaginative, sclerotic, lashing out because fatally wounded.
  • therepguy · 1 year ago
    To Mark I simple say... TOUGH SHIT!
  • BroD · 1 year ago
    AND we get another chance to to be mean to Virgil Goode--we celebrated his loss once already but that kind of got lost in all the hoopla. Now he's requested a recount so we can party like it's 2008 all over again!
  • sconset · 1 year ago
    I couldn't care less what Halprin thinks--Obama ran a flawless campaign and McCain's was a disaster.

    John: You're in DC--what's the 411 on Halprin--I heard he's a very angry gay man. Is it true he is gay.
  • sconset · 1 year ago
    Halperin and the rest of the '"Lost Boy's" (Mike Allen. John Harris, Vanderhei, were Chimpy's biggest cheerleaders--they were reverential in their reporting of Bush--just lately, not so much.
  • grandma · 1 year ago
    Mark's just another right wing whiny ass titty baby ....whining cuz they lost.

    I just read over at Washington Monthly that the liberal Colmes is leaving Hannity's show....but will still be on Fox as one of it's liberal commentators....

    Colmes a liberal ?!?!??!!!
  • Older_Wiser · 1 year ago
    Halperin is bad enough, but the rightwing is soliciting funds for the ads it's going to run praising Palin for "bringing us together." Christalmighty, these people really do want to dig a bigger hole, don't they?

    I'll see if I can find an article. It's so Aryan...
  • Older_Wiser · 1 year ago
    Guess they couldn't afford Markie-Boy...

    www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/11/22/palin-turkey-...

    And they want to ruin Thanksgiving football with this crap...
  • lpeggy · 1 year ago
    Please keep in mind that Halperin signed a six-figure book deal this year...the book in on the 2008 election. Big surprise! So when reading or listening to his commentary, please keep in mind, that he is speaking from a point of view that is very biased, and its in his best financial interest to keep drama going. Just call this the 'final chapter' in his book, called 'The Media was Mean to McCain'. :-)

    When he started listing his own TV appearances on his blogs "Political Appearances", right along with Bush, Obama, McCain, Biden and Palin, I knew he was buying his own hype.
  • Robert · 1 year ago
    Anyone who can't see the posing his claim represents has not been watching this guy for long. I think the comment "fumbling for relevance" below was spot on.
  • Dave of the Jungle · 1 year ago
    Aw, the poor putty cat fall down and hit his witto head.
  • Older_Wiser · 1 year ago
    Well, well, well, OT, but--NBC just reported that Citigroup will continue with its $400M deal for naming rights of the new Mets stadium; The US govt, thru AIG, will continue to sponsor Manchester United; but GM will not have any sponsorship of the Super Bowl.

    How much are taxpayers shelling out for this crap? Over a trillion?
  • cosanostradamus · 1 year ago
    .
    Sorry, but I just don't have time for "pundits," or whatever this guy is. See, my Party just won, and his Party is going to leave us an ungodly mess, so...

    Anyway, "halperin," isn't that a pain-reliever? Is that what he is for McSame?

    Fact is, McSame ran the worst damned campaign in recorded history. He chose Palin to try to snow the media, and her mouth blew up in his face. The American people started out in sympathy with the poor old POW. He personally alienated them, and worked hard at it, all by himself. He should get credit for that.

    Obama, on the other hand, ran the best campaign anyone has ever seen. He started out with three strikes against him, and hit a grand slam, bringing in runs in the House and the Senate. He did this with no help at all from the media. Try as they might, and boy did they try, they just couldn't trash him personally or professionally. Obama started out as a young black big-city "liberal" unknown, and won most of us over, with absolutely no help from the press.

    Remember Reverend Wright? The terrorist fist-bump? Salute-gate? That was the worst our tame corporate media could throw at him, repeated ad nauseum for months. And then there was the "can't win the white vote" nonsense, a constant drumbeat. The media were simply shocked senseless to see that nobody was listening to their racist corporatist propaganda this time. The economy was just too big an issue.

    McCain shot himself in the foot on that one, no help needed. Still, the media never asked him the tough questions. They never portrayed him or his pastor as "too radical for America," although they were, as it turns out. There was no terrorist fist-bump about drug-thief "c*nt" Cindy McCain, although there should have been. And, curiously, no pundits ever said that McBush just couldn't get the not-white vote, which is what actually killed his candidacy.

    So, like I said, who cares what the losers say about their failed efforts on the Repuke's behalf? They lost. We won. We've already moved on, and damned busy at it. Gotta go! Rotsa ruck, meme-vendors!

    Hey, let's not give these blithering corporate idiots any more free publicity, hunh?
    .
  • scottinsf · 1 year ago
    That.
  • publicsteele · 1 year ago
    It is very simple. If John McCain had said or done anything newsworthy rather than regurgitating ideology and campaigning only to his base he might have received more coverage. It is positively stupid to blame the media. Obama's entire campaign was newsworthy so it received tons of coverage.

    The Sarah Palin ploy received tons of coverage. The coverage wasn't positive because it was a political ploy and she is an idiot. That is no one's fault but McCain's. Puh-leeze.
  • tommytoonz · 1 year ago
    I agree with you 99%. However, the INITIAL coverage of Palin was overwhelmingly positive. It "came out of left field", "was a mavericky choice", "would rally the base", "she's attracting crowds of thousands rivaling Obamas" were all heard often in the first few weeks. It wasn't until she gave her FIRST interview that the media coverage became negative and then, as you correctly noted, it was because she's a blithering idiot that the coverage turned.
  • Mike_G · 1 year ago
    Yes. McCain got a big favorability boost after picking Palin. It only lasted a few days, but it was the only point in the last few months where he was actually leading Obama in the polls.

    The initial reporting on Palin was incredibly shallow and superficial -- Ooh, she's a woman! She's young and good-looking!

    But once the media got beyond her superficial packaging and realized she was a ditz even dumber than Bush or Quayle, the advantage faded.
  • LeftCoastOracle · 1 year ago
    So what's new? I mean you couldn't call Time Magazine a liberal bastion. Halperin has either pandered or been in the tank from the beginning so I'm not surprised at this.
  • Bush Bites · 1 year ago
    Halperin's basically another Dick Morris.
  • Bush Bites · 1 year ago
    I love it.

    The Democrats had a knock out, drag out primary fight and all the dirt was thrown, picked through and eventually dismissed.

    And the Republics are just beside themselves that the same dirt wasn't picked through all over again five months later in the general election.

    It doesn't work that way, Wingnuts.
  • jiminportlandoregon · 1 year ago
    I'm sorry, Mr. Halperin, about your anger over the left leaning media (what there is of it). Since I have read Time every week for years and years, I would like to say that I'm glad that all your ass kissing of McCain in nearly every column you wrote this year, did not help him on November 4th. I also never notice you complaining about Fox being slanted to the right. It's not fun to lose, is it? Too fucking bad!
  • Jimbo62 · 1 year ago
    He is a tool and has been for a long time. It's the same old typical MSM shortsightedness on itself. The reason Barack received more positive coverage is simple, he ran a more positive campaign and he was ahead in the polls for most of the election cycle. The MSM is so poll driven...it just makes sense that whoever is ahead in the polls will get more positive coverage, the old horse race mentality of the media. These same idiots that are poll driven are too stupid to realize they are poll driven and can't recognize it. The other reason Obama received more positive coverage is because he ran a good, clean campaign.....very few leaks, infighting and mistakes. McCain on the other hand.......geez, they couldn't have run a worse campaign to be honest.