If you'll recall, I said: "In 2008, when Obama was running for office, which is why the conventional wisdom was that Obama needed to pick a vice president who would confer gravitas on his campaign."
Originally Posted by JohnLocke
From NPR, discussing Jim Webb as a possible VP pick:
And he fills in Obama's perceived lack of foreign policy expertise and gravitas.
From The Wall Street Journal two days after Obama picked Biden:
When the Washington Post two days later asked a group of "political experts" for their thoughts on Mr. Biden, the superlatives were flowing. These descriptions included "unassailable foreign policy credentials," "good-natured, serious, and truly qualified," "the political maturity and foreign policy gravitas [Obama] lacks," and so on.
My reply was that the link you posted did not say anything of the frequency of the MSM's uses of the term "right wing" in comparison to "left wing," leading me to believe that you made the 150:1 ratio up.
Exactly! They pulled out the word gravitas specially for W. And what was your reply to the frequency the MSM uses the term "right wing" in comparison to "left wing?
What evidence? The "precedent" to Clinton's impeachment from the year 2009? That evidence?
What was your reply to the MSM treating the facts justifying Clinton's impeachment EQUAL to opinion in defense? Oh yea, just ignore evidence that violates your confirmation bias.
In any case, I reject your characterization that that is what happened. Or, more to the point, much of what was being debated were differing legal opinions, which was perfectly appropriate. And obviously, since you cannot separate an impeachment of a president from politics, that was a perfectly fair topic to explore.
I guess that would still be you, since Maureen Dowd is unquestionably an opinion columnist.
Click on this link: http://www.nytimes.com/2012/06/03/op...rssnyt&emc=rss
And you'll find the words "The Opinion Pages" over Maureen Dowd's column.
What's more interesting than your inability to distinguish a news article from an opinion piece, though, is your inability to realize that while, yes, Dowd did use the word "lame" in reference to Romney… she did so in the context of a piece that was extremely critical of Obama. Two pages of criticizing Obama and all you notice is one negative word about Romney (in a sentence where she actually agrees with him). Clearly, your confirmation bias has entered Stage 4.
Maureen Dowd has referred to Obama as "effete," "the diffident debutante" and "America's pretty boy" and in 2008 repeatedly derided him as "Obambi."
Great! I look forward to examples of the MSM referring to a Democratic nominee as lame and worse.
Of Al Gore she once said: "Al Gore is so feminized and diversified and ecologically correct that he's practically lactating."
And on August 27, 2004, Maureen Dowd was interviewed on Letterman and the following exchange took place:
LETTERMAN: Just tell me your thoughts generally about the Democratic candidate. What about John Kerry? What comes to your mind there?
. I think, uh, [laughs] very, very lame
So I have now shown that Maureen Dowd herself has not only called Democratic candidates things as bad, or worse, than "lame," she also used the word "lame" to refer to a Democratic candidate. I have successfully answered your challenge. And your response to this will say a lot about your integrity.