Why aren't McCain's gaffes getting much coverage?

I think this is kind of the case.

McCain is (apparently) so uninteresting, that nobody is even paying attention to his gaffes.

 

http://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/editorial_opinion/oped/articles/2008/07/20/the_audacity_of_ego/?p1=Well_MostPop_Emailed2

 

Barack Obama's Butterfly Effect
July 20, 2008 4:45 PM

Today on CBS's Face the Nation, Sen. Barack Obama, D-Ill., in Afghanistan, told the paparazzi-pursued correspondent Lara Logan that "the objective of this trip was to have substantive discussions with people like President Karzai or Prime Minister Maliki or President Sarkozy or others who I expect to be dealing with over the next eight to 10 years.

"And it's important for me to have a relationship with them early, that I start listening to them now, getting a sense of what their interests and concerns are."

The notion that Obama will be dealing with world leaders for eighjt-to-ten years, possibly up through July 2018, suggests that either (a) he believes that not only will he be elected and re-elected, but the 22nd amendment will be repealed and he will be elected for a third term, OR (b) he was speaking casually and just meant two terms.

(I'm guessing b.)

There is a term in chaos theory describing the how infinitesmal variations of the initial condition of a dynamical system may produce large variations in the long term behavior of the system.

Most of us are more familiar with the more common name for it: the butterfly effect.

The butterfly effect was introduced in Ray Bradbury's 1952 short story "A Sound of Thunder," when time travelers change the world beyond measure by accidentally killing a butterfly in prehistoric times.

Similarly, international diplomacy can be impacted by careless or glibly-chosen words. (Cue President Bush's "crusade" remarks.)

Some Democratic allies of Obama's are -- off the record -- concerned that the senator too often doesn't consider the potential butterfly effect of his diction.

Take his support for an "undivided Jerusalem," or his remarks about women seeking abortions when they're "feeling blue," which upset feminist leaders.

Or the media kerfuffle after his "refine my policies" presser.

On his press plane on July 5, after that incident, Obama said, "I’m surprised at how finely calibrated every single word was measured."

A reporter noted that that is precisely what happens with the president, he can change world affairs with one word, finely calibrating your words is what happens.

"Well, of course, no, I understand," Obama said. "But for me to say that I’m going to refine my policies, you know, I don’t think in anyway is inconsistent with prior statements and doesn’t change my strategic view that this war has to end and that I am going to end it as president."

This week Obama will have his words picked apart like never before, and it will be an international audience of not just opponents but actual enemies.

They will be watching and waiting to see if he kills any butterflies.

- jpt

 

Shit, you should have seen my office that dark November day when Kerry lost to Bush Jr. It was like a fucking wake. Honest to God, I remember riding down the elevators with two news side reporters who looked like they were about to cry.

That was the day I finally began to believe in "lib-ruhl media bias." I don't believe the "lib-ruhl" media intentionally displays that bias ... but you'd have to be naive to think it doesn't slip in there some of the time.

 

But the problem is maybe they are aware of it, and so they go too far in the other direction.

McCain's fuckups have got to be covered.

 

Here's another phenomenon. We are who we think we are and there's no way those thoughts don't at some point affect our work, our choices, even our spending. Thus, a conservative can't for a long time anyway be a liberal writer without becoming terribly unhappy or dumping their conscience and values. Which makes them a lesser person anyway. Authenticity is a huge part of a good character.

 

Just because you believe that X candidate is better than Y candidate does not automatically make you biased.

I doubt many newspaper staffs were disappointed when Reagan beat Mondale or when Bush41 beat Dukakis.

 

But only if it won't interfere with Obama's air time.

 

When it's a foregone conclusion, it's usually a little easier to take.

 

I see a lot negative stuff in newspapers about Obama, but I'm just not seeing how this means the media is bias in his favor.

Or someone can do their job and just report on what is happening. It isn't disingenuous to write about what happens without inserting an opinion.

 

You have posted story after story that was in the newspaper taking Obama to task.

Where is the bias in favor of Obama?

 

For you, that's quite a challenge for you since you have righteous expert opinions on everything.