The Washington Post’s Howie Kurtz claims that after more than a year of mostly glowing coverage, the media has gotten tougher on Democratic presidential frontrunner Barack Obama:
When the Illinois senator denounced his former pastor last week, it followed days of saturation coverage of Wright’s inflammatory, sometimes eccentric remarks. The press, which was slow to recognize the importance of the Wright controversy — videotapes of his sermons could have been purchased months earlier — was no longer willing to dismiss the reverend as a sideshow.
Still, says David Greenberg, a Rutgers University professor of journalism and history, the coverage could be far worse. For journalists, he says, “there has been a real infatuation with Obama that has served as almost an unconscious restraint” as many became “taken with the idea of demonstrating their tolerance and America’s tolerance by electing a black candidate.”
On April 25th, I noted that Obama had continued to get the same 62% positive coverage after the first eruption of the Rev. Jeremiah Wright, and that the subsequent coverage of Obama’s “clingy” comments had been far less than the Wright stuff. But I had only proxy data after March 22nd at that time — and the Rev. Wright went on another tear in the interim. Did that cause the establishment media to turn on Obama?
Not much. Looking at content analyses from Media Tenor (not part of the VRWC), it turns out that the week ending May 2nd was the first week in which Hillary Clinton got net positive coverage and Barack Obama got net negative coverage from the broadcast news nets:
Given that Clinton beat Obama in the Pennsylvania primary during the period, one might have expected Clinton would get good coverage. If you download the full report, you find that Obama’s relationship with Rev. Wright and his comments about small town Americans clinging to God and guns was indeed the largest topic of Obama’s coverage — but a mere 13.5% of that coverage was clearly negative.ÂÂ
The chart above also shows that while Obama got net negative coverage during the first two weeks of April, Clinton got worse coverage during that period. This was largely the result of the candidates attacking each other.
Moreover, contrary to the conventional wisdom, the full report further shows that McCain did not get net positive coverage in any week from March 31st through May 2nd.
Thus, Kurtz is arguably correct in the narrow sense that the media’s coverage of Obama has gotten tougher over the past few weeks, while Clinton got criticized less. But it is a stretch to say that the media has “jumped ship” from Obama to Clinton, given that there is only one week where Clinton got better coverage and she won a big primary that week.
Furthermore, while Kurtz refers to “days of saturation coverage of Wright’s inflammatory, sometimes eccentric remarks,” it did not happen on the CBS, NBC, ABC and FNC evening news. Indeed, among a broader set of media outlets, Wright was a significant or dominant factor in only 7% of the coverage from April 21st-27th. It is entirely possible that number could go up in the next PEJ Campaign Index, given the Media Tenor data. But even then, the PEJ index does not break down net negative or positive coverage.  The ombudsmen for the New York Times and PBS both found that their respective employers’ recent coverage of the Obama-Wright story was too soft.ÂÂ
In sum, between Kurtz and Prof. Greenberg, it appears that the professor has the stronger argument. Journalists (and others) in the tank for Obama may see their candidate as under siege, but the overall data does not support that assertion.
Update: Insta-lanche!
Comment by happyfeet on 5/5 @ 8:03 pm #
Oh. That reminds me. The NPR ombudstwat brings teh >a href=”http://www.npr.org/ombudsman/2008/04/is_obamas_pastor_antigay_1.html”>funny…
Blah blah blah… Could the ombudstwat manage to countenance that maybe the idiot NPR reporter had just conflated Wright with Donnie McClurkin? Nope. Stupefied she is.
Comment by Karl on 5/5 @ 8:06 pm #
It may also have been confuzzling that Wright and Obama basically take the same position as Jeff on gay marriage.
Comment by happyfeet on 5/5 @ 8:06 pm #
oh. teh funny
Comment by John D. Doyle on 5/5 @ 8:14 pm #
Couldn’t watch Chris Matthews or “Morning Joe” from 24/7 Wright coverage. But, that’s way too anecdotal for ol’ objective Karl, so let’s ask a Barrack fanboy:
Thanks to Sully
“From Fox News’ website yesterday 4/29/08:
Obama Rejects Wright Comments
Says pastor doesn’t speak for him, campaign
Democratic presidential candidate puts distance between his campaign and pastor’s latest statements
Special Report w/ Brit Hume:
Fact-checking one of the claims made by Rev. Jeremiah Wright
The O’Reilly Factor:
The comeback of Rev. Jeremiah Wright
Hannity & Colmes:
Huckabee’s Take
Former GOP presidential candidate weighs in on Rev. Wright; McCain’s campaign
VIDEO: FOX News contributor Michael Steele on the message of Rev. Wright’s media tour
OPINIONS: Susan Estrich: Who Needs Friends Like the Rev. Wright?
John Moody: Memo to Rev. Wright: Do Souls Have Colors?
On the Record w/ Greta:
Deadly Shark Attack
Expert explains what led to Great White’s attack on swimmer”
At least Greta has perspective.
Wow, Karl, seems you have a job when Satan finally calls Ailes home.
Comment by happyfeet on 5/5 @ 8:19 pm #
John, I don’t think it’s productive to keep rehashing Wright like that. Let it go. We just have to hope Baracky can get past it.
Comment by Enoch_Root - twp on 5/5 @ 8:26 pm #
Any kind of critique of O’Bama is clearly not hopey-changitudinous ==> it is the opposite ==> desperate status-quo-e-ness ==> white guy in White House ==> KKK ==> racist.
Must… prove… I … am… not… racist… cannot choose based on merit… must vote skin-deep… must validate tuition costs.
Comment by Christopher Taylor on 5/5 @ 8:38 pm #
Yes, but CNN has decided they won’t be talking about Wright any more because it’s not news now. Officially.
Comment by David R. Block on 5/5 @ 8:43 pm #
Doyle ==> Obvious Barack booster.
Comment by maggie katzen on 5/5 @ 8:58 pm #
ha ha,that’s hilarious JD Doyle “I reject your facts and replace them with my own”
Comment by maggie katzen on 5/5 @ 8:59 pm #
um, “my own anecdotes” data shmata.
Comment by ahem on 5/5 @ 9:05 pm #
…eccentric…?
Fuck that.
Comment by ahem on 5/5 @ 9:08 pm #
Incidentally, Karl, you’re doing a yeoman’s job on this election coverage. Bravo!
Comment by Karl on 5/5 @ 9:09 pm #
JDD commits a fallacy I have noted repeatedly in a number of contexts, which is that political junkies, and the even smaller group who read blogs, are not the typical media consumer. About two-thirds of the public still gets their news from the nets, while MSNBC was the 30th rated cable net in primetime in April. And I daresay fewer get their news from the FNC website than MSNBC’s cablecast. As noted in the intial post, if you’re in the tank for Obama, your perspective might be different, but it won’t be an accurate representation of what the vast majority of the public sees as news coverage.
Comment by Karl on 5/5 @ 9:11 pm #
Thanks, ahem.
Comment by JohnAnnArbor on 5/5 @ 10:49 pm #
Furthermore, while Kurtz refers to “days of saturation coverage of Wright’s inflammatory, sometimes eccentric remarks,†it did not happen on the CBS, NBC, ABC and FNC evening news.
And therein lies the risk for the Democrats. There are many people who will vote in November that either have not heard of Wright or only vaguely heard something. That’s a whole new “market” for the 527s to hit in October, informing them of the full idiocy and hate that is Rev. Wright and his “theology,” effectively for the first time.
Comment by thor on 5/6 @ 12:27 am #
Really, only 13.5% is merely clearly? The implied inverse is, obviously, that 86.5% of news coverage concerning Obama’s “clinging” statement and coverage of Rev. Wright was not “clearly” negative, which I believe is an obvious misinterpretation of data that you, Karl, are using to insult my calculating intuitive nature.
What criteria was used to delineate between the events believed simply “negative” from “clearly negative.” I don’t believe the two events to be easily defined into mutually exclusive events, so please, show me how that’s done. What was the % deemed “positive” news coverage and the % seen as “clearly positive”? And, again, what criteria was used to assign positive integer values so as to delineate these events. This looks like Bayes Theorem Tom Foolery wherein muddy subjectivity clouds the “clearly”. Much laughable propaganda can be derived from a clown attempting to hide behind the stat functions of his TI 84 graphics calculator. Shit, come to think of it, for a little Bayes Theorem clowning you don’t even need a calculator.
I’m going to Obamafy you, Karl. I reject and denounce your statement. Bring the
funkdata if you dare.Comment by alppuccino on 5/6 @ 12:44 am #
What if needy were a turn-on?
Comment by Karl on 5/6 @ 1:03 am #
thor,
I brought the data. God forbid you should actually download the report and read it yourself, as opposed to intuiting things. The numbers and the methodology are explained in some detail. However, I’ll throw you an extra number: The total coverage of Wright/cling in that final week amounted to 16.5% of Obama’s coverage. So even if we assumed — totally contrary to the report — that every story mentioning the topic was 100% negative — we are talking about 16.5% of Obama’s coverage that week.
Comment by Karl on 5/6 @ 1:05 am #
al,
Albert Brooks is the man, even when he’s reading James L. Brooks.
Comment by thor on 5/6 @ 1:54 am #
You wouldn’t know good data if it mounted your dog. Rev. Wright spoke before the NAACP on the 27th of April. That’s when the thrust of the negative news cycle began on him. Look at a calender, dopey bar graph boy. Basics of statistical math might help you avoid being so easily duped to dopey conclusions, then again, you can’t even figure out a calender.
If you see nothing askew in their “thematic aspect” evaluation the you, as I’ve always suspected, are nothing more than a useful idiot.
Comment by Karl on 5/6 @ 2:08 am #
thor,
The Media Tenor data — including that aforementioned 16.5% — is in the week ending May 2nd (as opposed to the lagging PEJ data, for which I specifically added that caveat). That makes you the one who has difficulty with a calendar.
Comment by thor on 5/6 @ 3:18 am #
Uh no, it means your cited data doesn’t support your conclusions.
You’re a chucklehead whose bitter clinging caveat is, well, um, duh, but “not much!”
Alp was wrong about Obama, you are the IQ test.
Comment by datadave on 5/6 @ 5:08 am #
I am with thor on this one. Any coverage of Reverend Wright is negative. 100 percent. So saying it’s “positive” is biiiggg stretch. How one can say Obama’s racialness is a positive other than he brings a certain “healing” of the racial wounds of America. (a major plus that last one, admittedly).
Now, bringing back the 60’s counterculture (ayers connection) might not work this time. But we know the Repugs are out in force on that one. Barack, the Terrorist Lover! Sort of doesn’t wash.
Thor, you might win this bet! Still I think it’s a long shot. Obama, US President would be a major groundbreaking event and worthy of pursuit just to see that cute little family in the White House. Botox Cindy or more Clintons? Maybe Americans are starting to think for a change.
Comment by JD on 5/6 @ 5:22 am #
I just voted for Hillary. I puked a lot in the back of my mouth.
Comment by datadave on 5/6 @ 5:27 am #
that’s sad, JD. Following Rush Limbaugh’s advice like that. Anybody’d choke on Limbaugh’s limburger for sure. No wonder that guy can’t keep a wife.
Comment by thor on 5/6 @ 5:28 am #
No shit, DD. I think I want to see Obama win just to witness the froth boil.
Sean Hannity’s hair helmet would fro from fright. What if Condi Rice endorsed the O-man? They’d bum rush the Supreme Court to reverse Brown vs The Board of Education.
Comment by datadave on 5/6 @ 5:30 am #
c’ya, JD “breaking away” to work to meet the plumber. ciao.
Comment by alppuccino on 5/6 @ 5:36 am #
No wonder that guy can’t keep a wife.
Have you convinced your latest girlfriend to marry you yet dave?
Comment by JD on 5/6 @ 5:41 am #
dataidiot asserts that Baracky brings some type of racial healing. This is a common talking point of the Left, but there is nothing he has done that supports that notion. The corollary is that Baracky somehow bridges the partisan gap and brings people together.
Comment by nishizonoshinji on 5/6 @ 5:45 am #
here’s a pretty awesome piece on pollster sampling bias.
538 is teh uber.
Comment by JD on 5/6 @ 5:47 am #
Yes, dataless. I can only act upon orders from Rush and Hannity. I am incapable of independent thought. Your memes, they are tired. Have not listened to Rush in prolly a decade, and do not like Hannity. So again, it looks like you are just making shit up. Typical dishonest Dem.
Comment by nishizonoshinji on 5/6 @ 5:50 am #
Obama will be the candidate. I predict May 20 is the shutdown for HRC.
One reason is that the repubs keep trying to push her.
That has to be settin off alarm signals for the superdels.
Theocons have no strategy….too dumb to be subversive.
Comment by JD on 5/6 @ 5:52 am #
A thread with thor, dataless, and nishitiot is like watching Larry, Moe, and Curly, except not really funny.
Comment by B Moe on 5/6 @ 5:52 am #
Michelle Obama lifted the lid on the irritation felt by the leading Democrat candidate for the White House at the way anti-American outbursts by his pastor, Jeremiah Wright, have dogged his campaign.
…
Mrs Obama told a rally in Durham, North Carolina, on Friday that only her husband’s desire to change US politics had helped him to control his feelings: “Barack is always thinking three steps ahead – what do we need to do to make change.”
He will face many trials, on His way to the Promised Land.
He is said to be itching to turn all his fire on John McCain, the Republican candidate, who is benefiting most from Mr Obama’s protracted tussle with Hillary Clinton.
Woe be unto the unfaithful, who shall tremble in His glare!
James Pickens is typical of those who have been inspired by the black senator from Illinois. A reformed crack cocaine dealer, he is now peddling Obama T-shirts.
Mr Pickens, 50, has served three prison terms totalling 13 years, but vowed to change his ways after hearing Mr Obama speak.
He said: “I never voted for a president before. He’s for change, which is something I need in my life. Until recently I was selling drugs, and now I’m selling T-shirts.”
He is healing the sick and afflicted, people, how long can it be before He walks on the water?
http://tinyurl.com/42uanb
Comment by nishizonoshinji on 5/6 @ 5:53 am #
and too dumb to be subtle.
;)
Comment by JD on 5/6 @ 5:58 am #
nisitiot – Those voices in your head, tis better to ignore them.
THEOCONS !!!! BOO !
Comment by B Moe on 5/6 @ 5:59 am #
Limbaugh doesn’t give a rat’s ass who wins the Dems primary. He is “pushing” Hill because she is the underdog, and keeping her in the race, thereby prolonging the race, hurts the Dems. If her and Obamas positions were reversed he would be advocating voting for Obama. The longer and bloodier the race gets the more the Dems true nature comes out. That is not good for them.
Comment by JD on 5/6 @ 6:09 am #
After 2 weeks of endless Baracky ads, I learned that Hillary is mean, Baracky brings hope for change, and that both think taxing the holy hell out of corporations will lower gas prices. This last 2 weeks was an object lesson in misery pimping. The Baracky people that kept knocking on my door were fun. I told them that I would listen if they refrained from saying the words hope, change, and corporation. They had norhing.
Comment by N. O'Brain on 5/6 @ 6:17 am #
“Now, bringing back the 60’s counterculture (ayers connection) might not work this time. But we know the Repugs are out in force on that one. Barack, the Terrorist Lover! Sort of doesn’t wash.”
Except that you’d have to wash the American flag after your favorite America hating terrorist thug gets done with it:
http://marathonpundit.blogspot.com/2008/05/bill-ayers-stepping-on-us-flag-in-2001.html
Yeah, I said terrorist. And thug.
Comment by N. O'Brain on 5/6 @ 6:21 am #
“Comment by nishizonoshinji on 5/6 @ 5:53 am #
and too dumb to be subtle.”
Hmm, she sees the light.
Faintly.
Comment by nishizonoshinji on 5/6 @ 6:29 am #
the 538 site i linked also explains why there is pollster bias in the rcp averages.
it is a very good read.
he has a neat graphic where you can adjust the predicted results by moving black turnout in NC up or down.
Comment by nishizonoshinji on 5/6 @ 6:37 am #
like i tole serr8D at the pub, visual of wright or ayers is just not as effective on visual cortex for negatives for Obama.
because Obama isn’t in the picture.
however, even serr8D’s hitlerhappyface photoshop still gets the attractive family young children meme out there.
it is a secret weapon, the same one message that JFK’s attractive young family sent.
Comment by Slartibartfast on 5/6 @ 7:29 am #
Dave, you would beshit one of the greatest movies of all time, wouldn’t you?
Comment by jdm on 5/6 @ 8:34 am #
Good gravy… now there’s three Obama acolytes here. What are they? Making a nest?
Comment by nishizonoshinji on 5/6 @ 9:11 am #
im an Obamotaku, jdm.
perhaps it is just a vote against old white men. still, from a defense/nat’l security standpoint, the clintons are absolutely toxic for America.
may i remind you all that Bill gave lil Kim the 2 lightwater reactors that form the basis for North Koreas weaponized uranium.
in any given situ, the clintons are incapable of putting the interests of our country over their personal interests.
Comment by Seymour Skinner on 5/6 @ 9:12 am #
Yes, JD, you don’t get the hopey changey thing, because you are a Republican. Hello. Unity by voting for a Democrat?
Now, if Barack were Republican we’d never get tired of hearing how wonderful he is….
oh, hold it, McCain tries to bring the parties together. He championed bi-partisan reform of election financing, immigration, and was instrumental in the “Gang of 14″, but you hate McCain.
I got it, you’re an ass who doesn’t care at all about bringing anyone together at any time. You should really listen to Limbaugh. Karl does. Limbaugh’s your kind of guy.
Comment by Karl on 5/6 @ 9:13 am #
For most people, that “saturation coverage” of Wright was 16.5% of what they heard about Obama. Rather than own up that he made a complete fool of himself in comment 20 about the calendar, he pretends it never happened.
A reading of the full report shows Obama’s margin of negatve coverage in that last week was marginal. Indeed, if you look at the bar chart above, you can see he got a lower percentage of negative coverage in that last week than he did the week before, and barely more negative coverage than Clinton. The only difference is that Clinton got more positive coverage in the final week — because she won a big primary. A siege that is not.
Comment by Karl on 5/6 @ 9:15 am #
Skinner,
I’m not a McCain fan, but I would put his record of working across the aisle up against Obama’s before I went around touting O’s unfyingness.
Comment by Karl on 5/6 @ 9:16 am #
the mask slips
lulz
Comment by Karl on 5/6 @ 9:19 am #
BTW, the hand-wringing about Wright by thor, dd, nishi also seems to be premised on the idea that he’s not a legit issue, though Obama has admitted that he is. So to expect the media to be more in the tank for Obama than Obama is probably a wee bit detached from reality.
Comment by TmjUtah on 5/6 @ 9:21 am #
McCain’s tendency to promote nanny-state / Liberal agendas is why Republicans, and especially conservatives, are just chuck full of “meh” where Teh Maverick is concerned.
I see very little political difference between Hillary! and McCain, what with the Dem majorities he will face.
I will not cast a vote for president if Hillary is the Dem nominee. If she should win, her party will be a more effective brake on her than they ever would on McCain.
Comment by Karl on 5/6 @ 10:24 am #
nishi,
As for poblano at the 538 site, you might want to take a look at the overall track record. Although I have suggested that Obama will likely do better in NC than the RCP avg, poblano’s regression models have been guilty of overfitting in the past.
Comment by M. Simon on 5/6 @ 10:31 am #
John, I don’t think it’s productive to keep rehashing Wright like that. Let it go. We just have to hope Baracky can get past it.
I was for TUCC before I was against it.
Meet the new pastor. Same as the old pastor.
If it weren’t for Black Enslavement Theology what kind of support would I really have?
I owe my political career to whipping up resentment. You think I’m going to quit now?
Comment by JD on 5/6 @ 10:34 am #
Wow – That skinflute dude did not like me. Oh, heavens, what will I ever do? At least we know that the Dems idea only extends to the boundaries of their party. Unity! Baracky only has a slightly over 50 percent rating amongst Dems in the polls that actually count. Not very unifying.
Comment by Thomass on 5/6 @ 10:50 am #
Comment by datadave on 5/6 @ 5:08 am #
“I am with thor on this one. Any coverage of Reverend Wright is negative. 100 percent. So saying it’s “positive†is biiiggg stretch.”
Not really. Check out the news coverage of it in… say.. the NYTimes. They just talk about a controversy without specifics. If your in the tank, your going to walk away thinking the noise machine is up to something bad vs being burdened with any actual Wright quotes (they’re all of out of context anyway from the Times reporter’s POV anyway)….
Comment by AntonK on 5/6 @ 11:09 am #
Yes, I believe it is a myth too, and a myth with a purpose. It helps Obama overcome Hillary’s surge, by concentrating the minds of those who are instinctually Obama supporters, but may be wavering…
Comment by Christopher Taylor on 5/6 @ 11:10 am #
I actually think Limbaugh would prefer Senator Clinton be the Democratic candidate, but that’s not what’s driving Operation Chaos. The funny thing is how difficult a time the left is having figuring out what it is, when he’s said rather openly several times what it is all about. I don’t happen to agree with what he’s doing but it’s funny to watch.
Comment by Karl on 5/6 @ 11:41 am #
Thomass,
The partial-negative issue goes beyond that, too. Obama did a presser to help himself, which was covered (even the Obamatons cannot complain about those stories) and there have been follow-up stories, e.g., polls purporting to show how many people think Obama did well with the presser, what little impact Wright has had, etc.
Comment by maggie katzen on 5/6 @ 12:42 pm #
unless of course it requires showing up in the Senate and voting.
Pingback by Pajamas Media » Drunkblogging North Carolina & Indiana on 5/6 @ 1:05 pm #
[...] tough has the MSM gotten with Obama? Meh, not very, reports Karl at Protein Wisdom: Given that Clinton beat Obama in the Pennsylvania primary during [...]
Comment by BJTexs TW/BP on 5/6 @ 1:10 pm #
Just a quick review of some of Obama’s endorsements/important influences:
Frank Marshall Davis: Obama’s childhood communist poetry reader
Sam Graham-Felsen: Obama’s blogger, avowed socialist and contributor to “The Socialist Viewpoint”
Tim Wheeler: National Board Member, C.P.USA and former Editor of People’s Weekly World. His Obama Blog is still up.
Marxists/Socialists/Communists for Obama: Blog Still up.
Not to mention: Bernie Sanders, William Ayres, Bernadette Dohrn, Fidel Castro, Hugo Chavez, Daniel Ortega, FARC, Saul Alinsky, Raila Amolo Odinga
Ya know, for a candidate that thor insists isn’t a pseudo Marxist he sure is getting lots of props from lots of Socialist/Marxists. I realise the problems with guilt by association but there is also something to “the company you keep.”
Quack, Quack!
Comment by BJTexs TW/BP on 5/6 @ 1:11 pm #
Must.Close.HTML.Tags.
Comment by nishizonoshinji on 5/6 @ 2:26 pm #
well see, huh Karl?
tonight.
poblano was better on penn than everyone else.
and the blackvote turnout model is way slick.
i like the idea of weighting individual pollsters in the average.
accounts for some sample bias or experimental design bias that carries up into the average from the individual pollsters.
Comment by nishizonoshinji on 5/6 @ 2:30 pm #
why can’t i be prejudiced against old white men presidents?
my apriori isnt good on them.
and i haven’t ever experienced anything else.
Comment by Christopher Taylor on 5/6 @ 2:30 pm #
We need change!! Back to the Carter years. Seems like every politician runs on change and ends up the same as the guys before him. But this one is different, right? ;)
Comment by nishizonoshinji on 5/6 @ 2:35 pm #
well….carter was an old white guy, right?
Comment by Mikey NTH on 5/6 @ 3:18 pm #
Back then he was the younger white guy. He’s old now.
Comment by Karl on 5/6 @ 3:21 pm #
Which of your problems with them are inherently attributable to age or race?
Comment by happyfeet on 5/6 @ 5:59 pm #
Mr. Green noticed your work over at PJM. At like 12:04. You’re getting like really famous.
Comment by Christopher Taylor on 5/6 @ 6:05 pm #
What’s truly sad is that for too many people “he looks different” means change instead of “his policies, ideas, and plans are different.” That’s the difference between an intellectual child and an adult.
Comment by nishizonoshinji on 5/6 @ 6:48 pm #
poblano nailed NC i think Karl.
Comment by nishizonoshinji on 5/6 @ 6:49 pm #
538 said 14-15 points.
Comment by MayBee on 5/6 @ 6:58 pm #
well….carter was an old white guy, right?
Jimmy Carter was 54 when he was elected. That’s 7 years older than Obama will be if he’s elected.
Comment by nishizonoshinji on 5/6 @ 7:12 pm #
old white guy.
;)
Comment by nishizonoshinji on 5/6 @ 7:18 pm #
erm..i disagree with green…8 points isnt a blowout.
HRC only got doubledigits in penn by rounding UP.
i think it was 9.4 actually.
Comment by MayBee on 5/6 @ 7:23 pm #
Don’t you want to live forever or something, nishi?
Comment by maggie katzen on 5/6 @ 7:23 pm #
MayBee, please, I’M BEGGING YOU!!!! don’t go there.
Comment by nishizonoshinji on 5/6 @ 7:25 pm #
well Christopher Taylor who do you suggest i vote for?
HRC is absolutely toxic for this country, and McCain is like, really really old. He keeps saying dumb things.
It looks an awful lot like shortterm memory loss to me.
People in my demographic, young, over-educated, we are gonna vote for O.
20yrs of church is just irrelevent to us. so are old hippie weatherppl.
This all you conservos fault for not putting up a decent candidate.
Comment by nishizonoshinji on 5/6 @ 7:26 pm #
i do….ima transhumanist.
we wont be old tho.
;)
Comment by nishizonoshinji on 5/6 @ 7:30 pm #
do you want to actually know about Kurzweils bridges or you just lookin to mock me?
t’other day i said i wished Ramesh Ponnuru’s children had to go to BYU or Oral Roberts and he said he wished i could read.
;)
i said, oh yeah? i read your dumb book just fine.
i said, we are sworn enemies.
ima transhumanist and you are a theocon.
like cats and dogs.
;)
Comment by maggie katzen on 5/6 @ 7:31 pm #
I mean, it’s like conversations with my grandmother, the one that still knows who anyone is. Oh, that plane trip from Panama to that tiny island was scary was it? yes, and it was going to be stormy soon.
Comment by nishizonoshinji on 5/6 @ 7:35 pm #
yah, maggie..mccain is exactly like that.
/giggles
Comment by MayBee on 5/6 @ 7:35 pm #
I was just wondering how 54 can sound old to someone that wants to live forever.
(sorry, maggie)
Comment by maggie katzen on 5/6 @ 7:38 pm #
actually, no, it’s you nishi. THEOCONs!!!!ZOMG!@!!!
go play in traffic.
Comment by RTO Trainer on 5/6 @ 7:40 pm #
tut tut
Comment by maggie katzen on 5/6 @ 7:41 pm #
sowwy, the crankiness. it is spreading. btw, had popcorn chicken burrito and popcorn for dinner. DAMN YOU DELL!!!!
Comment by happyfeet on 5/6 @ 7:44 pm #
Ramesh Ponnuru is a strange man.
Comment by MayBee on 5/6 @ 7:46 pm #
Ramesh Ponnuru is a strange man.
You really don’t have to be all that strange to doubt nishi’s reading comprehension skills, though.
Comment by RTO Trainer on 5/6 @ 7:51 pm #
Ach
There’s power in names, even in making references. Similarly, by avoidng names and references, some things can be made to go away.
Comment by happyfeet on 5/6 @ 7:53 pm #
But she’s nishi. Ramesh has a thought-leader platform. It makes me nervous that Team R thinks it has so many platforms they can just sprinkle them about willy nilly like that. I mean, gack. I’d be unemployed if I was that stupid and it was all documented like that.
Comment by nishizonoshinji on 5/6 @ 8:07 pm #
well…i think anyone that actually wants to die is strange.
Comment by nishizonoshinji on 5/6 @ 8:10 pm #
i mean……like Leon Kass and the bioluddites, they think we should just get old and die a cuz Aubrey de Grey and Kurzweil bridges and lifehacking is “unnatural”.
Christopher, im willin to entertain an alternative vote.
but u are silent.
Comment by Mikey NTH on 5/6 @ 8:13 pm #
makoto, you are your own demographic.
Comment by MayBee on 5/6 @ 8:13 pm #
Mostly, I’m just thinking that when you are like 1,000 years old you are going to look back and see that 56 and 72 were just numbers.
Maybe McCain isn’t releasing his medical records because he’s already starting down the transhuman path. That would explain a lot.
Comment by happyfeet on 5/6 @ 8:13 pm #
It’s ok to die I think. Least there are bigger deals anyway.
Comment by nishizonoshinji on 5/6 @ 8:21 pm #
hehe, robomccain.
he’d make a good cyborg i think.
we arent there yet tho…can’t grow new neurons.
:(
Comment by nishizonoshinji on 5/6 @ 8:23 pm #
no feets, taint ok to die.
we only usta hve have to die so the species can evolve.
death rockx and evolution rolls.
we just need to get control of our genome.
Comment by happyfeet on 5/6 @ 8:27 pm #
Yeah, well. Ok. But we’re really gonna have to ferret out that procrastination gene or this whole eternity thing is gonna be teh suck.
Comment by nishizonoshinji on 5/6 @ 8:28 pm #
i think dr. reynolds misses jeff too.
Comment by happyfeet on 5/6 @ 8:30 pm #
I miss him more than tamales.
Comment by B Moe on 5/6 @ 8:30 pm #
Man, if you could live forever, think about how much better chance you would have of hitting the lottery!
Comment by happyfeet on 5/6 @ 8:32 pm #
The miracle of compound interest. Jeepers.
Comment by nishizonoshinji on 5/6 @ 8:38 pm #
B Moes, probability has no memory.
that is what they taught us in school.
:)
Comment by B Moe on 5/6 @ 8:40 pm #
Eternity could definitely be inflationary.
Also gonna be hard on menial labor, I’ll bet cleaning bathrooms would just about suck after a couple hundred years.
Comment by nishizonoshinji on 5/6 @ 8:41 pm #
well..one thing.
Comment by B Moe on 5/6 @ 8:42 pm #
It was a joke, nishi. A play on my thoughts about eternal life.
Comment by nishizonoshinji on 5/6 @ 8:50 pm #
oh
sowwy.
;)
Pingback by The proggosphere tries to mau-mau the MSM into even more pro-Obama coverage [Karl] on 7/10 @ 8:36 am #
[...] problem with this claim is that — as noted here again and again and again and again (and then some) — Barack Obama has consistently enjoyed a [...]