Forum Index
»
Political Discussion
Funny how DJIA is tanking again after Obama elected
![[Post New]](/jforum/templates/default/images/icon_minipost_new.gif){kind=icon}
Anonymous
|
It's the economy, stupid.
Even if you think it is really the market's perception of Obama, the market has been wrong for the last year. It ran up to 14,000 on essentially the same environment, right up until the credit markets exploded. |
Anonymous
| OP here. For those of you that may have missed it, my post was trying to make a point about how Bush and the Republicans are blamed for everything yet Obama is a golden boy immune from criticism. We'll see how long that lasts. A PP hit the nail on the head with the probable headline had McCain been elected. I am well versed in why the markets are doing what they are doing. |
Anonymous
| If only you were as intelligent as you thought you were! |
Anonymous
| I completely agree with OP's view on the MSM. I voted for Obama, and would vote for him again because of the incredible role model he is and statement he makes to the world. However, I think the MSM maligned McCain and Palin from the start. They never had a chance up against the once-in-a-lifetime story of the first African-American president. |
Anonymous
| I agree with PP about the press, at least to the extent that they run hot and cold on this candidate or that one. They loved McCain in 2000, and acted like a jilted girlfriend when he did not behave the same way in 2008. But I think they also ran cold on Obama for a while, after SNL took a dig at their fawning. |
Anonymous
Clearly I'm smarter than you. |
Anonymous
Well, then they should not have attacked the MSM during the RNC. Or was it at the other rally events following the RNC? What do you expect? |
Anonymous
And I bet your dad could whip his/hers! |
Anonymous
|
Hey op, do you think the DJIA tanked in anticipation of the unemployment report? It's at an all-time 14 year high of 6.5%.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/11/07/AR2008110701246.html?hpid=topnews |
Anonymous
You sound like a very open-minded person. I appreciated reading your remarks. |
Anonymous
|
http://finance.yahoo.com/expert/article/futureinvest/3022
if history has anything to say about it, markets will again do better under democratic leadership than under republican.. |
Anonymous
Only because he opposed GWB - let's be honest. The 2000 McCain love-fest was anti-Bush, not pro-McCain. After SNL, the 'cold' lasted exactly 10 minutes! Many, too many in my view (but opinions are like a$$ holes, everyone has one!), in the MSM totally agree with Chris Matthews - their job is to make Obama a success. (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/11/06/chris-matthews-i-want-to_n_141768.html) Can anyone point to a time when media totally favored a leader and did not challenge him/her when the outcome was GOOD? I cannot - without an opposition life gets a little scary to me! (I am not a scared Republican, at least not until or unless talk radio is silenced. I believe that changes in the balance of party power are healthy in a democracy.) |
Anonymous
|
The bottom line is that pretty much every attack on Obama got coverage by MSM. None of it stuck, because frankly, none of it was very bad. if it is, history will judge.
There were plenty of attacks on Palin that went nowhere and were dropped by the press because they were without merit. And certainly McCain got off easy regarding Keating, which was a real story but an old one. If you had to point to one major failure of MSM in the last ten years, it was not that they supported liberals. It was that they did not investigate the evidence that led us to the war in Iraq. Criticism of the war was considered unpatriotic, upsetting to advertisers and viewers, and threatening to the reporters who saw the war as an opportunity to make a name for themselves. |
Anonymous
|
Great post PP. The old "mainstream media" bogeyman is a tired right-wing trick. Sure more members of the media probably tilt left themselves -- most thinking people do actually -- and it comes back to the very nature of journalism -- it's a job for idealists, skeptics and people who don't care about being rich. And I don't mean that as a dig, it's just true.
However, often I see the media bending over backwards to "correct" any personal biases they may have. And look who unearthed most of the dirt on Bill Clinton -- the dreaded "mainstream" media. And look at the Vicki Iseman story -- the NYT wasn't even going to run that -- and no one else went with it even though it was very damaging stuff. He's doing this lobbyist who has interests before the committee. The media reported every gaffe of Obama's (and to his credit, there weren't many) and of Biden's. Check out who breaks that stuff. The GOP are masters at gaming the ref -- you complain enough and make such a stink that you've intimidated him and convinced him he's unfair and thus, the calls start coming your way. Oldest trick in the book. |
Anonymous
| The Post's Ombudsman has agreed that its coverage of this campaign tilted heavily in favor of Obama. |