WSJ comes down hard on Obama

[MODU]

This is a fairly harsh:

"Why Obama Can't Close the Sale"

Even before John McCain shook up the presidential race by tapping Gov. Sarah Palin to be his running mate, polls weren't showing the late-August lead that Barack Obama (and many Republicans) expected. Why so?

It's not because of the brilliance of the McCain campaign. Rather we believe that -- despite the media's best efforts to exempt Mr. Obama's policies from critical examination -- American voters aren't sheep. They pay attention to the candidates and positions and make wise decisions about who should lead the country.

True, Mr. Obama enjoys several advantages. Republicans are struggling nationwide in head-to-head contests. Democrats lead in voter registration, and have a well-funded presidential candidate.

Yet Americans have not committed to Mr. Obama. Why?

(Cont...)

[Grumpier Than Uncle Joe]

Its just a redux of the question asked during the primaries when he had plenty of chances to put Hillary away and did not.

[Beet]

What would be the WSJ's definition of "closing the deal"? A 15- point lead in the polls? Certainly that would be nice for Obama... but it can't be expected. McCain is a strong candidate.

[TomC]

Why is the guy leading not leading by more?

And McCain has hit 50% in which of the tracking polls?

If this were reversed the question would be: why are Dems so panicked?

[MODU]

What would be the WSJ's definition of "closing the deal"? A 15- point lead in the polls? Certainly that would be nice for Obama... but it can't be expected. McCain is a strong candidate.

Taking the position that this should be a run-away election for the Democrats, I would say they were looking for a solid 5-10% lead heading into their own convention, rather than being statistically tied with McCain.

[elcorazon]

the WSJ is about as unbiased as Keith Olbermann, who by the way, was really pissing me off last night when he tried to make big issues about a couple of really minor points in Lieberman and Thompson's speeches.  I wish he'd go away, frankly.

[NDN]

I don't have much confidence in Obama, obviously. That extends to certain economic issues too. However, this article is a bit of a joke. Basically their whole argument boils down to 'VOTERS KNOW TAX AND SPEND LIBERALS LIEK OBAMA WILL RUIN TEH ECONOMY111' Which ignores that polls show that the vast majority of Americans actually do prefer the Democrats on issues like Healthcare, the economy, etc. The only area that Obama is really suffering in issue wise is national security, and because of McCain's background more so than anything else. But no surprise, the WSJ editorial board is largely neoCon hack pieces these days.

[Beet]

What would be the WSJ's definition of "closing the deal"? A 15- point lead in the polls? Certainly that would be nice for Obama... but it can't be expected. McCain is a strong candidate.

Taking the position that this should be a run-away election for the Democrats, I would say they were looking for a solid 5-10% lead heading into their own convention, rather than being statistically tied with McCain.

Ok. A 5-10 point lead heading in, plus a 5-10 point lead from the convention, translates into a 10-20 point lead. At this point in 2004, Bush had a 3 point lead. Remember that Obama is running against a guy with a lot of advantages- he's a well known Senator, he has 26 years of experience in Washington (although this could also be a disadvantage), he's not unlikable, and he's a war hero; and he's running against a first term Senator. If you had showed this matchup 4 or 8 years ago it's McCain who should have been landsliding. Why can't McCain close the deal?

Btw... the WSJ has twice the circulation of the NYTimes. So much for the media being in the bag for one candidate.

[NDN]

the WSJ is about as unbiased as Keith Olbermann, who by the way, was really pissing me off last night when he tried to make big issues about a couple of really minor points in Lieberman and Thompson's speeches.  I wish he'd go away, frankly.

Agreed.

I can't watch Olbermann anymore. He was always self righteous liberal doing a bad Edward Murrow impression. But he did a decent job covering the news and skewering people who deserved it. Now he's 100% Obama campaign talking points.

[J. J.]

What would be the WSJ's definition of "closing the deal"? A 15- point lead in the polls? Certainly that would be nice for Obama... but it can't be expected. McCain is a strong candidate.

Taking the position that this should be a run-away election for the Democrats, I would say they were looking for a solid 5-10% lead heading into their own convention, rather than being statistically tied with McCain.

Ok. A 5-10 point lead heading in, plus a 5-10 point lead from the convention, translates into a 10-20 point lead. At this point in 2004, Bush had a 3 point lead. Remember that Obama is running against a guy with a lot of advantages- he's a well known Senator, he has 26 years of experience in Washington (although this could also be a disadvantage), he's not unlikable, and he's a war hero; and he's running against a first term Senator. If you had showed this matchup 4 or 8 years ago it's McCain who should have been landsliding. Why can't McCain close the deal?

Because it's not 4-8 years ago.  McCain has "closed the deal" within his party, something Obama failed to do (I would argue even after the DNC).  The theme of the DNC was, crudely, "Hey Democrats, vote for Obama."  Last night, the theme of the RNC was "Hey, Americans, vote for McCain."

That was one reason I didn't rate the DNC as high as I thought it could have been.  

[Eraserhead]

What an absurd hack article. He can't close the deal because the election isn't until Nov. 4th. Duh.

We all know that if the election was held today, he'd win, thus "closing the deal".

[Eraserhead]

What would be the WSJ's definition of "closing the deal"? A 15- point lead in the polls? Certainly that would be nice for Obama... but it can't be expected. McCain is a strong candidate.

Taking the position that this should be a run-away election for the Democrats, I would say they were looking for a solid 5-10% lead heading into their own convention, rather than being statistically tied with McCain.

Ok. A 5-10 point lead heading in, plus a 5-10 point lead from the convention, translates into a 10-20 point lead. At this point in 2004, Bush had a 3 point lead. Remember that Obama is running against a guy with a lot of advantages- he's a well known Senator, he has 26 years of experience in Washington (although this could also be a disadvantage), he's not unlikable, and he's a war hero; and he's running against a first term Senator. If you had showed this matchup 4 or 8 years ago it's McCain who should have been landsliding. Why can't McCain close the deal?

Because it's not 4-8 years ago.  McCain has "closed the deal" within his party, something Obama failed to do (I would argue even after the DNC).  The theme of the DNC was, crudely, "Hey Democrats, vote for Obama."  Last night, the theme of the RNC was "Hey, Americans, vote for McCain."

That was one reason I didn't rate the DNC as high as I thought it could have been.  

Sometimes I wonder if you even look at the polling.

[JSojourner]

the WSJ is about as unbiased as Keith Olbermann, who by the way, was really pissing me off last night when he tried to make big issues about a couple of really minor points in Lieberman and Thompson's speeches.  I wish he'd go away, frankly.

I won't wish Olbermann away until Fox goes away.  I hate Olbermann but I have to say this.  For over a decade, liberals have been just sitting still and letting Fox serve as a Republican spin machine that occasionally covers news.  Olbermann is our outlet.

That said, wouldn't it be nice if all the networks just reported the facts, and both sides of every story?

[J. J.]

What would be the WSJ's definition of "closing the deal"? A 15- point lead in the polls? Certainly that would be nice for Obama... but it can't be expected. McCain is a strong candidate.

Taking the position that this should be a run-away election for the Democrats, I would say they were looking for a solid 5-10% lead heading into their own convention, rather than being statistically tied with McCain.

Ok. A 5-10 point lead heading in, plus a 5-10 point lead from the convention, translates into a 10-20 point lead. At this point in 2004, Bush had a 3 point lead. Remember that Obama is running against a guy with a lot of advantages- he's a well known Senator, he has 26 years of experience in Washington (although this could also be a disadvantage), he's not unlikable, and he's a war hero; and he's running against a first term Senator. If you had showed this matchup 4 or 8 years ago it's McCain who should have been landsliding. Why can't McCain close the deal?

Because it's not 4-8 years ago.  McCain has "closed the deal" within his party, something Obama failed to do (I would argue even after the DNC).  The theme of the DNC was, crudely, "Hey Democrats, vote for Obama."  Last night, the theme of the RNC was "Hey, Americans, vote for McCain."

That was one reason I didn't rate the DNC as high as I thought it could have been.  

Sometimes I wonder if you even look at the polling.

I do, but if I read them the way you do, Obama was finished a week before the DNC.  I wasn't saying, but to nonhypocritical, you should have been.

[Lief 🗽]

LOL, the WSJ.

Why can't McCain get above 46%? Or lead in a poll?

[MODU]

That said, wouldn't it be nice if all the networks just reported the facts, and both sides of every story?

Except for Headline News (which just repeats itself), you aren't going to get the traditional news coverage that we were use to in the new 24-hour News market.  They have to come up with something to keep your attention, which means "shock" value.

[elcorazon]

the WSJ is about as unbiased as Keith Olbermann, who by the way, was really pissing me off last night when he tried to make big issues about a couple of really minor points in Lieberman and Thompson's speeches.  I wish he'd go away, frankly.

I won't wish Olbermann away until Fox goes away.  I hate Olbermann but I have to say this.  For over a decade, liberals have been just sitting still and letting Fox serve as a Republican spin machine that occasionally covers news.  Olbermann is our outlet.

That said, wouldn't it be nice if all the networks just reported the facts, and both sides of every story?

I agree with your logic, but the problem isn't Olbermann's partisanship.  It's the fact that 1) he's not all that bright; and 2) he's not got even the facade of trying to be objective when analyzing.

If you listen to partisans like Harold Ford, Jr., Rachel Maddow, Pat Buchanan, and many others, they are worth listening to. They have legit opinions and analysis of speeches, events, etc.  Keith is just a hack.  Add to that the fact that he's the host. He wouldn't be as much of a blowhard as an analyst, but then he'd be hampered by the fact that he's really just not all that smart or knowledgable.

[Dan the Roman]

Why would anybody care what the WSJ Journal says, especially its opinion page? That place makes Olbermann and Hannity look like a model of objectivity. Even on economic matters I would trust People's Daily more. Its a hive for supply side hacks who can't get real jobs in Academy or the private sector so live off the handouts of rich Conservative donors who like the crap they spew.

[Eraserhead]

What would be the WSJ's definition of "closing the deal"? A 15- point lead in the polls? Certainly that would be nice for Obama... but it can't be expected. McCain is a strong candidate.

Taking the position that this should be a run-away election for the Democrats, I would say they were looking for a solid 5-10% lead heading into their own convention, rather than being statistically tied with McCain.

Ok. A 5-10 point lead heading in, plus a 5-10 point lead from the convention, translates into a 10-20 point lead. At this point in 2004, Bush had a 3 point lead. Remember that Obama is running against a guy with a lot of advantages- he's a well known Senator, he has 26 years of experience in Washington (although this could also be a disadvantage), he's not unlikable, and he's a war hero; and he's running against a first term Senator. If you had showed this matchup 4 or 8 years ago it's McCain who should have been landsliding. Why can't McCain close the deal?

Because it's not 4-8 years ago.  McCain has "closed the deal" within his party, something Obama failed to do (I would argue even after the DNC).  The theme of the DNC was, crudely, "Hey Democrats, vote for Obama."  Last night, the theme of the RNC was "Hey, Americans, vote for McCain."

That was one reason I didn't rate the DNC as high as I thought it could have been.  

Sometimes I wonder if you even look at the polling.

I do, but if I read them the way you do, Obama was finished a week before the DNC.  I wasn't saying, but to nonhypocritical, you should have been.

LOL. Because he was so clearly trailing.

[JSojourner]

That said, wouldn't it be nice if all the networks just reported the facts, and both sides of every story?

Except for Headline News (which just repeats itself), you aren't going to get the traditional news coverage that we were use to in the new 24-hour News market.  They have to come up with something to keep your attention, which means "shock" value.

And that brings me to a couple of facts about HN.  They've gone partisan with Glenn Beck. Don't know if they have a lib to counter him or not.

And just about all news, except NPR, has this bizarre fixation with celebrity scandals and missing white debutantes.  I really don't care that Britney shaved her coconut.  And, while I certainly care about missing people, I'm equally concerned about missing poor people.  Sometimes they "get it".  Often, they don't.

[memphis]

What would be the WSJ's definition of "closing the deal"? A 15- point lead in the polls? Certainly that would be nice for Obama... but it can't be expected. McCain is a strong candidate.

Taking the position that this should be a run-away election for the Democrats, I would say they were looking for a solid 5-10% lead heading into their own convention, rather than being statistically tied with McCain.

Ok. A 5-10 point lead heading in, plus a 5-10 point lead from the convention, translates into a 10-20 point lead. At this point in 2004, Bush had a 3 point lead. Remember that Obama is running against a guy with a lot of advantages- he's a well known Senator, he has 26 years of experience in Washington (although this could also be a disadvantage), he's not unlikable, and he's a war hero; and he's running against a first term Senator. If you had showed this matchup 4 or 8 years ago it's McCain who should have been landsliding. Why can't McCain close the deal?

Because it's not 4-8 years ago.  McCain has "closed the deal" within his party, something Obama failed to do (I would argue even after the DNC).  The theme of the DNC was, crudely, "Hey Democrats, vote for Obama."  Last night, the theme of the RNC was "Hey, Americans, vote for McCain."

That was one reason I didn't rate the DNC as high as I thought it could have been.  

Sometimes I wonder if you even look at the polling.

He looks. He's just waiting for one that isn't a weekend or a holiday or a Tuesday or in a month that has an "r" in it or whatever his excuse du jure is.

[Nutmeg]

He's not the only candidate they're hard on.

[Ogre Mage]

The WSJ editorial page has to be one of the biggest ink sh!tters in all of journalism.  I would rather buy toilet paper. 

[Sbane]

The WSJ editorial page has to be one of the biggest ink sh!tters in all of journalism.  I would rather buy toilet paper. 

[J. J.]

What would be the WSJ's definition of "closing the deal"? A 15- point lead in the polls? Certainly that would be nice for Obama... but it can't be expected. McCain is a strong candidate.

Taking the position that this should be a run-away election for the Democrats, I would say they were looking for a solid 5-10% lead heading into their own convention, rather than being statistically tied with McCain.

Ok. A 5-10 point lead heading in, plus a 5-10 point lead from the convention, translates into a 10-20 point lead. At this point in 2004, Bush had a 3 point lead. Remember that Obama is running against a guy with a lot of advantages- he's a well known Senator, he has 26 years of experience in Washington (although this could also be a disadvantage), he's not unlikable, and he's a war hero; and he's running against a first term Senator. If you had showed this matchup 4 or 8 years ago it's McCain who should have been landsliding. Why can't McCain close the deal?

Because it's not 4-8 years ago.  McCain has "closed the deal" within his party, something Obama failed to do (I would argue even after the DNC).  The theme of the DNC was, crudely, "Hey Democrats, vote for Obama."  Last night, the theme of the RNC was "Hey, Americans, vote for McCain."

That was one reason I didn't rate the DNC as high as I thought it could have been.  

Sometimes I wonder if you even look at the polling.

I do, but if I read them the way you do, Obama was finished a week before the DNC.  I wasn't saying, but to nonhypocritical, you should have been.

LOL. Because he was so clearly trailing.

Ah, yes and his numbers were dropping.