bmags

those Quinnepac polls were pretty whacky.

The funniest part about this whole thing is the allusion to Obama's speech that it was all about how America sucks. What a baseless thought. If you could just admit, that you knew, going into this speech, that you had your mind made up already that whatever Obama said it would fit your own narrative that he's a Euro-lovin, American-hatin liberal, this would all be a lot easier. There was one line in the speech - about how America hasn't always lived up to its ideals - a statement completely true - undeniably true, in a speech that trumpeted America's role in modern Europe. How, in a speech where he trumpets the Berlin air raids, America's role in freeing Berlin, religious race gender equality, be seen as an "America Sucks" speech. A speech where he isolates and gives a long pre and post pause to "I love America" that is then met by cheers, that is an "America sucks" speech. what a joke.

Hahahaha

How dare Obama use his time oversees to improve American foreign relations!

hmm, what's worse, that...or claiming expertise in Iraq when you can't even get the timeline correct on the surge. Or Shia or Sunni.

these are some major shakeups we are talking about.

here you lost: (it's from TPM but I assuem this is free to distribute) Thank you to the citizens of Berlin and to the people of Germany. Let me thank Chancellor Merkel and Foreign Minister Steinmeier for welcoming me earlier today. Thank you Mayor Wowereit, the Berlin Senate, the police, and most of all thank you for this welcome. I come to Berlin as so many of my countrymen have come before. Tonight, I speak to you not as a candidate for President, but as a citizen - a proud citizen of the United States, and a fellow citizen of the world. I know that I don't look like the Americans who've previously spoken in this great city. The journey that led me here is improbable. My mother was born in the heartland of America, but my father grew up herding goats in Kenya. His father - my grandfather - was a cook, a domestic servant to the British. At the height of the Cold War, my father decided, like so many others in the forgotten corners of the world, that his yearning - his dream - required the freedom and opportunity promised by the West. And so he wrote letter after letter to universities all across America until somebody, somewhere answered his prayer for a better life. That is why I'm here. And you are here because you too know that yearning. This city, of all cities, knows the dream of freedom. And you know that the only reason we stand here tonight is because men and women from both of our nations came together to work, and struggle, and sacrifice for that better life. Ours is a partnership that truly began sixty years ago this summer, on the day when the first American plane touched down at Templehof. On that day, much of this continent still lay in ruin. The rubble of this city had yet to be built into a wall. The Soviet shadow had swept across Eastern Europe, while in the West, America, Britain, and France took stock of their losses, and pondered how the world might be remade. This is where the two sides met. And on the twenty-fourth of June, 1948, the Communists chose to blockade the western part of the city. They cut off food and supplies to more than two million Germans in an effort to extinguish the last flame of freedom in Berlin. The size of our forces was no match for the much larger Soviet Army. And yet retreat would have allowed Communism to march across Europe. Where the last war had ended, another World War could have easily begun. All that stood in the way was Berlin. And that's when the airlift began - when the largest and most unlikely rescue in history brought food and hope to the people of this city. The odds were stacked against success. In the winter, a heavy fog filled the sky above, and many planes were forced to turn back without dropping off the needed supplies. The streets where we stand were filled with hungry families who had no comfort from the cold. But in the darkest hours, the people of Berlin kept the flame of hope burning. The people of Berlin refused to give up. And on one fall day, hundreds of thousands of Berliners came here, to the Tiergarten, and heard the city's mayor implore the world not to give up on freedom. "There is only one possibility," he said. "For us to stand together united until this battle is won...The people of Berlin have spoken. We have done our duty, and we will keep on doing our duty. People of the world: now do your duty...People of the world, look at Berlin!" People of the world - look at Berlin! Look at Berlin, where Germans and Americans learned to work together and trust each other less than three years after facing each other on the field of battle. Look at Berlin, where the determination of a people met the generosity of the Marshall Plan and created a German miracle; where a victory over tyranny gave rise to NATO, the greatest alliance ever formed to defend our common security. Look at Berlin, where the bullet holes in the buildings and the somber stones and pillars near the Brandenburg Gate insist that we never forget our common humanity. People of the world - look at Berlin, where a wall came down, a continent came together, and history proved that there is no challenge too great for a world that stands as one. Sixty years after the airlift, we are called upon again. History has led us to a new crossroad, with new promise and new peril. When you, the German people, tore down that wall - a wall that divided East and West; freedom and tyranny; fear and hope - walls came tumbling down around the world. From Kiev to Cape Town, prison camps were closed, and the doors of democracy were opened. Markets opened too, and the spread of information and technology reduced barriers to opportunity and prosperity. While the 20th century taught us that we share a common destiny, the 21st has revealed a world more intertwined than at any time in human history. The fall of the Berlin Wall brought new hope. But that very closeness has given rise to new dangers - dangers that cannot be contained within the borders of a country or by the distance of an ocean. The terrorists of September 11th plotted in Hamburg and trained in Kandahar and Karachi before killing thousands from all over the globe on American soil. As we speak, cars in Boston and factories in Beijing are melting the ice caps in the Arctic, shrinking coastlines in the Atlantic, and bringing drought to farms from Kansas to Kenya. Poorly secured nuclear material in the former Soviet Union, or secrets from a scientist in Pakistan could help build a bomb that detonates in Paris. The poppies in Afghanistan become the heroin in Berlin. The poverty and violence in Somalia breeds the terror of tomorrow. The genocide in Darfur shames the conscience of us all. In this new world, such dangerous currents have swept along faster than our efforts to contain them. That is why we cannot afford to be divided. No one nation, no matter how large or powerful, can defeat such challenges alone. None of us can deny these threats, or escape responsibility in meeting them. Yet, in the absence of Soviet tanks and a terrible wall, it has become easy to forget this truth. And if we're honest with each other, we know that sometimes, on both sides of the Atlantic, we have drifted apart, and forgotten our shared destiny. In Europe, the view that America is part of what has gone wrong in our world, rather than a force to help make it right, has become all too common. In America, there are voices that deride and deny the importance of Europe's role in our security and our future. Both views miss the truth - that Europeans today are bearing new burdens and taking more responsibility in critical parts of the world; and that just as American bases built in the last century still help to defend the security of this continent, so does our country still sacrifice greatly for freedom around the globe. Yes, there have been differences between America and Europe. No doubt, there will be differences in the future. But the burdens of global citizenship continue to bind us together. A change of leadership in Washington will not lift this burden. In this new century, Americans and Europeans alike will be required to do more - not less. Partnership and cooperation among nations is not a choice; it is the one way, the only way, to protect our common security and advance our common humanity. That is why the greatest danger of all is to allow new walls to divide us from one another. The walls between old allies on either side of the Atlantic cannot stand. The walls between the countries with the most and those with the least cannot stand. The walls between races and tribes; natives and immigrants; Christian and Muslim and Jew cannot stand. These now are the walls we must tear down. We know they have fallen before. After centuries of strife, the people of Europe have formed a Union of promise and prosperity. Here, at the base of a column built to mark victory in war, we meet in the center of a Europe at peace. Not only have walls come down in Berlin, but they have come down in Belfast, where Protestant and Catholic found a way to live together; in the Balkans, where our Atlantic alliance ended wars and brought savage war criminals to justice; and in South Africa, where the struggle of a courageous people defeated apartheid. So history reminds us that walls can be torn down. But the task is never easy. True partnership and true progress requires constant work and sustained sacrifice. They require sharing the burdens of development and diplomacy; of progress and peace. They require allies who will listen to each other, learn from each other and, most of all, trust each other. That is why America cannot turn inward. That is why Europe cannot turn inward. America has no better partner than Europe. Now is the time to build new bridges across the globe as strong as the one that bound us across the Atlantic. Now is the time to join together, through constant cooperation, strong institutions, shared sacrifice, and a global commitment to progress, to meet the challenges of the 21st century. It was this spirit that led airlift planes to appear in the sky above our heads, and people to assemble where we stand today. And this is the moment when our nations - and all nations - must summon that spirit anew. This is the moment when we must defeat terror and dry up the well of extremism that supports it. This threat is real and we cannot shrink from our responsibility to combat it. If we could create NATO to face down the Soviet Union, we can join in a new and global partnership to dismantle the networks that have struck in Madrid and Amman; in London and Bali; in Washington and New York. If we could win a battle of ideas against the communists, we can stand with the vast majority of Muslims who reject the extremism that leads to hate instead of hope. This is the moment when we must renew our resolve to rout the terrorists who threaten our security in Afghanistan, and the traffickers who sell drugs on your streets. No one welcomes war. I recognize the enormous difficulties in Afghanistan. But my country and yours have a stake in seeing that NATO's first mission beyond Europe's borders is a success. For the people of Afghanistan, and for our shared security, the work must be done. America cannot do this alone. The Afghan people need our troops and your troops; our support and your support to defeat the Taliban and al Qaeda, to develop their economy, and to help them rebuild their nation. We have too much at stake to turn back now. This is the moment when we must renew the goal of a world without nuclear weapons. The two superpowers that faced each other across the wall of this city came too close too often to destroying all we have built and all that we love. With that wall gone, we need not stand idly by and watch the further spread of the deadly atom. It is time to secure all loose nuclear materials; to stop the spread of nuclear weapons; and to reduce the arsenals from another era. This is the moment to begin the work of seeking the peace of a world without nuclear weapons. This is the moment when every nation in Europe must have the chance to choose its own tomorrow free from the shadows of yesterday. In this century, we need a strong European Union that deepens the security and prosperity of this continent, while extending a hand abroad. In this century - in this city of all cities - we must reject the Cold War mind-set of the past, and resolve to work with Russia when we can, to stand up for our values when we must, and to seek a partnership that extends across this entire continent. This is the moment when we must build on the wealth that open markets have created, and share its benefits more equitably. Trade has been a cornerstone of our growth and global development. But we will not be able to sustain this growth if it favors the few, and not the many. Together, we must forge trade that truly rewards the work that creates wealth, with meaningful protections for our people and our planet. This is the moment for trade that is free and fair for all. This is the moment we must help answer the call for a new dawn in the Middle East. My country must stand with yours and with Europe in sending a direct message to Iran that it must abandon its nuclear ambitions. We must support the Lebanese who have marched and bled for democracy, and the Israelis and Palestinians who seek a secure and lasting peace. And despite past differences, this is the moment when the world should support the millions of Iraqis who seek to rebuild their lives, even as we pass responsibility to the Iraqi government and finally bring this war to a close. This is the moment when we must come together to save this planet. Let us resolve that we will not leave our children a world where the oceans rise and famine spreads and terrible storms devastate our lands. Let us resolve that all nations - including my own - will act with the same seriousness of purpose as has your nation, and reduce the carbon we send into our atmosphere. This is the moment to give our children back their future. This is the moment to stand as one. And this is the moment when we must give hope to those left behind in a globalized world. We must remember that the Cold War born in this city was not a battle for land or treasure. Sixty years ago, the planes that flew over Berlin did not drop bombs; instead they delivered food, and coal, and candy to grateful children. And in that show of solidarity, those pilots won more than a military victory. They won hearts and minds; love and loyalty and trust - not just from the people in this city, but from all those who heard the story of what they did here. Now the world will watch and remember what we do here - what we do with this moment. Will we extend our hand to the people in the forgotten corners of this world who yearn for lives marked by dignity and opportunity; by security and justice? Will we lift the child in Bangladesh from poverty, shelter the refugee in Chad, and banish the scourge of AIDS in our time? Will we stand for the human rights of the dissident in Burma, the blogger in Iran, or the voter in Zimbabwe? Will we give meaning to the words "never again" in Darfur? Will we acknowledge that there is no more powerful example than the one each of our nations projects to the world? Will we reject torture and stand for the rule of law? Will we welcome immigrants from different lands, and shun discrimination against those who don't look like us or worship like we do, and keep the promise of equality and opportunity for all of our people? People of Berlin - people of the world - this is our moment. This is our time. I know my country has not perfected itself. At times, we've struggled to keep the promise of liberty and equality for all of our people. We've made our share of mistakes, and there are times when our actions around the world have not lived up to our best intentions. But I also know how much I love America. I know that for more than two centuries, we have strived - at great cost and great sacrifice - to form a more perfect union; to seek, with other nations, a more hopeful world. Our allegiance has never been to any particular tribe or kingdom - indeed, every language is spoken in our country; every culture has left its imprint on ours; every point of view is expressed in our public squares. What has always united us - what has always driven our people; what drew my father to America's shores - is a set of ideals that speak to aspirations shared by all people: that we can live free from fear and free from want; that we can speak our minds and assemble with whomever we choose and worship as we please. These are the aspirations that joined the fates of all nations in this city. These aspirations are bigger than anything that drives us apart. It is because of these aspirations that the airlift began. It is because of these aspirations that all free people - everywhere - became citizens of Berlin. It is in pursuit of these aspirations that a new generation - our generation - must make our mark on the world. People of Berlin - and people of the world - the scale of our challenge is great. The road ahead will be long. But I come before you to say that we are heirs to a struggle for freedom. We are a people of improbable hope. With an eye toward the future, with resolve in our hearts, let us remember this history, and answer our destiny, and remake the world once again.

What a wonderful speech.

QUOTE (Cknolls @ Jul 24, 2008 -> 02:49 PM) I guess we missed Gibson, Couric, and Williams' reports then. Couric? The same Couric who just edited out a completely false answer from John McCain and replaced it with another, and on the topic of Iraq no less? (And told nobody it was edited)

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Jul 24, 2008 -> 03:56 PM) No. If only Powell had the balls to realize that the Administration was using his credibility as their main method of selling their war and said "no more", then that might have improved this presidency. People can respect him for being loyal, for the work he did in the past, whatever they want...no one forced him to go before the U.N. and present intel that he didn't believe in. Thank you. I listened to Powell. He told me that a dust spec on the photographs were WMDs.

QUOTE (KipWellsFan @ Jul 24, 2008 -> 02:07 AM) I've become pretty convinced that more than any ideology, narrative and ratings is what drives media outlets. kipwellsfan wins. But we all lose.

It appears there wasn't a single thing that McCain was right about in his edited answer in CBS yesterday. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/07/23/a...a_n_114581.html

Okay, what was going on in March, hmm, the most hotly contested democratic primary in 28 years And, I just don't understand. McCain's trip to South America was getting heavily covered because he made this huge narrative about the Colombian Free Trade bill that Obama opposed.

we'll ignore the 8 years of McCain love then. McCain's tour was pretty heavily covered, that's when the big Colombia hostage rescue happened.

Senators usually have a disadvantage due to voting records. I'm glad that this is senator v. senator, I thought that "executive experience" line was a bit overdone, especially if it comes from a state where their legislature is a joke and the governor has an incredible amount of flexibility. Considering the fights in Congress the past 20 years, time in the senate is a huge plus. But, remember that Hagel and another senator is doing this. This is under the realm of responsibilities to a senator and a reason that there's been so little interviewing of Obama while he's been there.

QUOTE (lostfan @ Jul 23, 2008 -> 12:51 PM) I don't consider the Drudge Report to be either liberal or conservative. bahaha

how about the vendor that was a dead on for scottie pippen.

I'm hoping it stays at 75 mph that it is now, Tex.

uhm, the reasons I hate that movie go far beyond the red sox and are anchored in two things: 1. Jimmy Fallon 2. Drew Barrymore and add on the red sox, and goodness, awful.

Once again, McCain should be thankful for this media narrative. He's very lucky right now.

QUOTE (mr_genius @ Jul 23, 2008 -> 03:12 AM) So you really think the media isn't pro-Obama? Oh well. I would laugh, but i believe you are studying journalism and if you really think Obama has been treated worse than McCain by the MSM media it's more tragic than funny. The media is made up of a select few people whom consider themselves more informed and elite as compared to the general public. People don't trust the news like they did in the past, mainly because they know the are being preached to half of the time; as compared to watching a news broadcast. One of my favorite things about the internet is how it gives much more people a voice. I honestly don't understand where you draw your conclusions. The media covers Obama more. Coverage is huge. Name recognition is gigantic. So yes, Obama has an rather large edge in media. However, McCain whining this soon about media coverage should worry him. Unlike Clinton, he has not had critical coverage of his campaign for months in addition to high coverage of Obama, sans Gramm saga. This tactic will likely bring critical coverage on Obama again. BUT, if the reaction is to raise coverage on McCain, critical coverage will also increase, and that could bury him. McCain is a unique candidate. His campaign is fumed off of 8 years of high praise from the media outlets giving him top name recognition as a free thinker in his own party. This reputation has stuck with him. And because of the pre-established reputation, the lack of coverage hasn't hurt him, IMO, it has helped. In the past few weeks, McCain has essentially adopted every policy of Obama's concerning foreign policy with hardly a blink from anyone. Obama was considered waffling on his own policy for mentioning his tactics are flexible. The mainstream media is trying to balance out the heavy Obama coverage by giving credence to every McCain campaign accusation*. I'm not sure if changing this is in his best interest. He's demonstrated the ability to control the narrative in the media with the exception of the past week. He shouldn't panic just because of his trip oversees. What's happened this past week is absurdly positive for OBama, instead of freaking out he should just let the ebbs and flows of the election follow the course and thanks his lucky stars this happened in July and not September. *The media seemed acutely aware of their own overboard coverage of Obama's overseas trip, so they counteracted this with talk shows talking about how the media (in third person) was going overboard in covering this. And the overall theme was that this trip is going to hurt Obama, because with so much attention, any gaffe will clearly get covered, and how Americans don't want to see an American popular over in Europe. Now you could see this as lowering expectations, and to Obama's favor, but with every Obama coverage there was this need to clarify how poor a decision this trip was, how much of a show it was and how it will backfire. Coincidentally, these were the same points coming out of McCain's campaign. The media is made up of thousands of individuals from all different backgrounds and states, specializing in topics from local agriculture and community events, to world issues and specific tribes in Afghanistan. Members of the media have the ability to cover topics so thoroughly (i.e. public schools, jails) that they can end up being experts in themselves, and as two reporters from the Philadelphia Inquirer became, are called upon for governmental hearings just for their information. As for why people don't trust the media. One peculiar aspect is the publics distinction of what media is. When asked if they trust their local media outlet, even if it's a large paper ala the Tribune, largely it's yes. If they are asked if they trust the media, the answer is largely no. Reasons for this? I've read studies that have attributed this to a scandal happy press riding the wave of watergate, that in their pressing to find gov't scandals, became lapdogs for the minority parties. One problem, journalists too willing to use unidentified sources, publishing libel and hiding behind a source with unfortunate motives. Another reason, the extremely popular campaign of the right to vilify the media as liberal. Not only that, their ability to detach themselves from government themselves. People should not trust the government, nor the media, both controls of the leftist groups. This worked effectively in garnering support for a Republican takeover 20 years in the making with the likes of Goldwater in the seventies. In addition, high crime coverage marginalized large groups of people to turn to alternative sources of news, who, while being members of the media, claim not to be members of the media. So, do people trust the media? Depends on what the media is. If it's the media they like, they are not the media. If it's the media, they don't like the media. Once again, if you are to look for a critic of media, journalists are the biggest critics you'll find. BUt these accusations are large generalizations brought on by demagogues and distributed through emails. I'll rip apart any article you bring me and I may very well find a liberal bias in it. And there's no denying that the majority of journalists are liberal. BUt you'd be surprised when you are covering something how unpolitical most reality is. As much as a politician can claim a boy with no leg in his campaign. To interview said boy and the problem he faces, will have nothing to do with democrat and republican. Media will continue to be specialized to everyone and the good and the bad will come of it. People will be able to ignore what we don't want or care about. And I wonder, with the same movement in education, how our democracy will fair.

QUOTE (NorthSideSox72 @ Jul 23, 2008 -> 12:02 AM) Not true for all. far more true than you realize. And I think the #1 reason fox wins is format. They pumped their lineup with vitalic, dynamic personalities, thin on news. I don't need another long post to say what's dangerous about fox news has nothing to do with ideology, but of shallow content. They have only like 3 hours of the day devoted to a news hour.

QUOTE (mr_genius @ Jul 22, 2008 -> 11:53 PM) Unbiased news may sell, but the MSM isn't doing it right now so it won't reach the masses. The problem the left wing press is facing, with losing viewers or readers, is that there is too much competition for pro-Democrat news. Look at FOX, they don't even have a good presentation (CNN nad MSNBC are better in this category) but they are the only pro-GOP news on television; they destroy in the ratings. I disagree with your opening statement here; the news has not always been what you are calling 'progressive'. The American news media has long history of being for freedoms, against authoritarianism, for self determination, living the American dream, and individualism; all of which many 'progressives' view as dangerous. The news can cover issues without bias, but stories that the Times covers directly coincides with whatever the Democrat party is currently pushing. Proof? Well, there is no point here arguing, as the paper is blatantly liberal. The proof is in each days paper and no matter what they do many will never see the paper that supports their political party as biased. Oh and the Iraq war piece? Yea, that was back when the majority of Dems supported the Iraq war, when the Dems turned so did the NYT. Go figure. The dumbing down of news is not something only on cable. Most of the MSM stories are really dumb. Obama gets glowing coverage by the MSM, broadcasts are basically a Obama campaign ad. This is a big advantage for him, and he knows it. then go head, read the nytimes everyday and send me what articles you deem to be liberal and the reasons why, and you have to say whether those liberal views are qualified by the article. As for you last statement, I whole-heartedly agree that Obama has had much more press. I can't help but laugh at your assertion. If McCain got half of the critical coverage of Obama and then added on 50% more of the positive coverage he already gets, he'd be in deep s***. "I disagree with your opening statement here; the news has not always been what you are calling 'progressive'. The American news media has long history of being for freedoms, against authoritarianism, for self determination, living the American dream, and individualism; all of which many 'progressives' view as dangerous. The news can cover issues without bias, but stories that the Times covers directly coincides with whatever the Democrat party is currently pushing. " The american news has moved with the american people on all of these. It's made up of the people. But the themes I've mentioned have been and continue to be deeply involved in journalism worldwide.

people don't want objective news. Everyone conservative wants a cheering section for conservative viewpoints. Every liberal in here wants the cheering section for the progressive viewpoints. And neither one of us see's the news as being objective or on our side. Isn't that the funny part, that no one is right. And everyone is losing. News is worse now, and it is worse for no reasons that contain liberal or conservative. They're delusional grasp to maintain 20% profits has them cutting content and creates awful news. There isn't money to do long term investigations and to have your own data collecting. Luckily Lexis/Nexis is helping many make due. In reality, news is going to be progressive. They need to cover the uncovered, the less fortuned, and the corrupt. And great stories cover everything, and give sympathy to the unsympathetic. That's the history of news since the penny print. That has nothing to do with politics. And politics are what everyone is talking about. You can't put out a positive article on Obama without being in awe of him, you can't put out a negative article on Obama without being a republican hit job. And the result is news that just covers reactions. Everyone covers the media, and no one claims to be the media. The articles talk about how what a candidate says will be perceived by a group of people, and not how what a candidate will affect a group of people. Talking about what a candidates policies will actually do will lead to claims of bias. But the NY Times news is biased. You don't need proof. It's been said. And if it's been said it's true. That's news in 2008. The NY Times has had an awful decade. Judy Miller's mouth piece for the Iraq war, falling off of investigative reporting and foreign affairs, and the McCain innuendo story in Feb. (a pretty direct affect of the price restrictions of a newspaper). (Edit: add their despicable coverage of Duke Lacrosse) I think all of those I can attribute to something tangible (except lacrosse). I think they've picked up pretty well. For instance, this weekend, they resisted printing Maliki's Obama stance right away because it was merely hinted(by CentCom) that it was a misquote, mistranslation. They held off and got their own translation and found it was accurate. While initially criticized by left blogs, they affirmed for everyone that this was an undeniable quote by Maliki. They've done excellent stories about McCain and his son, McCain and his career, Obama and his mother, Obama and his neighborhood organizer years, McCain v. Obama taxplan. But that doesn't matter, because the NY Times is liberal because it is said they are. And make no mistake about it, it is because of their editorial staff. Just like it is said the Tribune is conservative because of their editorial staff. The editorial staff and news staff doesn't even see each other much, if at all, during the day. The WSJ, completely conservative editorial staff, has had great coverage of the presidential candidates. There are differences, If you were to take 1000 papers you'd find probably find them a few articles difference in pos./neg. coverage of candidates, but not enough to be significant. Not enough to skew a regular reader's minds. And that's the problem with cable news, which probably defines, whether we like it our not, how we think of the media covering elections. And cable news is all editorial. There's no analysis, they just have surrogate one and surrogate two. And youtube vid #1 and youtube vid #2. And then cut to a video of a helicopter crash in Boomer, Montana that has no value to democracy. So this media bias is stupid. This is not an example of media bias. This is the news we've all created. So enjoy it. And memo to McCain, don't mistake less coverage with unfavorable coverage. If you were covered as much as Obama, you'd be in more trouble than you already are. And Jackie Hayes, no I don't think Obama came out with anything new. It was more nuanced and better written. The border problems and explanations of Shia differences in the region were educational and heighted political dialogue. McCains was more general. He could've said the same thing in a better way and it would've ran. Framing is everything. He should just get better writers.