CNN, Palin, and Obama's dog

CNN has been focusing a lot on Palin lately, such as talking about her calling to put aside "extreme partisanship" to get work done or her complimenting Obama or when she called the attacks against her "cruel" and "cowardly." There were many, many more pieces about her, and I can't help thinking with coverage like this that she is just another celebrity to them and not a political figure.

There has been some real coverage of Obama, such as him being asked to focus on Darfur and some of his lobby rules that could benefit nonprofits, but then there are also the more "fluffy" pieces, such as the packages and articles about his dog. For example, this video/article link says it is the "more pressing issue" to find the perfect puppy for his daughters. I'm not sure how people can think puppies are more important than what's going on in the world now .......

NR on centrism

In the article "Center? What Center?" James G. Gimpel goes against everything that the mainstream media is saying about the country being a centrist country by saying we are not. All the mainstream media outlets seem to be saying lately that Obama needs to be careful with what he does in office because we're such a centrist country, and this article says that there is no coherent center to which voters there adhere. 

"The research suggests that those who at various times occupy this center, often described as moderates or independents, are not very knowledgeable about or interested in politics. They do not follow campaign coverage closely, are inconsistent in their policy views, and are often not able to identify what positions are liberal or conservative."

The article then goes on to say that it's foolish to move campaigns toward the center, since the "center" is never really fixed.

I think this is a good article because it does not just follow the trend that the other outlets have been saying lately, but instead has new ideas that I think at least make sense. 

NR and their defeat

NR was obviously upset with the results of Tuesday night, since it is a conservative publication. But even so, not all of their articles completely bashed Obama and whined about losing.

"Race in the city" by Mark Hemingway was about the response of Washington D.C. to Obama winning. He talks about how the young people gathered in front of the White House aren't angry or focusing on their hatred of Bush, they just keep yelling "Obama! Obama!" The reporter attributes this to the percentage of the crowd that is black, and how this election was a symbol and reason to celebrate. Even though he doesn't agree with much of Obama's policies, Hemingway admits that there is a reason to celebrate because the country has come such a long way.

"The Children Gather" by David Freddoso was about the happiness of the crowd in Grant Park in Chicago as the results came in. He showed how much of the crowd was well-educated about the election, and how some were happy Obama was elected because of his race and some wanted more party allegiance. It really showed the hope of the people throughout the night, and it was touching to read some of the responses of people that were so idealistic about the future. At the end Freddoso says that he thinks that Obama is merely a man and politician and that people are putting him too high on a pedestal, but he just says people will learn the hard way in time.

"Hope amid the ruins" by the editors was about the voters' rejection of the central aspects of liberalism. The editors say that the people clearly rejected what the Republicans have been doing, and that Bush and McCain basically brought it on themselves by not understanding the problems of the average Americans, their response to the economy, botching up Hurrican Katrina, and many other policies and responses. The editors call for the conservatives to work with the Democrats in Washington and to devise an agenda that will help middle class Americans.

NR and networks calling the elections

Today NR had an article called "County by County: Why wait for the networks to call the race when you can do it yourself." The article started out well talking about how everyone wants to know the results before they are in and that there is no way to tell how accurate the numbers are before they are finally counted. Then the article gave a website for following the election by county and finding out the results on your own, so I went to the website and who was it sponsored by?? Fox News. I should have guessed this since NR is a conservative publication. But even so, I don't know if I can trust such a website sponsored by a network that pronounced Bush the president in 2000 way before the results were clear.

Voters prefer pretty candidates????

So I just went to CNN's website, and the headline of the first article was "Study: Voters prefer pretty female candidates." The article says that women running for offices need to appear both competent and attractive, which the article uses as an excuse to justify all of Palin's spending on clothes. Then the article says men don't have to worry about being attractive as much, which the article uses an excuse to question why John Edwards needed his expensive haircut. 

This article is completely absurd!!! It so obviously is trying to make excuses for Palin for why she spent so much money on clothes, and then goes and slams Edwards for trying to make himself look better. Furthermore, what is the point of focusing on how the candidates look?? Isn't it more important to write articles focusing on what the candidates would do in office or what their policies will be instead of focusing on how the candidates look??

CNN and Palin the Diva

Wolf Blitzer's "The Situation Room" today focused mainly on the McCain and Palin camp. There was by far more coverage of those two than Obama, and even less coverage of Biden because they seem to forget that he exists at all. 

First, he focused on the horse race and the three (Obama, McCain, and Palin) campaigning in PA. There was no mention of Biden until Palin made some comments about his tax policies. Dana Bash, who was narrating this part, called McCain the "gritty warrior," which I think definitely plays on the maverick narrative. Wolf then went on for a while about McCain and Palin, but when it came time for Obama, he talked substantially less. 

The next part of the piece was "It's all about Palin." Wolf talked about how the media is so obsessed with Palin and she is now being called a "diva" and getting more air time. He talked about the tension between Palin and McCain because they are both "mavericks" and have some different ideas, and then they showed her defending her clothes and attributing them to the RNC. Some pundits that were interviewed said how a lot of the criticism to Palin is demeaning to women and is sexist, and then Wolf talked about the finger-pointing within the McCain camp at mishandling Palin.

The whole part about Palin being a diva was so ironic, because they are just perpetuating the matter by giving her even more air time through this segment. It is so obvious that the media is giving her so much more air time and is obsessed with her, why do they have to go through it even more and keep repeating it? And also, it is not demeaning to women to criticize another woman. Just because people don't like her policies doesn't mean they are criticizing them because she is a woman, it just means they disagree with her. 

Is negative campaigning good for the country?

After listening to John G. Geer speak yesterday about how negative campaigning is good for the country, I couldn't help but disagree. It's not that I disagreed with his basic argument that negative campaigning brings issues to the forefront and causes candidates to react to each other's claims, thus making it good. I think as a concept, this is fine. If this happened in our politics today, there would be nothing wrong with negative campaigning. What I disagree with is that candidates hardly ever do this. Most of the negative campaigning I have seen in this election are either exaggerated claims based on a tiny piece of fact or outrageous claims that are funny to even think about being true (example: Obama and sex education for kindergartners).

I don't think candidates saying blatant lies or stretching the truth are good for anyone, because all this does is leave voters confused about which side to believe and cause the media to harp on the negative campaigning and lies, thus keeping issues out of the media by focusing on campaign tactics.

That being said, if candidates were to do negative campaigning without using lies and confusing people, like NR did in "Believers in Barack: Apparently, Obama-love is blind," I don't think I'd have quite so much trouble with it.

In this article, Thomas Sowell lays out the facts for why he thinks people should not vote for Obama. He says that Obama is being too vague with his "change" campaign, people don't know enough about him or what he has done on issues of crime, education, financial institutions, or Iran. He goes on to talk about things we do know about Obama, such as he opposed stricter regulations on Fannie Mae, was the second-largest recipient of campaign contributions from Fannie Mae, and then sought the advise of disgraced former Fannie Mae CEO Franklin Raines. This article presented facts, not exaggerated or blatant lies. This kind of coverage is what should be shown for both sides, because it gives voters what they need to know, not confuses them. 

Race featured on NR

NR finally addressed in an article yesterday what so many people choose to ignore or underscore the importance of: race. In "Black like Me: An overload of identity politics,"  Kathryn Jean Lopez talks about how many black magazines that never endorsed candidates before are now backing Obama. "Vibe," "Black Enterprise," and "Ebony," along with celebrities such as Sophie Okenedo, Queen Latifah, Alicia Keys, and Jennifer Hudson, all support Obama. "At this critical moment in history, Black America --and much of the nation-- are on the verge of realizing a long-awaited dream, a Black man in the White House," CEO Linda Johnson Rice said in "Ebony."

The article then talks about how ironic it is that people are shocked with the idea of Powell's endorsement of Obama having to do with race.

"On change, Obama is, like John McCain, a U.S. senator who is running against Washington. In this way he follows the footsteps of Mitt Romney. (Yes, Mitt Romney.) He echoes Sean Hannity (yes, the Sean Hannity) who continues to repeat Romney's 'Washington is broken' theme near daily. On this theme, he isn't all that unlike the maverickyness of Sarah Palin and John McCain. What makes him different? Could it be ... race?"

"I know Powell's 'inclusive'-'ability to inspire' endorsement sure sounded like it had to do with race. And I definitely know what I'm reading in the hip-hop and black mags. This election is about race to a whole lot of people ..."

FINALLY. Somebody is admitting that race is playing a factor for voters! But yea ... I thought this was an excellent article because it was not slanted conservatively at all, even though this is a conservative publication, and it talked about this important issue that is too often ignored. Other publications either ignore race all together, focus on how race is not an issue, or focus on one side accusing the other of playing the race card. This piece just showed how all these black magazines and people are support Obama because of race, and how it is definitely an issue affecting people. 

And another note, I also liked how NR admitted how Obama and McCain are not all that different either ...... 

NR on Bill Ayer

Deroy Murdock wrote "Obama's Weathermen Pals Should Worry You," a piece saying Obama and his supporters are wrongfully trivializing his connections to Bill Ayers and Bernardine Dohrn. The article chronicles Ayers' and Dohrn's past actions with the Weather Underground from the 60s through the 80s, and then it lists all the ways Obama knew and associated with Ayers.  

"No wonder Obama has been so evasive about his ties to Ayers and Dohrn. His relationship with these extreme leftists goes far beyond waving at some folks who live nearby. It defies belief that Obama never learned that they hated the USA and love TNT."

Some of the ways Obama and Ayers knew each other are:

-Obama chaired the Chicago Annenberg Challenge, which Ayers inaugurated and thus they worked together on.

-Ayers invited Chicago liberals to their house to meet Obama when he ran for IL State Senate in '95.

-Obama praised Ayers' book.

-They were co-panelists for a colloquium together.

And there were many more.

It was interesting to have all the ways they knew each other spelled out. But I am still not convinced that it is that big of a deal that Obama knows him. Ayers did these things long before Obama knew him, and I don't think it means that much that he has met with him before and worked with him on projects. I have worked with MANY people I am nothing like, and that does not mean that just because I have worked with them, I am now going to copy whatever they do. The same goes with Obama. Just because he worked with Ayers and Ayers liked him does not mean that Obama is now best buddies with a terrorist. 

McCain's "that one"

CNN's coverage of McCain's "that one" during the debate focused briefly on how what he said was condescending and racist before defending him for not bringing up Bill Ayers and calling this an "encouraging sign" about the campaign. Why was the pundit quick to change the subject and defend the candidate? It is an important question to ask, because it can very easily be interpreted as racist and off limits to say. And why is it so important that he did not bring up Bill Ayers? The media is bringing it up enough anyway that McCain does not need to bother bringing it up himself to make voters think about it, the media is doing his work for him.

Furthermore, the pundit David Gergen continued to talk about how Republican rallies lately with Palin have been getting out of hand because people in the crowds have begun yelling "terrorist" and "kill him" about Obama. Anderson Cooper, who was asking the pundit questions about this, goes, "You can't control what people say, though, in a rally, can you, David?" as if to say instead, "Well, this isn't really that big of a deal, is it?" The pundit did say in response, though, that they can control it by stopping and saying this will not be condoned, which at least partly holds the McCain camp responsible. 

NR focuses on voting patterns

Today's NR articles were slightly disappointing. First, the article "McCain needs Hillary: Losing North Carolina" focused on how North Carolina normally is not a key state for Democrats because since 1976 it has gone to Republicans fairly easily. However, the large black population, its progressive streak, and northerners who flee high property taxes have changed this so now Obama is likely to take it. The article says that McCain has to learn from Clinton and target conservative Democrats uncomfortable with Obama's liberal record to win the voters over. 

A second article, "Hail-Mary vote: Understanding those mysterious Catholics," talks about the Catholic voters and how crucial they are to electoral victories. The article says that they are not understood that well despite being so important and are known to swing wildly to both sides. 

Both these articles focus on the horse race aspect of the election, like much of the mainstream media. It is disappointing because normally NR has such good articles that, although usually slanted conservatively, still offer important points to think about. These, however, just made me upset that NR is following the trend and focusing on voter demographics and which state will take who etc. 

CNN coverage raises important issue

CNN this evening raised a very important issue in part of its coverage of the election: how voters are not getting the details they crave about the candidates. More specifically, how female voters, who are supposedly more methodical and information gatherers, want more details to make their decision about how to vote for. 

A group of undecided voters from Ohio were interviewed after the debate Tuesday, and they all said they want more specifics and answers and to know how, exactly, the candidates will handle the financial bailout and other important issues. They said the debate was a disappointment because the candidates spent most of the time attacking each other instead of saying what they themselves would do. 

Furthermore, one of the women brought up how equal pay is a large issue for her and that neither of the candidates has addressed this. 

If the candidates do not start giving more details out about their positions, these women said they would stay home on election day. 

I thought this was an excellent segment that raised many important issues. First of all, it shows how people want to know more information about their positions, not more polling data and who is winning the horse race. Also, it shows how people want to make informed decisions not based on personality or likeability. The want answers to their problems. Third, it points out another huge issue in the election, equal pay, that should be asked of the candidates. 

What's ironic, though, is that after CNN airs this great piece about how voters want to know more about the candidates, they do not actually run anything showing exact positions of the candidates or asking them how they feel about equal pay for women. After being told what the viewers/voters want, they should give them this, not continue to show polling data, talk about the candidates' wives speaking out dirty campaigning, and how each candidate is being portrayed in ads. They should take their own advice and stick to the cold, hard issues!

another NR sidenote

There's another article today on NR that I think is also really good. The author of "Focus, People: A life-or-death election" says that she thinks too much emphasis is put on the economy, Iraq, and other issues, and instead there should be some focus on the possibility of nuclear holocaust.

"Alarmist? I sure hope so. Isn't it about time that we got to the point about the stakes in this election? How many more pundits do we have to watch talking about the minutae-a candidate's look, an accent, a stumble, a slogan? We have four weeks to talk about the thing that matters most: a nuclear-armed Iran, and which candidate will prevent it."

Anne Bayefsky points out here how much the mainstream media has focused on the political narratives of the candidates and stupid other trivial matters that have nothing to do with policies or positions on issues. And I think she argues well how Iran has not had as much publicity as it should. 

At the end of the article, she shows the positions Biden, Obama, Palin, and McCain had in the debates to questions about Iran, and she used these quotes to support her conservative view that McCain is more experienced in international politics and would be more likely to prevent a nuclear holocaust. The important thing here is that she clearly showed each candidate's views along with the questions asked, so people reading this can see right away which candidate shares the same position they do. 

National Review on Bill Ayers

The editors of National Review did a piece today called "The Unturned Page" where they pointed out that McCain's campaign should focus more on how he is better than Obama economically than attack him by his association with Bill Ayers. They said McCain should address middle-class concerns, show that his agenda will promote growth, make a credible pledge to prevent future financial crises like this one, and tie Obama to the liberals in Congress. 

I thought this was a really good/important article because it criticized focusing on things such as who Obama knew when he was younger that do not reflect how Obama would act as president. The fact that he knew this man does not mean that he has the same beliefs as him, and I think it is good that this conservative website acknowledges that and says that the campaign should talk about the issues that really matter, such as the economy, instead. 

CNN does the debate

I just finished watching the vice presidential debate on CNN, and the biggest complaint I have about the coverage is the stupid little monitor at the bottom of the screen measuring the approval of independent men and women from ohio. There are two major things I think are wrong with this monitor.

First of all, it is extremely distracting. I found myself looking at it throughout the debate because it was right below where they put the question they were answering, so when I looked at the question, I was immediately drawn to the monitor as well to see how these voters were reacting to the candidates' responses. This, in turn, caused me to stop paying attention to what the candidates were saying and instead see how people were responding to what they were saying. 

Second, it emphasizes the "horse race" aspect of the election even more. The debates are the few times when candidates have the chance to speak at length about issues and when voters can see how they stand and can react under pressure, and the monitor undermines the purpose of the debating by drawing attention to how everyone else is reacting and pulling your attention away from the issues. 

NR Coverage of the Debate

The National Review coverage of the debate was really substantial in my opinion. There were six articles online, all of which were extremely readable and not too long-winded or anything. They all said McCain was the clear winner, but they did not base this opinion on appearances of anything superficial. Instead, they went into detail talking about different positions McCain took that were strong, places where he actually could have had some good one liners because he was clearly right, and things Obama said that were not strong points or even right at all. 

The first article, "Missing at Ole Miss," was a question and answer with Debra Burlingame. She said right away that she would not vote for Obama, but in her answers she never mentioned as one of her reasons anything regarding their style, dress, expression, posture, etc. She instead said she supports less spending, which she would not get with Obama, and she thought McCain was better with foreign policy. One of the questions she answered was what she would ask Obama and McCain if given the chance. Her answer to this question was amazing, she put a lot of thought into it and said she would ask Obama what he thought Iraq would be like today with Saddam Hussein as a leader, and she would ask McCain how he would expect to get anything done if elected because he probably would not have control of the Senate.

I thought this piece was good to include, because she is not some big pundit featured all the time that gives cliche answers. She is the sister of a pilot killed on September 11, and she seems more average and like regular voters. She also did not include any judgments made on trivial matters, all her opinions seemed well thought out and based on important matters.

The second article, "The Editors: Round 1," was an editorial that claimed McCain had the better performance and passed up some shots to get Obama. It also criticized McCain a bit, and said he needs to do better next time connecting our budget with foreign spending. Even though they clearly supported McCain, it was nice to still see some criticism of him, because it shows that they do not simply just agree with him because of his political party, and that there are problems with him that we have to decide whether we support or not.

The third article, "Senator McCain is absolutely right ..." said how Obama said eight times that McCain was right. The author predicted that Obama wouldn't make that mistake next time, and that Obama did well enough overall, just not as well as McCain. Finally, he said that some might say Obama won merely by holding his own, but that if you really judge them straight, McCain won. I thought this was a good piece that showed evidence of Obama letting McCain call the shots. I liked how it acknowledged how so many candidates have "won" by merely holding their own, but that it actually did not take this stance because McCain debated better and had better arguments. 

The fourth article, "Higher Questioning," said that Obama tried to go after McCain, but McCain just towered over him on every issue of substance. There were not many one liners or gaffs, but instead it was a square-off between a young man of great charm and an old warrior who has seen much of the world' problems. I thought this was definitely an attempt to create a narrative and pick roles for these candidates to fill. Yes, we know that one liners often do control coverage of the debates, and that Obama is younger and McCain is older, but I don't think it was necessary for this article to spell out the stereotypes of the candidates for us to look at even more. 

The fifth article, "Saturday-Morning Quarterbacking," said McCain should have definitely won based on appearances, because he was energetic while Obama had a scowl and "plastic smile." But, the author said, it is not based on appearances. This again said that McCain had a bunch of chances to get Obama with one liners, like with his advisor that headed Fannie Mae, or all these promises Obama had made before that he didn't keep, or him going back and forth on the war issue. I thought this was interesting because it went through and spelled out a bunch of ways Obama was wrong or changed his opinion or could have been easily shot down. 

The sixth article, "Quick Points on Debate 1," was the notes of the author directly after the debate, without hearing any commentary or opinions of other people. I though this was a bit superficial at parts, including such things as certain tie choices being good, but it also included a lot of thoughts on Obama doing better on taxes and both seeming very moderate, not really so much about change. 

Overall, even though the coverage was obviously tilted toward McCain, there was still a lot of criticism of how he did during the debate. One thing I think could have been included was how McCain might have been wrong. So many times Obama said during the debate that McCain wasn't right and he didn't know where he was getting these numbers. It would have been extremely helpful for someone writing an article to spell out how McCain was wrong or why, at least, Obama claimed he was.

Palin is "gorgeous"

CNN last night included breaking news on the financial crisis fallout. It focused heavily on the candidates sharing opinions on how they do not want average people to pay for Wall Street's problems. One of their biggest concerns is CEO's pocketing the taxpayer's money instead of using it for the crisis. Obama and McCain even made a joint statement that "Now is the time to come together." 

After focusing on this for quite a while, they moved onto Palin and talked about how Pakistan's new president called Palin "gorgeous." Then, of course, it was time for the polls and information about the "key states": Montana, Pennsylvania, Michigan, and West Virginia. Obama's numbers are going up, partially because the economy was bad news for the Republicans, Obama has been spending more money on ads, and the boost Palin gave McCain is going back down. 

I think the coverage was over-emphasizing the joint efforts of Obama and McCain. This was just an excuse for them to "come together," even though we all know that this will hardly last and in a day or two they'll be back at each other's throats again. 

I also think it is inappropriate to talk about how Pakistan's president called Palin "gorgeous." It was a sexist comment that he should not have said, you would NEVER hear a female leader calling Obama or Biden handsome. And CNN's coverage of it did not mention once how inappropriate this was or anything. If CNN would have turned this into a package about sexism in the election or something like that, it would have been better. But it did not. Instead, it just mentioned what Pakistan's president said and talked about the talks and did not talk at all about how this may have made Palin uncomfortable or anything like that. They could have suggested how what he said was inappropriate, but instead that just wanted to reinforce that Palin is only a pretty face and avoid talking about anything that goes in depth to her policy decisions and ability to lead. 

If Obama wins .....

Jim Geraghty did an article for National Review where he imagines what it would be like if Obama won the election. He says it does not seem like that crazy of a concept, considering the Republicans have all the negative spotlight while the Democrats have not and can say "our ideas would work perfectly, if we could just get it past those obstructionists standing in our way!" So, he explores what the "spotlight" has missed, and all the problems the Democrats have had and would most likely continue to have if elected. 

He discusses how unimpressive the Pelosi-Reid Congress is, with a chairman of the Ways and Means committee that doesn't understand the tax laws and a House Judiciary chairman who speculates about "retroactive impeachment process." He questions whether Obama will really have all the troops out of Iraq in 16 months and meet with the rulers of North Korea, Cuba, Venezuela, Syria, and Iran in his first year. He also questions how well the markets will perform with top effective tax rates hitting 50 percent and how gasoline will be without offshore drilling and what effects there will be in the economy.

What I liked about this article is it brings up some key questions that need to be answered before people can make their decisions. These are all really important issues to voters, and if they do think Obama can do all the things he has said and Geraghty questions, then they will probably vote for him. Thus, I think it's good that these questions were raised, even if the article does doubt Obama can do these things. At least the questions were put out there and real issues were discussed that voters need to know about. After reading this, people can decide on their own if they think Obama can or cannot do these things, and they can base a decision on important issues and not slips of the tongue.

Wolf Blitzer focuses on poll numbers

Wolf Blitzer began the CNN Politics podcast for yesterday by discussing McCain's and Obama's responses to recent economic woes. He said that McCain "tweaked" his stance on the bailout and is trying to bring across his zero tolerance for Wall Street. He was shown visiting Michigan and trying to erase the perception that he's out of touch with the workers. 

Obama was visiting Nevada and discussing "what voters care about" there: healthcare, mining, and the economy. It was nice to see real issues included in this segment , with Blitzer mentioning Obama's 6-point blueprint for the economy that wants greater law enforcement for trade deals, more government oversight on banking, and more cooperation between regulatory agencies among other things. 

This part lasted for the first half of the 13-minute segment. The rest of it, however, focused almost completely on poll numbers.

Blitzer discussed how some states are surprisingly becoming battleground states although they were won fairly easily by the Republicans in the last election. Indiana, North Carolina, Florida, and Michigan are all surprisingly more Democratic, partially because McCain hasn't focused efforts there because they were not battlegrounds before. 

The first half of the segment was a decent effort at good journalism. The economy was discussed at length, and specific plans for Obama were mentioned (although nothing was said of how McCain would solve the problems). I think they could have had even more air time for the candidates themselves, but overall it wasn't too bad.

What I did not like was the focus in the second half on the race itself and all the poll numbers. I don't see why this had to take up some much time when there are much more important matters that can be discussed. They kept talking about percentage point differences in the states, many of which were extremely small differences, and I think it would have been much better to have spent all of the segment focusing on the economy and the candidates' plans. 

Anderson Cooper on Economic Issues

On Anderson Cooper's podcast for September 16, the first story he discussed was how McCain and Obama want to improve the economy. He actually discussed the issues fairly well, and he went over ways they agree, questioned how they would pay for their "grand economic plans," and gave each candidate fair amounts of air time before bringing in the pundits. 

The second story also had to do with the election, this time he showed scenes from the View, where McCain openly lied about how Palin didn't support earmarks. The hosts, including Barbara Walters, call McCain out on lying, and Anderson cues the pundits who question if McCain has gone too far stretching the truth. David Gergen says McCain went "way beyond normal bounds" and says journalists are getting angry and not putting up with it any more. 

Anderson further says McCain said today that Obama didn't in fact call Palin a pig, although last week he approved the commercial saying he did. 

A pundit from Time explains these discrepancies by saying that McCain is clearly uncomfortable with the campaign they are running. By having to partially go back to the truth and explain himself, he is revealing how uncomfortable he is lying and running these messages. 

The pundits also go into how many of McCain's quotes are run out of context, including remarks about the recession and the middle class being at $5 million. 

A couple things I noted from Anderson Cooper's segment are that first of all, the story about the economy and issues voters may care about was substantially shorter than the second story about McCain lying in the campaign. Although it is important to call McCain out for not telling the truth, I think it is far more important for voters to see how each candidate plans to solve the economic problems of the country. 

Second, I think they should have interviewed McCain himself in the second story and asked him why he has stretched the truth so much. I don't think they should have pundits on making excuses for him, such as saying that he is "clearly uncomfortable" with the campaign and that he is, in fact, a good person who really doesn't want to lie that much. They just seem to be making excuses for him and making voters feel sorry for this poor candidate that is being forced by his campaign to say things he really doesn't mean.