News Media Commentary: Virginia Discussion with Tim Craig

Washpost.com had another great discussion today with Virginia politics reporter Tim Craig regarding Virginia's position as a key state in the presidential election. I've said it before and I'll say it again- these discussions are a really great way to reach out to readers and use multimedia to its best gain.

I would worry a bit however, if I as a reporter was asked to participate in a discussion like this, that by offering my opinions on current situations, I would give off an apparent bias that could be destructive to my position.

Anyways, on to the topic at hand.

Craig addressed some interesting questions here- answering them well. I found his explanation of how the major parties get an idea of how many voters they have in a state that doesn't have a party box on voter registrations particularly good.

Of course, for this blog, the most important topic is the Warner/Gilmore race. Craig's insight here is pretty good.

He puts down a bit the idea of a "reverse coattail effect" that could lead Warner's popularity to help Obama. Craig does say that he thinks Warner could help Obama pick up a point or two in rural areas of the state in Southwest Virginia, but that Obama could help Warner gain points just by pulling people out to vote in the presidential race.

We'll see what happens.

News Media Commentary: In Real America, Shining a Light on Faux Pas

WashPost published an interesting article today looking at the "Real America" comments made by those in the McCain campaign recently and the effects those comments have had on Virginians supporting Obama who consider themselves part of that real America.

I'm not going to get into it too much- it only showed up on my "Mark Warner/Jim Gilmore" search because Warner talked at the Obama rally mentioned in the article, but it's an interesting piece to look at.

News Media Commentary: Editorial- Mark Warner for Senate

Today, the Washington Post endorsed Mark Warner for U.S. Senate.

The Editorial Board brought out the adjectives today- calling Warner a "successful entrepreneur who rescued Virginia from insolvency by streamlining government while modestly raising taxes." James S. Gilmore III (am I supposed to be using their full names here? Am I going to get in trouble for not putting the R in Mark R. Warner?) was described unattractively as "an unapologetic, not very thoughtful partisan whose reckless tax cuts nearly drove Virginia to financial ruin."

And somewhere Gilmore goes "Ouch!" You gotta feel bad for the guy after that blow.

The Editorial said itself (personifying articles for the win!), "The contest between Mr. Warner and Mr. Gilmore is as much a referendum on their tenures as governor as it is on their plans for the Senate." And apparently, despite many saying this is a bad idea, it's the correct option to judge the future performance of a politician on his past performance in a completely different office!

However, the Post does look ahead as well- saying Gilmore's "knee-jerk opposition to the $700 billion federal rescue of the financial system shows that his irresponsibility would continue in the Senate," as he accuses and attacks Wall Street high rollers and other "nebulous punching bags" (what a great line!) without offering any good alternatives.

The Editorial Board also points out fairly that some of Warner's campaign promises seem a bit- strange. The fact that Warner supports "Congress's effort to undermine the District's ability to author its own gun laws," an effort he would never support in Virginia, seems particularly strange. He also doesn't offer any specifics on how to fund U.S. transit upgrades.

Overall though, the Board must think he's a pretty good choice. I mean, who endorses a candidate a full three weeks before the contest?

Very interesting. Though the Post seems to lean left in its endorsements usually anyways, the Board presents a very good reasoning of why it supports Warner over Gilmore.

Now I still think they could do more with the online presentation. Have they ever considered producing a video showing exactly why they're endorsing a particular candidate over the other? I don't think anyone's done that yet- it would be innovative and a great way to expand into new media. I feel like they could at least have thrown in a few sidebars comparing Warner's policies with Gilmore's positions at least- just repurposing content to put online seems a little lazy and non-innovative to me.

News Media Commentary: Who are all those McCain-Warner voters?

Interesting article from Marc Fisher today on the tale of the elusive "McCain-Warner" voter.

Fisher hit the streets with U.S. Senate Democratic candidate Mark Warner in an effort to find out what compels Virginia voters to switch parties down at the Senate section.

Some reasons offered up by the people he talked to-

• Warner's history as governor compels voters to think of him as a guy who reaches across party lines and gets things done.
  
• Warner's business background helped boost the technology sector and was great for Virginia, particularly NoVa.
  
• Even straight voting Republicans credit Warner with being an "unusually acceptable Democrat."
• People are "unsure" of Obama, but McCain and Warner are people that have been in the public eye for a long time, being watched.
• The characterization of Virginia as a place unready to relate to Obama- "the kind of place that says, 'You're going to conform to our ways or you're going to have a problem.'"
• Warner said himself- his years of work before running for governor making himself known at fairs, festivals, and turning himself into a NASCAR fan- connected him to "rural Virginia culture." Warner says it's unrealistic to expect that Obama could do all that groundwork in the short time of a general election campaign.

How many media articles am I going to have to analyze comparing Warner and Obama? Where is Gilmore's attention? Why is he getting ignored? Just because he's thirty points back doesn't mean he's non-existent.

Where's the Republican love, people?

News Media Commentary: Two Identical Articles on Warner, Different Titles

"Should Mark Warner regret not going for the White House?" This Marc Fisher article online is called.

And here's the exact same article as it appeared in print. Titled "A Lead like Warner’s might make Obama more interesting”

How very weird- the same article published online and in print, just with different titles. Do you think it's in an effort to reach out to different audiences?

That's what I'm betting. A headline really changes entirely how a story is perceived. The online "White House" title has a note of more optimism in it towards Warner's chances- but also implies that Obama may not be doing so hot in the race. Then the "Lead" title is more neutral, but implies perhaps that Obama isn't terribly interesting.

I think it's funny that this theme is coming back again and again- the question of "Is Warner riding on Obama's coattails or is Obama riding on Warner's coattails?"

The article itself is eh. I don't agree with the premise.

Fisher starts out- "Mark Warner isn't running against Barack Obama, but he's beating his fellow Democrat by a stunning 25 or so points. The former governor is trouncing his Republican opponent for the U.S. Senate, Jim Gilmore, by upward of 30 points in recent polls. Obama, in contrast, holds a slim lead over John McCain in most Virginia polls."

Well duh. You know how you hold up a magnifying glass to something and you start seeing all its flaws? Even on a model's face? Warner and Gilmore have already been put to that scrutiny in Virginia- they've been seen up close, in personal, and in action. The voters already seem to have made up their minds who they like. Neither Obama nor McCain, on the other hand, have ever been seen in action in Virginia- they're totally out of their element and getting seen in this instance, from afar. And with Virginia's changing dynamics the way they are, it makes sense that McCain and Obama would be neck and neck at this point in the game.

Anyways, Fisher does make one good point- Warner's being more open than Obama at this point, complaining about "the failure of the presidential candidates to get specific about our dire economic situation." Obama, instead, is playing it cautious, as a presidential candidate is prone to doing.

Apparently Warner's crowds really do wonder why McCain and Obama don't "talk like this," in the style of explaining how we got "into this mess" and how he would set up a "bipartisan coalition of radical centrists" who would fix it.

I love how Fisher describes the need for a Democrat to lean center with some traditionally Republican values, proving himself as a "NASCAR-loving, pro-gun kind of Democrat."

Then he actually got an interview with Warner (at least the article implies) at a burger joint in Manassas Park- got his opinions on McCain and Obama, and the Bush administration.

I really do like the ending- go read it, it's pretty. : )


You know, I think I'm starting to see what a friend of mine, Nick, has been pointing out. The media really does emphasize the "urgency" and "catastrophic nature" of this "economic crisis." According to economic definitions of crisis, um, we're not in one. Though it's necessary that the media covers the news out there- including economic perceptions and beliefs- it's not necessary for articles to make it seem like our country is on the verge of a breakdown.

-shrug-

News Media Commentary: Ten Steps Through Virginia to the White House

A fascinating article by Tim Craig today on the "Ten Steps Through Virginia to the White House."

The very first question addressed in the piece is "What role does Mark R. Warner play for Obama?"

Craig's answer- since Warner is wildly popular and leading 30 points over Gilmore in the polls, he may have an effect on Obama's ability to win Virginia. However (as I guessed before! I so said this!), Craig says it's unclear how public Warner will be with his support of Obama, as he is still trying to attract supporters from moderate Republicans (who could shun Warner if he takes a high-profile role in Obama's campaign).

Ooo I love it when I call things right.

This article is awesome! It really does political analysis very well.

The rest of the article is fascinating too, but absolutely nothing I'm willing to comment on due to my propensity to write articles on the presidential election on UWire Youth Vote '08 and my unwillingness to comment on such issues due to the absolute necessity of me staying as objective as possible on the topic.

And there you go.

(Unofficial) News Media Commentary: Warner has Support of many Republicans

Mark Warner, the Democratic candidate for the U.S. Senate, has the support of many Republican officials, according to a recent Richmond Times Dispatch article. (I'm aware this won't count for my news media commentary for WashPost.com, it's cool).

The former governor gave a news conference in Richmond Friday accompanied by several former GOP state legislators, including former Senate Finance Committee Chairman John H. Chichester of Northumberland County. Chichester said that he and other Republicans support Warner for Senate because of his focus on leadership.


It could be interesting to see what effect this news has on the race. It has been no secret that Warner is considered a stronger candidate than Gilmore by many. My last blog entry reveals that- I mean, if the guy whose spot you're trying to get in Senate doesn't even support you, what does that say?

We'll see what happens next.

News Media Commentary: GOP's Warner Hesitant to Back Gilmore over Bailout Stance

Ok I'm so happy to have an excuse to use this picture.


Yep. It's U.S. Sen. John Warner in a kilt. LWPrencipe took it back in 2005 at the Alexandria, Virginia Scottish Walk. <3 the Creative Commons.

This leads into my article of the day- regarding outgoing Sen. Warner's hesitancy towards backing Republican candidate Jim Gilmore in the election for his seat in the U.S. Senate.

Apparently in a conference call with reporters, Warner said he could possibly vote for Democrat Mark Warner (they're unrelated). The elder Warner said that though the young (whipper-snapper, I insert) Warner ran against him in a 1996 Senate campaign, the two are friends.

(To tell them apart from now on, I will put John Warner's name in bold. Mark Warner will be unbolded.)

Warner said he is disappointed that Gilmore is criticizing the financial bailout so strongly. As I mentioned in a past blog entry, Gilmore attacked Warner for his support of the bailout package strongly in the last debate, saying it was an unnecessary use of tax dollars.

Warner voted for the federal bailout plan Wednesday, saying it was needed to spur banks to lend money.

Warner donated $2,000 to Gilmore's campaign in June, but according to the article, it wouldn't be unusual for Warner to break ranks with his party (he endorsed an independent in a 1994 Senate race instead of his fellow Republican candidate).


Man, when I write Warner in bold it kinda makes him seem like God, yeah? Really weird. I think I'll avoid that in the future.

Nice little write-up by Tim Craig- short, sweet, to the point. It's very interesting that Warner is considering not voting for Gilmore in an election that, if Warner wins, will leave Virginia's two U.S. Senate seats completely in Democratic hands (with U.S. Sen. Jim Webb, of course).


Verrryyy interestingggg.

News Media Commentary: The teeth come out- when candidates attack

(photo taken by Flickr's Duo de Hale, who said the dogs in the picture are actually just playing. It sure looks like fighting though- so it fits for this post. Creative Commons licensed picture.)

Anita Kumar wrote an article in WashPost today on last night's Gilmore v. Warner debate, the last scheduled debate of the race.

Here's the scoop:

• Republican Jim Gilmore repeatedly touted his opposition to the $700 billion financial bailout package signed into law earlier today and attacked his Democratic opponent Mark Warner over his support for the emergency economic plan. This financial rescue package offers Gilmore the chance to emphasize the differences between him and Warner (who as I noted in one of my former blog entries, are seen as creepily similar at times).
  
  Quick Quote: "This bailout is wrong. It is wrong," Gilmore said. "I can say, I would have voted no. I would have protected the taxpayer. Mark Warner would have not."
  
  
• Warner says he supports the plan and would have voted for it, although he would have liked to see some changes. He noted that both presidential candidates and both Virginia senators supported the bill.
  
  Quick Quote: "We had to act," Warner said. "This was a time when we needed to go forward to help the taxpayers."
  
  
• Apparently this debate was more "feisty" then the last two, as both candidates were observed interrupting the other. They were also noted snapping at each other like dogs fighting.
  
  Gilmore attack: "Don't talk down to me. Don't tell me I don't understand. You don't understand." (I can't help feel that this quote may have qualified for a few exclamation points.)
  
  Warner attack: "The last thing Washington needs is one more over-the-top, my-way-or-the-highway, partisan ideologue in the Senate."
  
  Now, boys, it's time to play nice!
  

The article also talked a little on various topics such as the Iraq War, illegal immigrants, and other not quite as fun topics.

Then the teeth came out again! (At least in the article)

• On the topic of the state's past financial problems! A fitting one for two former governors!
  
  Warner Attack: "You can't simply push off problems the way you tried to do when you pushed off the budget shortfalls we inherited when I became governor of Virginia."
  
  Gilmore Attack: "There was never a budget shortfall in Virginia," Gilmore said. "The law does not permit that."

Oh sister. Watch out for that.

And here's another photo to illustrate.

(photo by Jesse Gardner- who also said that these dogs may look fierce were just "having a grand time")

What has the world come to when dogs are behaving better than our candidates for state senator?


Oy vey.

News Media Commentary: Warner/Gilmore Debate not on TV

Raw Fisher weighs in on how you can’t watch the Warner vs. Gilmore debate on tv anywhere.

Apparently every market in Virginia is carrying the debate between Warner and Gilmore live on local TV, except the local Washington D.C. stations. Though News Channel 8 is showing a tape of the debate at 11 p.m., not a single one will show the debate live.

Fisher derides this decision by talking of the shows that will fill the time on those channels instead, including "Wheel of Fortune," "Jeopardy," "The Simpsons" and "Entertainment Tonight."

He does say the debate will be livestreamed on WashPost.com.

I really think Fisher says it best here.

"Polling shows Warner to be far, far ahead of Gilmore in the race to succeed Sen. John Warner, but that doesn't excuse the decision to bypass the only TV meeting between the candidates in the most important race on Virginia ballots other than the presidency."

So are the Washington stations crossing into part of Virginia at all? Does it overlap with say, Northern Virginia? If that's the case, I'm totally with Fisher every step of the way. However, if these stations are really only just for the district, I think he's overreacting a little.

The comments on the site suggest that the stations do overlap with Northern Virginia.

One commenter laments- "...Once again, northern Virginia is not part of the rest of the state. Perhaps I should have stayed in Maryland or DC, both places where I lived in earlier years.
It is hard to believe that the accepted wisdom predicting the winner pre-determines how the democratic process should unfold, here in our nation's capital. Virginia is in play this year.
And a Senatorial race is important, always. I can't believe that no local TV station is carrying the debate."

Sad. Very Sad.

News Media Commentary: Seinfeld Actor helping Warner raise money

As part of the "Blogging the Way to Election Day" feature today, I found a fun piece on Mark Warner.

Jason Alexander, formerly known as "George Costanza" on the TV show "Seinfeld" is helping former Democratic governor Mark Warner raise money!

Just dig this quote-

"If you thought Seinfeld was a show about nothing, you should check out Congress," Alexander said in a fundraising letter e-mailed to supporters. "I can't remember such a lack of productivity since the summer of George."

Excellent! (Does "George" even live anywhere near Virginia?")

I mean, not that Warner really needs Alexander's help- as I've already noted in past blog entries, he, at least a while ago, was outraising Jim Gilmore eight to one. But it's pretty cool nonetheless.

And now I have the opportunity to post pseudo-stalkerish photos of Jason Alexander from Flickr! I love Creative Commons!

(Photo by adjustafresh. Said he took it in Rhode Island so maybe Alexander lives on the East coast after all.)

And okay, the blog thing is cool- it puts together tons of little briefs on Virginia and national politics news. It's a fast way of getting a ton of -really random- news on politics.

And there's your news media commentary. Many apologies- I got distracted by my near-obsessive love of all things celebrity.