Newsvine Q&A: Chuck Todd on U.S. Politics

Do you realize that not a day goes by that I don't receive at least one email (from friends or family) that is a negative Obama "story", usually filled with lies AND can even be fact checked but most often is not. This also happened with the Kerry campaign.
When you talk about over exposure, I believe this is exactly what people are referring to. Why doesn't a major network do a story on this new type of dirty campaigning? Am I incorrect in making the jump to the assumption that these are all Republican motivated? I have NEVER gotten one slamming a Republican candidate.

I couldn't agree more with your assessment. Just look at what this past administration has done to this country and still too many would rather have criminals governing them instead of a bright, intelligent, and fair African American. By the way, I am an "older" white woman, and former Clinton supporter. Enough already. Think of your country and it's hard-working people!

That's because Republicans care about nothing but winning. They lied about John Kerry's honorable military service (despite the fact Bush was a draft dodger... oh the IRONY) and that got them another four years. They'll do it again.

Well Ian in Alabama, the Repubs have Corporate America in their pockets and they live to win! This truly is a referendum on Obama, which is why, Martha, you will continue to receive those emails. While McCain gets a pass, over and over.

What's worse is that dishonesty is the new honesty, no wonder our children are conflicted and confused.

If people get tired of Obama at some point the spotlight will shift to McCain. This is not good for McCain. John McCain has some serious "flip-flops", particularly his comment that the Bush tax cuts offended his conscience. He now supports making those tax cuts permanent. McCain would do well to float under the radar. His best chance is to back into the Presidency just as he backed into to nominatation.

Remember that you lose your bearings when no one listens to what you are saying.

:-)

Thank you.

Jen, I think you are spot-on. Imagine if Biden had won the nomination, do you think the Clintons would make such a fuss? Someone had to lose and someone had to win -- simple. I agree with Roland Martin's assessment of this whole thing. In additon, Barack has shown nothing but respect, that is, "as far as I know"

What's worse in this scenario is that none of the Clintonites are thinking of the party, nor issues, nor Supreme Court appointees... only themsleves.

Party insiders do not have the ability to "shed some light on exactly what is going on", that would require being truthful..The insiders, along with the media, are responsible for this situation. They force-fed this result, coming down the home stretch.

I am an outspoken liberal democrat. The DNC and media have made it unlikey to vote for Obama. I truly resent their actions as far as their rules solutions (MI and FL), the lopsided tone of their commentary, their passion to end it before it was over and their total disregard for what the their voters might think.

Oboma would have very likely made history in 8-years. He would have been seasoned, he would have a real record for the national scene and we would have likely been in a democratic rebound from Bush. A known democrat (Edwards, Hillary . . .) would have won this easily.

The DNC blew it. They fell inlove with a dynamic speaker and the chance to make history. When it is all over we will still have that speaker; history will made some other day.

Will they ever learn? Even from a loss? I doubt it.

In November I will write in another democrats name. Is that contributing to a loss? Maybe . . . probably.

Provide me with a leader to follow, but don't assume you can demand that I will follow. Shame on the DNC. As for the media I mhave learned to expect less.

I think the following things also play into the Clintons' hurt feelings and lack of total support for Obama (especially Bill's):

-That the primary election was so close with Hillary getting the same or more raw vote counts (depending on how you count) and that Hillary would have won if (a) there had been ligitimate elections in Florida & Michigan, (b) if all states had primaries instead of caucuses, (c) if the Dems had a winner-take-all format like Republicans, or (d) if the superdelegates had not bought into the media's constant drumbeat that they "couldn't/shouldn't overturn the will of the voters" and had instead paid attention to the poll numbers in the key battleground states that Hillary would win but Obama might not.

-They don't think that Obama has "paid his dues" in the party (as Hillary has) and therefore he jumped the gun (and stepped on some toes) by running for president in '08.

-That Obama lumped the 8-yrs of Clinton's presidency into the "Washington's broken" theme during the primary, and got people to believe that you couldn't "turn the page" by voting for anyone with the last name of Clinton (i.e. which didn't you like, the peace or the prosperity?).

... and if a frog had wings it would hit its a$$ while hoping.

Chuch and Str8UpNoChaser,

This is the best question I have ever read here! I don't think anyone in any media will ever answer it.

So, Chuck, prove me wrong and answer it. Do you think the media should be responsible for fact checking or any truth at all in reporting? Or should the media just pass on info fed to it.

It seems the media has gotten lazy. Journalism that can be trusted has been replaced with the attempt to manipulation of the masses.

Has anyone read the report from Center for Media and Public Affairs. It is entitled 'MEDIA BASH BARACK (NOT A TYPO)' ? Google it.

This. I hate it when the media lets campaign spokesmen and -women on and don't question anything they say. Nancy Pfotenhauer, a McCain spokeswoman, was running her gab to David Shuster and spewing all kids of BS about Obama and he didn't even CHALLENGE her. That's why I love Andrea Mitchell. She TORE through Carly Fiorina and Rick Davis. It's time these Republicans learn to tell the damn truth.

I couldn't agree more...the truth should be the rule. Take the Georgia story, let's support Georgia, even though they started the conflict with Russia. McCain wants to speak for "all of us", but let me say he doesn't speak for me, therefore, he doesn't speak for all Americans, just his lobbists!

Hi Tony C - I think you may be correct in that many new "identity" voters are based on race and gender. I think that the dissatisfaction on the Hillary supporter front is being aimed at Obama, who, as far as I know, never said anything inappropriate about Hillary.

The sexism complaints that she and her supporters have are legitimate, but they should be aimed at specific members of the media - this is the source. To blame this on Obama, the person who would most understand how unfair it is to make comments based on what a person is, rather than his or her policy beliefs, is ridiculous.

And I think it is telling that many younger women are supporting Obama - they are not understanding why the older women are so vehemently against Obama. It appears that the generational divide is hitting in the feminist movement as well as the general society.

True feminists could never vote for McCain, so those women who are saying they supported Hillary but will now support McCain were likely some of those "identity" voters.

As one of the avid Hillary supporters, I will vote for Obama, but without enthusiasm. There are two things I can't forgive him for: the first was not agreeing to holding new primary elections in Florida and Michigan so those millions of voters could participate in the process (because he knew he would lose and it might cost him the election), and the second was opting out of public financing for the general election after saying he would take it. To me these things go directly against his main rhetoric of bringing change to Washington and reveal him as the "anything to win" politician that he is. Let's face it, all he has is his rhetoric, since he has extremely limited experience governing.

I completely agree with your post. I think it is hilarious that the guy who owns 9 houses, has his own private jet(which his wife said is the only way to get around AZ LOL), and wears $600 shoes, is calling the guy who just paid off the rest of his student loans a few years ago, the elitist. HELLO, POT MEET KETTLE!!!

I completely agree with you! What I have learned (from the Clintons) is that if you say a thing long enough, it somehow becomes relevant, ie, "we really don't know who Obama is" what else exactly is there to know? He has been followed from Kindergarten until his 47th birthday! Are they really saying, "he hasn't really been living/politicking/in Washington long enough?"

Str8UpNoChaser,

I agree! It seems most media is trying to be Fixed News Channel.

What about the vetting of the possible first ladies?

Everyone has heard of Michelle being really proud of her country for the first time and how that would reflect on her as first lady. We have been informed of her upbringing, where she went to school and the fact she had a student loan she paid off. She apparently has worked to get where she is. Elitist?

Who paid for Cindy's education? Was she involved in the break up of John's first marriage. Haven't heard anything about Cindy stealing drugs from her own charity to feed her drug habit. And certainly nothing about how she wasn't even arrested for it. Why? Who kept her out of the justice system? Do you think the media would have told us about it, if it had been the deeds of Michelle?

Just like Limbaugh, Cindy got just as much justice as she could afford to pay for. Who is the elitist again?

Is the media just being fair and balanced?

OK, that's what I figured.

Here is my two cents, not that you asked or anything. I've got two sleepers for each side.

DEMOCRATS - STRICKLAND(GOV OH) RICHARDSON(GOV NM)

REPUBLICANS - JINDAHL(GOV LA) LINDSEY GRAHM(SC)

IN MY OPINION THE VEEP USUALLY GOES TO SOMEONE THAT NOBODY IS REALLY TALKING ABOUT.

ITS PROBABLY GOING TO BE THE MOST OBVIOUS CHOICE(LIKE ROMNEY) OR SOMEONE COMPLETELY OUT OF LEFT FIELD.

Jindahl will never be the pick. He is out of the closet.

One thing that is never talked about during about the Paris/Britney ad is that McCain claims Obama plans to raise taxes on electricity. According to Politifact they can find no mention of that anywhere. It is an outright lie, but it is the ad's big closing line.

hey Chuck -
wil MSNBC.com need more staff?

Chuck, do you really think the McCain will have ALL NEW FACES....I think some Bushies will be tucked in there neatly into the folds!!!!! ON PURPOSE...lol wink!

I don't really see how the Obama campaign is going negative. It is perfectly legitimate to point out policy differences and articulate why you think the other party is wrong. It is a completely different thing to attack a candidate's character and integrity, which is exactly what McCain has been doing.

I'm curious how you see Obama participating in this mudslinging (just in case I am blinded by my support of the candidate).

Gretchen, I asked the same question. Isn't it fair to defend yourself by responding without ads being called "negative counter-attacks?"

Chuck -
Perhaps how that everyone has seen how you are starting a new trend in political analysis, the politicians will take heed! It's now chic to have facial hair - but only if you look as good as Chuck!

: )

Tony C. SA TX, how does this phrase catches you as you attempt to define political correctness:
"Sen. Obama is more interested in winning an election than winning a war"
I was appalled at the assertion that a Presidential candidate cares more about a political career than about the lives of fellow Americans, speaking of Americans, Sen. Obama has been accused of not being patriotic, not being an American. In my mind, that is a prerequisite for running for the office.

I say, politicians and others alike should call it as it is, enough with political correctness. No one is being held to a standard but the "Other" guy; we know what "other" means -- not like what "is-is", more overt than that.

The McCain camp does lie in every commercial and in every town hall so I don't think it is out of bounds for Obama to point that out. Facts are stubborn things if someone takes the time to check them. McCain even lies about what he said to different audiences. Whenever I listen to a McCain surrogate on POTUS (an XM channel covering the campaign) the hosts never correct even the most blatant lies. As President Bush famously said, you have to repeat yourself over and over so the propaganda can sink in.

Certainly the Obama camp has not been 100% factually correct, but they are not nearly as outright lies as team McCain.

PNB,

I don't know if we're right or not, but I said much the same thing on another thread yesterday. A Viner had mentioned that Obama needed to hit back on some of the McCain attacks in a more aggressive and timely manner, and I mentioned that I agreed, but added the thought that we'd see more of that behavior post convention.

My suspicion is that he will use the VP nominee to do most of the direct responses, freeing him to continue his focus on positive messaging and issue contrasting.

I think you're probably right. The American public's memory span is pretty short and they will forget lots of what is going on this summer (if they are even listening!).

I predict Obama pulls out the big guns and does a full court press later this fall.

I think you are right and the Obama campaign is holding back. Think about all the things that could be used to attack Obama - Rev. Wright, flag pins, secret Muslim, flip flop, etc. Because of the intensive use of these attacks both in the primary and early general election campaign they kind of feel like old news, boring, and used up (especially to the media which enjoys a new story/angle).

Obama hasn't really attacked McCain at all, so when the harsher critiques come in the Fall, when more people are paying, they may get more play because they aren't old hat.

That's my theory, for what it's worth.

Chuck,

I know you bleed Dodger blue, so I had a question for you. WHAT DO YOU THINK OF MANNY ON THE DODGERS. IM A HUGE REDSOX FAN SO I WAS A LITTLE BUMMED AT FIRST, BUT WHEN I HEARD AT LEAST CHUCK T WOULD GET TO CHEER FOR HIM, I FELT A LITTLE BETTER. GO SOX!

I recently got a call from one of the major polling names, and based on what I heard, I think that the results could be majorly skewed by the wording of the questions, even when it is a legitimate and well-respected poller.

Some of the questions required yes or no answers, and I had to think really hard, as I thought that my answer was more nuanced than the choices available to me. (typical Democrat, right?) I had to answer "I don't know" on some questions, simply because there was no other option.

This morning, I laughed my head off because our local paper reported two poll results in the same article - one poll result said Obama is leading nationwide, and the other poll said, OMG, Obama has dropped in every single one of the groups that has been supporting him previously! OK, this is ridiculous, these polls cannot both be right, so now I'm thinking that it's hard to take ANY poll seriously.

I am waiting for someone to take a poll to find out if anyone really believes any poll that disagrees with their own positions.

Chuck - can you give us any hope as to the validity of any of these polls?

Jen, I am laughing my head off now! I think we just need to wait for the polls of polls -- the real election!

We know the NBC Wall Street Journal poll is good. I think the ABC/Washington Post poll is pretty solid. I've never heard what Chuck thinks of Rasmussen, but I think Rasmussen's polls are lousy and skew heavily Republican in most circumstances. To be fair, some polls skew heavily Democratic.

Thanks for the info Chuck. There is a reason why they call you the best in the business.

It will depend on if everyone is allowed to vote.

Very good question. I am also wondering do you know what happened to Dana Milbank. I know that the quote he used for his article was taking completely out of context, but im not sure what ever happened to him because of this. Also, I heard he isnt on going to be on MSNBC anymore. Do you have any idea why?

tatro - this should bring you up to speed on the situation.

Milbank ditched MSNBC and went to CNN and is some sort of political contributor. Keith really didn't like that piece Milbank wrote in the Washington Post a couple weeks ago about Obama being arrogant and his taking Obama's quote to the House Dems completely out of context.

I agree totally with Chuck. But I do think it was pretty premature for Milbank to run with the quote, when he clearly didnt have the whole picture. Thank you Leah for the link.

Thank!, for trying Can the the network advisers sit down ,and have a discussion on what questions to ask that are not racially bias? The poll results in general are related to whats discussed, in the media and Internet discussion. If you just reported on the issues that affect us and not the racial effect it would be nice. Maybe its something to think about in the next for years , You never know it may be an American Cuban or Asian American running.