The Alan Grayson Page

The Anthony Weiner Page

Guest Contributors


  • BN-Politics' administrators respect, but do not necessarily endorse, views expressed by our contributors. Our goal is to get the ideas out there. After that, they're on their own.
Blog powered by Typepad
Member since 05/2007

Blog Catalog

  • Liberalism Political Blogs - Blog Catalog Blog Directory



« Maureen Dowd, Stop Making Sense, Sort Of!: Dowd on the Georgia Conflict | Main | Major Progress on Stem-Cell Research »

August 19, 2008



Both campaigns are well within historical norms here, in terms of the announcement date as compared to the convention. A lot of nominees have been named AT the convention.

The difference this year is not the announcement time, but the amount of media sources buzzing around trying to speculate or get a scoop. It's just media noise - the best thing to do is ignore it and wait for the actual announcement.

The only time either of the campaigns has really pulled any BS on this issue is when the McCain campaign "privately" told Robert Novak that they were likely to announce during the week of Obama's foreign trip. That was pure misdirection, as Novak himself admitted.

Deb Cupples


I don't care about historical norms. The media -- with the campaign's cooperation -- is trying to create suspense over the running mate.

I find it manipulative and don't like it.


Oh, sure, absolutely. It's just hard to really fault the campaigns here for simply trying to maximize positive media exposure. Even the blogosphere, which presumably is less slavishly devoted to ratings, gets caught up in the VP speculation frenzy.

Deb Cupples


I DO fault the campaign for even trying. That's my point.


Hi Deb - Did you sign up for the text message delivery of vp pick?

Just wondering how many people fell for that - like hey "you're going to know first!" I'm so sure! A major juvi move.

It shows lack of experience and selfish motives are at play. Barry is sure loser.


Deb, if you fault political campaigns for trying to maximize their media exposure, you're going to be very disappointed from May through November of every even year. I mean, this is just the way the world works. And as far as I can figure, it's not that big a deal.

Danny, I know every piece of political news is a reason that Obama is terrible and/or a sure loser to you, but just to make it clear:

1) Obama's campaign surely will text out the news in advance of any press releases or other announcement.

2) The text message sign-up was another way for them to attempt to expand their voter file. THAT was the goal of the move.

Deb Cupples

Hi Danny,

No, I did not sign up for the "advanced notice," but Damozel did -- so if they really tell a select few-million in advance, Damozel will likely tell me.

Deb Cupples


I've been invovled in campaigns for much of the last decade (including my own once).

I understand the importance of media attention. I just think that Obama's repeated teasing over the VP is cheesy and contrived.

Why not garner attention over real issues, instead of creating a non-issue (announcement) -- when he has control over the release date of that info?


This is almost entirely a media-generated frenzy; the stories lately have been about things as trivial as what Biden said in his driveway (couldn't "the guy" he was referring to have been Obama?) and what pronoun Obama used (wasn't it clear he was talking about Cheney?).

It seems silly to blame this on Obama's campaign when they are not really encouraging it. The only thing they can do to end it is to announce the pick. So, essentially, what you're saying is that when the media starts chattering loudly enough, the Obama campaign has some moral obligation to give them what they want. That way they can cover... whatever stupid crap they want to cover next. It's not Obama's obligation to shift the media's focus!

Again, I really think you're making a mountain out of a molehill here. The reason this is the story is because it sells copy, not because Obama's campaign is manipulative.

Deb Cupples


Here you go again. :)

The NY Times got its info about the announcement coming "as early as Wednesday" FROM OBAMA's AIDES. Period.

(Note that "as early as" makes the statement technically correct even if they later move the date.)

If the Obama campaign had NOT wanted to encourage suspense and create a drum roll, it DID NOT have to announce on the spot.

The OTHER CHOICE, which would have preserved secrecy, was to simply say "We plan to announce the VP on Day X." Period.

Instead, campaign aides kept going to the press and moving the deadline. (Yesterday, the announcement moved from an implied Wednesday to an implied Saturday, though that might change today.)

I can't do a better job of showing evidence of intention to create a suspenseful drum roll.

As for me: I didn't blow it out of proportion. I wrote ONE POST 2 days ago.

Then I WAS DONE with it -- except to respond to your defensive claims.

Your most recent one is slightly inconsistent with one of your earlier ones, incidentally. YOU SAID:

First, that it's historically consistent to delay the announcement. (Fine, though that wasn't my point)

Second, "Oh, sure, absolutely" (in response to my saying that the media WITH OBAMA's HELP is manipulatively teasing the public).

Third, you offered, "It's just hard to really fault the campaigns here for simply trying to maximize positive media exposure." ("Trying," by definition, involves intent.)

NOW you're saying it's "almost entirely a media- generated" thing? It just happened to and around an unwitting Obama?

That doesn't gel with your prior use of the It's-hard-to-fault-the-campaign-for-TRYING defense.

Anyway, you're right that it's NOT a real issue, which is why I haven't posted about it again -- and why I feel only very mild disgust over the campaign's attempt to play the voters like they're stupid soap-opera viewers.

The comments to this entry are closed.