So, after every debate or every campaign commercial I have to read the press present all distortions as being equal.
You know, McCain wasn't accurate on this, BUT Obama wasn't accurate on that. Palin doesn't know who's in charge of the Afghanistan military forces, BUT Biden mislead about McCain's position on.... Blah, Gak, Blah, Gak fucking Blah!
And I keep asking, WHY do the Dems feel so compelled to dip their toes in the spin game? WHY????
Goddammit, If I can go to factcheck.org Latest debate and SEE the distortions, there's no excuse why the Obama/Biden campaign can't avoid distortions in advance.
I mean, really, why invite the comparisons, unfreakingly unbalanced though they may be? For these points?
Update: So how much of a present did the unvarnished truth get tonight in our next President's performance? See comments in bold italics
Obama was off the mark when he said that oil companies “currently have 68 million acres that they're not using.”
[...]
68 million leased acres are not producing oil, but they are not necessarily untouched. In fact, in 2006, the last year for which figures are available, there were a total of more than 15,000 holes that were being proposed, started or finished, according to the Bureau of Land Management.
Does the campaign need to distort this trivial point? What the hell for, the important talking point is honest and overwhelmingly compelling -- we can't drill our way out of our energy problems. 25% use, 3% of oil reserves that can't be realized for 10 years. Wash, rinse, repeat.
Well, Barack brought this up again, but I think the nuance was stronger as in we should have the leases given back if they are not producing. I think. See, why bring it up at all?
Obama said his health care plan would lower insurance premiums by up to $2,500 a year. Experts we’ve consulted see little evidence such savings would materialize.
Jesus, just stick to the meme that no one with previous conditions will be denied affordable insurance -- that's all we care about (well, many of us would prefer a single payer universal health care system, but we know that that's just too risky to champion).
Uhg, just leave the figure out already, the argument stands well on its own without this number
Obama flatly said he favored nuclear energy – embracing it more warmly than in the past:
Please, don't waffle on this, your original position is just fine for MOR folks. Can't rule it out, but safety first, please! No one is going to think you're soft on energy independence with this stance. Is the nuclear power industry so strong that you need to pander to them?
Yay! Obama avoided the compulsion to endorse Nuclear in McCain terms, focusing instead on the other alt energy strategies (sadly including superduperCoalooper technology, probably a necessary panderbear)
Obama: And during that time, he voted 23 times against alternative fuels, 23 times.
We found that only 11 of those votes would have reduced or eliminated subsidies or tax incentives for alternative energy. The rest were votes McCain cast against the mandatory use of alternative energy, or votes in favor of allowing exemptions from such mandates.
Here, try this, No Spin Necessary: Senator McCain has on 11 occasions voted to reduce or eliminate incentives for alternative energy. And ADDITIONAL 12 times has voted to neuter alternative energy bills with exemptions from mandates. That's 23 times Senator McCain has not supported alternative energy plans, 23 times!!!
Didn't come up
There will be no tax increases for 95% of wage earners, none for those making less than $250,000. Not true...
Is it so hard to admit that a single person making $125K is doing well and can afford a tax increase. Emphasize, ignore even that figure and at least add "Family" to the 250K tax discussion.
Well, he got it right about half the numerous mentions. That's some progress at least..