How old is Amy Sullivan — three?

Close enough. Or at least a child when political history was being made. I even hear it from hard core conservative news commentators when they went on and on about Ted Kennedy crossing party lines last night blah blah blah. Sorry, but I have no respect for the Kennedys. And every time Teddy talked about the moon landing, all I could think about was being a child and trying to watch the moon landing and having it spoiled by the leaking reports of Teddy’s midnight boating accident.

What a bunch of BS. A reporter is not allowed to report the facts? Democrats ARE unified on the issues. More so than republicans. How is reporting that biased?

Tom_Shipley on August 26, 2008 at 11:33 AM

(Sigh) Tom, if a reporter comes out and makes a statement that this is the most united the party has been in 30 years, he or she opens herself up to being fact checked about the party’s conventions in 1980, 84, 88, 92, 96, 00 and 04. I can tell you right now the Democrats were far more united during both of Clinton’s runs for president than they are right now — in 1992 because after 12 years out of power they were desperate to regain the White House and were willing to overlook whatever differences there were in order to back Bill (who along with Hillary was seen as all things to all people at the time). In 1996 the only differences were among those miffed about Clinton signing the welfare reform bill earlier in the year. Other than that, it was the most united the Democrats had been since the Johnson nomination in 1964.

By just throwing out some mindless babble about the current party unity with all the reports out their of angry Clinton supporters, Sullivan is just gushing because she wants it to be true and wants the party to be totally unified behind Obama, not because it is true. She might as well also say 2008 is the hottest year on record and the worst in history for hurricanes, and she’d have just as many facts backing those statements.

Totally missing from Miller’s article.

Mr_Magoo on August 26, 2008 at 12:33 PM

Sorry, meant Sullivan.

John on August 26, 2008 at 12:42 PM

I read Suulivan’s article and have seen the ad. Quite a leap she (and the Christian Dems) make. The ad wasn’t nearly as “creapy” as they made it out to be. Looked more tongue-in-cheek to me. (Isn’t the naarator the guy that does the movie trailers?) Not to mention Obama doesn’t even fit the Biblical prophesies of where the AC will com from. Idiots.

I love the guy on the stage with Obama about :40 into the ad. He looks like Michael Moore. As Obama gets ramped up, this guy starts to smile and clapp and jiggle around like he’s being lifted into euphoria by the Spirit of O. Looks like a Benny Hinn “plant.”

The best part about the ad is it is completely O’s own words and speaches. Makes me wonder how much of the light and the ocean’s receding and the planet healing was on the teleprompter and how much was O winging it (again).

Andrew Sullivan

Amy Sullivan

Andrew Sullivan

Coincidence?

BTW, she’s the same Time hack whose story on McCain’s “The One” ad concluded that it was an attempt to brand Obama as the anti-Christ.

She drank the kool-aid a while ago.

John on August 26, 2008 at 12:42 PM

Hmmm. Maybe Ed actually did some research after all.

She drank the kool-aid a while ago.

Obamessia

Or maybe Putin gets the rare two year sweep for dealing with those pesky Georgians and Ukranians

Democrats ARE unified on the issues. More so than republicans. How is reporting that biased?

Tom_Shipley on August 26, 2008 at 11:33 AM

Well, considering the fact that she completely ignores the disunity issues, I would say it is biased. She uses the unity on platform issues to negate the disunity everywhere else. She leads the readers to the conclusion SHE wishes to make by “reporting the facts”. Even her article title is misleading. Shouldn’t it be “Is the Democratic Party United on Issues?”

Then she mentions the Republican’s stirring up trouble. Must be talking about unity in general at that point.

Ok, at the end, she mentions a “fragile unity”. If this is an article about platform issues and there is so much unity, why does she call it a fragile unity? Wait, she must be talking about unity in general again.

Ed, however, draws his conclusions based on the broader term of unity. He correctly points out that unlike other conventions “the party’s power brokers [are] trying to find ways to cut off floor votes to limit the embarrassment to the nominee. Hmmm. Totally missing from Miller’s article.

Tom_Shipley on August 26, 2008 at 11:31 AM

here.. 30 odd years back..

Carter running for his first term against Ford.. 76..

extension of Nixon.. dems united

Carter. 80
united.. re-election bid.
Mondale 84
what little support he has, it was united.. (lost in a landslide :)
Dukacis. (sp?) 88

after Hart/Rice and Monkey Business, he was their last Hope
Clinton 92 (A boy from Hope)
Clinton Re-election 96 in the bag for unity.. and Hope
Gore ’00 VP running, in the bag and unity there..
Kerry 04
The Dean scream quickly became a joke and everyone united behind Kerry
Barack. 08 wow.. hope, yet again.

to say it’s “More united” than the past 30 years is like saying the ‘Titanic’ is taking in only a little bit of water..

How’s this for “party unity” (guffaw)? Only 78% of DEMOCRATS support Obama? More than 1 in 5 do not? That’s unity?

Republicans are more unified than Democrats, read it and weep:

- Obama is supported by 78% of Democrats while McCain gets the vote from 85% of Republicans
http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/election_20082/2008_presidential_election/daily_presidential_tracking_poll

- Number of Democrats in US Declines in July
http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/mood_of_america/party_affiliation/partisan_trends

…full-immersion baptism in the Unityfest Kool-Aid…

With all due respect, Ed, I don’t recall reading such overwrought prose at Captain’s Quarters. Have a care, please; that’s AllahPundit’s gig — you do much better as Cap’n Ed.

She’s just one hemp shirt short of a drum circle

What a bunch of BS. A reporter is not allowed to report the facts? Democrats ARE unified on the issues. More so than republicans. How is reporting that biased?

You’re right, I didn’t accurately quote it. I did say “MAY BE” because of the “than perhaps” line. She didn’t say definitively it was the most unified in 30 years, but it may be (to paraphrase). She definitely didn’t say evah.

My point is that Ed completely ignores Miller’s reasoning for making this statement. Her reasoning is very strong actually. It was said during the primaries by left and right alike that there was very little difference between Clinton and Obama on the issues.

And, when you do look at the issues, there is broad agreement on them as well as a strong desire to take back the white house.

What Ed does is misrepresent Miller’s argument (And I don’t know, maybe he didn’t read the whole and he didn’t understand her argument). By rebutting it with examples of how the nomination selection process was not close in the past three primaries, he misses Miller’s point that — either intentionally or not– that yes there are Clinton supporters who still stick by her, but on the issues, the democratic party is more unified that it has been in years.

That’s probably true. Ed’s post is intellectually dishonest. An easy and lazy way to keep the right’s media bias crutch alive — and judging by the majority of responses in this thread, it worked very well.

Nice job Ed.

Anyone really know what the ratings on Day 1 of the Kool Aid Fest were? Is anyone really watching this stuff in substantial numbers?

Waterboy on August 26, 2008 at 10:15 AM

My formerly Democrat turned Republican in the last Presidential election guy said he actually fell asleep during Michelle O’s speech.

Classic!

I mean, Democrats ARE more unified than Republicans when it comes to their platform. I can’t tell you off hand if their more unified than they were ‘96 on the issues, but Miller does have a point that the party is very unified when it comes to the issues.
Tom_Shipley on August 26, 2008 at 10:52 AM

Which is fine for a person who’s merely posting on their blog or as a commentator to say, since they’re talking to a very limited audience. But Ms. Sullivan is a paid reporter for Time Magazine who, presumably, is supposed to actually think about what she’s typing before she hits the “send” icon or opens her mouth on national television.

For her to matter-of-factly state that the current DNC convention is the most unified in a generation is not reporting, it’s gushing. It’s being so enraptured by the idea of Obama that fact-free hyperbole becomes the truth, because she wants it to be the truth, Clinton heretics in Denver be damned.

If it wasn’t for the MSM and local leftists pumping up this pathetic clown, he would still be running crooked Nonprofit schemes in Chicago.

But seriously, this should surprise no one. Time’s head man, Mr. Stengal, has publicly stated that journalist are supposed to be advocates; they need to actively try to shape the public’s opinion into one of a morecorrect bent.

Silly me, I thought that journalists were supposed to report the news, truthfully and objectively, so that informed folks could arrive at their own opinion.

I’m so happy that I have an activist Intelligentsia of useful idiots to show my feeble mind what my opinion should be!!

What a bunch of putzes

Miller even says that it would surprise people to hear the Dems “MAY BE” the most unified they have been in 30 years.

Tom_Shipley on August 26, 2008 at 10:52 AM

Ok, Now I will talk to you. You misquoted the article. The actual quote is “Given all that buildup, it may come as a surprise that the Democrats who will gather around the gavel in Denver are actually more united than perhaps at any other point in the past 30 years.” (Emphasis mine)

If you are going to present a viewpoint, at least get the quote right.

Tom_Shipley on August 26, 2008 at 10:52 AM

Was I talking to you?