Yep, that WSJ Is a Great News Operation
August 1st, 2008 by SBG
The actual headline of a "news" story in the Wall Street Journal: Too Fit to Be President?. Subtitle? Facing an Overweight Electorate, Barack Obama Might Find Low Body Fat a Drawback. You are freaking kidding me with that.
Here's an excerpt:
Speaking to donors at a San Diego fund-raiser last month, Barack Obama reassured the crowd that he wouldn't give in to Republican tactics to throw his candidacy off track.
"Listen, I'm skinny but I'm tough," Sen. Obama said.
But in a nation in which 66% of the voting-age population is overweight and 32% is obese, could Sen. Obama's skinniness be a liability? Despite his visits to waffle houses, ice-cream parlors and greasy-spoon diners around the country, his slim physique just might have some Americans wondering whether he is truly like them.
The candidate has been criticized by opponents for appearing elitist or out of touch with average Americans. A Wall Street Journal/NBC News poll conducted in July shows Sen. Obama still lags behind Republican John McCain among white men and suburban women who say they can't relate to his background or perceived values.
Check out this graphic:
Clinton and Obama in sweats, the Republicans in suits. The Wall Street Journal. Hoping to live up to the standards set by its sister paper, the New York Post.
This entry was posted by SBG on Friday, August 1st, 2008 at 10:12 am and is filed under WGOM Headlines. It is one of 2465 entries by the author. We are no longer accepting Letters to the Editor on this post.
Loading ...
Rhubarb_Runner replied on August 1, 2008 at 11:33:57 am
...just might have some Americans wondering whether he is truly like them
Well, the idiots have felt right at home the past 8 years
SBG replied on August 1, 2008 at 11:45:55 am
And, hello, he's black! That's why he's not "truly like them". Bush is a freaking workout nut! He works out six days a week! This is just plain drivel. Obama's taken care of himself and that's a minus?
brianS replied on August 1, 2008 at 11:43:33 am
That's pretty bad.
However, it should be noted that the print edition has that article in the Weekend Journal section (below the fold on page W1), with such hard-hitting "news" as "Leo's Tenderness, Ferocity Heat Up `Frozen River'" in a film review, and "Inflation Hits the Bottle", digging into the horrors of pricing for first-growth Bordeaux.
In the "Inside" box just to the right of the Obama picture is a photo of a white rat traversing a rope, headlining a story about "A crackdown on `Rat Olympics' and other games that borrow the Olympic name".
something tells me that the story isn't being pitched as "news". But yea, it has Murdoch fingerprints all over it.
SBG replied on August 1, 2008 at 11:47:55 am
Well, it ain't on the Op-Ed page. It's not an opinion piece. It isn't a feature story -- they didn't interview him. Yep, it's next to a story about a movie and the price of wine, but it is an analysis piece and the subject matter is the presumptive Democratic nominee for the POTUS.
Furthermore, from what I can find, the author is a staff reporter, presumably from the news department of the WSJ. She is covering the campaign. Placing the article in a Weekend Journal section doesn't diminish the fact that this was written by a member of the news department. New York Post.
punmanbowler replied on August 1, 2008 at 11:52:40 am
I'm surprised there was no crack about fat white guys tend to be republican. Seriously though, that piece is insane. This is only the beginning.
I'm voting against Obama, but not because he's skinny, but because he's a liberal.
Rhubarb_Runner replied on August 1, 2008 at 5:29:00 pm
no problem, pb. I'll cancel your vote for the same reason.
AMR replied on August 1, 2008 at 12:05:34 pm
Forget any of the content.
Since when do British measurements and decimals work together?
6'2.5''?
Why not 189 1/4 cm?
SBG replied on August 1, 2008 at 12:40:01 pm
Forget that -- James Madison was 98 pounds?
brianS replied on August 1, 2008 at 4:34:02 pm
and a weakling!
Algonad replied on August 1, 2008 at 1:00:33 pm
One interesting thing they could have looked at in this article is that the taller candidate usually wins.
I saw an article about a study that showed two groups the Bush Sr-Dukakis debate. One group saw them stand next to each other at the end. The other stopped the video just before they walked up to each other. The group that didn't see them stand next to each other said Dukakis won. The other group that witnessed Bush Sr towering over Dukakis picked Bush Sr.
That kind of story doesn't give me a lot of confidence in the democratic process. I'm not saying I know of a better system, just that there are flaws in everyone's judgement. People don't have to be idiots to get it wrong, just human.
SBG replied on August 1, 2008 at 1:18:28 pm
1960 was the first real presidential election where TV made a difference and would therefore bring height into the picture. JFK was 1/2 inch taller than Nixon. The next time out, LBJ won handily, but he was going to win regardless of the height difference (which was 3 1/2 inches). I would say that two candidates within an inch is no big deal. So, in the TV era:
JFK was 1/2 inch taller than RMN. No big deal.
LBJ was 3 1/2 inches taller than Goldwater.
Nixon was 1/2 inch taller than HHH. No big deal.
Nixon was 2 1/2 inches shorter than McGovern (and what a name, McGovern! Like McLovin!)
Carter was 4 inches shorter than Ford.
Reagan was 4 inches taller than Carter.
Reagan was 3 1/4 inches taller than Mondale.
GHWB was 8 inches taller than Dukakis.
Clinton was 1/2 inch taller than GHWB. No big deal.
Clinton was 2 1/2 inches taller than Dole.
GWB was 1 1/2 inches shorter than Gore.
GWB was 5 inches shorter than Kerry.
Since 1960, the taller man won 8 times and the shorter man 4 times. Of those 8 wins by the taller man, three times the height advantage was 1/2 inch. I'm not seeing a ginormous correlation. And look at last time. On second thought, hide your eyes.
Algonad replied on August 1, 2008 at 1:51:30 pm
McGovern would have won if he had dropped the first name!
brianS replied on August 1, 2008 at 3:15:56 pm
I guess Carter at 5'9" beating Ford (6'1") counts as a shorty beating a tall guy.
Historically, there have been a lot of BMOCs who've won the presidency.
Of the last 30 elections, the taller man won 19 times. That yields a P-value of 0.035 for the one-tailed test that taller guys are more likely to win (Fisher's exact test). So I guess it must be true
SBG replied on August 1, 2008 at 3:40:16 pm
But, before television, who knew? FDR was tall, but he couldn't walk, that little "factoid" was concealed from the public. I think that only the television age is relevant.
brianS replied on August 1, 2008 at 4:31:43 pm
Arnold Schwarzenegger looks tall in the movies. Kiefer Southerland looks
tallnot so dwarvish on TV.there were campaign photos, press coverage and speaking tours long before television. And Movietone News reels for a couple decades before TV.
If you go through the heights in the prez table, you see that a LOT of the contests were between men within a couple inches of one another -- a height difference that is pretty easy to obfuscate (tall shoes, tall hair, whatever). I think the height thing is bogus, whether during the TV era or before.
since the start of the TV era (counting to 1948), incumbents are 7-3 in reelection bids (including the win by HST and loss by GRF, neither of whom was elected to office originally). In those races, the taller candidate went 6-2. Incumbency, or height?
In the other races, the taller candidates went 5-1 (Gore being the sole loser). But in 3 of those wins, the height difference was 1/2 inch. You'd be hard-pressed to see a 1/2 inch difference on TV, even with the candidates standing side-by-side.
rob replied on August 1, 2008 at 2:20:42 pm
Obama's build is very similar to mine, and I still don't feel the impulse to vote for him. Course, I don't feel the impulse to vote for McCain, either...
Hey, Lincoln's the perfect candidate for me!
Andrew replied on August 1, 2008 at 2:50:16 pm
I have almost the exact build of Obama. I'm 6'2"ish, 175ish. Don't know what that means, but thought I'd throw it out there.
Moss replied on August 1, 2008 at 3:02:50 pm
Not even Lincoln is a good fit for Moss. That 6'4", 240# hurler for the White Sox would be Moss' candidate, roughly.
SBG replied on August 1, 2008 at 3:41:28 pm
I think LBJ is about right. He was 6'3 1/2 and not frail.