CNN finds an Illinois Republican who’s unimpressed with Obama

March 8, 2008

Three days ago, CNN ran an online feature that asked, “Can Cindy McCain really be that perfect?” Today, the lead item on CNN’s Politics page shows this headline, “Fellow legislator saw little ‘bold’ about Obama.”

[F]ormer Republican colleague Dan Cronin said the presidential candidate’s campaign of bold change doesn’t square with his past.

“There were no bold solutions; there were no creative approaches; there were no efforts to stand up to the establishment,” said Cronin, a member of the Illinois General Assembly since 1990.

Cronin says he still respects Obama and his political skills.

So, let me get this straight. CNN believes the lead political story of the day is a former Republican state lawmaker who was unimpressed with a former Democratic state lawmaker? During the latter’s presidential campaign?

As Greg Sargent put it, “Just Godawful. Kind of funny to think that someone actually signed off on this.”

I’ve been thinking that quite a bit lately.

Jeff Gannon/ Guckert couldn’t have more lustily fluffed for the McCain campaign than CNN does. No wonder more people distrust TV news than believe it. Keep digging your own grave CNN.

  • Yeah. Wow. What a story.

    I’ve been unimpressed with Republicans for ages, and I’ve got a crappy economy, two ill-run wars, high gas prices, a shredded constitution, and bad world relations to kind of back me up.

    Is CNN going to do a story on that?

  • We’re surprised by this? From a network that practically runs wall-to-wall Glenn Beck programming on its “Headline” channel? Their marketing “geniuses” must be telling CNN that we’re not seeing; no doubt Faux is terrified by the competition.

  • I read the story. Classic “he said, she said” piece that says nothing and could have been written by a 5th grader with her cell phone. (That assumes a 5th grader could gain access to a GOP legislator….)

  • I’m in a particularly snarky mood today so let me tackle that “Can Cindy McCain really be that perfect?” question.

    Much has been made of the terrible treatment of the McCains during the 2000 South Carolina. A story went around about McCain having an illegitimate black child. The black child is, of course, is adopted Bangladeshi daughter, Bridget.

    The real story behind Bridget’s adoption is equally as controversial.

    In 1991, Cindy McCain went to Bangladesh for a month in connection with her charity, the American Voluntary Medical Team. She visited an orphanage in Dhaka run by Mother Teresa and decided to take two infant girls with cleft palates back to Arizona with her.

    The Bangladesh minister of health did not want to give Cindy McCain permission to take the infants out of the country but McCain pitched a hissy fit worthy of a rich US senator’s wife so the minister relented.

    The thing is that in 1991, Cindy McCain was a drug addict and had been one for at least two years. She was stealing drugs from her own charity and forging prescriptions for hundreds of pills at a clip. She was also the mother of three small children whose father was seldom at home. What the hell was she doing spending a month in a foreign country?

    Since Cindy had spent a month bopping around Bangladesh whacked out of her skull, I wonder if the Bangladesh minister of health heard the gossip and that was why he was reluctant to give her custody of two infants. Sounds reasonable to me.

    According to Cindy, she phoned her husband when she got home and told him about Baby Bridget. John McCain, being the saint that he is, immediately agreed to adopt Bridget and he loved her like his own forever after.

    Cindy’s version of the story glosses over the fate of Baby #2. I suspect that Cindy wanted to impulsively adopt both babies but St John put his foot down and said he could only love one sick black baby as his own.

    Baby #2 was subsequently adopted by Wes Gullett, a McCain family friend. But Gullett is more than just a family friend. Gullett is a Phoenix-based political consultant and he was deputy director of McCain’s 2000 campaign.

    Did Wes Gullett adopt Cindy McCain’s other black baby as a political favor? Wouldn’t surprise me a bit if he did.

  • Over the past eight years (at least), the hardest thing about being a Republican has got to be keeping a straight face when you whine about the liberal/mainstream/drive-by media. The right wing has been playing the press like a violin, doing it with such adroitness that the press seems genuinely unaware that it’s being played.

    You’ll forgive me for bringing this back to the Clinton/Obama thing, but let me ask a question: What’s the point of beating the Republicans if you’re going to do so by behaving like Republicans? And how would it play out in the political process for years to come if, for once, we stopped rewarding bad behavior? If we want high level, issues-oriented campaigns, then let’s get real and reward one when we see it.

  • I think it’s totally relevant considering how sparse Mr. Obama’s record is on actual legislative details.

    You know, Steve, this blog’s Obama tilt is starting to get a tad shameless. It’s clear you actively, emotionally dislike Hillary, and uncritically accept Barack by rote. All your Hillary posts are negative and highly critical, and all the Obama posts are about how unfair it is to challenge Obama’s perfect candidacy, or describing how something such as a former colleague’s criticism (even from another party) is somehow not relevant. Since these two have the exact same Senate voting record, this election is over judgment. Hillary takes the hits and keeps on coming; can Obama? How will he fare after the VIP treatment when the last vestiges of the previously vast GOP machine turn their focus on him alone?

    I know there’s no implied objectivity in blogs, but for a big lefty site like yours to nearly prostitute it’s posts for one candidate, with little opposition stories or alternate points of view, leaves me clicking away looking for a less biased source of my 2008 election chatter.

    Just my two cents.

  • It’s no wonder that CNN boasts that it is the most trusted name in news and that it has the best political team on television. Their sense of what news is and how it should be reported cannot be matched by any other network.

  • well, yeah, for CNN this was really just another Dog On Bites Man story.

    Mike #10, I’ve seen Obamaists here claim Steve is biased toward Clinton, too; my sense is that it is not an issue with Steve. It is (a) like many “news aggregating” blogs, his content reflects ratios in the news, where Obama has long gotten more positive coverage and (b) it seems like the blog is slanted because of the comments, which here are rabidly pro-Obama, since most of the pro-Clinton people got tired and left long ago, making the slant even worse.

  • CNN, arguably the most reliable news network on the planet just a few years ago, now measures its success by how its ratings stack up against Fox, the least credible news outlet on the planet. Turns out that the legislator CNN picked to feature in this sterling illustration of how NOT to select “newsworthy” stories is (GASP!) a Republican, he’s also a McCain stalwart. See, e.g., http://talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/182362.php . More egg for Wolf & company to comb out of their collective beards.

  • This is an incredibly lightweight article by CNN–maybe there are no editors. But to really top it off, I came across this:

    http://talkingpointsmemo.com/

    “BREAKING: Dog Bites Man!

    CNN’s politics page has a big feature story headlined “Fellow Legislator Saw Little ‘Bold’ About Obama” with a introspective, solemn pic of Obama. Then you read the story. And the colleague is a guy named Dan Cronin, a Republican.”

    …and for the cherry on top:

    “Late Update: Turns out Cronin is actually a member of McCain’s Illinois leadership team.”

  • It’s clear you actively, emotionally dislike Hillary, and uncritically accept Barack by rote. All your Hillary posts are negative and highly critical, and all the Obama posts are about how unfair it is to challenge Obama’s perfect candidacy

    You’re right, Mike. We never hear about all the good things that come out when Hillary’s campaign likens their Democratic opponent to Bush, Rove, and Starr. And where’s all the good comments about her kneecapping her fellow Democrat by saying he’s not qualified to be CinC but their Republican opponent sure is? Why can’t we see the good involved in denouncing your fellow Democrat as a plagiarist, a phony, an airheaded dreamer, and a total incompetent? And, hey, why don’t you talk about all the Iraqi schoolhouses that have been painted instead of focusing on the chaos there? (Sorry, that last one is a Republican media complaint that the Hillary backers haven’t embraced yet. Yet.)

    Hillary takes the hits and keeps on coming; can Obama?

    Exactly. The issue here isn’t whether or not Hillary Clinton should be acting like a sleazy Republican candidate in the primary race, the issue is whether or not Barack Obama can suck it up and take the shit she’s shoveling. And she shovels it so well! Why don’t you ever praise that, Steve?! Look at how she bends words like Karl Rove! Look at how she demeans our politics like Lee Atwater! It’s magnificent.

    I know there’s no implied objectivity in blogs, but for a big lefty site like yours to nearly prostitute it’s posts for one candidate, with little opposition stories or alternate points of view, leaves me clicking away looking for a less biased source of my 2008 election chatter.

    Yes! How dare a Democratic blog take issue with a candidate attacking a Democrat and praising a Republican? How dare a lefty blog side with a progressive candidate over a triangulating centrist? The nerve!

    Oh, if only Mike here had a blog of his own and could attract people there. Then he’d show you for your dirty Obama bias!


  • I think the real news is that CNN found a Republican who didn’t say “Hussein”.

  • I think it’s totally relevant considering how sparse Mr. Obama’s record is on actual legislative details.

    What’s relevant? That a Republican has critical comments about a Democrat? You really think there’s a story there? Do you really not realize the ridiculousness of this as a story or are you being willfully obtuse?

    If they wanted to do a story on Obama’s legislative record, they certainly could do so. Other people, bloggers have actually done this work given that the press seems uninterested in doing so. See here for one fairly good treatment which I believe proves a pretty good legislative record. But whatever. You think his record is thin. If thats the story they want to investigate and the story you want them to investigate, it is pretty easy for them to do so.

    That is not, however, the story they are telling here. The entirety of this extremely thin piece is an excuse for a Republican to say unkind things about a Democrat. What new information are we supposed to be getting from this? What did you learn from the piece? What exactly do you think any of it is relevant to?

  • I know Dan Cronin. He is a cipher from Elmhurst. He has served longer than I can remember and I can tell you he hasn’t accomplished much of anything.

    The television version of this story neglects to mention that Cronin is on the John McCain presidential steering committee in Illinois.

    The CNN reporter is totally lazy. The CNN reporter mischaracterizes the legislation that Obama got passed as a minority party member in the IL legislature. Obama got passed legislation that requires videotaping of confessions in capital offense cases (murder). The CNN reporter referred to videotaping of criminal cases. The State of Illinois had been executing “innocent” people based on a dysfunctional crimal justice system.

  • I don’t get it! Why is CNN showing the Clinton’s all over the place and have scarcely showed Obama anywhere? Is thi CNN’s attempt to manipulate peop;e into believing that Hillary is the most electable and they should vote for her. CNN is shiowing her campaign speeches in Wyoming, Bill’s speeches in Mississppi, and Chelsea at Univeersities all the time. But CNN hasn’t showed Obama camp[aigning or in any other fashion unless it is a negative peice. I thought reporting is supposed to be objective. How can it be when the media in general, specifically CNN, reports on Hillary more than Obama. And it’s ironic that this only started after she complained about the media attacking her
    Also, giving a speech in Dublin doesn’t equate to experience as Commander-in-Chief. Commander-in-chief entails making decisions that the US military must follow. Hillary has NOT made any such decision so her claim is a falsity. People really need to question her veracity because she makes all these claims and they are not based on facts.
    I also find it incredulous that she would have her daughter along when traveling into a dangerous war zone. It just doesn’t mesh. If you’re going into an area (Bosnia) where the possibility for fighting continues, why would any rational mother subject their daughter to such danger. It sounds like a lack of good judgment to me because I certainly wouldn’t take my child into an area that I know is in turmoil.

  • (That assumes a 5th grader could gain access to a GOP legislator….)

    If the fifth grader is male and the legislator is Mark Foley…

    “Late Update: Turns out Cronin is actually a member of McCain’s Illinois leadership team.”

    Wow. Just … wow. Infoshaman @ 6 may owe an apology to 5th graders. I won’t say the reporter must have known this, but there just isn’t any excuse for not finding that out. Thanks Lillith.

    Next CNN will pass along poll results showing Bush has a 100% approval rating in all areas. A few minutes later TPM will point out the people who took part in the poll were all members of the Bush Administration.

  • 10. Mike Kuykendall said: I think it’s totally relevant considering how sparse Mr. Obama’s record is on actual legislative details.

    So, if CNN found a Republican Congressman who happened to be part of McCain’s leadership in NY to say he had worked with Hillary Clinton on legislation and she really didn’t seem to have a clue what she was doing, and they presented this as an unbiased report that provides new insight into whether Clinton really has the experience she claims, that would be totally relevant for you? Or is it only relevant when you agree with what Republicans shit-throwers have to say?

    When did Hillary’s supporters and Republican operatives become allies? Do you really hate Obama that much?

  • Sorry, I must be missing something…why would you give space to a Republican making a negative remark about a Democrat? Is this news? Must be a slow day at CNN. Perhaps I should submit an article about my cat.

  • Re: Mike K (10)

    So, Obama’s getting more positive press on this blog than negative press? Well see, Steve doesn’t seem to have the same complex that the MSM does about giving equal time to opposing view points (you know, letting the one quack blabber on about the myth of global warming in order to provide sufficient contrast to actual facts and scientific research). It seems to me that he does thorough and accurate research in order to cut through most of the crap and present facts in a clear and concise manner, with a little bit of his own analysis to boot.

    Cronin is clearly biased against Obama. If you don’t believe me, go look up a list of the legislation Obama worked on in the Illinois State Senate and let me know what you find.

    There’s no reason to parrot false or misleading talking points from any candidate, unless there’s some mocking to be done.

  • Well, it seems the popular zeitgeist stands against my point of view. So be it; we are all entitled to one.

    I will caution those Democrats out there who feel rudderless and look uncritically at ANY candidate to wise up and realize all politicians tend to get a little dirty in the process of climbing to the top. I have no particular love for either candidate currently- I’m an Edwards supporter, and thus far neither Hillary nor Obama have really appealed to those of us who supported John’s progressive/poverty focus. I do think Hillary gets a bad rap from those who make emotional decisions due to a pre-existing bias.

    In the end I just want everyone, the MSM, this blog, any blog- to treat all candidates fairly, and not scapegoat one and glorify the other. Especially simply because you “like” the guy, or because of inspiring speeches, or because of their sex, or whatever.

    Occasionally the person you don’t like can be the best person for the job…

  • CNN is the network featuring Glen Beck (noted liberal) & Wolf (AIPAC) Blitzer, who selects as moderator of a dimocrat debate the wife of an official in a repugnican presidential candidacy!

    From my perspective, it is apparent that the Corporate World has determined that the best ‘corporate candidates’ are 1st Hillary & 2nd McCrap, with Osama (whoops – just another slip of the tongue) a distant 3rd. Additionally, Obama is ‘Israeli friendly’ – but not friendly enough to the Likud/AIPAC party & therefore must be branded an ‘anti-semite’.

    Is it any wonder that the Corporate ‘News’ Media is following the wishes of their corporate & AIPAC masters and aiding the Clinton/McSame manipulation of defining Obama?

  • based on the blatent fawning over mccain going on at CNN and MSNBC i think it’s time Saturday Night Live did a skit that asks mccain if he’d like another pillow.

  • I rarely watch CNN, so do not even recognize the faces, but tuned in after Obama’s recent victory, only to find four talking heads discussing how he can never make the distance with his Muslim name; that perception, around the world would be negative and we would be more vulnerable. The terrorists would think they have the U.S. in their pocket… His NAME is going to stop him, they all agreed.

    • Comments are closed.