Skillicorn has been watching out for verbal “spin”. He has developed an algorithm that evaluates word usage within the text of a conversation or speech to determine when a person “presents themselves or their content in a way that does not necessarily reflect what they know to be true”.
When he analysed the speeches of John McCain, Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton, he found that even though the speeches were rehearsed, written by professionals and delivered by trained speakers, there were discernable differences between them. “It’s clear that the speeches are still highly individualised,” says Skillicorn. “This makes sense as the speeches have to, in some manner, reflect the speaker’s own voice and opinions. Otherwise, they wouldn’t be able to deliver them convincingly.”
So much for the liberal complaint that Palin’s speech was written for her and summarily dismissed.
In general though, Obama’s speeches contain considerably higher spin than either McCain or Clinton. For example, for their speeches accepting their party’s nomination for president, Obama’s speech scored a spin value of 6.7 – where 0 is the average level of spin within all the political speeches analysed, and positive values represent higher spin. In contrast, McCain’s speech scored -7.58, while Hillary Clinton’s speech at the Democratic National Convention scored 0.15. Skillicorn also found that Sarah Palin’s speeches contain slightly more spin than average.
Obama’s spin level skyrockets when facing problems in the press, such as when Jeremiah Wright, the reverend of his former church, made controversial comments to the press.
“When you see these crises come along, the spin goes up,” Skillicorn says. “Obama is very good at using stirring rhetoric to deal with the issues. And it seems to work if you look at what happens in the polls afterwards.”
Obama- Spin that you can believe in!
The Canadian Broadcasting Corporation is reviewing complaints from both Americans and Canadians about a Web site columnist who recently described Sarah Palin’s supporters as “white trash,” compared the vice presidential candidate to a “porn actress” and called her daughter’s boyfriend a “redneck” and “ratboy.”
So much for the left being ‘tolerant’, eh?
“We love our own north to the point of covering our eyes and humming as it melts … but Alaska is different from our north,” she wrote. “We share a 1,500-mile border with a frontier state full of drunks and crazy people, of the blight that cheap-built structures bring to a glorious landscape.
“Alaska is our redneck cousin, our Yukon territory forms a blessed buffer zone, and thank God he never visits. Alaska is the end of the line.”
I’ve driven up and down the Alcan Highway and the only thing that impressed me was Edmonton. Other than that it was nothing to brag about. I recall Edmonton being clean and a nice place to drive through. Nice mall too. Looks like the US isn’t the only country with moonbats seething with hatred.
Speaking of hate:
Hate. Sexism. You lefties do know how to stoop to new lows. You must be so proud.
Barack Obama, who lamented Friday that “we have not managed our federal budget with any kind of discipline,” is nonetheless promising to spend $50 billion on a United Nations anti-poverty program that critics say will drive up American debt.
Yet Obama and his running mate, Joe Biden, have pledged tens of billions in new spending on a U.N. program that promises cash to poor countries. The program is one of eight sweeping “Millennium Development Goals” the U.N. adopted in 2000.
Johns Hopkins professor Steve Hanke said such spending would merely drive up American debt, while doing almost nothing for the world’s poor.
“It goes down a bureaucratic rat-hole, lining the pockets of people who are connected to the power structure,” said Hanke, a senior fellow at the Cato Institute. “It’s basically a system to redistribute income from middle class people in the United States to rich people in poor countries. It never reaches those people who are living on a dollar a day.”
“We’ve been spending like drunken sailors and making obligations into the future like drunken sailors,” he said. “We’re on an unsustainable path in terms of the fiscal situation in the United States because of massive spending growth and commitments.”
Oh, and that is the DEMOCRAT controlled congress with the record low approval ratings that is doing the spending. Aren’t you lefties proud!!!
Deep-seated racial misgivings could cost Barack Obama the White House if the election is close, according to an AP-Yahoo News poll that found one-third of white Democrats harbor negative views toward blacks—many calling them “lazy,” “violent” or responsible for their own troubles.
So much for the hatred of blacks just being some sort of ‘neocon’ thingy.
The poll, conducted with Stanford University, suggests that the percentage of voters who may turn away from Obama because of his race could easily be larger than the final difference between the candidates in 2004—about 2.5 percentage points.
Wha? Is that the fat lady singing??
The findings suggest that Obama’s problem is close to home—among his fellow Democrats, particularly non-Hispanic white voters. Just seven in 10 people who call themselves Democrats support Obama, compared to the 85 percent of self-identified Republicans who back McCain.
The survey also focused on the racial attitudes of independent voters because they are likely to decide the election.
Lots of Republicans harbor prejudices, too, but the survey found they weren’t voting against Obama because of his race. Most Republicans wouldn’t vote for any Democrat for president—white, black or brown.
Right wingers are less racist than the lefties? Shocking!!!
Three in 10 of those Democrats who don’t trust Obama’s change-making credentials say they plan to vote for McCain.
It’s the smart ones.
Race is not the biggest factor driving Democrats and independents away from Obama. Doubts about his competency loom even larger, the poll indicates. More than a quarter of all Democrats expressed doubt that Obama can bring about the change they want, and they are likely to vote against him because of that.
Hmm. Why would that be? Maybe it’s this:
Barack Obama says John McCain represents a third Bush term and that he has voted with the president 90 percent of the time.
Voting with your party is bad?
But senior research scientist John Lott at the University of Maryland writes in The Philadelphia Inquirer “the 90 percent figure from Congressional Quarterly is nonsensical” and says most of those votes were just procedural. He adds, “Obama might want to be a little careful with these attacks, as the same measure has him voting with Democrats 97 percent of the time.“
How can you call that ‘change’ when it’s 97% the same? HAHAHAHA!! Suckers!!! You lefties just fell for the oldest political line in the book! Hook, line and sinker!
He cites research from the right-leaning American Conservative Union, the liberal Americans for Democratic Action and the non-partisan National Journal. It indicates that from 2001 to 2007, McCain voted to the left of most Republican senators and to the right of most of his Democratic colleagues. Americans for Democratic Action even says McCain voted liberally 24 percent of the time — twice as much as the average Republican.
See, McCain is more mainstream than any of the other Republicans. You’d think that would have some appeal to the middle-of-the-road Democrats. Hopefully they’re smarter and will vote for McCain!