I dislike both major candidates, but I suppose I will have to take Obama very seriously now.

I'm sure he also "looked into it", and would "have someone get back to her" as soon as possible.

I saw McCain on CSPAN today and it didn't look good at all....

Man: Senator McCain, with all your wealth, how can you possibly understand what average Americans are going through here in Palookaville?
McCain: I think I have a house in Palookaville...
Man: People are struggling! We're living in distress!
McCain: I may have a house there, too...
Man: We don't need a president who's been locked away on Easy Street!
McCain: That one's more like a condominium than a house...
Man: I give up. I need a beer.
McCain: Cha-ching! More houses!

HILLARY IS SRS BSNS??!?

@umbriago: Nice. Not a McCain fan. One the bus was named "Straight Talk Express" I knew he sucked. It's like when a lawyer told me " I am not going to screw you", he didn't screw me but he sure as hell tried.

Breaking the politics taboo are we? Bring on the debate then I guess.

Bill Clinton said he was taking "Monica Lewinsky" very seriously and we all know how that turned out.

Seriously, "taking it seriously" is getting old

[gizmodo.com]

Gizmodo sums it up best when talking about Joe Biden

"VP Candidate Biden Is No Friend to File Sharing, Net Neutrality Protection or Online Privacy"

I think this just secures my vote for Bob Barr.

\wishes Ron Paul was still running.....

For a moment I thought I got my Yelp and Consumerist RSS feeds backwards!

Wow. I totally didn't expect to see this here.

It is amusing, but while "Taking it seriously" is something that's ingrained into the brains of CEOs and spokespeople of big companies, I think in this case, Obama actually meant what he said.

Just a poor choice of words.

@Dyscord: Why would he mean what he said in this case when he doesn't in other cases? (I can say the same about McCain, too.)

thank god he didn't select her. for me, the last few elections have really been about who i dislike less but this year, i'm finally completely FOR someone. That would have been completely erased if Hillary was his running mate.

Can we get off the "taken seriously" bandwagon.

Sometimes "taken seriously" is an actual valid term.

I am sure BO strongly considered the consequences of taking HRC.... and her Bill Baggage.

Time for a clean start.

You got your Wonkette in my Consumerist.

Boo.

@farker:

Because it was "taken seriously".

@biggyfred: COTD!

@umbriago:

Too bad they didn't ask John Kerry the same question when he was running. Both are married to very wealthy women that have more homes and estates than all of us put together.

@reeg2: It's just an excuse to talk about Obama because he's so dreamy. *bats eyelashes*. I'm guessing Roz will be busy with this one

I have to post this SOMEWHERE...

Why wasn't anyone waving "Chappaquiddick" signs when good old Teddy was speaking at the convention? He's a louse.

I'm sure he'll take this seriously... google "Obama federally sued as ineligible to run for presidency."

@farker: Folks, a reminder. If you're posting just to bitch, you're going to lose your posting privileges. Quit whining and post something substantive to discuss.

@umbriago: I laughed at that. Nice. But seriously, his wife into private businesses, and renting out houses. He is a senator.

There are a ton of reasons not to like McCain, but, here in America, we don't vote for the poorer candidate. If you're class envious, just remember Obama is rich too. They're all rich.

Back on topic- I love that he picked Biden. It's status quo. 35 years in the senate. I'm republican, mmmmm I love me some status quo.

But seriously, Clinton said way too many attacks in the primaries against him, how could he pick her? Actually Biden did too, but not near as many/as bad. He also needed to pick up some white male votes, and pick up a red state. It's all political guys. Nothin is changin

Hey Consumerist, as a blogger I keep political stuff out of my websites. I consider it very unprofessional for politics to enter a non-political blog, especially in a slanted manner such as this appears to be.

Please do not let this happen again.

@MyPetFly: Chappaquiddick? Chappaquiddick?!?!??! Won't someone please think of the Crystal Pepsi??!?!?

[gawker.com]

@MercuryPDX: I too am much more concerned about issues important to my generation, like Crystal Pepsi. And "Crystal Clear Amoco Ultimate". I miss optically clear gas the most of all. ("But it was just regular high test!" you say? Bah. Does it say "Clear" at the pump today? That's what I thought.)

@Bladefist: I'm looking forward to Biden gaffe-watch. It should be entertaining, even though perhaps nobody can live up to W.'s legacy in that arena.

But who knows? Biden is a man that launched his ill-fated presidential campaign by calling Obama "clean" and "articulate". And yet, somehow, here we are today.

I wonder if Hillary takes Obama "very seriously."

I really don't think this instance of the phrase "taking it seriously" is much like the other ones. Nothing bad or reputation-damaging happened, and nobody has anything to apologize for or try to rectify. I'm pretty sure Obama meant that he heavily considered choosing Hillary Clinton as a running mate. Not trying to be cynical, but I think that taking this string of words "seriously" in this case is a bit of a stretch.

@Consumerist-Moderator-Roz: You guys first!

@Hawk07: Um, where ya been? They went after Kerry's wife and her money with everything they had; they're just sorry now because the shoe is on the other foot.

This is such a fallacious argument. It's like saying when anyone says "Have a nice day!" that what they always really mean is "Screw you!" just because some people have used the phrase that way in the past. I mean, what else are you supposed to say when you are truly taking something seriously? This line of reactionary, dog whistle thinking only produces knee jerk reactions that cuts off critical thinking before it ever begins.

And to think that a campaign that has been as competent as Barack's has been, wouldn't seriously consider Hilary as a running mate is political naivete embodied. He hasn't gotten this far by running with blinders on.

Hilary's super low ratings with independents (especially when compared to Biden's relatively high ratings) no doubt played a major factor in dooming her chance for a spot on the ticket.

But Ben, you say that this post is part of your "attempt to question how much seriousness-taking is actually going on". But I see no attempt, only naive innuendo.

@redwall_hp: If you're interested, you could send your comment to the Editors of the site, the email links are to the left there.

While I don't mind political discussion (I do welcome it, depending on who the person is) I was caught off guard by Consumerist alluding to it, considering how much heated debate and insults can stem from it.

What I think is a good discussion is the analogy between when businesses screw you over they say.......

..."yes, we're taking this very seriously.."

that this happens to sound like when Obama said "yes, we took her very seriously.", as in not really at all.

I'm not thrilled with the maverick, but Obama/Biden?

Really?

Joe "Worst Bankruptcy Law in History" Biden?

.....sigh.......

@bravo369: I was kind of hoping he did pick her, just so my decision as to whom I should vote against would be easy. McCain could still pick Lieberman, though...that would be just as easy, since he was on the anti-violent-videogame bandwagon WITH Hillary Clinton back...oh was it the late 90s?

@MyPetFly: Because he already took it seriously?

The politicians affiliated with my chosen party are vastly superior to those in yours! For some reason!

It's very unfortunate that this has appeared here. Unsubscribe.

@AngelofMotrin, IamNotToddDavis: remember that the VP position is little more than ceremonial - nobody really wants the position & it is often career-ending for most politicians. personally, i think this is the DNC putting biden out to pasture - they weren't ready to do that to clinton yet.

so really, if you're not a biden fan, that's another reason to vote for the ticket - it keeps him out of important senate subcommittees.

Clinton can do more good still in the senate. You need somebody in the senate to get bills from the president to pass.

I take both candidates "very seriously".

@Bladefist:

They're all rich.

There's your problem.

Well, as far as I'm concerned, it was the appropriate response. Would I put a divisive figure like Hillary Clinton on my ticket? Hell no. As for those 18,000,000 shards from the glass ceiling raining down to shred our dreams (thanks, Mr. Trudeau), I don't believe for a minute that even 80% of them actually supported Sen. Clinton or intended to vote for ANY Democrat in November.

When you can switch parties a month before the primary and switch right back again afterward, a primary isn't really closed, is it? How many states let people do that?

Tell y'all what; the next contest should be a national primary run by the national party (because the state parties did such a bang-up job of running it themselves), and only allow people who have been registered party members for ONE YEAR to participate. See who comes out on top then. I bet the Democratic Party ends up with a much better candidate than it would letting Iowa and New Hampshire pick him/her for us.

Process, people. Process.

@redwall_hp: OMG LOLLERSKATES!

The only thing funnier than a politician using the "taking it seriously" phrase is that comment right there.

I would be very surprised if he really considered her for VP. Would she even want to be VP?

I'm sympathetic, really, with your frustration and always up for a political discussion. I don't think it belongs on this blog, though.

By all means, be angry as Hell. But work hard for Obama and hold his feet to the fire after he's elected. Not because it's what Hillary is asking you to do. But because, if the next two Supreme court justices are Scalia clones, I hope your anger will have been worth it.

Consumerist: I disagree with some of the commenters above. I think politics and consumerism have a close relationship. If you look at the big news on digg, you see people are upset with Biden, and his views on net neutrality and the like. If politics doesn't affect consumers, then I don't know what does. They make all the regulations, control taxing, etc etc.

Also, I commend this post for being critical of Obama. I know that most of your readers are pro-Obama. You stuck your neck out there for a story.

@stinerman: That'll never change. It costs over 30k to even run as a republican. But I'm not sure thats a bad thing. A lot of people are rich because they are successful, smart, ambious people. (sure some are rich from corruption, or inheriting Dads company). But if a person couldn't make it big in the private sector, I'm not sure running a country is up their ally. Turn your focus to McCain and Obama. Are either of them really ready?

@Michael Belisle: I don't expect as many gaffes out of him as Obama.

@Bladefist: You gauge the public's sentiments on people based on the quantity of spam on digg? Come on, now; you know better than that. If I came on here saying John McCain was an alien from Alpha Centauri, and that it must be true based on digg traffic, you'd be calling bullshit. Admit it.

Consumerist: I disagree with some of the commenters above. I think politics and consumerism have a close relationship.

@Bladefist: Exactly. There's a reason Consumerist has a government tag. Posts about the FDIC, USPS, CSPC, FDA, airline passengers bill of rights, regulating pay day loan centers, ect. and nobody complains. Consumerist points out that a politician said they were taking something seriously (which is funnier than it is critical anyway) and suddenly politics are inappropriate for this blog.

@Bladefist: I agree with the general premise that consumerism and politics are connected and that politics does have a place on the Consumerist, but I think this particular post completely misses the point of the "we take it seriously" meme.

The words in and of themselves don't matter, the problem is that invariably the person saying them is so far down the ladder, that neither we, nor the company in question could care less what they take seriously or not. It's a scripted platitude that has next to no meaning when it comes from a random CSR.

However, take it out of that context and if someone is using it to explain or discuss something they personally did or were involved in then the article comes off as Beavis and Buttheady ("huh-huh-huh, he said seriously"). It's taking some words and forcing them into this particular meme and it does a pretty sad job of it. I don't have a problem with the Consumerist discussing actual policy positions, or even personal characteristics/history that might inform my decision in the election, but this particular article totally misses the point that "take it seriously" really goes to (and what makes it funny when we hear a CSR say it).

@HurtsSoGood: Oh I don't gauge digg on anything bigger then digg. I just find it a good place to find out what the extreme left is thinking. Obama has a huge base there, and when they start being anti-Obama, I know he is in trouble.

@dragonvpm: You over complicate the series of articles under 'taking it seriously' It's just a collection of people saying that exact phrase, who are in reality, not.

@Bladefist: I disagree, if you look at ALL the previous posts, they come from companies and it looked like most of them came from random people at those companies in the form of either a fairly anonymous letter or a statement from a fairly interchangeable spokesperson or CSR agent.

My point is that it seems unfair to categorize one particular person's statement that HE takes something seriously in the same category as the rest of the articles. McDonald's can't take something seriously because it's not a person so when that phrase is used it's clearly BS, an actual person OTOH, can actually mean that they took something seriously.

If you really don't see the distinction then I don't know what else to tell you.

@Rectilinear Propagation:

"Consumerist points out that BARACK OBAMA said they were taking something seriously"

Fixed that for you. If this was McCain, there'd be no outrage.

There was no way Bill was going to give access to his Clinton Library donor list so there was no way Hillary could get a serious vetting. End of story. Get over it.