|
I keep hearing this question asked by the media, and by conservative columnists like David Brooks.
Leave alone for a minute that Obama has maintained about a seven to ten point lead in national polls, and in some states like PA has maintained a steady lead of about 7 points. Leave alone that they keep giving McCain "leaning" states, in which Obama is actually ahead, in the media. But how is it that in any world, a guy with a national poll rating, steadily ahead by six to eight points, isn't considered leading by a massive margin.
Look at Gore v. Bush. The stats were tight as a tick on a blue-hound in that race. In fact it was close enough to steal.
Remember that anything that gets studied, can actually be changed by the study, and anything observed can also be changed by the observation. It has become a scientific axiom, and is why psychological studies are often blind, in fact, the candidates don't know they are under observation, so they can get honest results.
When you constantly find fault by asking the question, "Why isn't he winning by more," you are making an observation. Larry asked last night the same question, but you are by the very question making the implication that there is something wrong with Obama. You are inserting a seed in the minds of independents, you are hoping to germinate the idea that maybe something is defective about my choice.
But the answer is found within the media. Another example was last night, Andrea Mitchell was putting the idea in people's minds, "Some democrats have privately told me that they wish he didn't go to Europe, and asked, why did he do that." My God, that was a coup, a great coup for Obama. It couldn't have been a more obvious attempt to shortchange Obama, and I might add, she used FAKE News's special "some people are saying," to enter this terrible, and wrong idea to find a way to go right at a strength, and use what was a great thing for Obama against him.
Of course, these things are just two small examples of a media that has been giving McCain less negative coverage, and Obama more hours, but more negative coverage the whole time. So, the answer is simple; he isn't winning by more because the media hasn't been fair from the beginning. From attributing Wright's views, playing his worst, most conspiratorial moments as if it was a "Dean Scream" thousands of times, and having pundits try their best to connect the words to Obama, to airing death-row endorsements from murderers, as if that's news worthy, the media has been doing its best to trash Obama from the beginning.
So, you are wondering why he isn't doing better, but you should be wondering why in the face of this hailstorm of media criticism, and unfairly negative, sometimes racist coverage, that he is still up by six or seven points. That question is easy to answer, and you know it. Your horse-race is between a young, great, vibrant, and yes, multi-cultural candidate, and another who is just a step away from being sent to the glue-factory, or perhaps being made into pet food. You are probably going to have to stoop to ever more disgusting levels to even up this race. But if there is one thing I have faith in, it is your ability to reach ever lower, more disgusting levels of coverage. I hope for better, but I've come to expect the worst from television, which is why in general less and less people bother watching the highly conservative biased coverage of the talking heads.
|
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
