a below in head work for Obama

[Bevo16]

He does not have the experience to be President. His election was a farce and largely the results of good PR, the press loving him, the press hating Bush and popularity with either uneducated/ill-informed people who did not make their choice based on the facts but rather on emotion.

Obama also outspent McCain 4:1. That spending ratio translated him winning by 6% of the vote. More than just being young, black (and the stats on how much of a factor his race was can't be ignored), and being a good speaker.

I think that 2008 will go down as the year that the main stream media committed suicide. They went beyond their normal left wing bias to and went straight to full fledged media activism on behalf of Obama. Chris Matthews went so far as to say that he gets a "Tingle up his leg" when Obama talks, and if you hear one of his speeches in person, "If you don't cry, then you are not an American." I guess that I am not an American then, because I listen for content and never come away from his speeches with enough substance to fill a baby food jar.

Then after years of tearing down Bush in the name of "fair journalism", Matthews decides that the country has had enough and it is his "duty" to support Obama and make sure he is successful.

 

[exhelodrvr]

Then how did President Bush and President Reagan both win two terms in office? You give the American public to little credit to think for themselves.

LOL! Nice try, but over the last ten years the media has gone much, much farther in the tank then they were before.

But your post does point out that the fact Reagan and Bush won speaks to the strength of their ideas with the American people - in spite of the media bias, they still won. (What did the editor of Newsweek say in 2004, that the media bias was worth 6 points for Kerry? I think that is the figure he gave.)

 

[Flash]

LOL! Nice try, but over the last ten years the media has gone much, much farther in the tank then they were before.

Seriously, I think it is sad and horribly misinformed to say that the media played a major part in a candidate's defeat. It smacks of whining, plain and simple. Especially when the highest rated news channel is arguably conservative readership in newspapers as a whole is declining.

You give way too little credit to the average American voter to choose for themselves. To think otherwise is a bit simple and a bit elitist.

But your post does point out that the fact Reagan and Bush won speaks to the strength of their ideas with the American people - in spite of the media bias, they still won. (What did the editor of Newsweek say in 2004, that the media bias was worth 6 points for Kerry? I think that is the figure he gave.)

The same can be argued for President Obama, who defeated the 'preferred' candidate of his party's leadership. The first time it has happened in a very, very long time for either party.

It was 15 points I believe, and he was talking out of his ass. Sounds very familiar on this thread.......

 

[phrogpilot73]

No one is going to change anyone's mind.

 

[wink]

Obama also outspent McCain 4:1. That spending ratio translated him winning by 6% of the vote.

There really is no direct correlation in the amount of money spent and the winning candidate, in a national election. It is how you spend the money you have and the strength of your ideas.

 

[wink]

Seriously, I think it is sad and horribly misinformed to say that the media played a major part in a candidate's defeat. It smacks of whining, plain and simple. Especially when the highest rated news channel is arguably conservative readership in newspapers as a whole is declining.

You give way too little credit to the average American voter to choose for themselves. To think otherwise is a bit simple and a bit elitist.

The average American voter is educated and informed about politics, policy, the economy, and other election year issues by the media. Where else are they going to get the so called, facts? The average American does not read multiple news papers or magazines, watch a couple different news channels and surf the web, like may of us do. The vast majority of Americans reads his local newspaper that is full of articles that take on the prevailing slant of the media on any given issue. That is because of the few wire services and their reliance on the work of big papers like the New York Times. Fox News is the highest rated news channel, but most Americans by a very large margin get their TV news from the big three broadcast networks, not cable news. There is really no debate here. The media was favorably slanted to Obama. Some major players in media have admitted it. At least one has apologized. The academic studies are already starting to be published. It isn't whining, it is a fact. If you accept it then you have to believe that the average American you speak of might possibly have been misinformed. Where else is he getting his information? Would it have made a difference, I don't know. But to say it would not have made any difference is simple minded. I believe the German people of the late '30s were good intelligent people. But they voted for and accepted a great deal of evil because of the public education campaign in their press. It was lies, but they had no other source for the truth. In American we do have choices across the spectrum. But if all the people see is their local newspaper and TV news does it matter what is in the Economist, on the web or Fox News or even Al Arabyia?