Good question and one asked by my apolitical gal pal.
Girl: "It'll be a shock if he doesn't win."
Boy: "Apparently they're neck and neck."
Girl: "What? How can that be? I don't think so."
Boy: "You don't even follow politics. How can you conclude that?"
Girl: "Still. Why would the media only focus on him?"
Ah, yes. The media. Why would the media, assuming this happens, take sides?
Interesting that she noticed this. Bias is in the eye of the beholder I suppose.
Implied - to me anyway - is that Obama is the "better" or "smarter" candidate among casual observers of politics. He certainly looks and speaks the part very well.
But is talking smooth and dressing the part a sign of intelligence?
Isn't the phrase "smooth talking salesman" a negative? I'm not suggesting that Obama is one. He may very well suck at it for all I know. I'm just answering my own question. Yes, I know. It's possible to be well-dressed AND be smart. Just look at me. Well, you'll just have to believe me.
When I was in high school a kid went around campaigning to get elected as school President. The whole campaign thing never did sit well with me. Call it a character flaw or quirk. Anyway, one day he came and explained his policies and plans. One of his many long-winded nutty ideas was to raise the roofs in the classroooms. As impractical (and foolish) as the idea sounded he was extremely articulate (and passionate for some reason) about it.
Smart?
Right until this day my buddies and I always reply, "yeah, raise the roof buddy" whenever we hear bull shit.
I don't know why Obama gets most of the coverage. He does deserve credit for plastering himself all over the internet and he does seem to be able to reach the young. But how much of this is reliable come voting time?
About the media bias - something SNL felt it was strong enough to merit a sketch about it during the Democratic nomination race - it really depends where you sit. It's all relative. Liberals feel under attack. In traditional Liberal/Democratic regions, states, provinces and what have you, this assertion is ridiculous. But if you're a liberal living in a region where the Christian power base holds sway then I can see why they feel under attack.
Today, politicians are good at saying the right things and pulling out big words but can they really do anything about what they say? Can they really convey their values and beliefs without empty rhetoric as well as convert them into concrete policy easily recognizable by all?
Well?
To comment on why Obama is garnering all the attention, I would have to assert that it is because he is history.
ReplyDeleteNot history in the "he's going to lose" sense, but the fact that he is the first African American nominee. I think the press is trying to capitalize on this element and that is why they tend to focus on the 'Obama-side of the story.'
Lefty, here's a hypothetical for you:
ReplyDeleteSuppose the Republicans put up a wise philosopher-king type for President. And the Democrats put up a certifiable idiot with alzeimers?
Assuming this would happen, would the media be wrong in taking sides?
Here's a thought Vig:
ReplyDeleteHow's 'bout they DON'T take sides and report?
Friggen Dodgers. Get beat down by the friggen Nationals and then they go take 2 of 3 from the D-Backs - and one against Webb no less.
Tap! Tap! You have to answer my hypothetical before I answer yours, Lefty!
ReplyDeleteThat Manny is the real deal. He hits 400+ while the Dodgers are being swept, eh? But you have gotto admit: they're finally playing the real team instead of showcasing Juan Pierre and Andruw Jones. The season begins again today. The really really really big question is can they sign Ramirez on for 2009. I am not realistic.
ReplyDeleteViggy,
ReplyDeleteI stand by my comment:
they shouldn't "take sides" but simply inform and report.
Of course Manny is the real deal! Have you been watching him in Boston? And why are people so hard on Pierre? Ok, maybe he's over paid but his fielding has pretty much stayed constant, he steals bases and his OBP remains pretty much in line with his historical average. What more do we want from a leadoff hitter?
Pierre is unproductive because his OBA is the same as his BA. And his TBA! (Granted, he makes things happen when he gets on base.)
ReplyDeleteWhat you're going to see for the last month of the season is rare in MLB: Torre is choosing his line up based upon who's hot & who's not. As opposed to salary. That's why Pierre and Jones are on the bench. That's why Berroa is playing in front of Garciaparra (whom I respect a lot). Look at what's happened with Ethier since he's been playing!