Disconnect

There really aren't any words that would do these two quotes justice. It's better to let them speak for themselves:

From the Chicago Tribune, 7/28/08:

"A study by the Center for Media and Public Affairs at George Mason University, which conservatives have always regarded as sympathetic, says the three broadcast networks have been more critical of Obama than of John McCain in their recent news coverage. Most of what the networks air is neutral, according to the study. But when reporters offer opinions, 72 percent of those about Obama are negative--compared to 57 percent for McCain."

From Gallup.com (conductors of the gold-standard Gallup Poll):

"The heavy coverage of the trip may have fueled speculation (or reinforced pre-existing attitudes) about news media bias in Obama's favor. A separate set of questions in the weekend poll asked Americans about their views of the news media's coverage of the two major-party candidates. Americans are more than twice as likely to say media coverage of Obama is unfairly positive as to say it is unfairly negative. For McCain, the opposite is true, with many more seeing coverage of him as unfairly negative than as unfairly positive."

The truth is, we haven't yet found a way to get the American people to base their opinions on facts, studies, legitimate proven methods. The media itself admits to having an anti-Obama bias, and yet people are convinced that McCain is getting the short end of the stick here.

The problem is quite obviously that sound bites work better than explanations. When Hannity and O'Reilly go on their radio shows and say "anti-McCain bias" sixty-four thousand times per show, it tends to sink in. Marketing officials do it the same way: it doesn't matter if the association you have in your mind with the product is bad, as long as when you walk into the supermarket there's a vague, subconscious familiarity with their product instead of their competitors.

The American people are now receiving the "vague, subconscious" treatment with McCain. Very few people could tell you his positions on any issue (beyond that he's PRO-WAR!!! GET SOME!!!), because the godawful truth is that he lacks any constant position on any issue. McCain is a true politician of the most American stripe -- no opinions except what the opinion polls indicate.

But there's a fatalist phenomenon in this country. If you're a McCain supporter and you have the unusual quality of being physically capable of hearing the criticisms against him and weighing them, you'll almost immediately realize the absurdity of his campaign. However, the response is most often, "Well, Obama is no better."

This is not a prObama piece. Obama was not my candidate from the start (neither was Hillary), and I still think there are better people for the job, some of whom would never have a snowball's chance in hell of getting elected. The thing I'm really railing against here is the system.

What system? The system. We have a system in place in this country that we call "politics", but which is in truth a set of rules and regulations that any candidate must follow if he or she wants to be elected. These rules govern candidates' entire lives during a campaign, as they're required to spend every waking moment doing something presidential, or senatorial, or gubernatorial. And people haaaaate the system.

The problem is, you can't get elected without going through this hated system. Therefore, you inevitably end up becoming associated with and defined by this system, and as such any candidate, the longer he or she campaigns, is more hated as time goes on.

However, when these rules and regulations are in place, it makes it easier for people like McCain with zero qualifications to just play by all the rules and win the election. May the best actor win.



"Those who were for him from the start -- fanatic righties and warmongers -- didn't give a shit how much he knew. But everyone else -- including liberals -- actually feel kind of sorry for the old guy who can't think his way out of a dependent clause."

- Neil Greenberg