Monday, April 28, 2008

Message to Reverend Wright:


Who is this guy working for, anyway? I just saw Reverend Wright give his side of the story about all of the controversy as of late. He has a sharp wit and a quick tongue, I'll give him that. And I personally don't have a problem with what he was saying. However, I suspect that I'm more open minded and more capable of synthesizing words than most people in Indiana. Most people in Indiana aren't going to be OK with the Reverend's talk. It was arrogant, condescending, and will make people wonder why Obama associates with him at all. Those words will be playing on the news nonstop from now until the Indiana Primary on May 6th.

On Super Tuesday, I called the Democratic Primary for Barack Obama. The type of scenario that it would have taken for him to lose the nomination was too far fetched to take seriously. For the first time since February 5th, I am doubting my conclusion. Obama isn't going to win Indiana; not after that speech by Reverend Wright. At the same time, polls are showing him doing worse against McCain and Hillary better. That far-fetched scenario where Obama somehow loses the nomination is no longer a stretch. I already dumped all of my Obama stock on Intrade; at 80% to win, it was way overvalued. The Democratic race is a tie at this point. When Indiana goes for Hillary, the balance is going to shift in her favor.

At least I still have plan B: John McCain.

Thursday, April 17, 2008

The timing couldn't possibly have been better.

My previous post came only hours before an ABC-hosted debate between Obama and Clinton in Philadelphia. A relevant comment from my post:

"...the discourse [in MSM reporting] is so superficial. The "debates" that they have on most of these programs are so inane that they barely scratch the surface of what really matters in an issue."

In that post I cited CNN as an example, but now I can cite the performance of the ABC moderators in the Philly debate to further prove my point. The Washington Post says that the real loser of the debate was ABC. To watch a five minute video that highlights some of the "important issues" brought up in the debate, there is one posted here. Finally, the ABC news website is being flooded with literally thousands of angry viewer comments. There are 15,000 and counting at this point. The ABC site with comments can be seen here, but I'll pick out just a few representative samples:

This is exactly the reason I canceled my cable subscription this year. The major media has been destroying this country for some time now, and the saga continues. This was not a debate over politics, this is a joke. These people must think we are just dumb sheep that don't care about actual issues. I felt like I got dumber watching that "debate".

The mainstream media's disdain for the American public has hit a new low after last nights debate. It is clear that the moderators' impression of Americans is that we are an uneducated hoard with a sick craving for confrontation. Furthermore, their assumption is that our collective intellect cannot comprehend a discussion of serious issues that affect our world.Your entire network has framed this *debate* in nothing but bellicose noise. Look no further than the debate report title - "Philly Fight Night". How does this pass for news? How do your staff members pass for professional news journalists? Do you hate your country enough to make petty attacks and gossip the criteria on which we select our president?

It's about lack of substance and a failure to deal with the critical issues facing our country. I know many McCain supporters, including my father, who were just as disgusted by last night's debate as I was.

What a complete and utter disgrace your hosts and their questions made of this debate. Instead of focusing on real issues, you chose to question Sen. Obama's patriotism? Ask about the capital gains tax? Talk about flag pins? Shame on all of you. I will no longer watch ABC This was truly reprehensible.

Wednesday, April 16, 2008

On the MSM

Bill Clinton recently suggested that young voters are easily fooled into voting for Barack Obama. On Digg, one user left a comment that I thought was fantastic:

Bill Clinton has it exactly backwards: Hillary is stronger with older voters because these voters are more likely to get their news mostly from the MSM, while younger voters rely more on the Web. On the Web, Hillary's spin gets shot to smithereens in seconds, whereas it has a much longer halflife on the MSM. The MSM is far more manageable by candidates than the Web is. The Web EMPOWERS its readers to get answers to their questions; they don't need to settle for and second-guess the narrow, cautiously worded narratives that the MSM puts out. For this reason, the MSM not only promotes ignorance, it also promotes self-mistrust in one's understanding of the political landscape (because consciously or not one is aware of the fact that the MSM is not being 100% level in its reporting).

Getting political information from the MSM is a terrible idea. This isn't because I believe big corporations are pulling the strings behind the scenes, or that its pure and deliberate propaganda. No...getting info from the MSM is a bad idea because the discourse is so superficial. The "debates" that they have on most of these programs are so inane that they barely scratch the surface of what really matters in an issue. Want proof? Watch CNN, and then watch CNN-International. It is undeniable: CNN purposefully dumbs down their content for American audiences.