|
|
The media smut that is thrown during US elections seems to be getting worse every year to me. Not only is the media having an orgy over this material, but they are at least suggesting that Americans are actually paying heed to this crap (See Time Article), please say it is not so!
Can someone please explain to me why the hell Paris Hilton, Britney Spears, and the Anti-Christ is even mentioned during one of the most important US presidential campaigns in the past few decades?
I'm sorry, but it seems to make a mockery of the whole democratic process. I wish the US had better choices....
http://www.time.com/time/politics/article/0,8599,1830590,00.html
Obama Anti-Christ Reference:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mopkn0lPzM8
Paris Hilton, Britney Spears:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oHXYsw_ZDXg
Obama Called McCain Out:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AUBncsJbMCI&feature=related
Because we're electing 3rd graders.
Because the majority of people are simply too stupid to make an informed independent decision.
They have to rely on endorsements from people they respect (and the fact that they respect Hilton or Spears says a lot about who they are), or they have to rely on catchy slogans or outrageous statements...
Masses of stupid people being manipulated by the media may just end democracy as we know it.
Actually, I think it's because the life of the average American has gotten too complicated. In between worrying about getting little Johnny to soccer practice, picking up the groceries, wondering if your ex is going to pay child support on time this month, gas is too expensive, your boss is a jerk and wants you to work overtime to finish up the reports he forgot to tell you about until the last moment, your e-mail inbox is overflowing, you need to call your mom and wish her a happy birthday, your myspace friends keep sending you youtube video links and you barely have time to watch them between keeping up with Heroes and Army Wives, and yes, the election is important, but you really don't have much time, energy, or brain-space left for anything more than short soundbites.
The media knows this, so short soundbites is what they provide. The more outrageous it is, the more likely it is that people will pay attention, pause on that channel to hear more of the story...
We're not stupid... we're suffering from information overload.
I don't think the ad was about Obama being the anti-christ, just the messiah for liberals. However, now that you mention it...
| Jinx wrote: |
The media knows this, so short soundbites is what they provide. The more outrageous it is, the more likely it is that people will pay attention, pause on that channel to hear more of the story...
We're not stupid... we're suffering from information overload. |
Hmmmm... the desensitization of America, and the race to get your attention. Interesting to say the least, I will definitely give that a ponder...
This is the age of attention deficits.
| myleshi wrote: | | I don't think the ad was about Obama being the anti-christ, just the messiah for liberals. |
Wait, there's a difference?
| Quote: | | Wait, there's a difference? |
Not much of one! 
| myleshi wrote: | | I don't think the ad was about Obama being the anti-christ, just the messiah for liberals. However, now that you mention it... |
Eh. As the election moves foward he seems more and more just as neocon as McCain, only smoother and with better public relations consuls. The real liberals were knocked out of the race a long time ago when Kucinich and Gravel (did he quit?) finally quit.
I am very disappointed in both candidates. Of all people in the world to bring in someone like Paris Hilton. And for the media to grab on that for mileage including her media campaign afterwards. Probably the media is the biggest winner in all of this. Most undignified for someone aspiring to be President of the United States. When I see McCain on TV it leaves me with a feeling of dread. Too much pleasing people, too old. No real substance. If he does come in hope the Republicans can support him with strong people in Government. If I look at Obama I am intrigued, but lately getting worried. I wonder whether he needs a few extra years to get more experience first. He has made so many mistakes in his public presentations and wonder whether the Clintons are worried about that too. They certainly have had the opportunity of a close scrutiny of Obama.
| Quote: | | Eh. As the election moves foward he seems more and more just as neocon as McCain, only smoother and with better public relations consuls. The real liberals were knocked out of the race a long time ago when Kucinich and Gravel (did he quit?) finally quit. |
Horse pucks.
Sen. Barack Obama, D-Ill., was the most liberal senator in 2007, according to National Journal's 27th annual vote ratings. The insurgent presidential candidate shifted further to the left last year in the run-up to the primaries, after ranking as the 16th- and 10th-most-liberal during his first two years in the Senate.
http://nj.nationaljournal.com/voteratings/
| myleshi wrote: | | Quote: | | Eh. As the election moves foward he seems more and more just as neocon as McCain, only smoother and with better public relations consuls. The real liberals were knocked out of the race a long time ago when Kucinich and Gravel (did he quit?) finally quit. |
Horse pucks.
Sen. Barack Obama, D-Ill., was the most liberal senator in 2007, according to National Journal's 27th annual vote ratings. The insurgent presidential candidate shifted further to the left last year in the run-up to the primaries, after ranking as the 16th- and 10th-most-liberal during his first two years in the Senate.
http://nj.nationaljournal.com/voteratings/ |
In their opinion, yes. In mine, no.
In general, on this graph, the closer you are to the upper right, the closer you are to desiring to stay the course (onservative). The further you are away from the top, the more you're desiring to change current policy (liberal). As you can see Obama likes to stay within the pack fairly well, although he is no Paul Wolfowitz. Also his statements on Iran during the AIPAC speech feel more like a throwback to the last eight years with neocons than anything else.
|
