I was reading Glenn Green’s New Heights of Stupidity, posted on Salon. He is obviously angry and just as obviously liberal, and he is quite plainly taken (in) by Obama, and he apparently believes the media and Republicans at large, though it seems he may not differentiate between the two, are treating his candidate Obama-nably (tee-hee) over the whole lipstick debacle.
While I had not previously heard the comment, nor did I care, after being bombarded from every angle on the subject, including by angry liberal bloggers, I took the time to watch Obama’s remarks or at least the portion in question. Granted, I did not see the full context of the remark, but it does not appear to me that Obama was referencing Sarah Palin…at all.
While I can empathize with Green’s angst over the media, I have to disagree with his assessment that this represents new heights of stupidity. Apparently Glenn was out camping in the remote wilderness for the past six years as the media screamed fire in the crowded theatre of US politics. Of course, the media folly previously benefited liberals; that might explain why Green failed to recognize and classify the previous heights of stupidity.
Previous media stupidity culminated into a successful Congressional coup leaving Democrats squarely in the seat of power. While that stupidity failed to derail efforts in Iraq, it did manage to marginalize all progress. That same stupidity eventually evolved into the “failed administration” platform that Obama is currently running for President on. With such distinct media victories under their collective belts, it’s no wonder liberals like Green failed to recognize the media stupidity. Ironically, they were dependent upon it.
Obama benefited immensely from the pro-bama-razzi in the primaries. He managed to quench Biden’s political thirst for the Presidency without ever really addressing him (sorry Joe, white guys are so 80’s). He even managed to beat Hillary Clinton, a formidable and determined adversary, while carrying his racist pastor and congregation on his back. After pulling out all the stops, the last media darling standing won, but did he have anything left? Is there more substance…or any substance…to Barack Obama?
Currently, the best thing that Obama has to offer voters is “You hate Bush and so do I. McCain is the same as Bush. They’re both rich and white…er…I mean Republican, and they should both be equally blamed for bad stuff that happened in the past eight years.” Obama’s main anti-Bush push is music to the ears of his devoted party-liners, and the media has tons of cliché material to support his effort, but I think he may be giving that angle too much credit.
There is a limit to the media’s influence; not everyone believes everything they see on the news. Green’s sour grapes aside, the mainstream media has backed Democrats since I was a Democrat. Republicans have known this for quite sometime, even before FOX came along and ran a story on that 800lb gorilla. So, if Barack was depending on favorable anti-Bush media to convince Republicans to punch his name on the Ballot in November, the great unifier is sorely mistaken.
Maybe Barack hoped to win the fence sitters: the swing votes. I’d like to think that the fence sitters are such, because they have not yet sized up the candidates or the issues (hint: they are going to think things through). Consequently, they aren’t so easily swayed by rhetoric, media-hype, or party-line divisiveness, so if one side is working the issues while the other is simply trying to work the crowds…oops, you lose.
The lipstick debacle may indeed be new heights of stupidity for the media; it is a dumb non-story, but even we bloggers covered it. Considering that the story and the public response to the story drives media, maybe the greater stupidity is thinking the media will “stay the course” (pro-Obama) throughout the race. Maybe the greater stupidity is calling yourself a unifier and running on a populist, hate platform thinking such a single faceted strategy would win the hearts and minds of the political masses. I’m sure the debate would be endless.
As long as we avoid the greatest stupidity in November, but don’t let me tell you how to vote.
NO-bama!
(was that my out loud voice?)
While I had not previously heard the comment, nor did I care, after being bombarded from every angle on the subject, including by angry liberal bloggers, I took the time to watch Obama’s remarks or at least the portion in question. Granted, I did not see the full context of the remark, but it does not appear to me that Obama was referencing Sarah Palin…at all.
While I can empathize with Green’s angst over the media, I have to disagree with his assessment that this represents new heights of stupidity. Apparently Glenn was out camping in the remote wilderness for the past six years as the media screamed fire in the crowded theatre of US politics. Of course, the media folly previously benefited liberals; that might explain why Green failed to recognize and classify the previous heights of stupidity.
Previous media stupidity culminated into a successful Congressional coup leaving Democrats squarely in the seat of power. While that stupidity failed to derail efforts in Iraq, it did manage to marginalize all progress. That same stupidity eventually evolved into the “failed administration” platform that Obama is currently running for President on. With such distinct media victories under their collective belts, it’s no wonder liberals like Green failed to recognize the media stupidity. Ironically, they were dependent upon it.
Obama benefited immensely from the pro-bama-razzi in the primaries. He managed to quench Biden’s political thirst for the Presidency without ever really addressing him (sorry Joe, white guys are so 80’s). He even managed to beat Hillary Clinton, a formidable and determined adversary, while carrying his racist pastor and congregation on his back. After pulling out all the stops, the last media darling standing won, but did he have anything left? Is there more substance…or any substance…to Barack Obama?
Currently, the best thing that Obama has to offer voters is “You hate Bush and so do I. McCain is the same as Bush. They’re both rich and white…er…I mean Republican, and they should both be equally blamed for bad stuff that happened in the past eight years.” Obama’s main anti-Bush push is music to the ears of his devoted party-liners, and the media has tons of cliché material to support his effort, but I think he may be giving that angle too much credit.
There is a limit to the media’s influence; not everyone believes everything they see on the news. Green’s sour grapes aside, the mainstream media has backed Democrats since I was a Democrat. Republicans have known this for quite sometime, even before FOX came along and ran a story on that 800lb gorilla. So, if Barack was depending on favorable anti-Bush media to convince Republicans to punch his name on the Ballot in November, the great unifier is sorely mistaken.
Maybe Barack hoped to win the fence sitters: the swing votes. I’d like to think that the fence sitters are such, because they have not yet sized up the candidates or the issues (hint: they are going to think things through). Consequently, they aren’t so easily swayed by rhetoric, media-hype, or party-line divisiveness, so if one side is working the issues while the other is simply trying to work the crowds…oops, you lose.
The lipstick debacle may indeed be new heights of stupidity for the media; it is a dumb non-story, but even we bloggers covered it. Considering that the story and the public response to the story drives media, maybe the greater stupidity is thinking the media will “stay the course” (pro-Obama) throughout the race. Maybe the greater stupidity is calling yourself a unifier and running on a populist, hate platform thinking such a single faceted strategy would win the hearts and minds of the political masses. I’m sure the debate would be endless.
As long as we avoid the greatest stupidity in November, but don’t let me tell you how to vote.
NO-bama!
(was that my out loud voice?)
