Election burnout.

[Morganite]

Calling Bush "shrub" is also infantile.

Like I said, I'd be happy to see it all stop. However, I don't particularly expect that to happen on either side.

I continue to find the whole media bias issue very amusing. It seems the one thing that truly unites Democrats and Republicans is thinking the media is on the other side. Perhaps it's more a result of expectations than anything else. There are some cases where it really seems quite obvious one way or the other though.

Take for instance, since someone just drew my attention to it, a recent story from the Associated Press: "Poll: Voters souring on McCain, Obama stays steady".

There's a great deal of this and that about people trusting McCain less than Obama on this and that, but they fail to mention the basic "Who would you vote for" number in the article. Which is 44-42. In Obama's favor, but by a noticably narrower margin than before. So, to say voters are souring on McCain when his position is *improving* is pretty damn questionable.

As for Obama being a brilliant speaker, there's been some things that give me doubts about that.

-Morgan, also finds it amusing that Obama's attack ads have given me reasons to support McCain...

[Ayiekie]

Obama's attack ads. Uh-huh. You have an interesting perspective on reality.

[Morganite]

By that do you mean, I shouldn't consider them attack ads, or I shouldn't be getting reasons to support McCain from them?

If it's the former, well, I may not be using the same definition. By "attack ad" I mean "any ad devoted to saying negative things about the
other guy instead of positive things about ones self". Other uses for the term I've seen seem too subjective to be useful.

If the latter... Well, it's true. Something one of Obama's ads accuses McCain of wanting to do sounds like a pretty good idea to me.

-Morgan, sees reality through prescription eyeglasses. '.'

[Logan Darklighter]

Ayiekie...

I can't think of any diplomatic way to say this - so screw it -

The mainstream media isn't decidedly Obama. If they were, Sarah Palin would have been roundly laughed at as opposed to becoming America's biggest
celebrity.

Excuse the FUCK out of me? But the mainstream press has been trying to find a way to take her down since she was first announced! Laughing at her? HELLO?
Saturday Night Live? Charlie Gibson's interview... Did you see the full version of that interview? Or just the version that made it to TV? The version that
made it to TV was edited to make her look bad. You didn't see the condescending way she was treated? Have you not seen any of the bilious things said about
her son? Her teenage daughter? How this was reported?

Generally the American media bends over backwards to try and avoid ever being seen as against the Republicans, which of course never stops them from
routinely blaming the media's bias for any and all bad coverage.




Really, after the years of sloppy blowjobs the media gave George W. Bush, it amazes me that anybody can still believe the media is biased against the GOP.

What kind of insulated, mirror backwards, bearded Spock world are you posting from anyway? Not the one the majority of people are living in! That's for
DAMN sure!

Look - normally you have reasoned things to say. WRONG. But reasoned. This? I can't FATHOM where this is coming from!

I gotta go step back and calm down. I can post later, with copious examples of bias, even. But right now, I'm getting too pissed off to type. I'm
shutting down and walking away before I put my fist through my monitor.

[Ayiekie]

To Morganni - I was referring to the fact that McCain's campaign has run far, far more negative ads than Obama's campaign.

Logan Darklighter wrote:

---

Ayiekie...




I can't think of any diplomatic way to say this - so screw it -

The mainstream media isn't decidedly Obama. If they were, Sarah Palin would have been roundly laughed at as opposed to becoming America's biggest
celebrity.

Excuse the FUCK out of me? But the mainstream press has been trying to find a way to take her down since she was first announced! Laughing at her? HELLO?
Saturday Night Live? Charlie Gibson's interview... Did you see the full version of that interview? Or just the version that made it to TV? The version
that made it to TV was edited to make her look bad. You didn't see the condescending way she was treated? Have you not seen any of the bilious things
said about her son? Her teenage daughter? How this was reported?

Yes, I saw all of that. Saturday Night Live mocks all the candidates (they mocked Hillary just as much in Tina Fey's first Palin sketch, pour
l'example). The Charlie Gibson interview showed the most sensational bits, yes... and Obama's "bitter" comment, taken in context, didn't
actually mean what it was widely taken to mean at all. No bilious things have been said about her children by the dreaded mainstream media.

I did not say her media coverage was 100% positive. But it has been incredibly slanted towards her and has treated her like a celebrity, more so than for any
vice-presidential candidate in my lifetime; in fact, arguably more so than any other presidential candidate.

The media never called her out on her incredibly stupid comment that she was an expert on foreign policy based on the fact she could see Russia from her house
(which in fact she can't). The media never questioned when the McCain campaign said she experience commanding the Alaska National Guard (despite the fact
she never gave a single order in that capacity). The media obligingly swallowed the "I stopped the Bridge to Nowhere" bullshit she peddled, despite
the fact she ran an election campaign on keeping it, and then when it was cancelled, she kept the money and spent it on other projects in Alaska. No mention
has been made of the fact she spent over 80% of her town's budget on a hockey arena (not a great sign in light of the current economic crisis), nor that on
her watch women were charged for rape kits. The media barely touched the fact she was under investigation for corruption even when McCain selected her (and
also failed to heavily cover the fact she was found guilty a week ago). There has been no mockery of McCain's contention that she is one the greatest
energy experts in the US (or was it the world?), despite the fact she has no qualifications to earn this compliment other than being governor of Alaska. There
has been no serious inquiry into the fact that she has been shielded from almost all media interviews by the McCain campaign, despite the fact it is obvious to
all and sundry that she is being kept from them because she will embarass herself and the campaign (again). The media never acknowledged the borderline-crazy
circumstances of her last child's birth (although left-wing blogs and such thought it was proof the child was not hers), which cast serious doubt on her
judgement as a person and parent. As I have noted before, the media has not made any hash of the fact her husband is tied to a separatist party, nor that she herself recorded a message for them as governor of Alaska. And despite how much fun they had with
Reverend Wright, somehow we've heard virtually nothing from the media about Palin's own church, which isn't exactly mainstream. The list of things
the anti-Palin media somehow managed to miss goes on and on.

She was treated as if she made a good showing in the VP debate merely by showing up and not soiling herself, despite the fact she did not display any
particularly insightful knowledge on any topic and actually said she was ignoring questions to "talk to the American people". I can just imagine your
reaction if Obama had done the same thing.

If the media was anti-Palin, anti-McCain, or anti-GOP, the McCain campaign would be dead in the water (as opposed to just listing heavily). The separatist
thing alone would have done it; much hash was made not so long ago about how Obama didn't wear a flag pin, and yet the fact the party of Lincoln has
selected a Copperhead for its VP candidate went unremarked? Yes, there's some mighty fine anti-Palin bias there.

The mainstream media in the United States is owned by a few huge conglomerates; such organisations are not known for their Democratic loyalties. The amount of
cognitive dissonance needed to swallow a claim that Clearchannel's holdings have an anti-GOP leaning must be staggering.

What kind of insulated, mirror backwards, bearded Spock world are you posting from anyway? Not the one the majority of people are living in! That's for
DAMN sure!

That "insulated, mirror backwards, bearded Spock world" would be the rest of the world outside America. You would find most of it agrees
with my assessment of your media.

[Fidoohki]

If they did that no one would watch them. These news media

have to have a level of legitamicy for their true 'message' to

get through. I know it sounds like some crazy tinfoil conspiracy

theory crap but it isn't quite like it sounds. These Pro obama

groups want him to win. If they come out and say 'WE ARE FOR

OBAMA! EVERYTHING WE SAY WILL BE SPUN WITH HIS BEST

INTEREST AT HEART!' the clicking sound would be millions of

people turning to another channel. So they start taking things

out of context. Remember the "100 years of war'? line? McCain

alledgedly said that was found out to been taken out of context?

Also they edit their interviews and ask 'gotcha' questions to make

the target they pick look poorly in the public spotlight.

Now you are either honestly not paying attention to it or just being

willfully ignorant on the subject.

Now as For the 'Palin being found guilty' The only thing she was guilty

trying to fire a trooper that has , in my opinion, disgraced the uniform

and got away with it. Was she wrong? possibly but the worst that can

happen is a $5000 fine according to the article from CBS. Oh and by the

way, the main reason for this investigation was the firing of Public saftey

Commisioner Monegan which the panel found justified. (((Link to article

follows))

http://wcco.com/politics/...troopergate.2.837667.html

Also I've read the full line and its hard to say it is out of context.

Here is the line and the article:

"You go into these small towns in Pennsylvania, and like a lot of small

towns in the Midwest, the jobs have been gone now for 25 years and

nothing's replaced them. And they fell through the Clinton Administration

and the Bush Administration, and each successive administration has

said that somehow these communities are going to regenerate and they

have not. And it's not surprising, then, they get bitter, they cling to guns

or religion or antipathy to people who aren't like them or anti-immigrant

sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations,"

http://www.usnews.com/usn...letin/bulletin_080414.htm

As for the Palin 'facts' you cite. get them right. You really need to lay off

the left wing blogs and stuff. They will rot your brain.

[Ayiekie]

Remember how I said I don't approve of lying? I get my facts from legitimate news sources. Every thing I mentioned is a verifiable fact. Once again, if you
seriously think Clearchannel is pro-Democrat, than I think the onus is on you to offer an explanation of why. Or, for that matter, any of the other enormous
conglomerates that own the mainstream media in the US.

And stop quoting Republican talking points like "gotcha" questions. One of the most irritating things about American politics is how it seems
virtually everybody starts speaking the same lingo as soon as your party brings it up, and GOP supporters are particularly bad for this.

[Fidoohki]

Had to look up "Clearchannel' I would debate whether they are a 'major' media

outlet. Plus they do seem to be right leaning in their views. However I'd need

more info beofre I pass judgement on them. Especially refering to the claims of

censorship.

And as for the 'talking points' you claim I use, That isn't a talking point.

" Bush lead us into a unjust war." Is a talking point a Dem one at that. Which is

usually a point of discussion that can be interprited differently, lacks all the facts,

or could entirely or partily be subject to debate.

A 'gotcha' question is something asked just to test your knowledge usually done

by surprise or as a sudden change of pace. At least that is my interpritation.

[Morganite]

To Morganni - I was referring to the fact that McCain's campaign has run far, far more negative ads than Obama's campaign.

From what I've seen (which may or may not be representative) both of them have run far more attack ads than defense ones. I suppose one probably has 10 attacks to the other's 9 (and one defense each), or similar proportions.

(And another funny thing - the positive impression of McCain I've gotten from one of Obama's attacks has a counterpart in one of McCain's defense ads giving me a negative impression of him...)

Things seem to be similar as far as the local elections go too - about 90% of the advertising is saying *something* they intend to be bad about the other guy.

I do agree with you that Palin seems to have gotten a lot more media coverage than is typical. I'm not sure that it isn't more all the others weren't getting enough though. Shouldn't the person who's first in line if something happens to the President matter too? But while I've been hearing plenty of stuff from McCain and Obama, and a bit here and there from Palin, Biden's pretty much a cipher to me.

Well, in any case we'll soon be quit of one set of them. Theoretically.

-Morgan. However, for future campaigns, the use of the phrase "Not the change we need" is prohibited from now until the end of time. I don't care *who* it's being applied to.

[ordnance11]

Well, it's 1920 Pacific Standard time. From where I sit, all Barrack Obama has to do is either grab Florida, or both Virginia and North Carolina. Add the
55 votes from California (which is pro-Obama) and he wins the election. If he loses all 3 or only grabs Virginia or North Carolina, then the race becomes
interesting.
__________________
Into terror!,  Into valour!
Charge ahead! No! Never turn
Yes, it's into the fire we fly
And the devil will burn!
- Scarlett Pimpernell

[Star Ranger4]

and at 20:00 they are declaring obama the winner, BASED ON FUCKING WHAT? THE POLLS ONLY JUST CLOSED ON THE WEST FUCKING COAST

So how, WITH NONE OF THE POLLS REPORTING CAN THEY HAVE THE GALL TO DECLARE HI, CA, WA, and OR for Obama when they STILL havent delcared states with almost 80
PERCENT LIKE FL OR VA???
Hear that thunder rolling till it seems to split the sky?
That's every ship in Grayson's Navy taking up the cry-
NO QUARTER!!!
-- "No Quarter", by Echo's Children

[Evil Midnight Lurker]

Well, McCain has conceded, so...

ETA: Several of these states are, for all intents and purposes, known quantities. It would take something on a world-changingly paranormal level, like the
sudden death of every registered Democrat, to win Hawaii or California for McCain at this point.

--Sam

"BAD IS GOOD BABY! DOWN WITH GOVERNMENT!!!!!"

[Florin]

Because if even one of the other networks calls it before [insert news station here] they'll all be forced marched out into the parking lot and executed. Or something.

Actually, what they're probably basing it on is exit polls which are generally fairly accurate, though not always of course.
--
If you become a monster to put down a monster you've still got a monster running around at the end of the day and have as such not really solved the whole monster problem at all. 

[Star Ranger4]

Oh? Guess what, with one percent of the California polls reporting, MC CAIN HAD 54% to Obama's 44%!!!

I see this as nothing less than the Major news media pulling a fast march on the voting public and manipulating the election. I FIND THAT OBJECTIONABLE. THe
only reason Mc Cain has conceeced is because of this BULLCRAP of trying to claim CA OR WA HI for Obama WITHOUT ANY OF THE VOTE BEING COUNTED IN THOSE STATES
Hear that thunder rolling till it seems to split the sky?
That's every ship in Grayson's Navy taking up the cry-
NO QUARTER!!!
-- "No Quarter", by Echo's Children

[M Fnord]

Dude, if you are honestly saying that you think California was going to go for McCain, I want to know what the hell you're smoking because it must be the primo shit.
Mr. Fnord interdimensional man of mystery

FenWiki - Your One-Stop Shop for Fenspace Information

"I. Drink. Your. NERDRAGE!"

[Star Ranger4]

I wasn't arguing that I thought Mc Cain MIGHT win... I was objecting to declaring the state for Obama THE INSTANT THE POLLS CLOSED.

If they'd waited till at least 1% of the precients had reported, I'd have nothing to object to, ok?
Hear that thunder rolling till it seems to split the sky?
That's every ship in Grayson's Navy taking up the cry-
NO QUARTER!!!
-- "No Quarter", by Echo's Children

[Murmur the Fallen]

Many of the points that people brought up here and elsewhere were the same points that made me vote for Hilary Clinton during the primaries (and oh the sh*t I
got from Obama supporters). The lack of experience, the cult of personality, the mephistifalean rise to power from "community leader" to presidential
candidate.

But as a party loyalist, I vote for my party. This is not in any way a mindless thing. Simply an acknowledgment on my part that the positions of my party are
my own positions. The Democratic party's platform conforms to my own political beliefs.

(Caveats here and there, of course.)

And no I don't believe that an Obama presidency, a majority in the House and Senate -though not the supermajority that they hoped for-, would bring about a
transformation of how the nation works or how politics are done. Indeed, with the money that the Obama campaign has brought to the party, you can pretty much
kiss campaign reform goodbye for the next ten years or so. Now that the wind is blowing Democrats, you can bet there's a lot of Republicans kicking
themselves for not making McCain-Feingold stronger when they had the chance.

And let's not kid ourselves even more: the economy's going to be in a repression for the forseeable future. Not just the US economy, the world's
economy. Homeless people here, starving people there. It's pretty much a perfect storm of sh*ttiness. We might be reducing our presence in Iraq, whatever
the hell that means, but we're never, ever leaving Saudi Arabia. And the regimes in Syria and Egypt will never change their ways. Camp X-Ray isn't
coming down. Energy will be scarce, no matter what source we get it from. The environment is turning poisonous.

And, oh yeah, Palestine just bomb Israel again. Right now.

So why be happy? What's going on? If the change we're getting isn't that much of a change, why the celebration?

Because it is big, it is important. Americans have decided on a president that looks more like "them" than he does "us." Race is important
because we make it important. Symbolic, maybe. But people die for symbols every day. And it really, honestly does put paid to the Bush Doctrine. Granted, it
was unlikely that Sen. McCain would have followed on the unilateralism and myopic tendencies of the Bush administration, ignoring so very much in favor of
Iraq. Perhaps even of "preventive war", though that one's a bit unlikely. Internationism, cooperation, diplomacy--these things will be more
likely under an Obama administration than they would have been for a McCain administration, if only because gosh-darnit the durn ferreners like Obama better.
They do.

(And of course the Democratic party platform will be the salvation of us all, praise goodness, etc. etc.)

So here's to Obama: the repository of all our hopes, dreams and fears. Not a Muslim. Not a terrorist. Probably not a communist. More centrist than I would
like him to be. Much more cynical than his supporters think he is in all likelyhood. Most certainly not a panacea for all our ills, social and otherwise. But a
change, nonetheless. For the better? For the worse? Only time will tell.

Oh, yes. And as for the liberal media: as a loyal liberal, I say: thanks for the hard work. You made us all proud to be under your absolute control.

PS: How to bring it back into geekiness? I was just re-reading Eagle: the Making of an Asian-American President by Kaiji Kawaguchi. Really weird parallels.

[Bob Schroeck]

Americans have decided on a president that looks more like "them" than he does "us."

Are you sure you want to phrase this that way? It can certainly be read as implying that non-Whites aren't Americans regardless of their citizenship status.
-- Bob
---------
Then the horns kicked in...
...and my shoes began to squeak.

[Epsilon]

Bob Schroeck wrote:

---

Americans have decided on a president that looks more like "them" than he does "us."

Are you sure you want to phrase this that way? It can certainly be read as implying that non-Whites aren't Americans regardless of their
citizenship status.

(monocle pops) Racism? Here?

----------------

Epsilon

[Fidoohki]

the horse is dead with all 4 legs up in the air. quit beating it.

[Logan Darklighter]

We can no longer be considered a racist country. If there is ONE good thing about Obama being elected, it is that you can NOT make that argument anymore. We
now have proof POSITIVE that there are no more barriers to what can be achieved by any person in this country regardless of race, creed or gender. There are no
more tired excuses that are possible. That ship has SAILED. I'll salute the ascendancy of Obama on that one thing.

[Murmur the Fallen]

Americans have decided on a president that looks more like "them" than he does "us."

Are you sure you want to phrase this that way? It can certainly be read as implying that non-Whites aren't Americans regardless of their citizenship status.
[No, no, wait, what I meant to say was, ha ha ha, well, ha ha . . .umm . . .
[Anyway, that has certainly been the historic view (if by history one means the last two hundred years or so).  It's certainly been the case since the creation and expansion of whiteness.  The image of the white protestant is still a powerful one.  Anyone that is a hyphentate-american is still perceived as being less than fully american by some - not all, but some.  And there are more things to be hyphenated with than there are Americans. 
[blah de blah de blah. 
[So, no, it's not a dead horse.  Looking forward to the day it is, though.  In my more cynical moments, I think that it'll never happen in my lifetime.  Oh, well.]
-murmur
who says that even now California is probably voting to make sure that the homosexual agenda doesn't get taught in school and that teenage girls get the strapping they deserve for getting up the duff.
on the other hand, eat that supposedly-liberal europe.  when was the last time you had a non-white pm?  huh?

[Ayiekie]

Logan Darklighter wrote:

---

We can no longer be considered a racist country.

Bullshit. The election of Barack Obama is a great, important step, but it is not a magic wand that suddenly makes racism go away. Racism was one
of the focal points of this entire election cycle. The very fact that the "big thing" about Barack Obama to many people is that he was
"black" (despite being as much white as black), something that was viewed both positive and negatively, shows that it is far from a dead issue. But,
like the civil rights act, it is a big step in the right direction.

[Bob Schroeck]

If I may play peacemaker here -- or, as some would say, be wishy-washy on an issue where no one is allowed any but extreme views -- you're both right. Logan is correct -- and he is echoing things said last night by Obama and his supporters. America cannot be considered institutionally racist, particularly not the way it was 40 or 50 years ago. But Ayiekie and others are also correct in that whether or not the system has stopped being racist, we still have racists in our population. The fact of one does not disprove the other.

And there are going to be collisions between those two facts in the coming years, no doubt about it. We've already had some -- those two braindead yokels who decided a couple weeks ago over a beer to kill a hundred blacks and then try assassinating Obama are just on the dumbass end of the scale. The whole "Muslim"/"terrorist" smear campaign only whipped up the racist lunatic fringe, and it's not going to go away now that he's going to be President -- his win will only seem to support some groups' more apocalyptic scenarios. I'm afraid that, even though the election proves that there are no further bars in the way of African Americans at least within government, on the private racism front we're probably going to see things get worse before they get better.

-- Bob
---------
Then the horns kicked in...
...and my shoes began to squeak.

[Logan Darklighter]

Bob said it a LOT better than I could have. Especially as I made that post while still pretty angry.