http://baracksteleprompter.blogspot.com/
If you have a sense of humor, you will love this site. I promise.*
*promise subject to change without notice. No, you don't get anything from me if you don't like it. At least, nothing pleasant.
So many things could be written right now. “I told you so” being one of them. However, I try not to waste time casting blame; that will be for history to decide. Or will it? Who writes our history? Who decides what is historic and what isn’t? The answer, unfortunately, is simple: our current media, and their up-to-the-minute headlines.
Most news organizations follow the adage, “if it bleeds, it leads.” However, we’ve seen an astonishing amount of proof in the opposite direction when it comes to our Dear Leader: “If it bleeds and it isn’t Obama, it leads. If it is Obama (or Biden/Pelosi/Reid), it’s shuffled away on the 5th or 6th page, where few people will bother to look.”
We all know that the media got Obama elected; from Chris Matthews’ tingle to George Stephanopolous’ calling his wife and crying whenever the Bamster opened his mouth, directed his eyes to the teleprompter, and let ‘er rip, they presented an image of him to the people that he was their long awaited liberal Messiah, come to correct the wrongs of that bad, bad boy Bush and his sidekick Cheney. Obama was presented as this sort of empty slate; he had something for everyone! Whereas, turns out now, he has nothing for anyone who doesn’t subscribe to his belief in the government curing all of society’s ills.
And the media went along with this. And for the most part, I couldn’t blame them. Hosts like Matthews, Joe Scarborough, and even Hannity and Limbaugh have the right to proscribe to (and preach) whatever philosophy they hold, because their job is to talk about the news, not present it. They’re talk show hosts; commentators. They’re like the peanut gallery at baseball games. They’re not calling the plays, just yelling that they should have been different.
My problem is when those people present what they are saying as the news; even worse is when the news reporters let their biases slip when they’re presenting a story. That is the opposite of what our Founding Fathers were protecting when they crafted the First Amendment of our Constitution. Instead of our media acting as watchdogs of the government, they’ve become the lapdogs (No, I didn’t think of that first…I don’t think. But it fits.)
Now, all this has been true since Obama presented a speech at the DNC in 2004, so it shouldn’t be a surprise to anyone. What’s of interest to me is, what now? To continue the love-fest for the One who could turn out to be the worst president in recent history (okay, since Carter) is simply not possible; it goes against their DNA. The, “If it bleeds…” mantra has been around a whole heckuva lot longer than Obama; even longer than the liberal bias prevalent in the news today. It simply has to win out. So what happens to Obama then?
It’s already started to happen. Camille Paglia, a staunch Democrat and supporter of Obama (who, incidentally, falls into the “commentator” category), posted last week in her column at Salon.com (http://www.salon.com/opinion/paglia/2009/03/11/mercury/index.html) that Obama had made a huge misstep in who he had around to advise him (hmm…nah, too easy). She stopped short of blaming Obama’s mistakes and missteps on Obama himself, but it was clear that the shine is starting to wear off.
So the question is not if they will go back to their nature of blood, but when they will abandon their group love. Any guesses?