E'08: Obscenity

Have you ever witnessed a friend who became so infatuated with a member of the opposite sex that they folded up their dignity and hid it in a drawer? It's especially distasteful when the target of the affections has no particular interest in your friend, but your friend goes to ridiculous lengths to convey their impassioned feelings.

Self-respect is trashed. Character is oft compromised. Frankly, the level of saccharine fosters an equal level of nausea. Treacly. Revolting. But because you care about this friend, you ache for them. You hope that something will smack them back to earth that they might regain their footing.

I have these sentiments more and more as I watch the mainstream media (MSM) hound Senator Obama. Where are the hard questions? Where is the detached interest? If there's one group of folks who completely tank their entire purpose in life by becoming swayed, it's our news folks.

Two suitors: John McCain and Barack Obama. The prize would normally be the American people though the MSM. What has happened is that the MSM have become so smitten with the Illinois senator, that they have become the suitor and Obama is the prize. The losers? You and I.

The last week provided a sardonic example. John McCain vaulted off to New England to campaign. Who met his plane? A single reporter. One. Compare that with the coverage Obama has received traveling to Europe and Israel. The Beijing Olympics are closer in comparison to what Obama has enjoyed.

Is that a bad thing? Is it not a historic trip? It would be were he president, but he's not yet been crowned! The MSM acts as though November is merely a formality. Why wait until January for the swearing in. Let's get down to business right now.

And the MSM continues to ignore the limitations of Barack Hussein Obama, and most of America wallows in its ignorance.

Douglas MacKinnon had an interesting piece on Townhall today (here) highlighting this oceanic bias. Within it, he set up two notional candidates and began polling folks on who they would vote for based upon experience alone. Here are the two candidates (quoting):

Candidate A: Middle-aged. Studied overseas. Attended two different colleges in the U.S. before getting a degree. Went on to get a law degree. Worked community affairs in his adopted home city. Was elected to local office. Served in local politics for just over six years. Got elected to a federal state-wide office. Has one real year of experience in that job.

Candidate B: Middle-aged. Went to college and got a degree. Served in the National Guard for six years. Became a sergeant. While in the National Guard, earned a law degree. Became an investigator for a consumer-protection division. Was elected to a federal office. Was re-elected to a federal office. Was elected to a federal statewide office. Was re-elected to a federal state-wide office. Served in the executive branch for four years.

How would you vote? If you're like most folks and don't see through the ruse, you'd take Candidate B going away, based upon experience alone. Candidate A? You guessed it, Barack Obama. Candidate B? I'll let you go to the article. Cruel, yes, I know, but it will bring a smile to your face.

But you will also see how distorted and tilted the coverage has become during Election 2008. Sad.