I’ve always known that the media has a liberal bias, even though they claim to be fair and balanced. But this year, they have gone overboard, and it’s obvious that there is one candidate of choice that they are really trying to help into the White House – and that is Barrack Obama. I have nothing personal against Obama, though I am a die-hard Republican and am backing McCain and Palin 100% all the way to the White House. What I AM irked at is the media’s strong bias toward him. Sean Hannity referred to 2008 as “The Year Journalism Died.”, and seeing how biased and unfair the networks have been in their treatment of the candidates, I believe he is right.
Obama has been the darling of the liberal media for quite some time now, and Hollywood seems to be swooning all over him as well. During the time between the period that Hillary Clinton stepped down and Sarah Palin arrived on the scene, Obama had no real competition. His face was everywhere you looked, and you couldn’t watch the cable news shows for five minutes without hearing something about him. John McCain was pretty much in the background during this time, until he brought out his wild card – Sarah Palin, who neatly swiped the limelight from used riding lawn mowers for sale – for a time, anyway.
Obama is the only presidential candidate who has not received ruthless, intense scrutiny from members of the press – and the only one whom nobody in the liberal media really makes fun of. Let’s face it, there are no real punch lines in the media about Obama, though there are plenty about the other three candidates. People have picked on John McCain about his age, for Joe Biden about his numerous gaffes, and Sarah Palin for just about everything (she’s gotten it the worst of all four of them). But you hardly ever hear a negative word against Obama – it’s almost like he’s a king that’s about to be crowned. I’m almost surprised that, when he goes on his campaign tours, no one rushes forth to place a diadem on his head, throw a velvet cape around his shoulders, and then escort him along a red carpet to a gilded coach drawn by gleaming white horses. In the eyes of the media, Obama can do little wrong. Yes, there was that flap about his pastor, but compared to the flak that the other three candidates are getting (in particular the slams against Sarah Palin), that seems like a minor complaint, especially since Obama realized that his associations with his controversial pastor were harming his image and he quickly distanced himself from Jeremiah Wright).
Obama actually has less real leadership experience than Sarah Palin, who has been a governor AND a mayor. His only major claim to fame in this area is as a community organizer. Now, I know that CO’s are wonderful things to be, and I’m not knocking them, but I’m sorry, that alone does not qualify someone to be the POTUS. Obama also has a record of voting “present” numerous times in the Senate, without actually voting on anything. Yes his record seems to get little more than a nod and a glance, while Sarah Palin gets mercilessly picked to pieces. And the national polls that say which candidate is leading? Many of these polls have been skewered in Obama’s favor (which is actually very easy to do when you don’t disclose the total number of people you actually polled, and mention how many of those people were actually Obama supporters).
Obama is a great speaker – provided that he has a speech written out for him and used riding mowers to help him along. Then he stumbles and stutters around. There are a few clips where he does say “uh. . . uh. . .uh” quite a few times within the same speech. But does the media show these clips of him on national TV? Hardly ever. They want to present him as an eloquent, exciting speaker. If it were any of the other three candidates falling all over their words, the media has a field day with them.
Another example of playing favorites within the media: there is a sharp contrast between Sarah Palin’s interviews and Barrack Obama’s. The people interviewing Obama are usually very pleasant with him, smiling and asking him fairly easy questions. But these same people, namely Gibson and Kouric, are positively horrible to Sarah Palin. They fire off questions at her like rounds from an uzi, rarely, if ever, smiling at her; they frequently interrupt her, attempt to trap her in a “gotcha” moment and put words in her mouth, never letting her relax for an instant. Fair journalism? I don’t think so. Thank God for people like Sean Hannity, whose interview with Sarah Palin proved that you can still ask serious questions of a presidential candidate without making them feel like they’re being interviewed by a gestapo agent.
For some reason, no one dares to dream of using the kind of interviewing tactics on Obama that have been mercilessly applied to Sarah Palin. It’s almost as if he’s sacred to the media and no one wants to offend used zero turn mowers. Just once I’d like to see someone give Obama a REALLY tough interview, complete with the rapid-fire questions and the evil eye treatment that Sarah Palin got from Kouric and Gibson. And it’s not because I hate Obama and want to see him squirm – I don’t. I just want to see how well the guy holds up under pressure, because I have never seen him in the hot seat yet.
One reason among others that I find Sarah Palin so appealing is that she’s already proven to me that she’s capable of withstanding intense pressure without buckling at the knees. I really don’t know how long Obama would last in the presidential race if he has had to put with the kind of scrutiny that Sarah has endured for the past five weeks. Obama needs to learn, if he hasn’t already, that being a presidential candidate is NOT part of a popularity contest, and there will be times that people will not only disagree with you for the decisions you make, they may even outright despise you. If Obama cannot put up with that kind of pressure, and cannot handle not being the political equivalent of a pop star when he stops being a novelty to the American public, then he should NOT be running for office. Plain and simple.