Journalists Glorying in Obama's Moment

[Zoomie]

A Giddy Sense of Boosterism
By Howard Kurtz
Washington Post Staff Writer
Monday, November 17, 2008; C01

Perhaps it was the announcement that NBC News (http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/related/topic/NBC+Universal+Inc.?tid=informline) is coming out with a DVD titled "Yes We Can: The Barack Obama (http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/related/topic/Barack+Obama?tid=informline) Story." Or that ABC (http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/related/topic/ABC+Inc.?tid=informline) and USA Today (http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/related/topic/USA+TODAY?tid=informline) are rushing out a book on the election. Or that HBO (http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/related/topic/Home+Box+Office+Inc.?tid=informline) has snapped up a documentary on Obama's campaign.
Perhaps it was the Newsweek (http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/related/topic/Newsweek+Inc.?tid=informline) commemorative issue -- "Obama's American Dream" -- filled with so many iconic images and such stirring prose that it could have been campaign literature. Or the Time cover depicting Obama as FDR, complete with jaunty cigarette holder.
Are the media capable of merchandizing the moment, packaging a president-elect for profit? Yes, they are.
What's troubling here goes beyond the clanging of cash registers. Media outlets have always tried to make a few bucks off the next big thing. The endless campaign is over, and there's nothing wrong with the country pulling together, however briefly, behind its new leader. But we seem to have crossed a cultural line into mythmaking.
"The Obamas' New Life!" blares People's cover, with a shot of the family. "New home, new friends, new puppy!" Us Weekly (http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/related/topic/Us+Weekly+LLC?tid=informline) goes with a Barack quote: "I Think I'm a Pretty Cool Dad." The Chicago Tribune (http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/related/topic/Tribune+Company?tid=informline) trumpets that Michelle "is poised to be the new Oprah (http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/related/topic/Oprah+Winfrey?tid=informline) and the next Jacqueline Kennedy Onassis (http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/related/topic/Jacqueline+Kennedy+Onassis?tid=informline) -- combined!" for the fashion world.
Whew! Are journalists fostering the notion that Obama is invincible, the leader of what the New York Times (http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/related/topic/The+New+York+Times+Company?tid=informline) dubbed "Generation O"?
Each writer, each publication, seems to reach for more eye-popping superlatives. "OBAMAISM -- It's a Kind of Religion," says New York magazine. "Those of us too young to have known JFK's Camelot are going to have our own giddy Camelot II to enrapture and entertain us," Kurt Andersen writes. The New York Post (http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/related/topic/NYP+Holdings+Inc.?tid=informline) has already christened it "BAM-A-LOT."
"Here we are," writes Salon's Rebecca Traister, "oohing and aahing over what they'll be wearing, and what they'll be eating, what kind of dog they'll be getting, what bedrooms they'll be living in, and what schools they'll be attending. It feels better than good to sniff and snurfle through the Obamas' tastes and habits. . . . Who knew we had in us the capacity to fall for this kind of idealized Americana again?"
But aren't media people supposed to resist this kind of hyperventilating?
"Obama is a figure, especially in pop culture, in a way that most new presidents are not," historian Michael Beschloss (http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/related/topic/Michael+Beschloss?tid=informline) says. "Young people who may not be interested in the details of NAFTA (http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/related/topic/NAFTA?tid=informline) or foreign policy just think Obama is cool, and they're interested in him. Being cool can really help a new president."
So can a sense of optimism, reflected on USA Today's front page. "Poll: Hopes soaring for Obama, administration," the headline said, with 65 percent saying "the USA will be better off 4 years from now."
But what happens when adulation gives way to the messy, incremental process of governing? When Obama has to confront a deep-rooted financial crisis, two wars and a political system whose default setting is gridlock? When he makes decisions that inevitably disappoint some of his boosters?
"We're celebrating a moment as much as a man, I think," says Newsweek Editor Jon Meacham (http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/related/topic/Jon+Meacham?tid=informline), whose new issue, out today, compares Obama to Lincoln. "Given our racial history, an hour or two of commemoration seems appropriate. But there is no doubt that the glow of the moment will fade, and I am sure the coverage will reflect that in due course."
One of the few magazines to strike a skeptical tone is the London-based Economist, which endorsed Obama. "With such a victory come unreasonably great expectations," its lead editorial says.
Web worship of Obama is nearly limitless. On YouTube (http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/related/topic/YouTube+LLC?tid=informline) alone, the Obama Girl song, "I've Got a Crush on Obama," has been viewed 11.7 million times. Even an unadorned video of the candidate's election night speech in Chicago has drawn 3.5 million views.
I am not trying to diminish the sheer improbability of what this African American politician, a virtual unknown four years ago, has accomplished. Every one of us views his victory through a personal lens. I thought of growing up in a "Leave It to Beaver (http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/related/topic/Leave+It+to+Beaver?tid=informline)" era, when there were no blacks in leading television roles until Bill Cosby (http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/related/topic/Bill+Cosby?tid=informline) was tapped as the co-star of "I Spy" in 1965. When the Watts riots broke out that year, the Los Angeles Times (http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/related/topic/Los+Angeles+Times?tid=informline) sent an advertising salesman to cover it because the paper had no black reporters. The country has traveled light-years since then.
It is hard to find a precedent in American history. Ronald Reagan (http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/related/topic/Ronald+Reagan?tid=informline) was a marquee star because of his Hollywood career, but mainly among older voters, since he made his last movie 16 years before winning the White House (http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/related/topic/The+White+House?tid=informline) in 1980. Jack Kennedy (http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/related/topic/John+F.+Kennedy?tid=informline) was a more formal figure after winning the 1960 election -- "trying to look older than he was, because he thought youth was a handicap in running for president," Beschloss says -- but quickly took on larger-than-life dimensions.
"The Kennedy buildup goes on," James MacGregor Burns wrote in the New Republic (http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/related/topic/New+Republic+Inc.?tid=informline) in the spring of 1961. "The adjectives tumble over one another. He is not only the handsomest, the best-dressed, the most articulate, and graceful as a gazelle. He is omniscient; he swallows and digests whole books in minutes; he confounds experts with his superior knowledge of their field. He is omnipotent."
Soon afterward, Kennedy blundered into the Bay of Pigs (http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/related/topic/Bay+of+Pigs?tid=informline) debacle.
The media would be remiss if they didn't reflect the sense of unadulterated joy that greeted Obama's election, both here and around the world, and the pride even among those who opposed him. Newspapers were stunned and delighted at the voracious demand for post-election editions, prompting The Washington Post (http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/related/topic/The+Washington+Post+Company?tid=informline) and other papers to print hundreds of thousands of extra copies and pocket the change. (When else have we felt so loved lately?) Demand for inaugural tickets has been unprecedented. Barack is suddenly a hot baby name. Record companies are releasing hip-hop songs, by the likes of Jay-Z (http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/related/topic/Jay-Z?tid=informline) and Will.I.Am (http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/related/topic/Will.I.Am?tid=informline), with such titles as "Pop Champagne for Barack." Consumers, the Los Angeles Times reports, are buying up "Obama-themed T-shirts, buttons, bobblehead dolls, coffee mugs, wine bottles, magnets, greeting cards, neon signs, mobile phones and framed art prints."
A barrage of Obama-related books are in the works. Newsweek's quadrennial election volume is titled "A Long Time Coming: The Historic, Combative, Expensive and Inspiring 2008 Election and the Victory of Barack Obama." Publishers obviously see a bull market.
MSNBC (http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/related/topic/MSNBC+Interactive+News+LLC?tid=informline), which was accused of cheerleading for the Democratic nominee during the campaign, is running promos that say: "Barack Obama, America's 44th president. Watch as a leader renews America's promise." What are viewers to make of that?
There is always a level of excitement when a new president is coming to town -- new aides to profile, new policies to dissect, new family members to follow. But can anyone imagine this kind of media frenzy if John McCain (http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/related/topic/John+McCain?tid=informline) had managed to win?
Obama's days of walking on water won't last indefinitely. His chroniclers will need a new story line. And sometime after Jan. 20, they will wade back into reality.

Source (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/11/16/AR2008111602374.html)

Spot on.

[xavierob82]

The media hasn't been this enamored over a presidential candidate since Jack Kennedy.

The media will be gushing over Obama and his family the first 100 days in the White House, it will be Camelot II, until the novelty wears off, the media and the American public starts getting bored, and pretty soon Obama will just be another president.

[brainplay]

But aren't media people supposed to resist this kind of hyperventilating?
"Obama is a figure, especially in pop culture, in a way that most new presidents are not," historian Michael Beschloss (http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/related/topic/Michael+Beschloss?tid=informline) says. "Young people who may not be interested in the details of NAFTA (http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/related/topic/NAFTA?tid=informline) or foreign policy just think Obama is cool, and they're interested in him. Being cool can really help a new president."
So can a sense of optimism, reflected on USA Today's front page. "Poll: Hopes soaring for Obama, administration," the headline said, with 65 percent saying "the USA will be better off 4 years from now."


/facepalm

This is why we can't have nice things.

[Createdeemcee]

The media hasn't been this enamored over a presidential candidate since Jack Kennedy.

The media will be gushing over Obama and his family the first 100 days in the White House, it will be Camelot II, until the novelty wears off, the media and the American public starts getting bored, and pretty soon Obama will just be another president.


The Truth for everyone of them.

[Skutatos]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7t7NJWW-n1Y

Speaks for itself.

[Jaeger07]

Cry me a river... Bush got a lot of positive media focus in his first months too, before the screw-ups began. Same will be for Obama. I'll give him 2 months - thats how long his honymoon with the media will last.

[Baboonass]

Cry me a river... Bush got a lot of positive media focus in his first months too, before the screw-ups began. Same will be for Obama. I'll give him 2 months - thats how long his honymoon with the media will last.


LOL, the the Dan Rather's comment, "Well, like him or not, he is our President"?

Trying to compare the media's open love affair with President-Elect Obama and that of the opening days of POTUS Bush is not even close.

I've never seen the media this bad before.


I am hoping you are right about the "honeymoon" phase, but I don't think you are.

Than again, it is about ratings and selling ad space.

[Erik2a4]

MSNBC is running ads about their hope for change. Wow.

[California Joe]

Yeah, it's all very gay. Oh well. Maybe he'll do a decent job. Even if you think this is all bullsh*t, wouldn't it be nice if he turns out to be a good President? I'd kinda like that.

[BlackFlag]

partisan press.

I have to set my DVR to record BBC World News at 5:00 a.m.

Between CNN, MSNBC, and Fox, I'd say about a half an our of actual news is filtered in from all the spin and political coverage.

[ronnieraygun]

Yeah, it's all very gay. Oh well. Maybe he'll do a decent job. Even if you think this is all bullsh*t, wouldn't it be nice if he turns out to be a good President? I'd kinda like that.

Naw, then half the sycophants that talk politics around here would have to go back to thinking for themselves! Screw the country, it's who's right that is important!

[LineDoggie]

Do you feel a tingle running up and down your leg?

MSNBC's own Baghdad Bob:
http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=kSHYOmsVqdc

[gayarabianman]

The media hasn't been this enamored over a presidential candidate since Jack Kennedy.

The media will be gushing over Obama and his family the first 100 days in the White House, it will be Camelot II, until the novelty wears off, the media and the American public starts getting bored, and pretty soon Obama will just be another president.
Whatever the outcome, he "HAS" to be better then Bush surly?
How this guy is proud of the things he's achieved is pathetic and despicable.

[budgie]

More crybabying from the Wight because they wost the ewection.

It is a fair comment the media are gushing - Obama has some star appeal after all. However, the true test will be whether he lives up to the hype and does what he promised too, or at least a pretty good job. The media is a fickle mistress and they'll turn on him when he screws up.

[Chulo]

More crybabying from the Wight because they wost the ewection.

It is a fair comment the media are gushing - Obama has some star appeal after all. However, the true test will be whether he lives up to the hype and does what he promised too, or at least a pretty good job. The media is a fickle mistress and they'll turn on him when he screws up.
but would you admit that the media is bias?

[LineDoggie]

More crybabying from the Wight because they wost the ewection. So sorry, did you say you lost your erection? Poor baby :roll:


It is a fair comment the media are gushing - Obama has some star appeal after all. However, the true test will be whether he lives up to the hype and does what he promised too, or at least a pretty good job. The media is a fickle mistress and they'll turn on him when he screws up. The Media will turn on him in a New York Minute if it suits them, but right now the adoration is on the order of a Princess Diana.

[Invisigoth]

but would you admit that the media is bias?

"The media"?

[non]

Matchanu:

Trying to compare the media's open love affair with President-Elect Obama and that of the opening days of POTUS Bush is not even close.

Hopefully, the incomparableness-ity-ish-esque-y(can't remember word) will continue for atleast four years.
(I sincerely apologize for the use of H-o-p-e in the above.)

linedoggie:

The Media will turn on him in a New York Minute if it suits them, but right now the adoration is on the order of a Princess Diana.
Good comparison.Wishful thinking? Hope can be for you too, my friend.(yeah, even you, I guess)
budgie:

However, the true test will be whether he lives up to the hype and does what he promised too, or at least a pretty good job.
IMO, nope to the former...hope for the latter, though.
(damn, I did it again!)

[Calanen]

However, the true test will be whether he lives up to the hype and does what he promised too, or at least a pretty good job.


What exactly has he promised? Delivering on 'Hope' and 'Change' leaves a fair amount of wiggle room.

[budgie]

What exactly has he promised? Delivering on 'Hope' and 'Change' leaves a fair amount of wiggle room.

He has his own policies on a whole slew of issues from the economy to healhtcare to taxes to Iraq. You may not agree with these policies but a whole heap of people voted for them and if they don't get what was promised you bet the press will be on him like a rabid hyena.

[Erik2a4]

He has his own policies on a whole slew of issues from the economy to healhtcare to taxes to Iraq. You may not agree with these policies but a whole heap of people voted for them and if they don't get what was promised you bet the press will be on him like a rabid hyena.

I think the media will be more careful.

For instance, you just made an analogy of comparing a man of native African decent getting eaten by a hyena. Seems like it might be simple to just call you a "racist" and change the topic of the argument. I see political maneuvering involving this in the future.

Is there a thread anywhere around here where it's possible to leave out the partisan douchebaginess?

[Baboonass]

Yeah, it's all very gay. Oh well. Maybe he'll do a decent job. Even if you think this is all bullsh*t, wouldn't it be nice if he turns out to be a good President? I'd kinda like that.



X2.

I like what Collin Powell once said, "get mad, get over it".

I'm skeptical, but I will support the new POTUS.

I'm only commenting on the media fixation with Obama, it's weird.

[Erik2a4]

partisan press.

I have to set my DVR to record BBC World News at 5:00 a.m.

Between CNN, MSNBC, and Fox, I'd say about a half an our of actual news is filtered in from all the spin and political coverage.

I think sometimes BBC America is actually worse...

[Baboonass]

More crybabying from the Wight because they wost the ewection.

.




www.sorryeverybody.com

[budgie]

but would you admit that the media is bias?


I'll grant that different outlets show different bias at different times. However this vast "left wing media" that people think is out to promote "liberal" and "PC" ideas is a conspiracy theorist fantasy.

[Supe]

Cry me a river... Bush got a lot of positive media focus in his first months too, before the screw-ups began. Same will be for Obama. I'll give him 2 months - thats how long his honymoon with the media will last.

Yes, Bush did have a honeymoon period but to compare Bush Jr's victory and Pres elect Obama, is chalk and cheese mate. Also you may have missed the whole election debacle in 2000 which many felt at the time and probably still do, thought that Gore should have won. Bush's first term was muddied by that mess.

I hope Obama lives up to the hype. But some of the media hyperbole is quite disturbing, especially as it threatens to compromise holding the next Administration accountable for its policies and vision. A free country should not have the mainstream media function as a govt mouthpiece. I don't think the media has learned any lessons.

[Lusitania]

I'll grant that different outlets show different bias at different times. However this vast "left wing media" that people think is out to promote "liberal" and "PC" ideas is a conspiracy theorist fantasy.

Actually, the media is, on balance, liberal. Take any basic political science class and you will find those exact words within the text book: "the media tends to be more liberal." Understand, the media are what are known as political elites; political elites tend to have a more focused, defined, political ideology. Thus, political elites tend to lean one way much more than their constituents, or the common people of the nation-state (for instance, a political elite may be even more conservative than the average American, or an elite may be more liberal). Plainly put, elites tend to take a solid stance. That said, it would behoove you to do a little research, because there is adequate evidence done by several outlets that show the media within the United States is more liberal.

To further bring this point home, and convince you that that it's you who are, indeed, living in the "fantasy," look into William Schneider and I.A. Lewis' Views on the News. In this older poll we see that out of a large sampling of journalists, 55 percent described themselves as liberal (while only 17 percent conservative), whereas 82 percent were pro-abortion, 81 percent favored affirmative action, 78 percent wanted stricter gun control laws, 47 percent favored the death penalty for murder and only 15 percent favored an increase in the defense budget. Also, this compares these views to the views of average citizens; the large difference in views witnessed gives one an idea of the disconnect between the more liberal media and the more moderate average citizens.

There are years of research dealing with this matter, and the majority of the research finds the media tends to be more liberal, and thus are more bias towards liberalism within their coverage. Bias can be as subtle as the wording of phrases, to a percentage of negative coverage. However, don't take my word for it, I urge you to do your own research, as I'm confident your misconceptions will be quickly eliminated.

[ltrowley]

I think the article misses the point that the media is first and foremost a business which is required to turn profit.

Of course they make money out of all this sensationalist stuff, It's the whole freaking point. Don't like it? Read IndyMedia.

[marktigger]

Cry me a river... Bush got a lot of positive media focus in his first months too, before the screw-ups began. Same will be for Obama. I'll give him 2 months - thats how long his honymoon with the media will last.

Yes but then will the race card start to be subetly played that the media wouldn't criticise him so much if he was white. Or the people writing or running the stories are being racist?

[budgie]

Also, this compares these views to the views of average citizens; the large difference in views witnessed gives one an idea of the disconnect between the more liberal media and the more moderate average citizens.


Apparently then, the results of the last election prove that Americans on the whole are more liberal than 'conservatives' try to claim they are.

[Createdeemcee]

I cant believe we still talk about this. Obama will do a fine job.

[Jeremiah]

Baboonass what's your avatar from?

[Baboonass]

Baboonass what's your avatar from?

American Werewolf in London, the nightmare scene

[Topper]

actually, the media is, on balance, liberal. Take any basic political science class and you will find those exact words within the text book: "the media tends to be more liberal." understand, the media are what are known as political elites; political elites tend to have a more focused, defined, political ideology. Thus, political elites tend to lean one way much more than their constituents, or the common people of the nation-state (for instance, a political elite may be even more conservative than the average american, or an elite may be more liberal). Plainly put, elites tend to take a solid stance. That said, it would behoove you to do a little research, because there is adequate evidence done by several outlets that show the media within the united states is more liberal.

To further bring this point home, and convince you that that it's you who are, indeed, living in the "fantasy," look into william schneider and i.a. Lewis' views on the news. In this older poll we see that out of a large sampling of journalists, 55 percent described themselves as liberal (while only 17 percent conservative), whereas 82 percent were pro-abortion, 81 percent favored affirmative action, 78 percent wanted stricter gun control laws, 47 percent favored the death penalty for murder and only 15 percent favored an increase in the defense budget. Also, this compares these views to the views of average citizens; the large difference in views witnessed gives one an idea of the disconnect between the more liberal media and the more moderate average citizens.

There are years of research dealing with this matter, and the majority of the research finds the media tends to be more liberal, and thus are more bias towards liberalism within their coverage. Bias can be as subtle as the wording of phrases, to a percentage of negative coverage. However, don't take my word for it, i urge you to do your own research, as i'm confident your misconceptions will be quickly eliminated.

+1000000000000

[Topper]

Baboonass what's your avatar from?

Where did you get your avatar?? Do you have a lg pic of that?

[Chulo]

Apparently then, the results of the last election prove that Americans on the whole are more liberal than 'conservatives' try to claim they are.
1. in fact people that hold liberal views would still call themselves conservative

2. the result of the election has nothing to do with the leanings of the people in this context. As smart as people are, they can be swayed and directed, with a mouthpiece that the media has, its not that hard to see that.

3. the results of the election and the "news and information"
people know would only show to the bias that is present.

[Lusitania]

Apparently then, the results of the last election prove that Americans on the whole are more liberal than 'conservatives' try to claim they are.


With all due respect, words like "apparently" and "obviously" hold no place when talking about politics and the voting patterns of a populace, as nothing is ever truly apparent (as shown with your comment, and this past election). The art of political science teaches us an array of principles, one of which being that one cannot say what the voting trends are until the next election. This election could very well be a realigning election, which would then mean that we see a party shift in American politics, not just an outlying election due to intervening factors. However, more likely, this is not a realigning election, but instead a "punishing election," where the ruling party is "punished" by the populace for the faults of the administration; most poignantly this year, within the realm of the economy.

It would be a folly in thought to conclude that Americans are more liberal or conservative because of a punishing election; however, a party realignment (which cannot be confirmed until the next presidential election), would imply that the populace has also switched their views (vis a vis, switching to a more liberal or conservative perspective). A good indicator would be the midterm elections in 2010; the results would give one an idea of if the country were undergoing a realigning period. An example of a realignment would be the election of Ronald Reagan in 1980, where we saw twelve years of one political party due to the ineffective Carter presidency, or better yet, the reign of the Virginia Dynasty which eliminated the Federalist party as it were. Inversely, an example of a punishing election is the election of Bill Clinton in 1992 where Bush 41 was blamed for the recession; however, it already showed it was not a realignment due to the results of the election of the 104th Congress under Newt Gingrich.

Lastly, Americans on a whole, are a moderate people. They tend to be in the center; however, within the center, they tend to be what is known as center-right. I'm not out to glorify conservatives, however, the facts dictate that the average American is more conservative than the press, elites tend to be on the poles of the political compass more than the average citizen and Americans are, on a whole, a moderate, center-right people.

[budgie]

True nothing is truly apparent. I prefer to see it rather as Chulo worded it: that people who hold - and vote - for liberal positions, may still identify themselves as conservative. That tells me the word doesn't hold as much weight as polls might show.

[Lusitania]

True nothing is truly apparent. I prefer to see it rather as Chulo worded it: that people who hold - and vote - for liberal positions, may still identify themselves as conservative. That tells me the word doesn't hold as much weight as polls might show.

Many a time, well-structured polls do not ask if they are "conservative" or "liberal," but instead they ask a series of views and then synthesize the data. Thus, we find that Americans are not, on a whole, fully conservative, nor liberal, but we do see that their leanings tend to be more with the right. That data give us an indication that Americans are, indeed, very moderate, but a center-right moderate, and not a center-left moderate (per their views, not political title). Take from it what you will; I am just reporting the data.

[budgie]

Many a time, well-structured polls do not ask if they are "conservative" or "liberal," but instead they ask a series of views and then synthesize the data. Thus, we find that Americans are not, on a whole, fully conservative, nor liberal, but we do see that their leanings tend to be more with the right. That data give us an indication that Americans are, indeed, very moderate, but a center-right moderate, and not a center-left moderate (per their views, not political title). Take from it what you will; I am just reporting the data.

I won't dispute the data. Perhaps the problem is that the 'conservative movement' these days is identified with values so far to the right that moderates and centrists, by comparison are fearful of being labelled radical leftists. It seems that for those so interested in labels that the word 'liberal' is an insult, anything even slightly right-of-center is too far to the left.

But to me the idea of America as such a 'conservative' nation doesn't gel with the healthy margin Obama just won by. If conservative values are so important to America, how could they be so easily swayed by a fawning media? Perhaps, just beneath the surfave, Americans aren't even as conservative as they themselves think they are.

[Lusitania]

But to me the idea of America as such a 'conservative' nation doesn't gel with the healthy margin Obama just won by. If conservative values are so important to America, how could they be so easily swayed by a fawning media? Perhaps, just beneath the surfave, Americans aren't even as conservative as they themselves think they are.

Plain and simple, people voted their pockets. With the faltering economy, many felt that Obama could handle it better than the Republican Party under McCain could, because as far as they were concerned, it was the Bush economic policies that emerged them into the crisis (McCain was, of course, directly connected to Bush). I cannot stress enough the effects of an ineffective presidency on the populace, and how much that can actually play within a punishing election.

Once again, though, I must make a qualification, you could very well be right, and this could be a shift in American politics, and thus Americans have shown themselves to be more liberal, however that is highly unlikely. What had transpired over the Bush presidency had fed up the majority of Americans, and thus they were willing to vote for another party; that's what is known as the "clothespin" vote, where they vote for what they perceive to be the least of two evils (like throwing something that smells away, and thus you need a clothespin over your nose when doing so or voting). Push comes to shove, when the money is tight and you are beginning to worry about keeping your house, you put your political preference aside and vote for the individual who you feel will help you out the most (We saw that with Hoover and FDR; a Republican Dynasty had taken shape from Harding through Hoover, and an era of conservatism had ruled the White House, but when the country went into a depression, the country put aside their political spectrum preference, and voted exceedingly for the more liberal Roosevelt, in hopes that what he said would prove to be true, and they could at least put bread on their tables).


Make no mistake, I understand what you are saying, and I would not want to discount your argument, but the current evidence says differently than what you are saying. The validity of your argument (as per your election reference) cannot be truly assessed until at least the 2010 Midterms, and ultimately the next presidential election.