The media whores are at it again.
They have been asking the same question - or some variation of it - for months now.
The question is: Why isn't Obama more than three to five points ahead of McCain? Why isn't he fifteen points ahead?
The same question was asked in a slightly different way during the primary: Why can't he seal the deal? Why can't he put her away?
I find it interesting that the question is always about Obama and this is the first election I can remember them asking this question. And they are all asking it. All of them. It's as if some media guy in the sky gave them their talking points and they all have to repeat them ad nauseum.
No one is asking why McCain, who has been in Washington for 26 years, has been the darling of the press, has more money than god, has a wife that he wants to nominate for Miss Buffalo Chip, and is supposedly so popular with independents as well as republicans, hasn't been able to get more than 44% in any of the polls. No one asked why Hillary Clinton, the inevitable one, the former first lady and wife of one of the most popular politicians of our time, couldn't put it away, couldn't seal the deal.
Barack Obama came basically out of nowhere. He rose to prominance in the Democratic Party after two years in the Senate. He didn't do that because he's some yokel from the outer banks of some muddy river in Appalachia. He did it because he's enormously gifted, because a large number of poeple see something new and refreshing and brilliant in him. He defeated the Clinton machine, and ever since the start of the general election campaign he's been ahead of the Republican smear machine and St. John the Maverick.
But they persist in wondering aloud why he isn't fifteen points ahead. It isn't enough to hold a consistent lead, he must obliterate the opposition in order to be legitimate.
It's as if they want someone to say: "Because he's black, dude, and America won't allow him to be president."
Is that the answer they want? Because no matter how much they talk amongst themselves and their roundtables of the same old hacks, they can't seem to find an answer that satisfies them.
Well, dudes, here's the answer.
In the past fifty years, no candidate ever won by fifteen points. In fact, most presidential elections are won by one or two percentage points. No, I take that back. Most elections are determined by a handful of states, as it is not popular votes that count (otherwise Bush would not have been elected and this entire eight year nightmare would never have happened) but electoral votes.
If these media whores would look at the electoral map they would see it could very well be a blowout for Obama, electorally, but even then the popular vote will probably be close. We are a divided nation. Forty-five percent will vote republican no matter who their nominee is, while forty-five percent will vote democratic no matter who their nominee is (Heck, this year, I think it is so important to punish the Republicans for what they have done over the past eight years that if the Dem nominee was Satan I would probably vote for him). So that leaves ten percent and they're not all going to vote for one candidate, so it will be close.
So could the media whores please find another narrative?
