Maybe this has been discussed somewhere and I've missed it; I pay little attention to what the pundits have to say.
But has it become obvious to anyone else that the mainstream media at large is attempting to manufacture a president?
As a Tennessean and dyed-in-the-wool University of Tennessee fan, I first realized the media's Power to Pursuade in 1997. It was that year that Peyton Manning, UT quarterback and heir apparent to the Heisman Trophy, had an outstanding year and rewrote record books for QBs at UT and the SEC, but finished second in New Yaak, losing the Hypesman Trophy to Charles Woodson, the University of Michigan cornerback who was a great athlete but whose statistics were only average. Peyton Manning's problem that year wasn't his statistics; it was that he was a white quarterback from the south. And a white quarterback from the south (Danny Wuerffel, University of Florida) had won the Heisman Trophy the year before. Charles Woodson was a black player from the north, and he didn't play quarterback; he intercepted them. Thus, the sports media (namely, ESPN) hyped him throughout the season, and he went from being an unknown outside the Big Ten to being a Heisman winner in the span of four months.
Perhaps the mainstream media has taken a page from the playbook of ESPN, or perhaps 'twas the mainstream media that wrote the book and I was too ignorant to notice it. But I am SICK of hearing the name of Borack Obama (if I spelled his name wrong, it's because I don't care ). The media is talking about this guy nonstop. And what has he done to warrant the coverage? Nothing that I can tell. He hasn't placed his signature as sponsor on some groundbreaking piece of legislation. He hasn't even done anything controversial. Is the media trying to manufacture a president, or is it just me?
__________________
We must be the change we wish to see in the world -- Ghandi
http://www.rightminded.net
the problem is you're trying to tie college football to Obama and the Presidency, none of which makes any sense
Peyton didn't win anything at Tennessee did he ? National Championship ? Anything CLOSE to that ?
The Heisman has a history of "winners" that never were record breakers. Is color of skin part of it ? I dunno ........ as many different college athelete awards as are given I'd like to think not .......
Actually, Buster, my post was not an attempt to tie college football to the presidency in the least. I talked about Manning to point out that the media, given half a chance, will not only try its damnedest to persuade the American people to a different opinion, but they can be quite successful at it . . . a point which, apparently, flew right over your head.
If they can do it in football with a Heisman campaign, they can do it on a much more national scale. After all, football IS America's sport (forget all that hype about baseball), and America, like football, loves to root for the underdog, no?
__________________
We must be the change we wish to see in the world -- Ghandi
http://www.rightminded.net
Tennessee won the SEC Championship in 1997, Peyton Manning's senior year. They lost in the Bowl Coalition national championship game that year to Nebraska in the Orange Bowl. If team accomplishments determine the worthiness or lack thereof of an individual athlete, I suppose Super Bowl-less Dan Marino should never be mentioned in the same breath as the league's great quarterbacks, despite the fact that he holds every major passing record (except the one that Manning recently broke ).
But, regardless, this thread is not about football so much is it is about Barack Obama (yes, I did look up the spelling, after all). So, back to the point, what has Obama done to warrant the attention given him by the mainstream news media?
I mean, seriously? What has he done in the grand two years he has been in office? He co-authored a Pell Grant bill. He joined John McCain on the immigration bill. Oh, and there was the groundbreaking Obama-Hatch religious tithing bill that passed Congress last week, lest we forget that one.
How has Obama gone from an Illinois state senator from Chicago's south side to replacing Hillary Clinton as the Democrats' current Golden Child? In two years, no less? Is the media (the majority [polls show somewhere around 75%] of which are Democrat) attempting to build a candidate because they realize that Clinton isn't electable? Or is it because they simply are looking out for Priority #1 (the almighty RATINGS). If it were the former, I seriously doubt their poster child would be Obama. I mean, seriously, an ultra-liberal woman from New York or an ultra-liberal black man from Chicago? Six of one, half a dozen of the other, and all that . . . So I figure it's probably the latter.
Color me stupid, but I just don't get it. Of course, I'm still trying to figure out what it is that qualifies Obama as a "black American." I keep hearing, "only black Senator in Congress . . ." and "first black president of Harvard law . . ." and similar such comments. I mean, his father was Kenyan but his mother was a caucasian American. That would make him 50% white, 50% black, wouldn't it? So he's considered black because his skin is more dark than light? I thought "race" was more than skin color? Isn't that what the "black leaders" tell us? Or is that just one of those talking points?
__________________
We must be the change we wish to see in the world -- Ghandi
http://www.rightminded.net
Marino didn't win the Heisman. Peyton didn't win it and I don't think it was because of his skin color.
Don't focus on the small details, brother. You're still missing the point. We aren't talking about the skin color of college quarterbacks; we're talking about the superficial media praise of a presidential candidate-to-be. Geez . . .
__________________
We must be the change we wish to see in the world -- Ghandi
http://www.rightminded.net
You are dead right. On both accounts (football and politics). Payton is "getting his" now. The Heisman is part political and part pure talent. But it is not a harbinger of things to come for the winner "” that's for sure.
I think a huge chunk of the media looks to other media sources for "direction." Unfortunately they look to outfits like the NY Times and the LA Times. When they want to promote someone (or rip them apart) they can come together with remarkable unity.
They promote Perot one go-round and rip him to shreds the next. They make Howard Dean the shoe in for the nomination and take it away within two weeks. Arguably those two had a hand in their demise but the media is orchestrated in the work.
I for one hear you loud and clear Ben. I'm from Il. and remember when Obama got in the Senate, there was this immediate hype about him and even then as I do now wonder just what is the big deal with this guy?I haven't seen anything that he has done for Illinois except maybe, just maybe ChicagoLand, but not really much there either.
Has it become obvious to anyone else?
). The media is talking about this guy nonstop. And what has he done to warrant the coverage? Nothing that I can tell. He hasn't placed his signature as sponsor on some groundbreaking piece of legislation. He hasn't even done anything controversial. Is the media trying to manufacture a president, or is it just me?
). 
