To those who believe Obama is a creation of the Media

What do you base this on? Obama was the largest draw the Dems had during the 2006 campaign season, he had a huge draft movement that happened nearly instantaneously after he said he was considering running, and has one of the highest approval ratings of any US Senator.

Obama's media support is independent of (if not to a large degree caused by) his tremendous grassroots support, if nobody liked or cared about the guy, thats one thing, but thats not the case.

Supporters of people that are or are likely to be opponents of Obama come primary season. :D

Simple as that really. Trying to chop him at the knees before he gets even bigger than he is now and overwhelms their man or woman they have in mind for the nomination.

The whole criticism is bunk.

Don't know if I carry with what he said about atheists, though.

If you referring to the Call for renewal address, he said both religious and secular people should respect each other's belief's, and that religious people must put their views in non religious terms when they enter the public debate, I really don't know how anyone (I, myself am an agnostic) could be offended by that...

Him and Hillary... and I believe it's because they're corporate-friendly.

Do you have any evidence? Anything in his voting record? His public statements (and I don't mean a de-contextualized sound bite)?

That's a very big "thing" IMO.

If you're willing to call someone controlled by corporations because they cast one vote on a bilateral trade agreement you don't like, what can I say...One of Obama's biggest supporters is Andy Stern, is that because he's controlled by corporations. or is Stern just brainwashed by the MSM.

as was Bill Clinton.

I never said he was controlled. Is the word-twisting really necessary?

But again why are you willing to bet? Besides one vote on what is quite honestly not a major piece of legislation, what gives you that idea. This is a man who was the President of the harvard Law review, he could have done anything he wanted and become quite well paid, what did he do? go back to being a community organizer in Chicago. He has a history as being an excellent progressive, but independent (meaning you will find a vote here and there you probably will disagree with) legislator in Ill., and has continued in that vein in DC. You have to have something to go on besides sixth sense...

All I can say is once burned, twice shy. Thank Bill Clinton.

:blush:

I'm not going to assume either way. I would err on the side of caution in a primary vote.

His 2004 speech was certainly the breakthrough moment and John Kerry handpicked him.

Had it not been for his 2004 speech, people would be asking Obama who?

Howard Dean did too.

Obama is no different.

What it takes today is to have a good media persona. You must be someone who the "media" believes is attractive enough and "sane" enough to be president. If you are different in any way, then you will get a negative creation. If you have the outward image of presidential stuff, then the media will be more kind. It has nothing to do with experience, intelligence, or good ideas.

Let us turn our gaze to John Edwards. John is an experienced Senator and has some good ideas, but his great looks and kind demeanor got him a huge spotlight in the last election. It was good for John, but he wasn't any better of a candidate than Mr. Kucinich. Let's look at Dennis. He has a squeaky voice, not the most photogenic of guys, and doesn't display "masculinity". He also had strange ideas about the world that were such a 180 from many conventional thoughts that the media created him as a "radical". In a vacuum, Dennis would probably make a much better policy guy than Edwards. But that's not the point.

Now, take a look at the current president, the eminently unqualified George W. Bush. On paper, this guy was laughable. Besides being a governor of Texas (a mostly figurehead position), he had a string of failures and a clear history of psychological imbalance. Not a problem. He had the looks, the personality, the background, and the money to make him a serious candidate. He was created by the media as a front runner from the beginning. He won, and we will pay for that for many years hence.

Now, Obama. Nothing wrong with this guy really. He is very intelligent it seems, he has great looks, he has establishment backing, he is the anti-Hillary, and he is black but not "too black" for the MSM (that's a larger critical analysis but one very much worth its own thread). He had all of the ingredients to be a media darling. Plus in the larger picture, the media are salivating over a women vs. non-white male showdown for the Democratic prize. Hell yes they are creating him as a front runner! They want him as a front runner!

In the end, a candidate is a creation. All candidates. The media creates them and we create them. Eventually, one must wonder, does the actual human being playing the part become lost in the creation? George surely did.

I like Obama. He would make a fine president. So would John Edwards. So would Hillary Clinton, and so would Clark. They are all creations, and in the end we will vote for a media creation, and that creation will become the next President of the United States.

Then the real work begins behind the scenes.

come across somebody who has the "look" and is a viable Presidential type (unlike *) everyone runs to em.

It is a shame, but that is politics today.

people were always impressed upon meeting him for the first time..that yes Lincoln would do well. Don't know much about him though. But I do know that.

And he wouldn't do well in the media climate of today.

is more than just good looks. How else does one explain Bill Clinton? He isn't particularly gorgeous until he opens his mouth and the intelligence comes pouring through. I think Lincoln was the same.

I'll accept that!

:)

Obama doesn't need a teleprompter or script and frankly, appears to do better without one.

that not all of the media attention Obama is getting is positive. Practically every mention of him comes with the "inexperienced" caveat. Hell, even CSPAN made Obama's experience their question of the morning a couple of days ago ("Is Barack Obama experienced enough to be president?"). You would think Obama was the only person who ever ran for president without decades of experience. I certainly don't recall experience being such an issue when Chimpy ran. Instead, I remember a lot of talk about the Poppy, Barbara, their prized son, family legacy, etc.

And then of course, there are the outright smear attempts on CNN and FOX (and probably other media outlets that I'm not aware of).

Obama's certainly getting plenty of face time, however I don't think he's necessarily being introduced to voters in the manner he might like.

Not to sound like a whiner, because the attention Obama is receiving is definitely better than no media attention at all, which is what some other candidates are dealing with. Still, I hope people keep in mind that all of the attention Obama's getting could be a double-edged sword in some ways.