Barack Obama may have demolished John McCain in the Electoral College, but he really only had 52.3 percent of the popular vote while McCain had a close 46.2 percent. It wasn’t an enormous mandate, but some chatter in the right wing lately still insists that something was fishy in Denmark regarding Obama voters, that a campaign of misinformation made it possible for a man so “unqualifiedâ€Â to become president.
HowObamaGotElected.com, a recently created Web site by documentary filmmaker John Ziegler, explores how inadequate media coverage and ignorance drove more than 66 million voters to back Barack Obama, a man of “extreme liberal positions and radical political alliances.â€Â
Ziegler released a survey through the polling firm Zogby International of Obama voters on their understanding of the issues and candidates during the recent presidential race. The results he came up with were indeed sorry at best.
Twelve multiple-choice questions were asked of 512 Obama supporters (probably not enough people to make an adequate projection on the population). The questions related to the Obama/Biden campaign were answered incorrectly most of the time:
Before this past election, which political party controlled both houses of congress? 57.4 percent incorrect.
Which candidate quit a previous campaign because of plagiarism? 71.8 percent incorrect.
Which candidate started his political career at the home of two former members of Weather Underground? 56.1 percent incorrect.
And the controversy surrounding the McCain/Palin campaign was well known:
Which candidate wore clothes that their political party reportedly spent $150,000 on? 13.7 incorrect.
Which candidate currently has a pregnant teenage daughter? 6.2 percent incorrect.
Which candidate said they could see Russia from their house? 13.1 percent incorrect.
While it̢۪s hard to ignore the discrepancy, I, for one, have many problems with this poll.
First of all, if Ziegler presented the poll as an objective evaluation of the media̢۪s impact on voter knowledge, then why were Obama voters singled out?
Zogby International rejected the offer to commission a similar poll to McCain voters, however, CEO John Zogby himself admitted in a Nov. 20 article in Politico “I believe there was value in the poll we did… It came out critical of Obama voters.â€Â Ziegler rejected this notion.
Second, questions relating to Barack Obama regarded ambiguities and scandals of the past, some never fully substantiated.
True, Vice-president Elect Joe Biden admitted that he had failed to adequately quote an article he used for a paper in 1965 while still in law school, but said that it was an error on his part and not an intentional act of plagiarism.
True, Obama may have once visited the home of Bill Ayers, the founder of the ̢۪60s radical group the Weather Underground, but no one gathers around the water cooler to discuss it.
The questions dealing with the McCain coverage were tabloid material for the most part, albeit material that a timely newspaper is supposed to cover. Anyone who watched SNL during the height of the campaign might have seen Tina Fey, portraying Sarah Palin, making humor of some of the very issues indicated in the survey.
My third qualm involves Ziegler himself and how the poll was conducted. Author and statistician, Nate Silver, obliged to conduct an interview with Ziegler on his political blog FiveThirtyEight.com. In the interview, Silver asked how the poll was financed, to which Ziegler answered “I’m not going to tell you that, I’m not a f*cking idiot.â€Â
Well, yeah — he is. After sitting through a series of equally snide responses, Silver closed the interview cordially, while Ziegler’s adieu was “Go f*ck yourself.â€Â In short, Ziegler displayed a complete lack of interview etiquette and transparency.
With the plethora of political polls out there, I suggest you take them with a large grain of salt, especially when they isolate a specific group. And I don̢۪t understand all this rush to blame the media for Obama̢۪s success.
Here̢۪s a thought: give a little kudos to his campaign team, people like David Plouffe that created the media buzz and introduced some of the best smears of the race. And tip your hat to the public who ate up those smears.
We̢۪re the ones who made them national news.
add3heads • Jan 9, 2009 at 12:35 pm
One important point seems to have gone unaddressed:neither the possibility that the media may have been biased in Obama’s favor nor the possibility that the average voter is ill-informed means he wasn’t the more qualified candidate. It also does not eliminate the possibility that media coverage — fairly or unfairly — may have favored Obama and Biden because they simply presented themselves better in public than McCain and Palin did. (Palin’s interviews on Mr. Ziegler’s website are no more impressive than the ones she did with Gibson and Couric — and JZ is a very sympathetic interviewer to say the least.)
As for the Zogby survey in question: not to sound self-back-patting, but I actually knew the answers — even though at least one of the questions was unclearly worded — and during the campaign I made a point of watching all the debates in order to view the candidates provide uncut, unedited, relatively unrehearsed exchanges. Moreover, I made a point of visiting each candidate’s website on a weekly basis and reading as many planks in as many platforms as I could. I may not know all the intricacies of bill passage, but I did what I could. A lot of folks in my neighborhood did the same.
And yes, I ended up voting for Obama — not because I think he’s anybody’s messiah or because I made up my mind ahead of time, but because I sincerely believed I had enough information to make a decent choice. Several of my friends would say the same regarding their votes for McCain, as would my friends who voted for Kerry or Bush or Gore in years past.
It’s easy to tut-tut and accuse those who disagree with you of “not doing their homework,” but that’s a dodge. The bottom line is that we now have four years to 1) ponder why our candidate won or lost, 2) gripe about the various media instead of exploring alternatives, boycotts, or whatever, or 3) buckle up and evaluate the new administration on its own merits. I prefer #3, but to each her/his own.
add3heads • Jan 9, 2009 at 7:35 pm
One important point seems to have gone unaddressed:neither the possibility that the media may have been biased in Obama’s favor nor the possibility that the average voter is ill-informed means he wasn’t the more qualified candidate. It also does not eliminate the possibility that media coverage — fairly or unfairly — may have favored Obama and Biden because they simply presented themselves better in public than McCain and Palin did. (Palin’s interviews on Mr. Ziegler’s website are no more impressive than the ones she did with Gibson and Couric — and JZ is a very sympathetic interviewer to say the least.)
As for the Zogby survey in question: not to sound self-back-patting, but I actually knew the answers — even though at least one of the questions was unclearly worded — and during the campaign I made a point of watching all the debates in order to view the candidates provide uncut, unedited, relatively unrehearsed exchanges. Moreover, I made a point of visiting each candidate’s website on a weekly basis and reading as many planks in as many platforms as I could. I may not know all the intricacies of bill passage, but I did what I could. A lot of folks in my neighborhood did the same.
And yes, I ended up voting for Obama — not because I think he’s anybody’s messiah or because I made up my mind ahead of time, but because I sincerely believed I had enough information to make a decent choice. Several of my friends would say the same regarding their votes for McCain, as would my friends who voted for Kerry or Bush or Gore in years past.
It’s easy to tut-tut and accuse those who disagree with you of “not doing their homework,” but that’s a dodge. The bottom line is that we now have four years to 1) ponder why our candidate won or lost, 2) gripe about the various media instead of exploring alternatives, boycotts, or whatever, or 3) buckle up and evaluate the new administration on its own merits. I prefer #3, but to each her/his own.
add3heads • Jan 9, 2009 at 7:35 pm
One important point seems to have gone unaddressed:neither the possibility that the media may have been biased in Obama’s favor nor the possibility that the average voter is ill-informed means he wasn’t the more qualified candidate. It also does not eliminate the possibility that media coverage — fairly or unfairly — may have favored Obama and Biden because they simply presented themselves better in public than McCain and Palin did. (Palin’s interviews on Mr. Ziegler’s website are no more impressive than the ones she did with Gibson and Couric — and JZ is a very sympathetic interviewer to say the least.)
As for the Zogby survey in question: not to sound self-back-patting, but I actually knew the answers — even though at least one of the questions was unclearly worded — and during the campaign I made a point of watching all the debates in order to view the candidates provide uncut, unedited, relatively unrehearsed exchanges. Moreover, I made a point of visiting each candidate’s website on a weekly basis and reading as many planks in as many platforms as I could. I may not know all the intricacies of bill passage, but I did what I could. A lot of folks in my neighborhood did the same.
And yes, I ended up voting for Obama — not because I think he’s anybody’s messiah or because I made up my mind ahead of time, but because I sincerely believed I had enough information to make a decent choice. Several of my friends would say the same regarding their votes for McCain, as would my friends who voted for Kerry or Bush or Gore in years past.
It’s easy to tut-tut and accuse those who disagree with you of “not doing their homework,” but that’s a dodge. The bottom line is that we now have four years to 1) ponder why our candidate won or lost, 2) gripe about the various media instead of exploring alternatives, boycotts, or whatever, or 3) buckle up and evaluate the new administration on its own merits. I prefer #3, but to each her/his own.
junior1781 • Dec 12, 2008 at 10:05 am
I must admit that was some pretty detailed research by Howell and the Pew. Thanks for that post Anna.
junior1781 • Dec 12, 2008 at 5:05 pm
I must admit that was some pretty detailed research by Howell and the Pew. Thanks for that post Anna.
junior1781 • Dec 12, 2008 at 5:05 pm
I must admit that was some pretty detailed research by Howell and the Pew. Thanks for that post Anna.
Anna Jacobsen • Dec 11, 2008 at 1:44 pm
The reason the majority of the voters are unaware of real issues and gravitate toward slogans may be quite simple: the press is falling down on their job of providing the public with fair and unbiased reporting. In her Nov 8 article in The Washington Post, Deborah Howell says, “readers have been consistently critical of the lack of probing issues coverage and what they saw as a tilt toward Democrat Barack Obama. My surveys, which ended on Election Day, show that they are right on both counts.” She goes on to say that, in reference to The Post’s election coverage, “there were no broad stories on energy or science policy, and there were few on religion issues.”
Ms Howell goes on to detail the unfair reporting conducted by The Post in Obama’s favor. She lists statistics that reference the number of stories per candidate and the tone of those stories (from November 11, 2007, until November 8, 2008, 946 stories covered Obama and 786 covered McCain). Photos featuring Obama also outnumbered photos featuring McCain.
The Washington Post was not alone in their slant. The Pew Research Center’s Project for Excellence in Journalism verified that Obama’s coverage in the media overall was more positive than coverage of McCain’s candidacy.
Read the Washington Post article at http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/11/07/AR2008110702895.html
Read the Pew Research article at http://www.journalism.org/node/13307
Anna Jacobsen • Dec 11, 2008 at 8:44 pm
The reason the majority of the voters are unaware of real issues and gravitate toward slogans may be quite simple: the press is falling down on their job of providing the public with fair and unbiased reporting. In her Nov 8 article in The Washington Post, Deborah Howell says, “readers have been consistently critical of the lack of probing issues coverage and what they saw as a tilt toward Democrat Barack Obama. My surveys, which ended on Election Day, show that they are right on both counts.” She goes on to say that, in reference to The Post’s election coverage, “there were no broad stories on energy or science policy, and there were few on religion issues.”
Ms Howell goes on to detail the unfair reporting conducted by The Post in Obama’s favor. She lists statistics that reference the number of stories per candidate and the tone of those stories (from November 11, 2007, until November 8, 2008, 946 stories covered Obama and 786 covered McCain). Photos featuring Obama also outnumbered photos featuring McCain.
The Washington Post was not alone in their slant. The Pew Research Center’s Project for Excellence in Journalism verified that Obama’s coverage in the media overall was more positive than coverage of McCain’s candidacy.
Read the Washington Post article at http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/11/07/AR2008110702895.html
Read the Pew Research article at http://www.journalism.org/node/13307
Anna Jacobsen • Dec 11, 2008 at 8:44 pm
The reason the majority of the voters are unaware of real issues and gravitate toward slogans may be quite simple: the press is falling down on their job of providing the public with fair and unbiased reporting. In her Nov 8 article in The Washington Post, Deborah Howell says, “readers have been consistently critical of the lack of probing issues coverage and what they saw as a tilt toward Democrat Barack Obama. My surveys, which ended on Election Day, show that they are right on both counts.” She goes on to say that, in reference to The Post’s election coverage, “there were no broad stories on energy or science policy, and there were few on religion issues.”
Ms Howell goes on to detail the unfair reporting conducted by The Post in Obama’s favor. She lists statistics that reference the number of stories per candidate and the tone of those stories (from November 11, 2007, until November 8, 2008, 946 stories covered Obama and 786 covered McCain). Photos featuring Obama also outnumbered photos featuring McCain.
The Washington Post was not alone in their slant. The Pew Research Center’s Project for Excellence in Journalism verified that Obama’s coverage in the media overall was more positive than coverage of McCain’s candidacy.
Read the Washington Post article at http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/11/07/AR2008110702895.html
Read the Pew Research article at http://www.journalism.org/node/13307
junior1781 (senior writer) • Dec 11, 2008 at 12:44 am
Did you know that in the early days of the newspaper, they did serve as cheerleaders, if not for a candidate than for a political or social principle that was entirely one-sided, and I’m not just talking about the Revolutionary War.
It was expected that through the hodgepodge of information and opinions citizens would be able to decide what is fair and correct. Obviously, that view did not carry over well into modern times and I think its because the world got so big and even more outlets and types of media flooded the market. And so what you have is conglomeration of channels where no analysis is more important than another. Companies choose to assimilate for the convenience of reaching a large audience, and money probably has a lot to do with it.
So if you perceive that the media is bias, remember there was a time where that was the norm and I”m not sure when it changed. But I wonder what we sacrificed for going down that road. Perhaps a unity in groups, a more bold opinion and a diversity of viewpoints.
Whaddaya mean there’s no conservative bias in the media? Millions of people listen to Rush Limbaugh every day. And Sean Hannity. It seems history is repeating itself in the Republican Party if you catch my drift..
junior1781 (senior writer) • Dec 11, 2008 at 7:44 am
Did you know that in the early days of the newspaper, they did serve as cheerleaders, if not for a candidate than for a political or social principle that was entirely one-sided, and I’m not just talking about the Revolutionary War.
It was expected that through the hodgepodge of information and opinions citizens would be able to decide what is fair and correct. Obviously, that view did not carry over well into modern times and I think its because the world got so big and even more outlets and types of media flooded the market. And so what you have is conglomeration of channels where no analysis is more important than another. Companies choose to assimilate for the convenience of reaching a large audience, and money probably has a lot to do with it.
So if you perceive that the media is bias, remember there was a time where that was the norm and I”m not sure when it changed. But I wonder what we sacrificed for going down that road. Perhaps a unity in groups, a more bold opinion and a diversity of viewpoints.
Whaddaya mean there’s no conservative bias in the media? Millions of people listen to Rush Limbaugh every day. And Sean Hannity. It seems history is repeating itself in the Republican Party if you catch my drift..
junior1781 (senior writer) • Dec 11, 2008 at 7:44 am
Did you know that in the early days of the newspaper, they did serve as cheerleaders, if not for a candidate than for a political or social principle that was entirely one-sided, and I’m not just talking about the Revolutionary War.
It was expected that through the hodgepodge of information and opinions citizens would be able to decide what is fair and correct. Obviously, that view did not carry over well into modern times and I think its because the world got so big and even more outlets and types of media flooded the market. And so what you have is conglomeration of channels where no analysis is more important than another. Companies choose to assimilate for the convenience of reaching a large audience, and money probably has a lot to do with it.
So if you perceive that the media is bias, remember there was a time where that was the norm and I”m not sure when it changed. But I wonder what we sacrificed for going down that road. Perhaps a unity in groups, a more bold opinion and a diversity of viewpoints.
Whaddaya mean there’s no conservative bias in the media? Millions of people listen to Rush Limbaugh every day. And Sean Hannity. It seems history is repeating itself in the Republican Party if you catch my drift..
el loco • Dec 10, 2008 at 10:59 pm
“How or whether the media investigates and reports can make a difference and we should all expect and demand that they give us facts and information, not serve as cheerleaders.”
I agree with this entirely.
I believe that people are not informed not because of the media but because they are simply not interested in having their views challenged. The resources are out there.
The media is irrelevant because a significant amount of voters don’t bother to be informed, even to vote. Even when the information is right at our fingertips.
Google the results of the average voter knowledge of 2008 and you realize that an absurd number of people don’t even know who Joe Biden is.
The problem is NOT that the media gives us a one sided view, its that we swallow it without questioning.
el loco • Dec 11, 2008 at 5:59 am
“How or whether the media investigates and reports can make a difference and we should all expect and demand that they give us facts and information, not serve as cheerleaders.”
I agree with this entirely.
I believe that people are not informed not because of the media but because they are simply not interested in having their views challenged. The resources are out there.
The media is irrelevant because a significant amount of voters don’t bother to be informed, even to vote. Even when the information is right at our fingertips.
Google the results of the average voter knowledge of 2008 and you realize that an absurd number of people don’t even know who Joe Biden is.
The problem is NOT that the media gives us a one sided view, its that we swallow it without questioning.
el loco • Dec 11, 2008 at 5:59 am
“How or whether the media investigates and reports can make a difference and we should all expect and demand that they give us facts and information, not serve as cheerleaders.”
I agree with this entirely.
I believe that people are not informed not because of the media but because they are simply not interested in having their views challenged. The resources are out there.
The media is irrelevant because a significant amount of voters don’t bother to be informed, even to vote. Even when the information is right at our fingertips.
Google the results of the average voter knowledge of 2008 and you realize that an absurd number of people don’t even know who Joe Biden is.
The problem is NOT that the media gives us a one sided view, its that we swallow it without questioning.
gm • Dec 10, 2008 at 5:12 pm
What a troubling set of responses. So what if the media is biased? How fascinating that it isn’t even disputed anymore. Let’s just throw it in your face. Our side is right and yours is wrong so who cares? The problem with such a childish outlook is that the media may not always be biased in a way that you or I agree with. We heard the cries, after the fact, that the media was in bed with the administration on the run up to the war. So the media doesn’t really do its job to investigate government claims, inform the public, and we end up in a war. Oh well, doesn’t really matter does it?
El loco, you seem to be arguing against yourself. You state that anyone that gets their news from only 1 country is ill-informed. Does that mean that you believe that most, or a significant number, or even more than a miniscule portion of the electorate do so? I think we all know the answer to that question, which is why bias is important. How or whether the media investigates and reports can make a difference and we should all expect and demand that they give us facts and information, not serve as cheerleaders.
I’m as excited by the prospects of the Obama administration as I am happy that Bush will soon be gone, but I’m deeply troubled by a media that seems to have more invested in a candidate than in the interests of the public they are supposed to serve.
gm • Dec 11, 2008 at 12:12 am
What a troubling set of responses. So what if the media is biased? How fascinating that it isn’t even disputed anymore. Let’s just throw it in your face. Our side is right and yours is wrong so who cares? The problem with such a childish outlook is that the media may not always be biased in a way that you or I agree with. We heard the cries, after the fact, that the media was in bed with the administration on the run up to the war. So the media doesn’t really do its job to investigate government claims, inform the public, and we end up in a war. Oh well, doesn’t really matter does it?
El loco, you seem to be arguing against yourself. You state that anyone that gets their news from only 1 country is ill-informed. Does that mean that you believe that most, or a significant number, or even more than a miniscule portion of the electorate do so? I think we all know the answer to that question, which is why bias is important. How or whether the media investigates and reports can make a difference and we should all expect and demand that they give us facts and information, not serve as cheerleaders.
I’m as excited by the prospects of the Obama administration as I am happy that Bush will soon be gone, but I’m deeply troubled by a media that seems to have more invested in a candidate than in the interests of the public they are supposed to serve.
gm • Dec 11, 2008 at 12:12 am
What a troubling set of responses. So what if the media is biased? How fascinating that it isn’t even disputed anymore. Let’s just throw it in your face. Our side is right and yours is wrong so who cares? The problem with such a childish outlook is that the media may not always be biased in a way that you or I agree with. We heard the cries, after the fact, that the media was in bed with the administration on the run up to the war. So the media doesn’t really do its job to investigate government claims, inform the public, and we end up in a war. Oh well, doesn’t really matter does it?
El loco, you seem to be arguing against yourself. You state that anyone that gets their news from only 1 country is ill-informed. Does that mean that you believe that most, or a significant number, or even more than a miniscule portion of the electorate do so? I think we all know the answer to that question, which is why bias is important. How or whether the media investigates and reports can make a difference and we should all expect and demand that they give us facts and information, not serve as cheerleaders.
I’m as excited by the prospects of the Obama administration as I am happy that Bush will soon be gone, but I’m deeply troubled by a media that seems to have more invested in a candidate than in the interests of the public they are supposed to serve.
Jack Bauer • Dec 9, 2008 at 9:30 pm
The media didn’t do its job in ensuring impartiality in the 2008 election—–they were pushing Obama’s victory the entire time. They swept the black nationalist/bigot pastor, the domestic terrorist/academic, voter fraud and ineligibility, and Obama’s more left-wing positions under the rug. What about an entirely untouched media topic– The Obama campaign’s out and out refusal to disclose foreign donor information and supress other details about anonymous internet-based contributions. And the media assault on Palin’s qualifications versus an equally qualified (Obama) candidate. It seems the media dictates public diaglogue and discourse more than ever. The media wanted an Obama win and lop-sided election and almost got both.
Jack Bauer • Dec 10, 2008 at 4:30 am
The media didn’t do its job in ensuring impartiality in the 2008 election—–they were pushing Obama’s victory the entire time. They swept the black nationalist/bigot pastor, the domestic terrorist/academic, voter fraud and ineligibility, and Obama’s more left-wing positions under the rug. What about an entirely untouched media topic– The Obama campaign’s out and out refusal to disclose foreign donor information and supress other details about anonymous internet-based contributions. And the media assault on Palin’s qualifications versus an equally qualified (Obama) candidate. It seems the media dictates public diaglogue and discourse more than ever. The media wanted an Obama win and lop-sided election and almost got both.
Jack Bauer • Dec 10, 2008 at 4:30 am
The media didn’t do its job in ensuring impartiality in the 2008 election—–they were pushing Obama’s victory the entire time. They swept the black nationalist/bigot pastor, the domestic terrorist/academic, voter fraud and ineligibility, and Obama’s more left-wing positions under the rug. What about an entirely untouched media topic– The Obama campaign’s out and out refusal to disclose foreign donor information and supress other details about anonymous internet-based contributions. And the media assault on Palin’s qualifications versus an equally qualified (Obama) candidate. It seems the media dictates public diaglogue and discourse more than ever. The media wanted an Obama win and lop-sided election and almost got both.
Junior • Dec 9, 2008 at 6:57 pm
And yet no one talks about how the media dropped the ball on Cynthia McKinney. Tisk, tisk.
Junior • Dec 10, 2008 at 1:57 am
And yet no one talks about how the media dropped the ball on Cynthia McKinney. Tisk, tisk.
Junior • Dec 10, 2008 at 1:57 am
And yet no one talks about how the media dropped the ball on Cynthia McKinney. Tisk, tisk.
texs • Dec 9, 2008 at 5:19 pm
I think instead of dismissing the poll maybe someone should do a poll of college students. Obama and McCain supporters and see how many of these question they can answer. Every time i asked a supporter of either side they never really could tell me why they where voting for that individual other than slogans i read on bumpers. McCain has the experience, Obama is for change. I believe that people are not properly educated on political subjects such as the economy, education, and national security.
PS- I did not vote for Obama but i hope that he does make a positive change and puts America on the right path.
texs • Dec 10, 2008 at 12:19 am
I think instead of dismissing the poll maybe someone should do a poll of college students. Obama and McCain supporters and see how many of these question they can answer. Every time i asked a supporter of either side they never really could tell me why they where voting for that individual other than slogans i read on bumpers. McCain has the experience, Obama is for change. I believe that people are not properly educated on political subjects such as the economy, education, and national security.
PS- I did not vote for Obama but i hope that he does make a positive change and puts America on the right path.
texs • Dec 10, 2008 at 12:19 am
I think instead of dismissing the poll maybe someone should do a poll of college students. Obama and McCain supporters and see how many of these question they can answer. Every time i asked a supporter of either side they never really could tell me why they where voting for that individual other than slogans i read on bumpers. McCain has the experience, Obama is for change. I believe that people are not properly educated on political subjects such as the economy, education, and national security.
PS- I did not vote for Obama but i hope that he does make a positive change and puts America on the right path.
Samuel Adams • Dec 8, 2008 at 2:03 pm
As scary as Obama’s positions are, the uneducated and misinformed vote elevated the previous two presidents into office. So no big deal.
Samuel Adams • Dec 8, 2008 at 9:03 pm
As scary as Obama’s positions are, the uneducated and misinformed vote elevated the previous two presidents into office. So no big deal.
Samuel Adams • Dec 8, 2008 at 9:03 pm
As scary as Obama’s positions are, the uneducated and misinformed vote elevated the previous two presidents into office. So no big deal.
WTF • Dec 8, 2008 at 12:40 pm
John, do you google your name every day to see how many people think you’re lame? That’s kinda pathetic.
WTF • Dec 8, 2008 at 7:40 pm
John, do you google your name every day to see how many people think you’re lame? That’s kinda pathetic.
WTF • Dec 8, 2008 at 7:40 pm
John, do you google your name every day to see how many people think you’re lame? That’s kinda pathetic.
el loco • Dec 8, 2008 at 12:07 pm
John, all voters are grown adults. The media bias is irrelevant. Anyone who gets all their news from the same source, even the same country! is ill-informed. Saying that Obama won because the audience is not informed is an insult to those who campaigned tirelessly on both sides. Its is also an incredibility elitist position to take, isn’t that supposed to be Obama?
el loco • Dec 8, 2008 at 7:07 pm
John, all voters are grown adults. The media bias is irrelevant. Anyone who gets all their news from the same source, even the same country! is ill-informed. Saying that Obama won because the audience is not informed is an insult to those who campaigned tirelessly on both sides. Its is also an incredibility elitist position to take, isn’t that supposed to be Obama?
el loco • Dec 8, 2008 at 7:07 pm
John, all voters are grown adults. The media bias is irrelevant. Anyone who gets all their news from the same source, even the same country! is ill-informed. Saying that Obama won because the audience is not informed is an insult to those who campaigned tirelessly on both sides. Its is also an incredibility elitist position to take, isn’t that supposed to be Obama?
junior • Dec 8, 2008 at 10:42 am
Oh, and even if liberals do run the media, what does that prove? It proves they are the cream of the crop in this Darwinian society where popularity is king. If the public and the media both think conservatives are full of hot air, then maybe there’s something to that. Anyone think eight years of Bush has something to do with it?
junior • Dec 8, 2008 at 5:42 pm
Oh, and even if liberals do run the media, what does that prove? It proves they are the cream of the crop in this Darwinian society where popularity is king. If the public and the media both think conservatives are full of hot air, then maybe there’s something to that. Anyone think eight years of Bush has something to do with it?
junior • Dec 8, 2008 at 5:42 pm
Oh, and even if liberals do run the media, what does that prove? It proves they are the cream of the crop in this Darwinian society where popularity is king. If the public and the media both think conservatives are full of hot air, then maybe there’s something to that. Anyone think eight years of Bush has something to do with it?
junior • Dec 8, 2008 at 10:32 am
Who uses profanity in an interview, any interview? Completely uncalled for, no matter what the context.
junior • Dec 8, 2008 at 5:32 pm
Who uses profanity in an interview, any interview? Completely uncalled for, no matter what the context.
junior • Dec 8, 2008 at 5:32 pm
Who uses profanity in an interview, any interview? Completely uncalled for, no matter what the context.
John Ziegler • Dec 8, 2008 at 10:17 am
This is John Ziegler. Yes, that one. Nice headline! So the best you got is that a left-wing nut with an agenda writes a partial transcript of an “interview” he did with me that contains profanity and you use that profantity completely out of context and fail to see the irony or the hypocrisy in doing so. Man, you MUST be a liberal.
As for who the idiot really is, perhaps you should have done even the slighest research before your wrote this. We DID do a poll of BOTH sets of voters and it totally vindicated that Zogby poll. But obviously facts don’t matter to you.
http://www.howobamagotelected.com
John Ziegler • Dec 8, 2008 at 5:17 pm
This is John Ziegler. Yes, that one. Nice headline! So the best you got is that a left-wing nut with an agenda writes a partial transcript of an “interview” he did with me that contains profanity and you use that profantity completely out of context and fail to see the irony or the hypocrisy in doing so. Man, you MUST be a liberal.
As for who the idiot really is, perhaps you should have done even the slighest research before your wrote this. We DID do a poll of BOTH sets of voters and it totally vindicated that Zogby poll. But obviously facts don’t matter to you.
http://www.howobamagotelected.com
John Ziegler • Dec 8, 2008 at 5:17 pm
This is John Ziegler. Yes, that one. Nice headline! So the best you got is that a left-wing nut with an agenda writes a partial transcript of an “interview” he did with me that contains profanity and you use that profantity completely out of context and fail to see the irony or the hypocrisy in doing so. Man, you MUST be a liberal.
As for who the idiot really is, perhaps you should have done even the slighest research before your wrote this. We DID do a poll of BOTH sets of voters and it totally vindicated that Zogby poll. But obviously facts don’t matter to you.
http://www.howobamagotelected.com