All over but the lying
On Tuesday, Americans chose as their next president an African-American named Barack Obama who campaigned on a near-universal health-care plan, allowing the Bush tax cuts for the wealthy to expire, and a move away from the belligerent foreign policy of the past eight years. Republicans, and some journalists, had spent months (falsely) saying Obama is the single most liberal member of the U.S. Senate -- and maybe even a socialist. The American people responded by electing him in a landslide.
This, naturally, is very good news for the Republicans, according to many pundits. It proves once again that America remains a "center-right" nation.
Right about now, you're probably scratching your head, wondering how the election of the "most liberal" member of the Senate, a man who campaigned on a promise of near-universal health care, could possibly be described as evidence of a conservative country.
To be sure, it requires some creative thinking.
NBC's Tom Brokaw, for example, looked at county-by-county election results and concluded that counties carried by John McCain account for greater land mass than those carried by Barack Obama. This would be meaningful, if only fields and streams and rocks and trees were conservative voters. But they aren't: They are fields and streams and rocks and trees. They are neither liberal nor conservative; they tell us nothing about the nation's political leanings. People tell us something about the nation's leanings -- and more people voted for Barack Obama.
Then there's CNN's John King Wednesday night. Just try to follow his logic:
KING: Without a doubt, the electorate voted for Barack Obama, but still perceives him to be a liberal. And one thing you don't want to do when you win an election like this, a sweeping election like this, is alienate the people here in a place like Cincinnati. Why? George W. Bush carried that county four years ago. You don't want to drive them away.
[...]
So, Barack Obama is making inroads in communities that not too long ago voted Republican. The last thing you want to do if you want to keep them four years from now is to alienate them with a liberal agenda.
That simply does not make any sense. John King says Barack won a "sweeping election" even though the electorate "perceives him to be a liberal" -- so he better not pursue a "liberal agenda" or he will "alienate them."
Got that?
Later that same night, King added that Obama "does not get a mandate to be a liberal." Again, this is pure nonsense. John King says voters perceive Obama to be a liberal. John King says Obama won a "sweeping victory." And yet John King says that Obama's sweeping victory among an electorate that considers him a liberal does not constitute a mandate to be a liberal. This is illogical, self-discrediting foolishness.
At least King was considerate enough to debunk his own absurd conclusions in near-real time. Conservatives making similar claims were not so kind.
Media Research Center president Brent Bozell -- who does not get nearly the recognition he deserves for being one of the most clownish figures in the conservative movement -- took to Fox News to announce that Obama had won by campaigning as a "Reaganite" and a "fiscal conservative."
Couple of problems with that claim.
First, Bozell didn't explain what he meant by "fiscal conservative," but its typical meaning -- supportive of restrained spending and balanced budgets -- is so far removed from the actual governing performance of actual conservatives that the phrase ought to be retired from use.
Second, Bozell's claim that Obama won as a "Reaganite" is a little odd, given that it wasn't that long ago that conservatives were saying Obama was campaigning on a "redistribution of wealth" that constituted "socialism." And when I say "conservatives," I mean Brent Bozell. And by "it wasn't that long ago," I mean last week.
(How much of a fraud is Bozell? In 1998, Bozell claimed the media weren't paying enough attention to Monica Lewinsky -- at a time when there were 500 news reports a day on the topic. Now he's alternately claiming Obama is a "socialist" and a "Reaganite." And in his column last week, he complained that a recent Project for Excellence in Journalism study overstated the extent of negative coverage of Obama by including "talk-radio hosts from Rush Limbaugh to Randi Rhodes" who are supposed to "express an opinion." But that complaint is completely false. The study in question specifically excluded talk radio. It's right there in the study's methodology: "Talk radio stories, which are part of PEJ's regular NCI, were not included in this campaign study of tone." If Brent Bozell tells you the sun is shining, you better grab an umbrella.)
It isn't hard to figure out why Brent Bozell makes absurd claims about Obama winning as a "Reaganite" -- he's an ideologue with far greater commitment to his agenda than to the truth.
But why would Tom Brokaw and John King and Newsweek and countless other Beltway journalists and pundits continue to say things like "America remains a center-right country" and insist that Barack Obama's clear victory does not constitute a mandate for the progressive policy positions he ran on?
It might have something to do with the long-held assumptions of many journalists and pundits (and more than a few progressives) that progressives are inherently politically weak and conservatives are inherently politically strong.
Three of the most foolish pieces of punditry of the past several years reflect such assumptions.
Newsweek's Howard Fineman announced in late 2005 that Democrats were justifiably "gloomy" about their electoral prospects. It seemed preposterous, given that President Bush's approval ratings were in the tank, his mishandling of Hurricane Katrina had enraged the nation, and Republicans in Congress were being fitted for orange jumpsuits by the dozen. Still, Fineman insisted, it was true: Democrats were in trouble. One reason? A "Lack of star power." Fineman explained: "it's incontestably true that the Democrats simply aren't blessed with much charisma in the leadership ranks." The 200,000 people who stood in Chicago's Grant Park for Obama's victory speech would probably disagree. (Yes, Fineman said "leadership ranks," and Obama wasn't in the party "leadership" in 2005. But Fineman contrasted the Democrats' purported lack of "charisma" with Republicans who weren't, either, so that doesn't get him off the hook.)
Since Fineman argued that Democrats had good reason to be gloomy, they've picked up more than 50 House seats, 12 in the Senate, and the presidency. Republicans have won ... well, John Boehner has probably won a few rounds of golf, but that's about it.
Then there's NBC political director Chuck Todd. Shortly before the 2006 elections, Todd predicted that if Democrats won control of Congress, President Bush's approval rating would be above 50 percent by the following July. Democrats did win control of Congress -- and Bush's approval rating was at 30 percent the following July. And at this point, Bush wouldn't be above 50 if you added his approval ratings in the last two CBS/New York Times polls together.
And finally, the dean of the Washington press corps, David Broder: In September 2005, Broder predicted that Bush's handling of Katrina would help him regain his standing with the public. Things didn't work out that way, as Broder eventually acknowledged, but he continued to predict a Bush resurgence. In early 2007, Broder announced that "President Bush is poised for a political comeback."
It isn't just that these three predictions were wrong; people make incorrect forecasts all the time. Many of those incorrect predictions are based on reasonable analysis that just turns out to be wrong. But it has been pretty clear since mid-2005 that the Bush administration has been a spectacular failure, that the public has rejected the disastrous conservative policies President Bush had used to drive the nation into a ditch. There hasn't been any reason to believe the Republicans would rebound, other than blind faith. And that isn't something that is clear only in hindsight: It has been obvious for years.
Democrats have won the popular vote in four of the past five presidential elections. When the new Congress is sworn in, they will hold more than 250 seats in the House and at least 57 in the Senate. Public polling shows -- and has shown for quite some time -- that Americans back progressive solutions to the nation's problems. The current progressive ascendancy won't last forever, of course. But it's about time for the Beltway pundit crowd to let go of their tired old assumptions about the relative strength of the parties and the ideological leanings of the country. Unless, of course, they enjoy making fools of themselves.
Jamison Foser is Executive Vice President at Media Matters for America.
The republicans must fail in the most spectacular and multifaceted ways imaginable for them to get punished. Meanwhile democrats get punished when they succeed (1994, 2000). What can that be besides a center-right country?
Maybe we've changed, but it's hope and not history that says so. It won't be long before the country becomes safe enough for voters to feel able to toss their votes in the trash bin and give supply-side voodoo another go.
In a country worthy of respect, if you fail as obviously as conservatism has you never, ever get a chance to try again. The new republican party shouldn't be able to support a single tenet of movement conservatism. They'll have to support new things. Things that haven't been proven false beyond doubt over and over again.
Let's hope the country is no longer center-right. But hope is all it can be for now.
You said "...What can that be besides a center-right country..." It could be alot of things Steve how about 2000, stolen election. How about media manipulation and use of issues to devide voters, how about voter suppresion and revised voter rolls. How about using historical class divisions , red-baiting and just outright lying to confuse issues causing voters to fight amongst themselves and against thier own interest. I remember meat-packing plants in Chicago using unemployed black workers to break strikes in the 20's and 30's then the plants after having accomplished their goal of lowering the wages and/or destroying the union would kick the black workers back out onto the streets. It wasn't until the white unions started organizing the black workers that both sections were able to fight effectively against the companies tactics of divide and conquer. I guess what I'am trying to say is that those in power have been able to bambozzle people throughout the years, but the interest of the people lie in moving toward a more compassionate form of government whose priority is in providing not only on the basis to pay but according to ability and need.
"What can that be besides a center-right country?"
Um, a center right media?
It is the effect I'm interested in, not the cause. Unless there's been a major shift, we'll soon be trotting out supply-side to fail for the 4th or 5th time. I hope there has been a major shift.
Perhaps the better way to put it would be "Um, lack of any alternative information except center-right and crazy right media"
Guess what the big change might be. Unless the alternative to information spun by money manages to be stifled again, an informed agenda will be dominant, and unless the very nature of politics changes reality will have a very far left bias.
If we actually see the kind of society that the right fantasizes would happen perhaps then reality might favor them. But their very divorce from reality would imply otherwise
Or center-right media ownership?
Besides, when these pundits claim we are a center-right country, they are really talking only about the electorate in our country being center-rigtht -- which I agree is debatable, as recent elections have shown -- not the country as a whole, which of course would include non-voters as well.
Jamison Foser you gat er' did!!!!!
You know, I recall plenty of "liberals" who pooh-poohed the identity and niche politics they felt Hillary Clinton played during the primaries; and I didn't hear the end of it whenever I talked about the sexist media treatment of Clinton (and other women during the primaries). And I was drowned out whenever I tried to point out that Barack Obama is not a "liberal" or progressive in the way that liberals/progressives seem to want him to be. At the same time, I was lectured by lots of liberals that Barack Obama was a new kind of candidate who was going to change politics as usual in Washington, D.C., etc., etc., etc.
Now, clearly Media Matters was very good about calling out the sexist and racist media commentary and news coverage, which I respect.
But, frankly, I'm already tired of hearing from the never-happy crowd that comprises the left net roots about how the MSM is doing them wrong by proclaiming that Barack has to govern from the center. When you look at the map, it seems pretty clear to me that he didn't do nearly as well as Bill Clinton in breaking through lots of red areas. There's a whole lotta red in that map, still...
Barack Obama is, at the moment, growing on me because he is pragmatic. He himself is the one who said many times and in many ways during the long primary and during the GE campaign that he IS a different kind of Democrat. Watching him in action the past few days makes me realize that left, right and center mean little to him. Pragmatism, however, means everything. This is how he will govern.
I suggest that the unhappy campers of the left stop whining and jumping up and down about how very wrong the MSM is and accept the truths:
1. Barack Obama is not a liberal;
2. If you really want to accomplish something, let go of the labels.
Bozell is one of those people you want to smack everytime he is one TV. Thanks for flogging him for me....what a clown.
"Unless, of course, they enjoy making fools of themselves."
Well, I enjoy it. Is that motivation enough for them?
Because Tom Brokaw's loyalties are with the COUNCIL ON FOREIGN REALTIONS cabal and for him to say DURING 9/11 while reporting , that " it's time to revist our freedoms " and it's bad enough for a so called journalist to say dangerous crap like that, but he did before the flames went out, before any investigation and before we allegedly knew who did it . He obviously has an agenda or everything he says and is not to be trusted .
I agree that the voters have rejected Bush's policies, but it's a stretch to call
them "Bush's conservative policies." As I understand their tradition, conservatives support limited government, controlled spending, low taxes, individual liberty, the rule of law, decentralization, restrained executive authority and cautious foreign intervention.
In that light, George W. Bush turned out to be a radical with ruinous policies.
You needn't be Sherlock Holmes to deduce that. Yet traditional conservatives
took four years, including a "re-election," to figure it out. For shame!
I think everyone in the country got one of those big campaign post card things which specifically stated that Obama is a socialist. It was right there in huge scary letters. Americans had that information when they chose to vote for him.
So when do we get our socialism? I hope it arrives before May Day.
I hope so too, I looking forward to breaking in my new hybrid car before the driving season is upon us. (smile)
oscar, there has apparently been this big breakthrough on fuel economy. saw it on a show the other night. there was this guy who powered the car with his feet. he seemed to have no problem, even with the purple dinosaur wearing a dog collar riding in the back seat. seemed to be a balance problem though. a waitress tipped the whole damn thing over by merely putting an order of ribs on the window tray. in other news....
I saw that show too. Problem is you have to do it barefoot, and all those cars were recalled by Detroit and pounded into rubble.
Barney, that is.
After 50 years of increasingly unsocialized society the Antisocialists have tried their techniques. Perhaps we can start to have a society where Socialized Government, Business, people, children, and dogs actually contribute to the betterment of society.
With all the lootong by the Gang Of Pirates the Civilization could not survive much more of this. As recent Youtube video suggests even their dogs are unsocialized.
Now I'd give Barney (the dog, not Barney Rubble) some slack. Dog trainers could give that reporter some tips for approaching dogs and reading their body language to know whether to approach or not...
that was my take. the reporter moved in too quickly. the dog doesn't know whether you mean harm or not.
"First, Bozell didn't explain what he meant by "fiscal conservative," but its typical meaning -- supportive of restrained spending and balanced budgets -- is so far removed from the actual governing performance of actual conservatives that the phrase ought to be retired from use."
Without a question!
I have always judged conservatism by its track record, not by the trickle-down fantasy world that exists in the head of every self-described conservative.
Nah, it means that the true fiscal conservatives need to take control of one of the parties (or form a third) and actually practice what is preached instead of the convoluted performance that we have seen.
Couldn't agree with you more. Far be it from me to tell you guys how to run your own party and all, but I think you need to take it back, as soon as possible, from the social conservatives, and quit letting the whacko religious nuts hijack the republican party.
I was reading something from one of those jokers, some family council or something, and he was saying that this election PROVES that the social conservatives are in control of things, because there were a few gay marriage bans passed by voters. Of course, he's wrong, and ignoring everything else that happened just a few days ago, but alas, you guys keep letting the religious zealots run the ship, we'll keep counting the victories.
I consider myself a conservative on many issues, primarily fiscal and of the smaller government crowd. I'm also very pragmatic. While personally against abortion, I know banning abortions won't stop same and we can't build enough prision space to enforce any law. What we do in the privacy of our homes/lives that doesn't endanger our neighbors, etc. should be left to us, not the government to monitor. I suppose I would be a Libertarian except for their stance on now illegal drugs. Again in the privacy of one's own home, I could care less. But when it endangers more than self, the community as a whole has an interest in stopping that behavior.
Several years ago, the far right hijacked the Governor's position on the ballot in our state. I warned several of my friends, also conservative, that that candidate would get trounced in the November election. Many thought I was nuts, that that candidate was just what the state needed at the time. I think the D opponent won be a very wide margin that year and that party has held the governor's position since that time.
I think the country is a fairly middle of the road country and when one party swings too far to the left or right, that party gets spanked in subsequent elections. I think that is the major thing that makes this country great. If we don't like what's going on, we can make mid-course or end course corrections bloodlessly.
The new Executive Branch will have my support until such time as they go against my principles. The Senators representing my State and Representative for my district will also have my support, and they will hear from me when I disagree with the direction they are headed. That is the way it should be, we the people, not the cadre of lobbyists, should have the ears/eyes of our Legislators, State and National.
What is this "take back from the social conservatives" stuff? The social conservatives didn't make republicans spend. Take them away and republicans will still spend. And they'll run huge deficits even if they don't spend because their tax policy is just insane.
>the long-held assumptions of many journalists and pundits (and more than a few progressives) that progressives are inherently politically weak and conservatives are inherently politically strong.
There's a more important reason, Jamo. When Reagan was elected, we heard something similar - that he daren't move the country too far to the right, as the electorate wasn't that conservative. It isn't so much about progressive vs. conservative as it is about anybody who threatens to shift things past what the Village is comfortable with, in any direction. Reagan responded by saying that he wouldn't turn his back on those who elected him. One hopes that Obama, who has expressed some admiration for Reagan in this regard, will respond similarly.
I asked in a post earlier this week if the corporate owned media understands why its viewership is getting smaller and smaller (BillO, Sean) and shows like Clobert and Stewart and Olbermann and Maddow are gaining larger and larger viewers every day?
I hope that this collection of clowns don't learn their lesson anytime soon... it is going to be hillarious watching these people self-destruct as they try and blame the (likely never to be implemented) Fairness Doctrine and liberalism and socialism for their downfall...
Before they self-destruct, they will aim to destroy. They're not gonna go down easy.
IMO, this media's difficulty of seeing the dire need for progressive policy evident in the Obama vote last week, while it may seem irrational, is proof of their guilty complicity
in pushing a p.o.v. that elected & re-elected GWB. GWB's puppet to Cheney etc. conservative, right-wing policies have led to a multitude of human rights trespasses & worldwide derision of the USA . It is the media's consequential guilt complex that seeks to ameliaorate their major hand in this tragedy by constant talk of a 'right of center' USA...."we just report.' bull. This fraternity of the chest-thumping conservative gov't & media owning & spouting their chauvinistic, nationalist rhetoric, cost thousands of unnecessary lives, was globally ignorant, and trounced the principles of our founding fathers.
Now it is time for them to own up, and move beyond. The meida's actions sound a lot like the Wall Street folks talking bad about all the money-hungry lying schemers as if they were not one and the same. Remember, the guiding Rovian policy of the last decade was, 'if you tell a lie long enough and hard enough it will eventually be believed' no matter how absurd. The press fell for it and can't let go. Simply put, they do not want to look like the complicit fools many of them are/were.
Well, as Lincoln put it so well:
It is rather for us to be here dedicated to the great task remaining before us -- that from these honored dead we take increased devotion to that cause for which they gave the last full measure of devotion -- that we here highly resolve that these dead shall not have died in vain -- that this nation, under God, shall have a new birth of freedom -- and that government of the land mass, by the land mass, for the landmass, shall not perish from the earth.
LOL.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/11/07/AR2008110702895.html
At least some in the media are acknowledging their collective liberal bias. Kudos to the Post.
So this deadly liberal bias lead them into what errors? Explain the crime, your evidence, and the resultant damage to their readers view of the nation and the candidates.
Crooks and Liars has a thread today on what a conservative bias can do in a newspaper. I suscribe to that papers competition, The Seattle P.I. MMfa rates them as leaning towards liberal. They throw out a few unchallenges neocon talking points on the occasion, but I do agree with MMfa on its liberal point of view. This bad in what way? Yes there is the occasional island of liberality in a sea that is largly conservative.
The crime is the lack of objectivity, the evidence is their admissions in the article, the resultant damage is, among other things, the growing lack of faith in the populace of the media's ability to be "fair and balanced."
People have biases, you really can't spend much time in life without developing several. How you operate from them is the important part. I've worked with people on occasion that I don't aggree with. In such times I watch myself very carefully as I will not allow my bias to color or affect my work with them. I maintain professional respect for them. To do otherwise diminishes me.
I believe ethics count for more than bias in this arena.
They were involved with a self critque. Checking their objectivity. The real test is how did that bias affect their product. Were the positive and negative statements warrented by the reality of the situation, or not. This takes a lot more effort. This study is a very lightwieght look at the situation.
The MSM has been losing viewers at a rate of 1 million a year, since 1980. R Maddow's recent show is an exception. She has picked up a large audience in a very short time. Her major difference with the politics of most of MSM pundits is a big part of that audience growth.
but what exactly is a "negative story" on john mccain? for instance, i'm sure there were a lot of stories about what a drag palin turned out to be on the ticket. were those supposed to be balanced by an equal number of negative stories on what a drag biden turned out to be for obama? because the fact is that most polls showed a high favorability for biden and high negativity for palin. does this require some "balance"? and as howell notes, several of the conservative columnists were lukewarm on mccain. again, why? frequently it was palin and the irrational decision making by mccain that led to her selection. i think it might have been a much closer race without that blunder. as it was, it was only 52 to 47 percent. obama made a good choice and mccain screwed up. do we call rewrite to freshen up the script?
if you are looking for the post to admit something, go back and look at their admissions of how they bought the bush line on wmd in iraq [just like the new york times] when there was lots of evidence available at the time that contradicted it. can you say aluminum tubes?
"Fair and balanced" shouldn't be the objective. Pursuit of the truth should be. The truth isn't balanced.
One of the reasons there were more negative stories about McCain was that while Obama was out proposing new policies, The Mavrick and his prom date were vilifying Obama as a terrorist sympathizer, a socialist, a communist, a far leftist, etc. while talk radio was painting him as a radical muslim and someone who was born in Kenya.
Whether you agree with Obama's policies or positions, at least he presented some, the GOP ran around for two months dividing the nation and not making a whole hell of a lot of sense.
No wonder the media aired and printed more negative things about the losers.
And don't start me talkin' about Sam (Joe) the Laborer (Plumber). He was a plant and a shill. He is a perfect example of those who've been swindled by the right into working against their economic interests.
Reality was heavily biased for Obama this election. Extremely heavily biased. Apparently the Post tried at least a little to have their coverage match reality, but of course it fell way short.
Ah, yes. Liberal bias. Giant media corporations are constantly and actively pursuing a "liberal" agenda; a liberal agenda which seeks to undermine the power of giant corporations.
The myth of the "Liberal Media" is the republicans own little tinfoil-hat conspiracy theory.
Um....
I think that at this point... you have to come to terms with the fact that the reason the WaPost did not seem oh so critical of Obama... is because there is/was little to be critical about??
I mean come on now... you know perfectly well that the corporate owned rightwing media sent oppo-men at every corner of the world looking for anything on Obama... much of it did not stick at all and the rest only stuck for a few days until it was found to be crap!
All things owned by Rupert Murdock or that freaky guy Rev Moon and financed by Richard Mellon Scaife were absolutely desperate for a Hillary Clinton presidency... Barack Obama's ascendency to the top spot has set in motion the total breakdown of the rightwing. ideology...
FYI to all rightwingers --- There IS NO liberal bias in the corporate owned media!
The delusion that they constitute a majority is one of the quirkier aberrations of the political Right.
When wingers talk so bitterly about liberals--as they love to do--you would think they were talking about a handful of miscreants, when in fact they're badmouthing 80% of their fellow Americans.
Part of the problem is we have allowed the right-wing to co-opt the language of political discourse. We have allowed the demonization of the word 'liberal,' to the point where we now say 'progressive' to mean pretty much the same thing. Why didn't we take back the 'liberal' mantle? And I say that as somebody who slipped 'progressive' on, myself. I am not innocent of that.
Similarly, we permitted those who are against choice on abortion to self-identify as 'pro-life,' which is insulting to those who believe in choice. It presumes we are somehow anti-life. Why didn't we insist that networks covering that side use a more correct, more equivalent, term, such as pro-ban? I blogged on this a couple of years back but it got no traction.
My point, if we don't target the deliberately distorted speech of right-wingers, we invite what has taken place.
It is no accident that Media Matters is the only blog I link to on my own blog. These folks get it. I am glad somebody does.
I was a bit disturbed by comments on Meet the Press by Meechum...Godwin
as they giggled. Such remarks about McCan that "Ran he ran a Noble Campaign" or that he is "Classy" while granting: "Obama will be able to think beyond the Norm"
Which norm are they speaking about? The 2 divisive erroneous assertions, 3 lies, 2 divisive eroneous assertions, 3 lies of the McCain and Republican Propaganda campaigns of the last 28+ Years? ...a direct reflection of the LOWLY characters of those who have controlled our country while pushing it down the cliff at every turn.
And while Meechum has been praising Obama since he won the election, Newsweek after all hired criminal Rove. And where was Meechum when the Republicans were trampling on our constitution, on the throats of the Democrats as Minority Party, and looting the US Treasury with tax cuts that 30% went to 130,000 people... gutted out the institution of state Americans pay to protect their interests, turned them into central headquarters for the Republican Pary, deleted scientific documents, pushed out contract negotiators so they could give the business to their contributors under no bid contracts, and used the Justice department as a weapon against opposition, and performed general and specifice abuses of power daily that went unreported...and as the deficit grew the Republicans turned DC into the highest per capita income city in the United States!
And while we desparately need unity on our country, the Democrats have not been the divisive ones. The Republicans divided us one group against another...While it seems to me that the Carlyle group (Bush Framily friends) has been buying up local radio stations...and brainwashing people into voting against their own interest (but rather for the Defective Products of the Republican party) by limitting what they hear on the radio...so they can garner their votes.
The Media does matter. Geobbles ("the architect" of Hilter's campaign) knew it
very well and used it in simillar ways as the Republican Party uses it...
What I wonder is: Why does it sometimes seem that the left gets its news from the right wing..?
I can't wait for the autopsy on the Bush Administration. Will the insiders finally spill the beans, and reveal the massive crime and fraud that we strongly suspect took place in that cesspool of NeoCon idiocracy? The 25% who still support President Numbnuts will migrate mindlessly to the Simple Sarah camp, and will never give Obama a chance. He can simply write off that constituency.
I think the safest route for Obama is to keep his campaign promises as much as possible, and avoid lurching too far to the Left or the Right. If he can get done what he has proposed, or at least make noticeable progress, he should win a second term easily.
Americans have proven, in this election, that a majority of them can see past the lies from the Republican Slime Machine. If Obama can maintain his current popularity, the lies will bounce off.... he will be the new teflon president. If he over reaches or screws up, the jackals will latch on to his ankles and cripple him, just as they did Clinton.
Don't look now..... but here it comes:
http://www.wired.com/politics/onlinerights/news/2008/11/obama_wiretap