It IS interesting, however, that the polls don't reflect the enthusiasm the Obama camp claims exists. If you listened to these folks talk about it, you'd think Obama was up 20 points. He isn't. We are looking at a close race. Does that mean they are deluded? Possibly. It might mean that they are trying, with the media behaving like lapdogs, to convince people who don't care enough to find out for themselves that Obama is not only going to win, but the inevitable next POTUS. Hence, when I say there is an appeal to the stupid I don't mean that true Obama supporters are stupid, but that you average American who DOESN'T care reads and hears every day that Obama is the next coming.
I live in Chicago. I read both papers. Neither has bothered to do much investigating of allegations regarding Obama. Both have jumped in to criticize McCain and investigate Palin. The media has an important role of impartial investigation to play. Sadly, they don't care about that anymore and have chosen instead to use their positions to get Obama elected. There is no impartial media. Even Hillary admits that Fox news gave her the most fair and balanced coverage. I think Fox's commentary is skewed right, but that's one station. NBC, ABC, CBS, CNN, MSNBC and most newspapers tend to skew left. So why the hubub? Is it because they have a larger audience base?
The left thinks that the power play is to attack Palin as an awful choice. Palin reenergized the party. If she was such a bad choice, why is the race this close? Because the left seems to think that she is a serious threat. That choice undermined the faux feminism inherent to the overtly sexist democratic leadership. Theater.
Both sides are guilty.
I've made all the points that I really want to so I'll answer these quickly:
-having a significant lead does not mean a 20% lead, which would be roughly an electoral college near-sweep, a very rare occurance. I believe it has happened for two presidents this century: Reagan and FDR. A "solid lead" in an election is 3-5% just enough to be beyond the margin of error, and also enough to consider enough states to cleanly win the electoral college while avoiding another Ohio or Florida fiasco; this is exactly what happened in the election.
-there are significant bias issues with the media but I think outside Fox and NPR (increasingly MSNBC as well) most media outlets can easily be duped one way or the other. see: iraq. this year i do think obama was an exception who capitalized on a perfect storm of popularity, uniqueness/newness, and a pathetic showing by his opponent to absolutely dominate the media coverage. until you show why these things (which I brought up before) are objectively false, I don't see what the problem is with the way the media covered this race.
-the most Palin did was shore up (slightly) the conservative base of the GOP which McCain had managed to completely alienate while simultaneously alienating McCain's moderate base of voters who had trusted him for years but grown increasingly skeptical of his behavior the last 4 (count me in that camp). She did not make the race close nor is she a 'threat' due to her inability to gain traction outside of the conservative base. this is not about sexism but about an utter lack of preparedness and qualifications. her educational background is very unusual for a national candidate. she has little no national experience. she has never won a national election, nor has she been in the court of public opinion for any significant period prior to being picked by mccain. obama has some similarities, yes, but is set apart by his education, his senate seat, and his place in the public light since 2004.
yes, politics is theater. no, that does not mean that polls are wrong. explain why fivethirtyeight was able to predict the results so accurately if polls are so bad?