Article in NY Times about Obama trying to hew an 'everyman' image of himself in opposition I guess to the elitism of Romney - an of the people graft as it were - an 'he plays baskeball, he's one of us' type of idiocy - and that's it, no where in the article does it suggest that this isn't idiotic or that having an everyman image matters in the least little bit as it relates to doing a good job as an executive. I'm not naive, I understand a 'president' is in many ways just another product that needs to be sold to a gullible public looking to buy something - but of course it's also much more than that - and yet the NY Times, the putative citadel of liberal intellectualism, regularly runs these de facto 'pro-ignorance' articles which pretend to some keen insight but amount to nothing more than tawdry advocacy that makes clear what really matters to them is a liberal agenda regardless of whether or not there's any intellectual merit to it.
I'm really sick of this puerile nonsense - from Santorum and his 'etch a sketch' inanity to supposed left wing intellectuals acting as if of course superficial imaging is a presidential attribute to be admired. Politics in its current incarnation looks increasingly ridiculous, a process not worthy of the history that made it. Don't know why this is since politics has always been plagued by the farcical [Aristophanes was treating it as farce 2000 years ago] - the system could undoubtedly use some tweaking - but I tend to feel the nature of modern media drives partisanship and partisanship, as with any absolutist urge, is by its very nature stupid. In other words, politics probably cannot be divorced from the simple mindedness of partisan appeals - but the scope and superficiality of modern media is possibly feeding the dependency in a very unhealthy way.
