Tuesday, October 30, 2007

Visually stimulating but lacking content…

I just took a moment to view CNN.com’s Election Center 2008 section and a bitch is disturbed.

Catch that knee before it jerketh!

Y’all know that a bitch keeps an eye on all things mainstream media based because it’s important to know what the masses are consuming (wink).

Anyhoo, do people actually vote for candidates based on the shit listed on each candidate’s profile page? Because if they do that explains how Scooter B. slid his Divine Rights of Presidents ass into the Oval Office not once but twice!

The profile site has a picture of the candidate…that’s cool and I get that shit. But then it proceeds to break down where each candidate stands on the issues and that’s where CNN.com ran into trouble.

For example, Choice has been boiled down to Abortion and where a candidate stands on that issue is that they either support or don’t support abortion rights. But…ummm, that doesn’t tell me shit! How does the candidate define abortion rights…do they support parental notification…do they support abortion only in cases of rape or incest…do they support late term abortion?

And Choice is more complicated than support or lack of support for abortion. Sorry, but it is! Where does the candidate stand on public funding for birth control, comprehensive sex education versus abstinence only education, access to birth control at public schools, state notification of teen pregnancies and does the candidate support a woman’s right to get her motherfucking Emergency Contraception prescription filled without the pharmacist tossing up a tent and conjuring up a revival?

Lawd, have mercy!

They’ve got more space dedicated to which celebrity supports a candidate and how much money they threw behind that support than to where the candidate stands on the few issues they’ve decided matter…and that just ain’t right. Listing campaign advisors is okay but…Gawd, does it matter if Jodie Foster gave any of these people money?

Don’t get me wrong, I love me some Lily Tomlin but this bitch could do without knowing about her $2,000 donation to Hills’08 and could use some motherfucking depth on what these folks mean when they say Social Security reform.

Ugh.

And the campaign sites make CNN.com’s tour of political star fucking look like a doctorial thesis.

Logs off to send a strident e-mail to Wolfie B...

4 comments:

The Lazy Iguana said...

You are not supposed to think so much. So take some more of them anti-stress happy pills and just relax. And stop thinking.

If you think, the terrorists win! That is what the terrorists want you to do you know. Think. So stop it.

This is why I do not really pay much attention to anything until after the primaries. Before that this is all a dog and pony show.

Hey I heard that the Wilson dude who was let out of jail for having sex got it on with a white 15 year old girl, and THAT was the reason for the prosecution. Do you know if this is true? I can neither confirm or deny it. But it would explain some things.

Because you know that they were the only teens to have sex in Georgia that year.

Disgusted in St. Louis said...

How can you expect CNN to cover the the actual policies and stance on issues of the candidates (and in-depth yet) when there is barely enough time to cover the candidates' fashion statements and grooming techniques (ad nauseam)!

CNN: the most trusted name in cleavage and haircuts!

Larry said...

Isn't CNN working to become the cheaper version of Republican lite?

Crystal said...

I have never really thought about the huge cop out that is used every time I am told about which celebrities donated to whose campaigns. I feel it is definitely a good tactic, because it seems that keeping elections as a part of the celebrity media is a good way to attract more people to use their right to vote. "Vote or Die" wasn't enough, now we should vote for 'certain' candidates because, let's say, Will Smith is.
It is also shocking to me when I am told how a person who could potentially be the president of these great United States, ha ha, feels about abortion in the most meaningless of terms. Such-and-such is pro-choice while what's-his-face is pro-life...What does that mean? I would like to know more about their stand on specific issues that face people when it comes to being pro-life/choice. But, it is again a cop-out, a mockery of sorts of the level of awareness those in power feel Americans have. Labeling a candidate pro-this or pro-that should be enough because it is all we can understand, I suppose. YEAH RIGHT! We deserve MORE!