And we should all be proud of the "informed" American electorate!

If you go to this site, you'll find a very interesting video of Obama voters, taken after they voted on election day. It isn't a scientific poll by any means, but the results are sadly interesting. Since it is not a scientific poll and because of the one sided and completely inaccurate nature of the responses, the conservative, former radio talk show host, John Ziegler, commissioned Zogby International (a well respected polling firm) to test the electorate on their knowledge of these questions. This was a scientific poll, which has been criticized as a "push poll". One can disagree with the questions, but it isn't a push poll, it doesn't even fit the definition, as Zogby was forced to point out. What it showed was a depressing lack of knowledge of the Obama voters who were polled. So, either these people have been lied to, are willfully misinformed, only get their news from one source (an obviously biased one at that) or they simply were voting on one issue or with their party and didn't care to be informed. I must admit, I'd respect them more if it was one of the earlier ones than if it is the last one because that is just plain stupidity. I think everyone should vote (which they don't) but I also believe that those of us who do choose to vote should make sure we are as informed as possible in order to make the best choice. This poll shows that many (and perhaps you'd have similar stupidity among McCain voters so if anyone wants to do this poll, I'd love to know the results) people who voted for Obama are simply uninformed, at best. This is no way to run a republic. The ancient Greeks stood around in the town square and debated the issues before they voted. This was smart and resulted in everyone having their say. This poll shows that the only say that gets heard is the one the media chooses to highlight. Even the Washington Post stated, after the election so too late in my opinion, that their coverage was biased in favor of Obama. While one could argue that the obviously Obama favored media coverage did little to change the outcome and it was the poor economy that was really the highest contributing factor (and they'd have a point), this shows that the media failed us and didn't do the job they should and therefore may very well have changed the outcome of the election. After all, 57 percent of respondents couldn't accurately say that the Democrats currently controlled Congress. That means that that 57 percent were probably inaccurately blaming the "Republicans" in Congress for the economy as much as they were Bush. Isn't that a logical assumption on my part? Maybe not, but this election definitely suffered from the media's decision to fawn themselves over the Obama campaign.