Are we polled out?

I feel a tirade against the news media coming . . .

Actually, my old profession is not that much different from when I was a reporter and perhaps the only major change is that I find it incredibly shocking to realize the American public is a lot more stupider than 30 years ago. Maybe not stupid. Perhaps just more credulous. No, stupid is the right word. How else do you explain the popularity of the FOX network.

But, back to my tirade. Actually, it's about the media's dependence on polls for news. Frankly, all reporters are a little lazy. That's human nature. And they like to be fed easy stories. It fills space and gets editors off their backs. That is primarily why the Vietnam War went on for a decade (but that's another matter).

So back to polls. They continue to show Kerry slightly ahead, or slightly behind, and in effect, shows that the race is a dead heat. But invaribly, some reporter adds that it is surprising that Kerry is not pulling away, and thus insinuates that his candidacy is doomed.

However, please note this from - of all people - the Wall Street Journal. The WSJ calls it Bush 47, Kerry 45, but adds a very interesting point that all the other pollsters and pundits seem to miss:

"John Kerry enters next week's Democratic Convention in a better position than any presidential challenger in a generation -- but still needing to show more strength on the national-security issues that underpin President Bush's support.

"A new Wall Street Journal/NBC News poll shows the Massachusetts senator in a virtual dead heat with Mr. Bush as Democrats gather here to nominate him as their presidential candidate in the Nov. 2 election. Not since Ronald Reagan's 1980 bid to oust President Carter, according to Gallup, has a challenger approached his nominating convention even with or ahead of a White House incumbent."

Let me restate that. "John Kerry enters next week's Democratic Convention in a better position than any presidential challenger in a generation."

THAT is what the polls are telling us, and no one seems to pick up on it other than the WSJ. For those of you following my rantings, I have told you on several occasions that the KEY figure to watch in polls is not "who you will vote for," but rather the NEGATIVE a candidate carries. Bush's is very high (anything over 30 percent is considered a major drawback for any canidate). But Cheney's is astronomical, close to nearly 50 percent. Ampong the two most despised politicians in America is Cheney and Hillary. Hillary's numbers are also up in that region. If we ever hope to have Hillary as a bonafide candidate, she will have to lower that negative by a lot.

Why are poll negatives important? The negatives ALWAYS vote. There is nothing like hate to send you to the polls. Think about Bush!-and now you know I'm right.