After the election, the mainstream media made an announcement that seems incredibly bizarre. It only makes sense in the context of a massive conspiracy to enslave the entire world.
The mainstream media released a huge amount of negative stories about Sarah Palin immediately after the election. Their excuse is "We didn't want to unfairly influence the election, so we didn't mention this until afterwards."
This is tantamount to an admission that the mainstream media has no credibility whatsoever. The mainstream media claims that it's their job to filter the candidates and decide who's deserving. By admitting they covered up these "negative horrible stories", they're essentially admitting they have no credibility.
Of course, most people are incapable of noticing this inconsistency. They will forget after all the "Obama is going to be a great President!" stories. The mainstream media does a great job of generating excitement in a story, and then dropping it so that people forget. Most people don't have the ability to prevent their memories from being altered.
If Republican voters realized that McCain/Palin was such a lousy ticket, then they would have just stayed home instead of voting. This would have led to more Democratic victories in close House/Senate races.
There's another reason to crush Sarah Palin's credibility. "McCain chose her as running mate. Therefore, she's a great politician and Presidential candidate in 2012." Trashing her reputation means she isn't going to have a position of influence in the future.
By saying "Sarah Palin Sucks!", the implication is "Obama is awesome!" This makes it easier for McCain supporters to back Obama. Even though Obama got a slim majority of the people who actually voted, he still pretends to have legitimate authority over everyone.
Finally, if the negative Sarah Palin stories were released before the election, it would have been obvious that Obama was set up to win from the beginning. As South Park indicated, McCain intentionally ran a weak campaign, so Obama could win easily. I read that Obama was under Secret Service protection as early as May 2007, which is an indication that someone knew he was being set up to get elected President.
Secret Service protection works both ways. Obama is protected from would-be assassins. He also is protected from people who might have inappropriate ideas. Of course, Obama wouldn't be a candidate for President unless he were thoroughly brainwashed as a pro-State troll. However, a certain amount of intelligence is necessary to be a convincing pro-State troll. For this reason, politicians must be shielded from "inappropriate" ideas.
I noticed another important Sarah Palin fnord. This tactic was used against Ron Paul when he was campaigning.
Check out this article, this article, and this article. Look at the photographs. Notice they are not airbrushed. Sarah Palin has a weird expression on her face. The camera/lighting angle is unfavorable.
Whenever you see a picture of a politician or a celebrity in a newspaper, it is usually airbrushed. The photo usually has a favorable camera angle. Perhaps 100+ photos were taken, and the most favorable one is published.
When the mainstream media's goal is to say "This person is a scumbag!", they publish a non-airbrushed photo. They publish a photo with an unfavorable camera angle or unfavorable expression on the victim's face.
People are accustomed to seeing airbrushed photos of celebrities and politicians. When a non-airbrushed photo is displayed, the fnord is "This person is a scumbag!"
When Ron Paul was running for President, "election summary" webpages showed a picture of each candidate. Other candidates had an airbrushed photo of them smiling. Ron Paul's photo was non-airbrushed from a bad camera angle, and he was not smiling in the photograph.
Compare pictures of Sarah Palin published before and after the election. You'll notice the discrepancy.
In another interesting bit of election news, I was looking at a bunch of mainstream media websites and articles claiming to have "complete full election coverage". Not a single one mentioned the number of votes that the Libertarian and other 3rd parties received.
My parents wanted me to go vote with them, so I did. It was easier to go along than have a disagreement. I convinced them to vote for Babar the Elephant. I knew it was pointless, but I figured I should entertain them.
Also, did you ever notice how the "election observers" are always really old people barely capable of doing anything? If the election is so important, then why are barely qualified people selected as election observers?