Obama - born to lose

There are three points at which I switch off the radio. One is football. Two is Thought for the Day (unless it is Elaine Storkey, because I used to know her). And three is the American elections.

Why in the name of all that is reasonable do we have wall to wall coverage of the US elections? Why is there more coverage than the European elections? Broadcasters please note: We have no vote in the American elections, and also they are incomprehensible, banal, and predictable. By all means let us know the result when it is available, but please, please, spare us the agonising details. Your obsession with the elections contrasts with the complete ignoral that you give to the subject of Republican electoral cheating.

Of course I would prefer Obama to win, given that Cynthia McKinney, the Green Party candidate, stands no chance of success, but on the other hand, IMHO Obama has no chance of success. Why?

1 Because he is decent, as shown by his remark on Palin's family problems. He said the right thing, but should not hope the Republicans would act reflexively.
2 Because the Republican political ordure machine has been ominously silent over his personal history. In October they will start publicising every pecadillo and slur they can find.
3 Because the Republicans will cheat again on election night, as they did in 2000 and 2004. And the Democrats will roll over, and refuse to lay bare the cheating. In doing this the Democrats show that they are congenital losers.

I am only writing this in the hope that I will be proved wrong.