I'm always amazed by how short sighted we can be in the media. I freely admit that generally speaking, when the masses tend to agree on something, they're generally right. But consensus does not always equal correct, especially when it comes to politics. Right now, I think most of us can agree that a large amount of the media attention in the US Presidential race is focused on Barack Obama.

The junior Senator from Illinois has captured the attention of the media, given that he's A)black, B)camera-friendly, C)creating a lot of buzz with the younger generation, which - these days - comprises a good chunk of the demographic of the people in the media (the Walter Cronkite-types no longer rule the airwaves). As such, the media tends to gravitate toward covering him. But, as Zhongnanhai's Cam can well attest, (sorry buddy), making predictions about who is going to be the next US President at this point would be a ridiculous venture. We're only approaching March. November is a long way away. And in politics, the fortunes of any one particular candidate can change in a heartbeat. One can't deny that Obama does have the forward momentum in the race for the Democratic nomination. But, as Mitt Romney's campaign well showed, shots of momentum do not make a campaign. And even if Obama does make it through the Democratic nomination ahead of Clinton, he's still got a tough fight ahead of him against the senior statesman McCain (I know the irony of me pre-nominating McCain for the Republican nomination in this particular post, but at this point, betting against him to win would be like betting against the Harlem Globetrotters).

So to my colleagues in the media, I posit this thought: Punditry is fun. But ask any odds maker, and they'll tell you that it's perhaps not always wise to bet on the favorite, especially when credibility is the only bargaining chip you've got.