Every four years in this Great Nation, the American population—or a portion of it—begrudgingly participates in the “political process.”

At the time of its conception our aforementioned process was the envy of the world; based on arguably the most egalitarian system of governance the Western world had ever conceived, the American population selected a leader from a short list of what was thought to be its most able candidates to preside over the nation for a period of four long years.

Now let’s jump forward, say, 235 years. The system developed by our Founding Fathers at the cutting edge of style, culture, philosophy, science, and politics (yet still wore high heels, tights, and powdered wigs) has matured considerably (Thankfully, as has style and the rest).

The modern incarnation of our once-great political structure now takes place across 24/7 cable “news” networks and the “blogosphere,” with the occasional contribution from those fossils known as “newspaper” and “radio.” Yes, the entities that compose our glorious media.

So politics, originally the responsibility of every proud citizen, is now merely a genre of storytelling presented to an increasingly niche audience. Or rather the amount, quality, and accuracy of the story has been relegated to the niche.

Everyone, for the most part, is exposed to the fabricated story known as “politics”—and that mere exposure is viewed, both by the presenter and recipient, as the maximum fulfillment of our duty as citizens. Which, let’s face it, certainly isn’t the best way of doing things…but when was America known for doing things the “best” way? Oh, right—that would be 235 years ago.

Recently media coverage has meant more and more for the candidates—and in the current election cycle, it’s more accurate to say “the candidates we have the misfortune of choosing between”….

Therein lies the rub; in this unique political environment we have an incumbent candidate the media seems to have a problem with; which is ironic, considering the same man was the media’s darling, its sweetheart, its sovereign token—if you will.

Now, I’m not going to soapbox for Obama, I’ll stick to the facts. According to the Pew Research Center, up to this point in the media coverage of the 2012 election Obama has received negative press by a 4 to 1 ratio—and that’s probably a lot, considering he’s our first real “celebrident” who’s in the media constantly.

But, if politics is an extension of the media, and the media is now in the hate half of a love/hate relationship, who will the media elect to persuade us to elect to replace him?

And the answer thus far has been a resounding……..shurg.

As the media scans the room, literally throwing everyone available at the wall, trying to find something that will stick, they’ve come up pretty short.

Now, one could also read this as a sort of mid-life crisis of the American psyche—that the American people are upset with their leader but are so fragmented that no one else can appeal to a wide enough group to oust the current guy. But with the media, isn’t it always a chicken-and-the-egg thing?

Which came first: Americans’ displeasure with their Commander-in-Chief, or the media’s coverage of Americans’ displeasure with their Commander-in-Chief?

One could also see this as an internal crisis in the Republican party. The Grand Old Party has finally been realized for their old age and outdated views and can no longer muster enough widespread support to take back the presidency from the current incumbent.

But if that’s the case, why is the media paying so much attention to the fluctuating list of possible alternatives and random megalomaniacs who happen to appear suspiciously close to the race? It’s as though they’ve already decided Obama’s has to go, but did so in such haste they forgot there needs to be someone popular, if not credible, to actually fill the void.

If the media fails to decide the 2012 presidential election, maybe we’ve preserved Democracy in our own sick, futuristic, modern way…. #TeamAmerica!