Wednesday, January 30, 2008
The question for this Edwards supporter is, "Now what?"
Edwards has "suspended his campaign," as he says. It makes me sad.
Life however has to go on without him being President. The question is how? Who should I support instead, given that there's no way in hell I go anywhere else. Personally, I already voted for Edwards in my primary, and that can't be changed. So who?
Barack Obama is a rather easy choice for me, and not just because he's my home state Senator. I like who he is and what he stands for - Edwards impressed me more with his passion for what he stands for. But Obama is a good second choice. So why Obama and not Hillary Clinton, who would still be better than any GOP candidate in existence?
Purely tactical reasons. He doesn't have the best health care plan, at least not yet. He may be a little better about getting us out of Iraq, but I really don't know that. We don't know how he'd handle himself with a real political challenge from the GOP. Yes, he did beat the Chicago machine just to be where he is (admirable), but the GOP noise machine is a different animal altogether. (Emphasis on animal.)
Hillary Clinton has to fight several different opponents in trying for the White House. Specifically, whoever the GOP nominates and the uniformly Clinton-hating media. And by Clinton-hating media I don't refer to the Wall Street Journal or National Review - I mean the New York Times, Washington Post, and all TV networks are uniformly anti-Hillary. This point really cannot be emphasized enough. The so-called impartial national media likely turned the 2000 election with their antagonizing coverage of Al Gore. To a lesser degree, the same thing happened in 2004 with their rather unquestioning stance toward the incumbent. And their treatment of Clinton is as bad as their treatment of Gore starting in 1999.
Now as Democrats, we can either bellyache about the rather slanted coverage against the current frontrunner Clinton - slanted coverage that will not subside until Clinton is destroyed.
Or, we can use the corruption of our news media to our advantage. With respect to the free ride that Obama seems to be getting now, I predict that it will go on should he be nominated. The dust-up about Tony Rezko comes from the major Chicago papers who seem to find it to be a non-story. (Archpundit has the most comprehensive coverage all in one place.) And the anti-Clinton papers of record can't ignore that assessment like they did with the Arkansas Democrat-Gazette's similar assessment of Whitewater.
I give as my evidence the way CNN and the Washington Post debunked the Fox News and chain e-mail smear that Obama was schooled in a Wahhabist madrassa in Indonesia, supposedly rendering Obama disloyal to America. Calling the conservatives on smearing of Democrats is something that these news outlets just don't do for any other Democrat.
Now that only four viable candidates are left overall, we have four possible matchups and who the media will advantage:
Obama vs. Romney - Advantage Obama, and big. They hate Mittens about as much as they hate any Clinton.
Obama vs. McCain - Advantage Obama, but slight. This advantage will build as time goes on, McCain gets less coherent, looks old, and shows his rather foul temper to a media that will reach for the fainting couch.
Clinton vs. Romney - Possibly a wash to Romney advantage. The media has a really longstanding animus towards any Clinton, but that's counteracted by Mitt's really obvious phoniness that the media also hates. Plus Mitt's a teetotaler, and drunk-ass reporters don't like that one bit. But you can't discount the media's wish to see Clinton destroyed.
Clinton vs. McCain - Big advantage McCain. This advantage should be blindingly obvious to anyone who's watched the so-called impartial national media repeat McCain's "straight talk" horsepuckey as if it were holy writ.
I plea to Democrats - use the corrupt news media to our advantage for once and choose Obama. Yes, I'm being cynical. Too bad. I want to win.
Edwards has "suspended his campaign," as he says. It makes me sad.
Life however has to go on without him being President. The question is how? Who should I support instead, given that there's no way in hell I go anywhere else. Personally, I already voted for Edwards in my primary, and that can't be changed. So who?
Barack Obama is a rather easy choice for me, and not just because he's my home state Senator. I like who he is and what he stands for - Edwards impressed me more with his passion for what he stands for. But Obama is a good second choice. So why Obama and not Hillary Clinton, who would still be better than any GOP candidate in existence?
Purely tactical reasons. He doesn't have the best health care plan, at least not yet. He may be a little better about getting us out of Iraq, but I really don't know that. We don't know how he'd handle himself with a real political challenge from the GOP. Yes, he did beat the Chicago machine just to be where he is (admirable), but the GOP noise machine is a different animal altogether. (Emphasis on animal.)
Hillary Clinton has to fight several different opponents in trying for the White House. Specifically, whoever the GOP nominates and the uniformly Clinton-hating media. And by Clinton-hating media I don't refer to the Wall Street Journal or National Review - I mean the New York Times, Washington Post, and all TV networks are uniformly anti-Hillary. This point really cannot be emphasized enough. The so-called impartial national media likely turned the 2000 election with their antagonizing coverage of Al Gore. To a lesser degree, the same thing happened in 2004 with their rather unquestioning stance toward the incumbent. And their treatment of Clinton is as bad as their treatment of Gore starting in 1999.
Now as Democrats, we can either bellyache about the rather slanted coverage against the current frontrunner Clinton - slanted coverage that will not subside until Clinton is destroyed.
Or, we can use the corruption of our news media to our advantage. With respect to the free ride that Obama seems to be getting now, I predict that it will go on should he be nominated. The dust-up about Tony Rezko comes from the major Chicago papers who seem to find it to be a non-story. (Archpundit has the most comprehensive coverage all in one place.) And the anti-Clinton papers of record can't ignore that assessment like they did with the Arkansas Democrat-Gazette's similar assessment of Whitewater.
I give as my evidence the way CNN and the Washington Post debunked the Fox News and chain e-mail smear that Obama was schooled in a Wahhabist madrassa in Indonesia, supposedly rendering Obama disloyal to America. Calling the conservatives on smearing of Democrats is something that these news outlets just don't do for any other Democrat.
Now that only four viable candidates are left overall, we have four possible matchups and who the media will advantage:
Obama vs. Romney - Advantage Obama, and big. They hate Mittens about as much as they hate any Clinton.
Obama vs. McCain - Advantage Obama, but slight. This advantage will build as time goes on, McCain gets less coherent, looks old, and shows his rather foul temper to a media that will reach for the fainting couch.
Clinton vs. Romney - Possibly a wash to Romney advantage. The media has a really longstanding animus towards any Clinton, but that's counteracted by Mitt's really obvious phoniness that the media also hates. Plus Mitt's a teetotaler, and drunk-ass reporters don't like that one bit. But you can't discount the media's wish to see Clinton destroyed.
Clinton vs. McCain - Big advantage McCain. This advantage should be blindingly obvious to anyone who's watched the so-called impartial national media repeat McCain's "straight talk" horsepuckey as if it were holy writ.
I plea to Democrats - use the corrupt news media to our advantage for once and choose Obama. Yes, I'm being cynical. Too bad. I want to win.
Labels: 2008 election
Comments:
Post a Comment
