Some snippets:
Regarding the Media coverage of this primary season it now seems clear that there is a new rule that objectivity and appearances thereof are out the window. Certainly at NBC this is true. From the far right commentators like Joe Scarborough to the liberal newscaster Keith Olbermann and Establishment columnists like Eugene Robinson and Margaret Carlson any pretense of not openly rooting against the Clintons has now been discarded. NBC's performance last night was unlike any other I have seen outside of Fox News. Olbermann, who likes to trash Fox, properly in my view, should pause for a moment and consider how much his broadcast last night resembled Fox.
[New Rule #]4. Obama's attacks are always fair and merited. Any suggestion otherwise is, at the least, vaguely racist.
Can we get these rules enforced in the Media in a General Election? Let's hope so if Obama is the nominee.
As for those of us who have been trying to push Obama to be more of an explicit partisan Dem well we can give that up now. He does not even have to give that concern a second thought. Obama can not be criticized period now. We must operate on faith now. I am putting to an end my own critiques of his political style as I have ended my push to have Congress end the Iraq Debacle. I know when I have been licked.
If Obama is the nominee, the Clintons will NOT be able to help him in the General Election. Not because they would not want to help or that Obama would want their help, but because the Media will not ALLOW them to help Obama.
But perhaps the Media can pick up the slack. Let's get these new Obama rules enforced for the General Election.
Harrogate embraces both the spirit and substance of BTD's remarks. And again, like BTD, Harrogate promises to hold his nose and get on board with Obama's political humpty dance should he win the nomination.
5 comments:
The arguments over at talk left seem pretty weak in light of reality. The claim is that if you don't see the world in my way, it is biased.
(1). Last week on Hardball Chris Matthews had on two Hillary supporters and no Obama representatives to discuss the race. In fact, since Nevada, Hardball has been all about Clinton. In the New Yorker, a piece set out to discuss the differences between a Clinton and Obama presidency, except it did not talk about the Obama administration and focused on Clinton's experiences in the Senate.
(2) Why would anyone expect the Clintons to take time out of their busy schedule to help the Democratic nominee (if it is not Clinton). They left both Gore and Kerry on the altar in 2000 and 2004, most likely because it would interfere with Hillary in 2008. They help only when convenient to them.
(3) "Obama's attacks are fair... an attack on these views is racist." This is absurd. There is a difference to make claims based on racism and invoke race into the primary when it is unwarranted, which the Clinton's have done,and to say that you cannot attack Obama's claims because they are racist. This is intellectually as shallow and as it is incorrect.
If you do not support Obama you are not helping the party by voting for him. I will not vote for Clinton if she is the nominee.
But to say the Clintons are receiving unfair treatment because of the media, which absolves the Clintons for the race baiting and their dishonesty in the campaign, rings hallow.
"If you do not support Obama you are not helping the party by voting for him. I will not vote for Clinton if she is the nominee."
Funny, I thought the ultimate goal of an election was to help the country not only the Democratic Party.
My reply would be that it helps neither the public nor the parties to elect those who would not be good for office. By siding with the party on the idea that well, this one may be bad but the other one is worse seems to allow for a series of very bad candidates.
BY rejecting the party's candidate, it may be possible to see the emergence of a third candidate.
By the way...what happened to you post on judicial nominees? I have been waiting for that...
While Nader exemplified many downfalls, at least he provided some alternatives.
Perhaps Nader voters in 2000 can be forgiven for their ignorant vote, seeing as how they might not have heeded the tangible warning signs that putting the GOP in power would lead to, not only vision of economics and criminal justice as diametrically opposed to Nader's as one can get, but innumerable DEAD PEOPLE as well.
But now, circa 2008, anybody votes third party because they didn't get exactly the Demo candidate they wanted, that's a pathetic vote. It is clear now the stakes are life and death.
One justification HArrogate could see. A third party voter could say, well, it won't be me or mine who gets killed: therefore I can afford to vote my conscience.
I think we do a disservice to the Republic, or what's left of it, when we no longer vote our conscience. To play the game of party politics to is avoid any sense of duty as a citizen.
As far as the stakes for the 2008 election, it is hard to say what this election will bring. You cannot argue that if vote Republican, people will die. War, and death, knows no party. In fact, if John McCain were elected, there may be a decrease in military adventures. Historically, when presidents have military service, then know the stakes and become less likely to send troops into harm's way. This is the difference between Eisenhower and Kennedy on the Bay of Pigs. And possibly the difference between George H.W. Bush and George W. Bush when it comes to Iraq.
Also, remember if Gore were president and if the attacks on 9/11 were to occur no matter who the president was (and I believe they would have), the response in Afghanistan would most likely have occurred. Whether or not Gore would have gone into Iraq cannot be answered, though there would have been military plans in place to do so, just as there would have been plans in place for other countries as well.
And remember, Clinton is not a Dove but a Hawk. Some would argue it is part of her ethos and it may be necessary to her ethos.
Post a Comment