Countdown To Nevada
So I watched a large chunk of the MSNBC debates once Michigan was in the can for the Republicans and I have to say I am profoundly relieved to see some unity within the party. Granted most of the infighting came from staffers (mostly Hillary’s) it was nice to see a congenial atmosphere among the top 3.
Don’t even get me started on Kucinich’s banning, he serves a vital purpose in the race largely to help bring important issues and views to the debates, MSNBC and the Nevada Supreme Court kept him from doing that, quite wrongly in my opinion.
Anyways, it was nice to see the candidates agree on some topics and disagree politely on others. It was, if you will, the very embodiment of the spirit of Obama’s message: disagree without being disagreeable. Some might complain that it had no fireworks or came off as a mutual admiration society but I disagree, I think the positive atmosphere allowed for a return to important issues rather than silly issues over racial history.
Speaking of which, the whole thing started when first a staffer and then Hillary herself implied that LBJ did all of the heavy lifting for the civil rights movement. Last night Jon Stewart argued that she was simply positing a case for realism versus idealism but I think Jon likes to be a contrary and had people not made such an issue out of it, he likely would have. And it would have been funny. He, like me, probably just thinks too much was made out of it and was trying to provide a counterpoint which was noticeably absent from the media at the time. But let’s face facts; a race war would cause ratings and circulation to go up for all news outlets. What upsets me is how Obama and Clinton keep being ascribed the same actions, motivations, and integrity. Clinton started the race thing by implying JFK and MLK didn’t get the job done, all Obama said was that he thought the comments “ill-advised” and yet somehow the media played that as a counterattack in equal measure. Just because the media sorely wants that to be the case as it would help line their pockets it simply isn’t true, or at best is editorializing the story. By simply saying he thought the comments were ill-advised but refusing to comment further Obama was taking the high ground. Clinton had let herself open to attack and he chose not to fire at her exposed flank but the media and their misleading headlines were quick to make it appear as if he had done the exact opposite. And then the spin of constantly repeated talking points made it almost accepted at fact. So suddenly with Clinton and her staffers going on the offensive (both in terms of attacking Obama and offending people) with the odd Obama staffer rising to the bait it took Obama to make peace and bury the issue. And when that happened did he get credit? No, more often than not the media headlines listed Clinton’s name first, (i.e. Clinton, Obama make truce over racial issues) when in fact Obama made the gesture and it was accepted but the headline makes it look like it was all Hillary’s nobility as the driving force when in fact she was the one who started the slide into the mud pit in the first place!
I wish I had kept a running tally of CNN.com posting stories that gave Clinton a unfair favourable light and Obama a negative one, as well a tally of stories the body of which completely contradicted the headline.
And now the apologies and pledges of support are rolling in for Obama although Bill Clinton still seems to think he’s still in a schoolyard fight. He recently had to be physically pulled away from a reporter by a mayor when discussing the issue of holding votes in casinos so that workers could vote more easily on Saturday, always a busy day in Vegas.
Patrick Leahy, the Vermont senior senator in charge of vetting nominees to the federal bench including the Supreme Court, has recently pledged his support for Obama. He was succinct in expressing why as stated on CNN.com, “Leahy said he endorsed Obama because he believes he can bring reform to the nation’s health care system and schools, and end the Iraq war. ”Barack Obama gives us that hope,” he said, saying the Illinois senator “represents the America we once were, and want to be again. We need a president who can reintroduce America to the world, actually reintroduce America to ourselves. I believe Barack Obama is the best person to do that“.
Where Kerry had trouble finding, getting on, and staying on his message last election it seems everyone is on board with Obama. Even if they disagree, they still get it.
On the other side of the fence things are getting interesting. Romney took Michigan but as far as I’m concerned he bought it so that’s all I’m going to say about that. Moving on.
Perot’s back and he’s got a score to settle against McCain.
What?
Yea, you read that right. Ross Perot has come out of retirement and obscurity to attack John McCain. Is it his policy? His vision? His funding? What does Ross Perot have a problem with? That fact that he divorced his wife in 1980.
Let me tell you a story about John McCain. He was taken as a prisoner of war in Vietnam in 1967. The next year his father was named CINCPAC and the North-Vietnamese offered to release him in a show of goodwill intended to garner support from the international community. But there’s a policy with POWs, “first in, first out”. John McCain refused to be released unless they released every POW that had been captured before him. The next month they began to torture him. He wasn’t released until 1973, five and a half years after the offer was made. He endured five and half years of torture on a matter of principle and solidarity with his comrades in arms and Ross Perot dares to think he can attack this man politically because his first marriage didn’t work out? I would love to hear what he has to say about Giuliani.
Ross Perot is supporting Romney due to his “strong family unit”. Ross Perot believed all of the untrue rumours about Obama thinking he was a Muslim who didn’t respect the pledge of allegiance. It turns out Perot has a habit of believing every e-mail he reads. Although when asked about Obama he did say he admired his eloquence and was relieved to have the rumours dispelled – probably because he knows he’ll be the next president. Seems like even Perot who is getting everything else wrong of late knows which way the wind is blowing.
His opinion of Hillary? He has a bumper sticker that reads “Monica Lewinsky’s Ex-Boyfriend’s Wife for President” so I think we know where he stands on her campaign. About Bush he says that he’s a “decent person, but you can’t say the same thing about the people around him”.
Perhaps it would be best if Perot went back to the mists of history, out of touch as it were as he seems to be.
Lastly in the area of poll results things just became a bit more problematic as Arianna Huffington is calling for a petition against pollsters and has called upon visitors of her site to refuse to give their opinions to pollsters. Personally I think this a bad idea as it will simply make the issues of the participants have less of a voice.
Update: Despite my disagreement with The Huffington Post on their call to stop responding to pollsters (latest poll has Obama up 9 points over Hillary in Nevada by the way) I have to say they knocked it out of the park with this article, which I’m sure my partner will be very happy to see:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/ari-emanuel/the-curious-math-of-hilla_b_82028.html
It’s called The Curious Math of Hillary’s “35 Years of Experience” and while I considered just quoting it I came to realize I had nothing more or better to add to what they said and none of it deserved to be left out. I highly recommend you check it out.
