Letters to the Editor
-
Joan, if you were a state, you would be Missouri because....
Joan, to paraphrase a famous Kennedy named Maria, "If you were a state, you would be Missouri." Thank you for being the Show-me-State of the Punditry and telling it like it is.
I have to totally agree with your comments about MSNBC. Chris Matthews, Russert (that Scooter-Libby buddy that he is) and Obermann are practically foaming at the mouth in their Clinton (Bill and Hillary) hatred and so adoring of Obama that I have begun to think they are gay or have gay tendencies. (Just kidding...)
Whatever happened to a FREE and a FAIR press?
Anyway, I stopped watching MSNBC last night because I got tired of their obvious fulminating. Brokaw is the only classy and sane voice of reason in the bunch. I miss Cronkite and Brokaw and Rather. We have a bunch of third-raters doing our news these days.
I don't know Tom Brokaw's politics, can't even guess and don't care. He has the class to keep it to himself and tell it like it is -- fairly, objectively as the MEDIA used to be trained to do in Journalism school (I know, I went to J-school). That is what a commentator's job is to do. Brokaw needs to come back and overhaul NBC/MSNBC. It is a disaster. He towers over all of these guys that are out there now. Oberman -- mixed-metaphor pretender to the throne.
At least Wolf Blitzer on CNN tries to be fair, even if he's a little dullish at times. They let the numbers do the talking on CNN. Love the drill-downs by John King into the exit polls and the results. Hate the MSNBC fulminating punditry who spew their bias on the viewers. I'm getting way turned off.
I'm on the verge of giving up Hardball and Obermann-- even if you do appear on HB regularly -- because I'm sick to death of MSNBC's Fox News-like slant to the news and analysis -- and their misogyny is so obvious that it's sickening.
I think the real story in all of this is that it's an absolute miracle that Hillary clinton has gotten this far -- with the media bias so strongly stacked against her. While the media laps up the Obama spin like kittens to milk.
Thank you again, Joan, for giving me a little bit of hope that there are pockets of reason and fairness left in the media world. You and Brokaw are about the only ones out there anymore.
-
Saint Obama
This insane "adoration" of Obama and total demonization of the Clintons on the General Electric station will backfire, if not in the primaries, then in the general election if he wins. Mark my word. There's a meanness in the eyes of Obama that only a few people can see. It is apparent from his and his wife's statements that they don't want their supporters to support Hillary in the general elections if she wins. That is very mean spirited and anti-party unity. The way they and their friends have demonized the Clintons as evil racists, if I were Bill & Hill, I'd sit on my hands if he wins, and let his Reaganite friends and the media take care of him. That might be considered cutting off my nose to spite my face but I don't care. The media is scared witless of asking him any probing questions or criticizing the Obamas for fear of being labeled "racists." But that won't play in the months leading up to November if he's the nominee.
-
Good Start...
About those polls...
I think back to previous presidential campaigns when polls showed double digit leads for candidates. As I recall John Kerry had an apparent double digit lead in the general election until about two weeks before votes were cast. I don't remember Al Gore's poll numbers and have only some hazy memories of Bill Clinton's numbers. The general election I seem to recall where polls gave Democrats a real false sense of security was Reagan-Carter. We were all confident up until the early evening of election night that Carter would win, based on polls that I recall gave him high single digit to double digit leads.
There is also the issue of push-polling, which would tend to skew results "your" way.
Polls, as I have learned, are as distinct as the pollsters and as to how the questions are framed. And I am inherently suspicious of "network" polls, especially when -- as you pointed out, Joan -- MSNBC was planning a party last night to celebrate Hillary's demise.
The other point I want to make about Hillary Clinton's victory in California is in regards to blue-collar, working class Democrats. I spent a good number of years in the labor movement and know a couple of things about blue-collar union workers.
It may not be PC these days, but the Clintons know that base. They get out, go into their neighborhoods, show up at their union halls/churches/schools, and meet them eye-to-eye. That matters. My other point is an image criticism of Obama. Working class types don't appreciate having pols show up in their neighborhoods wearing white shirts with the sleeves rolled up, fancy (I didn't say expensive) suit jackets, and loosened ties around their necks. Why? They see this is paternalism -- it reminds them of their bosses, "slumming" to boot!
I'm just saying that there are other factors at work, in addition to polls, that are pretty significant in states like California.
-
What would King Solomon do?
Does anyone else feel exhausted over the push and pull of the past few weeks? Does anyone else worry that the nomination may become like King Solomon's fabled baby that someone and their supporters may have to concede for the better good (my guess would be that the person more likely to be pressured would be Obama).
Re race: I don't think a couple of nutty supporters should speak for all. I spent two years living in Asia and it strikes me that many cultures have a respect for age and experience that the US doesn't necessarily have, and for all the discussion of gender and race, no one has brought up the obvious age issue that may also be affecting women of many different races who face age (as well as gender) discrimination in the workplace. Clinton isn't a lot older than Obama, but the media always calling him "young" (he's not that young) or worse "fresh" and "energetic" does play into age discrimination that many cultures other than ours don't tolerate well.
Re MSN et al: I haven't been following this race on television, except snatches up CNN that play in the breakroom at work. I can't stand the political punditry. I might tune in to watch you some day Joan, but in general I'm not a t.v. watcher. That said, I have observed that both gender and age discrimination against Clinton (and truthfully against almost all women especially those who are above age eighteen and not supermodels) that has made me vow to--for the most part--keep away.
Yet I will say that I am one of those people who in general, after this campaign, will probably never feel sorry for either of the two Clintons again. Whatever sympathy I might have toward them when the race started has been used up by the obvious enjoyment they have of the back and forth with the media (only one obvious example being Bill in a feast of self-pity with his media fairy tale speech). I think they thrive on campaigning; the dirtier the better. As their vow to seat Michigan and Florida delegates regardless of party rules seems to indicate. And as for self-righteousness--I have not observed anyone in this campaign as self-righteous as Hillary Clinton after her LBJ remarks.
We'll see how things play out but after last night I'm not sure that I can see either side's supporters giving up without a fight that could hurt the party long-term as well as throwing this election.
What would King Solomon do?