Sen. Hillary Clinton, much to my and everyone in the world's surprise, pulled out a 3 point win in the New Hampshire primary when every poll proceeding Iowa had Clinton behind 8-15 points. Sen. Clinton deserves nothing but credit; she worked and her supporters worked their hearts out and in the end, that never-say-die attitude delivered Clinton a much needed win heading into the next stage of caucuses and primaries. And I must say, Sen. Clinton's victory speech was so telling of exactly why she won, saying, "Over the last week, I listened to you and in the process I found my own voice." Sen. Clinton did in fact find her own voice. She found a way to connect with voters in the last day or two before the primary in a way that she was never able to do before.
And now, I want to address the media, particularly people like Chris Matthews. Last Friday, after the Obama win in Iowa, the media became instantly obsessed with Barack Obama. They flirted over him and played him up as if there was no tomorrow. They instantly turned on Hillary and became unfairly harsh, bordering on cruel, to the Senator from New York. There was no logical explanation for it, except of course, that Obama won Iowa and thats all the American people needed to know. They didn't need to learn about Obama's record nor did the media think it was necessary for the American people to have any choice of their own in choosing the President. Pundits were clear in what they wanted----a coronation for Obama.
Last night, I was hopeful. I though to myself, maybe this will be good enough to make the media realize that there is an actual Presidential election going on here. I thought that maybe the media would see that the American people, not they alone, will choose our next President. I was also hopeful for a less biased look at Sen.Clinton and at all the great qualities---experience, strength, leadership, perseverance---that she brings to the table. Instead, what I awoke to was the media still giving an unfairly and unwarranted harsh look at the Clinton campaign in contrast to the soft, ultra-positive outlook they give to Obama.
What makes me even angrier is how the media is trying to spin this into an Obama win---somehow completely discrediting Sen. Clinton's hard work that she put in to New Hampshire. The most insulting explanation, came from people like Chris Matthews, Tucker Carlson, Eugene Robinson, Michael Eric Dyson, among others, who somehow attribute Clinton's win to racism. They claim that white people, at fear of sounding racist, told pollsters that they support Obama, even though they supported Clinton. This explanation is beyond ridiculous. The fact is that most recent polls had Obama in the 35-37% range. This is exactly where he scored on Tuesday. The difference is, of course, Clinton's votes, which saw an obvious spike. What explains this? The fact that anywhere from 10-15% of people in the conducted polls where undecided and about the same amount said that they supported a candidate, but could change their mind within the last few hours. So, memo to the media, give credit where it's due. Sen. Clinton worked tirelessly, taking hours and hours of questions from voters and truly opening herself up to voters. Racism was not at work here, like her or hate her, Hillary Clinton's victory must be attributed to the facts---that she herself and her hard-working supporters won over the many undecideds.
And, just to mention it, when Obama won Iowa, I didn't here anyone cry that Iowa was sexist. I didn't here anyone say that, "o, you know, Iowa never elects women to high offices." And rightfully so that they didn't say that. Obama won Iowa because he worked hard at it and had impeccable organization. So why the double standard? Simple, Obama is the media's baby, and they have a natural hate for the Clinton's. It's not fair, it's not right, but it is, for right now, reality. The only way the American people are going to get a more fair, balanced media is to give the media a reality check----the American people will vote how they want to vote----not how the media tells them they have to. So, to say that there was a racist undercurrent to Clinton's win, is not just insulting to the work of the Clinton campaign, but also to the integrity of New Hampshire voters.
And finally, the Obama campaign is also out making sad excuses. Their latest spin, laid out by Obama co-chair, Jesse Jackson Jr., has attributed Hillary's win to the tears she shed over a very emotional moment a few days ago. If attributing a win to tearing-up wasn't silly enough, not to mention insulting to the very serious New Hampshire primary voters, Jackson went on to question the authenticity of Hillary's tears. Again, like her or not, that moment where Clinton got teary-eyed was one of the realist moments ever seen on a campaign trail. Again, this spin from both the Obama camp and the media is getting out
of control. There is such a hate for Clinton that people are willing to say whatever they want to bring her down, and quite frankly, it's just plain wrong.
On a side note, I give huge credit to people like Pat Buchanan, Dan Abrams, Craig Crawford, and Rachael Maddow for saying, in essence, "enough is enough" and trying, at least, to give fair coverage and change the media narrative towards Sen. Clinton.
1 comment :
Obama has yet to articulate what he stands for or what he would do if elected President. His campaign speeches are about change but he does not define what change and how or what he would change. That was a tactic of George Bush in the 2000 election and is really what the republicans do. The media's dislike for Clinton stems from the fact that she knows how to handle herself and they can't put anything over on her. As for Chris Matthews, he sucks.
Post a Comment