Today, immediately after the SC primary, on one of the nations biggest news sites, Propeller, we see an interesting illustration of the level of interest people really have in what the media has termed a huge day in politics.
The truth is somewhat lackluster. What has been acclaimed as a "gloves off" primary season, has been possibly the mildest in recent history, though clearly well-contested.
The photo/screenshot from Propeller only highlights the passion, or apathy. Do we really care the same about trends among future chefs as Obama's "runaway" win in SC?
The media would like you to think something amazing is going on, when frankly, all was predictable and quiet in SC.
Actually, there is no proven causal link between Bill's "attacks" and the results in SC. Yet the media has told us conclusively not only what has happened, but why. What do they know? Really!
For all we know, she could have done worse without an open discussion of Obama's failure to commit to a vote, for example (134 "present" votes) and Obama's lack of experience and potential naivete. And Bill's correct analysis of the fact that blacks in SC would likely vote for Obama, White Women for Hillary, and White males for Edwards, turned out to be dead on accurate.
If Bill says it, it's an attack. But if the media says the exact same thing, it's analysis?
It will be interesting to see what the real effect is. In the long term, I think Clinton's comments have been really mild and the media has exaggerated them because they have presumed that he is to sit back and defer to some unwritten decorum of ex-Presidents.This is a new day. There has never been an ex-President whose spouse ran for President. All bets are off. So are the gloves when it comes to campaigning. When he lies, let me know. Otherwise, attacking is what is done in campaigns and legitimately so, as long as they are true and the voter can determine if they are relevant, NOT the media.
I love it when people say "finally" or "decisively". This race is nowhere near over and Hillary has little damage from losing SC, which was a foregone conclusion since even Jesse Jackson won there, twice.
Frankly, if you look at clips of what the media pundits have said, there you will find the true "attacks". If you listen to what Republicans have said, and will say of any nominee, there you will find real "attacks". I have heard Hillary called the "B" word while people just laugh it off at a McCain speech. Meanwhile, Imus is fired for referring to black women basketball players as "nappy-headed hoes". That was news, but Hillary being compared to a female dog in heat or a prostitute is okay. Where was the indignation? By McCain? By the media? By the public?
Frankly, the media is race-bating and otherwise doing anything to fan flames where no fire really exists, while ignoring real fires. They no longer have to attribute their quotes; just simply saying, "some sources have said" or "he has been quoted as saying...".
I'd like to see who was quoting him as saying it. Usually, this technique is tantamount to gossip, not journalism. And from my experience as a journalist, more often than not, the reason they fail to attribute this gossip, is because they and their media-whore peers are the ones propagating the whisper campaigns, then waiting and watching for a fight.
I suspect Hillary and Obama may easily reconcile such mild differences. If the worst things she has said about him is to point out his representation of a slumlord, his voluminous "present votes", and that he has a strong black following and a reasonable white base, and that he may be a little inexperienced and possibly naive; well, I think I have made the point that this is a very diplomatic campaign compared to any I have seen in the past. And I am not going to let the media define the rules of the campaign. Who the f!@k are they anyway?