The democratic front runners are becoming as painful to watch as the GOP gaggle. Adrastos has some nice post debate analysis, which I tend to agree with, as well as Mr. Cl10's stance that Ms. Clinton would say or do anything to get elected.
Edwards on the debate: "what I was trying to do was represent the grown-up wing of the Democratic Party last night."
I still believe that the reason most of the media is focusing on HRC and Obama is because the choice of either would be historic. Either a woman or a Black man is chosen as the representative of a major party for the first time ever.
Fuck history. Edwards has the best policies. Too bad his stance on the issues is ignored, since he is evidently racially or chromosomally challenged. Of course, then the dems would pick a white male, and that just doesn't scream "progressive" loud enough for the Kossites and other hacks, now does it?
Remember back when Bob Dole appeared on Letterman after his defeat? He sounded loose, unrehearsed, and appeared to be a likable human being. Like somebody people might have voted for had they seen that side of him during the campaign.
I can't picture HRC being like that. I'm finding it more and more difficult to picture Obama being like that.
John Edwards not only appears on Letterman and seems to be a likable human being, but he also lets Dave mess his hair up. Here's a transcript.
Sigh...
I saw the video of his Letterman gig this afternoon and this is almost the exact same post I was planning. You're dead on right, Ashley, and it totally sucks. I've been banging this drum for my last three or four posts (and have probably driven away both of my readers). I loved the "grown up wing of the party" remark. It's just a pity that he had to be born a white male.
Posted by: Sophmom | 23 January 2008 at 09:17 PM
i like edwards also but im trying to understand how the party is holding him back.
i get how the news ratings whores are and maybe thats the answer to my question.
it's a horse race unfortunatly one that is rigged by money.
would like to hear more on your thoughts on this before our primary here.
thanks.
Posted by: rickngentilly | 24 January 2008 at 12:31 AM
Rick, I know your question was directed at Ashley, but my 2 cents is that I don't think it's the party that's holding him back but rather the MSM's "ratings whores". Edwards just isn't the story that the H & B show is, and they've played it perfectly, from feigned tears to accusations of racism, with Pres. Bill chiming in to pump it up. I do not mean to disparage either Obama or the Clintons but the MSM anointed them "front runners" before Iowa and they get all the *free* press. It's always the case: those that don't need, get.
I honestly am perfectly fine with any of the three being the nominee, although I prefer Edwards' message and policies (especially the fact that he seems to think New Orleans is part of the U.S., which is novel). Mostly, I'm pissed at having a big business run media make the decision, rather than the, um, voters.
Posted by: Sophmom | 24 January 2008 at 08:19 AM
The members of the media are such an embarrassment, such a joke. They do this to LOTS of candidates, take 3-D human beings, interesting ones, and make them these cardboard cutouts. It's easier than doing actual research on their policies, I guess. So, instead, they endlessly report on Al Gore saying he invented the internet (that's not what he said), that Gore's a wooden public speaker (saw him twice and he was on fire both times), that Kerry was for the war funding bill before he was against it (never explaining that in the meantime, the Senate leadership added unrelated garbage to the bill), that we've been having a big debate this past month about "race" (we haven't)...sigh...There are some serious, smart people running for president. Now why can't we have some serious, smart journalists? Please?
Posted by: neworleanslady68 | 24 January 2008 at 08:56 AM
I remember a few years back Louisiana had a (an?) historic election. A woman and an Indian-American running for Governor.
Somehow, I don't think either one of them is going to be looked back upon as a great Governor.
Posted by: Howie Luvzus | 24 January 2008 at 08:58 AM
"Now why can't we have some serious, smart journalists? Please?"
Because the papers are now purely capitalistic institutions and the 55 year old polished political report that chases down leads is canned in favor of the hip 26 year old reporter who talks about Q-ratings.
And the TV journalists are worse...
Posted by: ashley | 24 January 2008 at 01:00 PM
"I still believe that the reason most of the media is focusing on HRC and Obama is because the choice of either would be historic. Either a woman or a Black man is chosen as the representative of a major party for the first time ever."
I said pretty much the same thing on Oyster's blog. A black man or a woman is "interesting" but a "white man" is nothing new.
And that point was driven home by Obama when he talked about having the "black man" the "female" and "John"... and he said "and John" as sort of a side note.
I also agree that Edwards is the best choice. Unfortunately, we don't always get the best choice. Any of them are a better choice than any of the Republicans though.
Posted by: Daniel Z. | 24 January 2008 at 02:50 PM
Actually, Obama was pretty funny, when he said "...and John". He gets it too, and I *do* think that the woman/black man historic thing is a factor, BUT, I also think that the fact that John is railing against the status quo, talking about shifting the balance away from large corporations and back towards the people MAKES THE MEDIA REALLY UNCOMFORTABLE, seein' as it's all owned by, um, large corporations. JMHO.
Posted by: Sophmom | 24 January 2008 at 04:32 PM
...and of course, when the biggest plank in your platform is the abolition of poverty...well, most big dollar contributors could not care less about poverty.
Daniel, I love that line: "a Black man, a woman...and John".
Posted by: ashley | 24 January 2008 at 04:35 PM