Lesley Stedman Weidenbener has an article in the Louisville Courier Journal telling a tale of high voter registrations and tight primary races, particularly between Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton for President; and Jim Schellinger and Jill Long Thompson for Governor.
Maureen Groppe and Mary Beth Schneider have an article in the Indianapolis Star that cites “concerns” about the Obama campaign, particularly about his appeal to white voters, that passively avoids telling us who is concerned. Concern trolls like Chris Matthews or Sen. Bayh, perhaps? Certainly not Al Giardono and Charles Blow who have crunched some numbers on the issue of whether “white voters have soured on Obama.” Apparently Obama’s negatives among white voters are up about the same as his approval while Clinton’s approval among blacks is in free fall.
The need for narratives in the Obama-Clinton campaign is raising worries and concerns (see how easy that passive voice thing is). Can the press provide rational coverage of the campaign without succumbing to the need to superimpose a reality television story arc? There is a real need to engage in the logical fallacy of “post hoc ergo propter hoc.” It’s Latin for “after this, therefore caused by this.” So, for example, blue collar white voters voted for Clinton after the media’s self-imposed obsession over Obama’s former pastor; therefore, blue collar white voters voted for Clinton because of the media’s self-imposed obsession over Obama’s former pastor. When, in fact, these voters were always expected to vote for Obama. But, if you impose a cause and effect with the two, you can then justify continued coverage based on “ongoing concerns.” It’s now “news.” Abracadabra! (But, upon T’s recent suggestion, I demand to know: What is Obama’s mailman into?!?!)
It’s 9:16, more than a quarter into Meet the Press. Finally, at 9:15, Big Russ asked a question about a topic other than Jermimiah Wright, but now we are in to the flag pin, patriotism, etc. The media’s handling of this campaign is pathetic.
It’s easy for us political junkies (and I include the media) to forget that many voters are just starting to pay attention. (at 9:19, Russert goes with the “white people won’t vote for you” meme). If I were a low information voter trying to get up to speed, what would I have learned about Obama with one third of MTP gone?
John M…in r/e “If I were a low information voter trying to get up to speed, what would I have learned about Obama with one third of MTP gone?”
I would submit, if you were a low information voter (which are the majority of the electorate) you wouldn’t be watching MTP much less know what it is, or who Tim Russert is.
There was a question by Russert about the potential for Republicans swiftboating Obama in the general election. I was hoping for the “but Russert is an honorable man” gambit. Something like, “those guys can make up anything they want to question my patriotism, but I’d count on honorable journalists like yourself to point out that it’s a bunch of nonsense.”
A low information voter wouldn’t watch MTP every week, but I would guess that an episode of MTP broadcast live from Indiana, in a slot (at least in Indianapolis) normally occupied by local news, that is directly relevant to an election that takes place the day after tomorrow, will draw more than the usual viewers. People who don’t pay attention to politics 365 days a year are nevertheless paying attention right now.
This presidential race got into the Kentucky Derby act as well. Both Caroline Kennedy and Chelsea Clinton were in town for the Derby. Caroline Kennedy attended a rally with Michelle Obama and Hillary Clinton will be holding a rally tomorrow evening in New Albany. It’ll be interesting to see if the Indiana outcome has any bearing on the Kentucky primary coming up May 20. Clinton is heavily favored in Kentucky but Ben Chandler has endorsed Obama.
In the world many of us were raised in ,all educated people sound the same.Lapel pins,bowling scores, arrulga unawareness(did I spell it right?)shots and beer are all ways to judge a person’s character,especially a ‘smooth talker’, as Obama is .’Being nuanced’ to some is ‘being elitist and underhanded’ to others.
I don’t blame the questioners for asking these inane questions;they must be addressed,or people will think the worst anyway.
Obama has handled the character questions very well in my mind ( Rev Wright,Lapel pins),but theres’s also a deep cultural mistrust of a Black man who is fluent in his too perfect prose..it’s got to be a trick. He must be hiding something he wants ‘to pull’ on us, and he’s obviously not the person he’s trying to make us believe he is.. Besides, his middle name is Hussein,and nothing good could come of that.Probably he’s only pretending to be Christian.
We can pull our hair and be indignant,but that’s the way the segments of the culture can be.
Obama may very well be destroyed by his perfect prose and reluctance to flaunt his patriotism on his lapel. I was raised in this environment and my family in Illinois is still that way in their judgments,so I get the latest views very fast. Obama will do the best he can and he may, or may not, overcome his education and intellectualism,but everything he says and does is over scrutinized and he is forced to account for himself in ways that everyone else gets a pass on. That must be what we mean by ‘vested and ‘unvested’.Some people are vested by birthright;others have to run the gauntlet.
“What is Obama’s mailman into?!?!”
When I was a kid, we would blame it on the milkman. OK, boomers, all together now “What’s a milkman?”
I’m an x-er. Growing up in Richmond we still had milkmen until I was in grade school.
I would rather know what Obama’s barber is into? You know most gossip and politicing happens in barber shops.
I’m 31, and I remember having a milkman until I was around 10 years old. Even had a metal cooler type thing they would put it in, like a mailbox for milk! I miss that…