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?!?!)