Did I mention the guy also had to contend with the fact that his name is Huckabee?
Just to be aboveboard with this post, I'll point out that I'm leaning towards being an Obama guy. I actually like Edwards a lot, but I'm just not sure he's the guy. I also don't sport the blindly irrational Hillary hate many have but my other issues with her aside, the notion of Bush, Clinton, Clinton, Bush, Bush, Clinton just makes me cringe. It's a little (well, a lot) too aristocratic for my taste.
Conversely, there's really no one in the Republican field I could see myself voting for, though, credit where it's do, what Huckabee did in Iowa is impressive. He also gave a hell of a speech last night. And while there's not a chance in hell I'd vote for him, it's easy to see why he was so appealing to so many Iowan voters. Though, you have to question putting Chucky Norris right behind him during the speech. Is this guy supposed to be the conservative Oprah or something?
But I digress...
I ended up settling on MSNBC last night since it's the Keith Olberman network and he's the one TV "news" personality I cannot only stomach, but tend to like more often than not. They also had several segments done by Tom Brokaw, and it was good to see his mug on TV again. Of course, it also meant listening to Chris "Tweetie Bird" Matthews, Tim Russert and some other Cro-Magnon guy, whom I think was Stone Philips. (Also, who has the balls to call themselves "Stone?") Watching these guys do their usual shtick of not reporting on the story but willfully attempting to shape it is just a mind numbing exercise.
Matthews was particularly painful as he consistently tried to paint Clinton's third place finish as a rejection by 2/3 of Iowan voters, while calling Obama's victory the most significant moment in American politics since Sitting Bull became chief of the Dakota Sioux. Nevermind that technically Edwards was rejected by an equal number and Obama by more than 60%. And while Obama's win was historically significant, the biggest political story of our time it was not.
This, however, is what these pundits do now. They've got their "conclusions" all set ahead of time and once events play out they just pick the one they think makes them sound the most insightful. Edwards, whom most wealthy TV people cannot stand, is their angry inheritor of Dean's "I Have a Scream" legacy. (Anytime a politician sounds passionate about anything these chimps label them as too "angry.") Ron Paul is the batshit crazy lunatic who must not be named. Though, he may actually be crazy, Voldemort the guy is not. At least he understands the role of the Constitution of the United States. If Clinton wins its an as expected, because she's a pro, if she loses it's because women rejected her. Guys like Dodd, Biden and Richardson won't get the time of day, despite the fact that if voters really got to know anything real about them they'd find they were viable candidates.
They try to tell us what to think instead of giving us the information we need to actually think for ourselves. Sure, having partisan spinmeisters (ie - hacks) like Rachel Maddow (Air America) and Pat Buchanan can provide perspective, but guys like Russert and Matthews who are supposed to anchor these things just can't seem to help themselves. They're convinced that America needs to know what *they* think on every single issue, and they're going to hammer home their sacred insights every single chance they get like they're playing a scratched vinyl record.
Worse was watching one of the earlier Democratic debates on CNN. Surely, you know the one? It was hosted by Wolf Blitzer and ended with a Nevadan woman asking Clinton, "Diamonds or pearls?" Blitzer spent the entire night trying to get the candidates to answer a mere yes or no to highly complex questions like drivers licenses for illegal immigrants. Last I checked these events are called debates, Wolf. How much do you really learn about a candidate's position by having them answer serious questions with one word? Shouldn't we want to know why a candidate is for or against an issue? Isn't that the very definition of a debate?
Also, for the record, that diamonds or pearls woman had a legitimate question to ask, but CNN told her to ask that instead because it was a "cute" way to close out the debate. Funny, I didn't find it cute. I thought it was embarrassing to the questioner, the candidate and any American tuning in expecting to learn something of genuine importance about the candidates, not to mention to the network itself.
Somehow, the post debate coverage that night was actually worse. First you had the anchors and pundits going on and on about how well Hillary did. And yeah, she did do fine that night, but she hardly stood out from the other candidates in any meaningful way. But no, CNN brings former Clinton people like James "How Am I Still Relevant?" Carville on to tell us "objectively" how wonderful Hillary Clinton did. Yeah, that has the ring of authenticity to it.
Anyway, you'd think I'd have a point to all of this. Unfortunately, I really don't. Modern TV "journalism" pretty much sucks all around and I doubt that's news to anyone. But it's Friday, so I've gotta get worked up about something, right? With that said, I'll leave you with an interesting data point I found while ready Daily Kos this morning (it's actual source is the Group News Blog):
Total Voter Turnout (approximate): 356,000If you're a die-hard Republican voter, this coming from Iowa has to be more than a little scary.
Percentage of total vote:
24.5% Obama
20.5% Edwards
19.8% Clinton
11.4% Huckabee
