The NY Times has an article recapping how Obama defeated Clinton in the Democratic primary. The article is a prime example of the myopia that afflicts our political press. And it's not what's in the article, but what's missing.
Iraq.
In a story of over 4,000 words purporting to describe the campaign, the word Iraq does not appear once. For a fair number of Democrats, the Iraq War featured prominently in their decision to support Obama. More accurately, Clinton's support for the Iraq War* gave Obama an opening. It might not have been a deal breaker, but it certainly encouraged Democratic voters to look around (and there was a significant minority who never support her in a primary because of her stance on Iraq).
If Clinton had been strongly against the war, like the majority of her Senate and House colleagues, most Americans wouldn't even know who Obama is.
The mainstream press corps' inability to comprehend what Iraq meant to much of the Democratic base approaches a clinical psychological disease. Many Democrats remember the cruel and demogogic (not to mention, utterly ridiculous) rhetoric hurled at us for opposing this war--and we were right on every count.
It wouldn't be that hard to find a few of the 18,000,000 Obama supporters and ask them about Clinton's support of the war.
Of course, that would require committing journalism.
- Log in to post comments
Not only would it require committing journalism, it would involve surrendering expertise to mere fact. That article (which I admit, I could only stand to read half of), dripped with insider "insights" that only the elite (i.e., The New York Times) can have. Whereas the opinion of your average voter can be ascertained by any old hack. Or young hack. Whatever. If I had a bird, I'd get a subscription to line the cage with.
Exactly right. I can't think of a single story I've seen on this that has mentioned Iraq, but it was definitely prominent in many of our minds when casting our vote.
The reporters are only interested in treating elections like sporting games, with the voters being mindless pieces manipulated by the strategists. I guess they're not up to considering the reasons people have for voting as they did.
Oh, I'm quite sure they comprehend the role that Iraq played. It's just that, if they acknowledge that, they have to also acknowledge that they're completely, utterly out of touch with the American people on the subject of Iraq. And that is the one thing they can never do.
Another word that doesn't appear in the article, is "Iran." I know I'm not alone in being almost as concerned about Clinton's Iraq stances as I was about her endorsement of the Iran bill.
At this point, the MSM has been so fucking wrong about so many fucking things, over and over and over again. This means that every time they cover a story, their ass-covering contortions overwhelmingly dominate the actual fucking facts. They're a fucking disgrace.
@k - Amen. Me, too.
Now if we can get that into the actual race...
Iraq, Iran ... Face it. The NYT strongly supported invasion of the middle east. They wanted this war every bit as much as W did. Perhaps they still do.