Obama & Clinton Hysteria: We Lose

It's been fascinating watching the debates and than seeing how the MSM and blogs respond and dissect the candidates. But the vicious personal attacks on Clinton have reached such an ugly, hysterical pitch since Iowa that any reasoned person needs to take a step back and evaluate the mob. The gleeful destruction of Clinton reminds me of a scene from "Lord of the Flies" where the young boys stuck on an uncivilized island mistake one of their own for a beast and tear, claw and stab him to death.

Before even one actual primary vote has been cast, the MSM (with the blogosphere in unusual lockstep) has created a hysterical windstorm around Obama by focusing on his ambiguous message of change and, to a lesser extent, unification. All of a sudden he's the fresh, shiny new media darling. The MSM is not merely reporting the facts, they are driving Obama's surge and catalyzing a self-fulfilling prophecy.

Granted, Obama is an inspiring figure with amazing motivational skills. And any movement of positivity and unification is welcome. If he is able to continue electrifying young voters, independents and others to participate in the political process, than everyone wins. Maybe Obama will ultimately be the best candidate who will usher in a new era of positive change and progress.

But the vetting process is not, and should not, be finished yet. Suddenly people are just realizing the differences between Obama and Clinton and we need to see more. Obama might very well be the real thing, so let's ask for more specifics. And let's hear what at least a few more of the 49 states of this nation have to say.

A complicated race for the most important job in the world has been instantly reduced to "inspirational change" versus "entrenched experience." But, it's so much more than that. We need additional time, more voices and greater debates to fully understand the choices before us.

Obama is right when he says that inspiring words are important and have power to catalyze action. But, as Clinton said, talking about change and instituting change are very different things. Combining inspirational leadership, positive change and practical results are key to truly bringing the country back together and putting us back on track.

Personally, I'd like to hear more about how the candidates would actually create positive changes in the political, economic, civil, environmental, cultural, social and international spheres. On that point, Edwards seems to present the clearest specifics such as how he would tackle corporate corruption and a direct exit plan for Iraq. Quite a few more questions need to be asked though.

Democrats might be making a huge mistake handing any candidate a victory this early. Do we really want to risk it all in the general election, rather than take a bit more time to sort things out during the nomination process?

I guess I'm just a bit suspicious of the Coliseum spectacle and mob mentality.

Comments

[nuana]

I was frustrated and depressed today. I guess I overestimated the population of NH. I thought they would blaze a new trail of hope....unifying at its best¦ahh¦..the despair.
I follow the elections very closely. It is gratifying and compelling in every nation"s social makeup. I come from the land of Gandhi and I have seen the worst and the best of men and women. I am seeing the same polity and polarization that once divided my country, India. It still does.
And now you are about to vote for a candidate whose husband Bill "moron" Clinton launched a hound like tirade against a candidate when they were losing and were going for a slew of attacks who showed the other cheek.
I was appalled. They were enacting the Bush "Cheney gravitas.
Then came the attack on the Fox channel interview by Clinton. Here she went off again saying that Martin Luther King Jr. and JFK were merely talkers and they just inspired(as if that is a trivial thing in itself) and she likened herself to Lyndon B Johnson and so she said she will act.
And then the slew of negative falsified emails . She is being Bush-lite.
America, in earnest ¦if you want a woman to be president-you should go for somebody like Golda Meir or Aung-San Soo Kyi of Burma¦.a uniter ¦not a divider¦and Hilary in all her power-hungry war-mongering glory is not any of that. I guess¦America gets what they deserve.
I hope against hope that America turns a page and overcomes its beleaguering prejudices¦HOPE---it"s a wonderful word¦embrace it and fulfill it.

[cynara]

"I guess I'm just a bit suspicious of the Coliseum spectacle and mob mentality."

Agreed. Mobs do not make informed decisions (though they demagogue immigrants and lynch quite well!) These primaries are starting to feel a little more than mobbish. (Remember our past objects of hysterical public affection - Jessica Simpson, crazy about Krispee Kreeme, and tickle-me-elmo? In retrospect, none of the above turned out to be so great. )

Not that Hillary or Obama would necessarily be poor presidents, in fact a think they'd both be decent (a million times better than our current disgrace), but declaring game over when two scarcly populated, completely non-representational states have voted, is crazy. I was getting a little tired of the debates, but at least then the media had to acknowledge there were other candidates and that they had valid qualifications and visions. Now, in the completely undemocratic newspaper-opinion-column-and-bias-coverage presidential selection method, we're apparently down to two, and Hillary's about to go down as well.

Is this a fair way to pick a president?

[sureofit]

Wow. I don't think I have ever seen a carcass picked so clean so quickly.
It doesn't bother me though. Clinton voted to send soldiers off to die just because she wanted to be president. She can say whatever she wants - and this goes for Edwards, too - but that was the only reason she voted as she did.
Well, Murphy's Law.
The vultures have come home to roost.
Good.

[ckdogs]

Hillary had her turn as media darling. She was on every talk show, and was anointed as the inevitable candidate. Give Obama some credit here. He's not rich or famous. He got to where he is with hard work, & a good message - and he did it without being unfairly negative. The press is giving him the star treatment because he won in Iowa, against great odds - as did Huckabee, who is also getting super coverage. Edwards has the greatest MSM beef - they barely mention his name, and he is a bold leader. I like all 3 front runners - and after careful thought, am supporting Obama. I know he will be a competent, creative, bold president. And he attracts independents and Republicans. What more can you ask?

[JimR]

You mean the media has not been doing its job all along? Shocker. What they should have been doing all along is comparing ALL of the candidates on the issues. But they like the horse race.

[BlackDots]

I don't see the recent positive press on Obama as an anointment so much as the press not wanting to be left behind. The press is always eager to jump on a bandwagon because no one wants the be the one who is wrong. Unfortunately that means they all get it wrong sometimes. The conventional wisdom constantly shifts and I wouldn't be surprised to see it swing back in Hillary's favor if she does well on Super Tuesday.

[jesusquintana]

There's only one problem with your Lord of the Flies parallel: the boys savaged one of their own. Clinton is not one of our own (and by "our own" I mean progressive, or even Democrat).

I'll also add my voice to the growing chorus - why aren't we all talking about Edwards more?

[SamanthaJaneSalem]

The media are equal opportunity airheads and so now that Obama appears to be the front-runner they will use this logic:

"OK, Obama is inspirational, people like him-- this is a true phenonomon we are seeing here.

"So to be 50/50 and fair and balanced about this let's make 'inspirational' equal 'no real plans' and let's see if we can catch him being a little too grumpy or boastful so he can seem less likable.

"Let's take the word 'change' and use it so much that people will be absolutely sick of it.

"And poor Hillary-- now that she's down, let's turn her into the underdog and give her a free pass or two. If her campaign brings up Obama's teenage drug use again or refers to him as a Muslim, well, she's got to fight her way back into this (show latest poll).

"As far as the Republicans-- business as usual. McCain-- straight-talker no matter what he says, a real stand-up guy. The others-- weird, mean, but we'll treat them with deference.

"Thanks Candy Crowley-- now back to you Anderson."

[hopeless277]

The corporate media in this country is a disgrace. They do nothing to inform. They do everything to amuse and shock. It truly makes me sick to my stomach to see the facism spread so quickly. Evidently it's really easy to get an ignorant populace to commit mass sucide. That is why the No Child Left Behind act is so dangerous. It not only keeps children ignorant but it actually promotes ignorance as knowledge. Just another feather in the cap of a president who will come to be known as 'The Man Who Destroyed America'. Bank on it.

[chuckd]

Ah-- I guess I was wrong and Edwards did get a mention... Still I think if you are concerned about the media taking down a candidate, your focus on Hillary is misplaced. She got more press out of a third place finish than Edwards got for overtaking her in the polls. If you ask me, there has been a concerted effort to shut Edwards out completely because he not only talks about change but he says what that means to him. A lot of people in power do not like what he is saying.

[chuckd]

And once again, Edwards (who was second in Iowa, by the way) is left out entirely...

[Nutcase]

The MSM has already decided who our savior is going to be. Why are you being so uncooperative? The corporations back the ones they expect to win and tow the line, then instruct the media that they also own to create an appealing story line. Simple. Neat. Easy. Dome.