Wednesday, January 09, 2008

NH Primary Reflection: Obamarama and then some

Who hasn't heard enough political analysis yet by this morning and wants to hear a little more from an amateur pundit? None of you? Great! I'll get started right away...

I'm behind on sharing the rest of my December/January events, and at this point posting pictures of Christmas lighting will be about as timely now as they will be in May, so I'm in the mood to write about something a little off my typical track. I spent quite a bit of time yesterday watching CNN on and off mute while I did some brainstorming for a work essay. After a while I found myself literally taking notes on things that struck me about the primary coverage. I totally ignored some of the speeches (Romney!) and talking heads, so this isn't exactly all-inclusive, but here are some thoughts:

  • Obama actually brought up something in his speech that gave me an appreciation for primaries: he said that in this time people do not come out to vote their party line, it's much more specific than that. During the primary people come out to vote for someone. It's not a matter of red, blue or otherwise, during a primary you need to pick the shade of the color of your choice.
  • John McCain is OLD, and he said it himself. This guy broke what I thought was a golden rule of political spinning: don't point out your own weaknesses, especially when they're valid. He started his acceptance speech by saying, "I'm past the age when I can claim the noun 'kid', no matter what adjective precedes it." And guess what sound bite I heard on NPR this morning? Yep, nobody has to point out that an old fogey is still trying to be president, he'll tell you himself. Nothing like the thought of death while in office to discourage voters from sticking by you.
  • Ron Paul is endearing if not cultish. I am impressed by this guy's base. They are an energetic, vocal crew of people who are willing to stand out there and fight for a guy who is bound to lose. I love it. In CA I see more signs for Paul than all the other candidates combined. He seemed so cute up there smiling and joking about how he didn't expect college kids to cheer when he talked about bringing down the Federal Reserve System. The crowd then began chanting "End the Fed!" Paul just grinned for a moment, basking in the enthusiasm. From his place in this race, he seems much more gracious to his supporters than impatient McCain did. When McCain said, "Thank you" over his cheering fans, his face read, "Shut up and let me talk!" I guess I've turned into a McCain hater, huh? Well Ron Paul makes McCain look like a grumpy old man, what can I say?
  • I only watched CNN last night because I was pretending to do "real work" throughout, so I can't make broad claims about the media coverage at this point, but I did notice some things that seem problematic. CNN's coverage was cautiously anticipatory and largely analytic to a fault. Wolf Blitzer said something like, "After very disappointing results today, Bill Richardson has returned to New Mexico to reevaluate the campaign." The emphasized 'very' and that little 're' before evaluate is a message that says if Richardson pulls out, CNN won't be shocked. It's not CNN's job to tell me that, it's Richardson's. The subtlety of language like this, along the not-so subtlety of the projections of candidate's performances on the trail really do influence the campaign too much. The "comeback" of Clinton between Iowa and NH feels like a media construction. Did she dip in popularity at all over the past month, or did media figures wanting to keep their jobs just start saying so for ratings sake?
  • I think I'm going to vote for Clinton next month. I've been voting for her as long as I could legally vote and as of today, I plan to stick with her. But, the attraction to Obama is undeniable. The man is S M O O O O T H. Obama is so polished and likable that he makes JFK look like Nixon, let alone anyone running right now. And is this a valid quality to elect someone on? I am getting the impression of the media continuously try to discourage voting on appearance and charm. They push to "Vote on the issues!" But look at the guy we've got in the office right now. He is mocked all across the globe, and more importantly, all across his own nation for being a clumsy, bumbling moron. His appearance hurts both our national image and our national pride. Sure, his stance on the issues matter first and foremost. Tony Blair taught me that you can't stay on top with looks alone. Ultimately, you have to lead in a way that your constituents want you to lead. Despite all the jabbering about 'electability', the media doesn't seem to admit it (even though they profit from image), a candidate's image matters. And with the nation suffering from Obamarama right now (including me), I am wishing that Hillary had a little of Bill's political suavity.

4 comments:

Magerious said...

Most of the nation I think, sees Obama as a Washington outsider that will not have any predilection towards the status quo. Change is a marketing word to drum up synergy with the populace.

The truth is that a president can only do so much, as it is Congress that writes law, constitutional and federal. Congress is the place where real change can happen, and the President is only the impetus for such movement. Veto rights aside, the President can only enact policy, not law.

Hillary is seen by TOO MANY, to be a controlling bitch. Her unlikablity with middle America is so strong that she may polarize the country in the Republican's favor, especially if McCain or Huckabee win their primary.

Anonymous said...

Mary, kudos to the crying game. And you think the republican machine is clever...

FYI, let me remind you that you have only voted for Hillary once since you've been able to legally vote, and that was senator for NYS. Her track record in NY speaks for itself...nothing. This state was only a stepping stone for the inevitable.

By the way, do you really want her in the white house, or is it just the novelty of a woman as the President? Think about that for a minute. Choosing her as a "woman" President would mean that this country has been run by the same two families for, what would then be, 24 years. I don't mean to sound "cliche'" (too bad), but isn't it actually time for change?

Get over the "woman" factor...a black man as the President would be an equally significant milestone in American politics as a woman President.

Anonymous said...

With the exception of maybe CSPAN, the media coverage of this election is a farce. These news organizations are run by large corporations, all of whom have lobbyists here in D.C., working for their interests.

I strongly believe the news coverage is manipulating the public into creating their own self-fulfilling prophecies: people won't vote for Hillary because she has ovaries, America isn't "ready" for an African-American president....really???

Well, if people hear that enough on the news and read it enough online, they just might start to believe it - and who would waste their vote on a candidate that no one would vote for?

Allison said...

Hey Mary!

Yeay! I can read your blog again! I like your observations and totally agree with your perceptions on how very smooth and endearing Obama is. I, like you, will probably end up voting Clinton too (I'm still obsessed with public health care).

Still, it will not be a sad day for me if Obama gets the ticket. I'm only afraid that Clinton will be so disliked by the Republicans that we might in fact get stuck with yet another Republican in the White House. The horror!