The election is over
You may not have noticed, but judging from the news coverage the presidential race is over.
I know, you thought there was going to be an election of some sort in 2008. And, barring some reason to cancel it trumped up by Dick Cheney, there will be. But as someone who reads the way the mainstream media is covering this, I’m not sure why we’re going to go through all that. Because apparently Hillary Clinton has already won. She’s pulled ahead in the Iowa poll, and that has put an end to it all. And the other day, Newsweak’s Howard Fineman started picking her running mate, three months before the first primary and a full 11 months before the general election.
Hillary has won not only the primary, but also the general election. That’s because the GOP can’t find a good candidate, the bubble speak goes, because the leading candidate (Giuliani) can’t win.
All of this is disgusting.
It’s disgusting to believe what they would have you believe: that a handful of people in Iowa are truly going to select the next president. If I were in Iowa, at this point I would seek out the candidate furthest from the top of the polls and do everything I could to get that person a higher perch — just to knock the conventional wisdom and give some more time to the process. Front-runner Mike Gravel, anyone? God knows I’ve enjoyed his videos.
More than that, it’s disgusting to watch what has happened to political coverage in the past 30 years. Note to the media: It isn’t a horse race, and it isn’t The World Series of Poker, which ESPN is allowed to cover in this way. It’s about the next four to eight years of this country — and a lot of other countries. It’s about things like effective response to terrorism, and balancing a budget, and protecting resources, and leaving a better world than you found.
Why is it being covered like a horse race? Because announcers need sporting events to make their living.
I’m not especially predisposed against Hillary Clinton, although I don’t think she has a depth of qualification for this position. (The current inhabit did, to some degree, as governor of a large state — and look how that turned out.) But I don’t think the 2008 election is settled, no matter what seemingly every single bit of news would have me think. And I think it’s a more serious matter than their coverage reflects.
October 9th, 2007 at 7:27 pm
I don’t blame the news organizations completely for the rush to name the winner before the elections happen. I think that the political parties are at fault also.
Both major parties have shifted their primaries to early in the year. This forces the news organizations to move their coverage and speculation about who will win to an earlier time. I am not saying this is a good thing, as has been mentioned on several political blogs I have read the packing of the primaries in the early months of 2008 gives minor candidates less chance of making a splash, forces candidates to raise more money, and makes potential voters tune out the political process due to boredom and a general disgust of constantly being subjected to political messages.
Paul