New York Times Wants Clinton Out! What Do You Think?
The New York Times Wants Clinton Out! What Do You Think? – by Catherine Morgan (cross-posted at The Care2 Election Blog)
Here is a clip from an interview with Hillary Clinton on Morning Joe…
The New York Times is making it clear that they still want Hillary Clinton out of the race, regardless of her win in Pennsylvania — The Low Road to Victory. But who is really taking the “low road” here? Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton are behaving exactly the way every politician fighting for a presidential nomination behaves. It seems to me that this New York Times article is the true example of “the low road.”
Let me point out a few things.
I think many in the media (ie: The New York Times) are missing the real phenomena that is going on in this presidential primary season. It’s not Hillary. It’s not Barack. And it’s not the length of time it is taking to elect a Democratic nominee. It’s the voters. It’s the people. It’s the bloggers.
The media would like to put this election season in the same box they always have, with politics as usual. They don’t want to have primaries that actually count in every state. They want to be able to predict the outcome. And they want candidates to drop-out of the race when they say so. Well, sorry. It’s just not going to happen that way anymore. Because the real phenomena taking place here is – the voting public.
The PUBLIC. Remember them? Well, the public has decided they don’t want to be manipulated by propaganda in the media, they want to make political decisions based on the facts, and that is why many have turned to the blogosphere. It turns out that there are many political bloggers (or citizen journalists) that have more journalistic integrity than their main-stream counterparts, and the people see that. But the MSM (main stream media) continues to fail to realize the impact of the blogesphere on this election process. Big mistake.
Here is an example…
Very roughly speaking. According to this Harris poll, 46% of Americans read blogs. Not just any blogs but political blogs, specifically. So I took the US Population, multiplied it by 46% and got 139,632,428.
So…Stop blaming Hillary Clinton for giving the people what they want, by not being bullied out of the race. And stop trying to scare the voting public into thinking that if the Democrats don’t pick a nominee now, they can’t win in November. Maybe if all the states had been able to pick the nominee in 2004, Bush wouldn’t be president today. The people want change. And change IS happening. That change is beginning with the way we elect our nominee. And that is a good thing.
News Flash to the Media: Democrats are NOT STUPID.
I also have an observation about why this race has become so divisive. I don’t think it’s because of negative campaigning or even the length of this race.
Up until Obama made it clear that there was no chance he would support a dream ticket (both candidates on the general election ticket), supporters of both candidates began to feel desperate (me too). Up until that point, most Democrats would have been happy with either candidate as the nominee. And in that scenario, the process could have gone right up until the convention, and all Democrats would have still been united. That would have been a “real” change, and not politics as usual.
The way I see it is – If Barack Obama really wanted to be the candidate of positive change, he would have made an agreement with Clinton to campaign in all the states, and let the people decide who would be the presidential nominee and who would be the V.P. nominee. What a wonderful change that would have been. If any one thing could be linked to the current division in the Democratic party, the loss of hope for a “dream ticket” would be that thing. I think that even now, Democrats would be much happier to see the candidate they are supporting be the V.P. nominee, rather than totally out of the race. It seems questionable whether either one of these candidates alone, could actually win against the GOP in November.
So, that’s what I think. What do you think?
Comments
Comment from slim
Time: April 23, 2008, 5:10 pm
Boy I screwed up the punctuation in that 2nd to last paragraph. Here’s a more readable attempt:
I wish it was over already, and I will vote for Hillary if she’s the nominee. But right now, Obama has the votes any way you look at it, and she has to get 68% in the remaining 9 states to win it, something she’s not done in any state.
Comment from Catherine Morgan
Time: April 23, 2008, 5:29 pm
Hey Slim. I totally know what you are saying. And I agree that the Florida/Michigan thing was pure stupidity, and laid the foundation for a Democratic party meltdown.
However, on your other point. I’m not really debating whether or not Obama and Clinton “could” be P and VP — My main point on that issue is…When a “dream team” was still a possibility, the Democrats were united. And once it was announced that it was not a possibility, all hell broke loose. Also, who could either one of these candidates actually choose as a running mate, that would re-unite the party? It’s that last one that will determine whether the ticket is strong enough to beat McCain, and that worries me (regardless of who the nominee is).
My other main purpose for this post was…The media is trying way too hard to manipulate this election, and they need to STOP.
Thanks for commenting Slim. 
Comment from slim
Time: April 23, 2008, 6:16 pm
I also think the media is purely in it for their own gain – that long-term they may want Clinton over Obama (but McCain over both of them), but primarily they want Clinton & Obama to raise and spend as much money as humanly possible, because the spending will all be on THE MEDIA. If this is over, the gravy train stops until after the conventions.
I don’t think it’s any more complicated (or less crass) than that.
Comment from Catherine Morgan
Time: April 23, 2008, 6:32 pm
I agree the media is loving this.
And, that last ABC debate really made me feel like the media (or at least ABC) wants McCain to win. Nothing about that debate seemed to have anything to do with helping PA voters choose between Obama and Clinton. And that was a real shame, Pennsylvania deserved better than that.
Comment from Pamela Lyn
Time: April 23, 2008, 9:16 pm
Catherine I agree the ALL of the voters should get the chance to voice their opinion. Americans are tired of have people who view themselves as “DECIDERS” That includes the media.
Comment from slim
Time: April 23, 2008, 5:05 pm
Catherine,
Please take this with the great deal of respect that I have for you. To say, “If Barack Obama really wanted to be the candidate of positive change, he would have made an agreement with Clinton to campaign in all the states” tries to obscure the reality that an agreement was reached because of the DNC’s determination not to have any state ahead of New Hampshire/South Carolina/Iowa. It’s that agreement that should have been adhered to. Yes, Obama ads were played on cable in Florida – but not everyone has cable, and the ads were a block buy of southern states. And Yes, Hillary did hold private house parties in Florida though the agreement was that neither candidate would campaign in the state. Neither of them are completely pure on this. But both agreed that MI and FL would not be seated.
Frankly, I think this was a DNC screw up – how could you not see even a year out that this election was going to bring out an unprecedented number of voters, and that this was NOT the time to muddy the waters by excluding two of the major players? That lies at Howard Dean’s doorstep. But his 50-state strategy has also done wonders for the party.
As for the P/VP strategy, I have real issues with it because I don’t think the Bill & Hill show could let anyone else in. They are both superior political operators and, though Obama is a skilled politician too, no doubt, when you have 30+ years together there are things that can pass between you without needing to be said aloud. I frankly think a scenario in which Bill is First Gentleman and Obama is VP just doesn’t work – I can’t picture the Big Dog stepping aside for anyone, let alone a lowly VP (he barely had time for his own). And I see a VP Clinton huddling with Bill over in the Executive Office Building a là Cheney, maintaining her own shadow presidency and undermining the Oval Office. Nobody puts Hillary in a corner, so to speak; she won’t take 2nd place to anyone.
If Bill was not part of the picture, sure. But they are too much of a team to allow a third wheel along for the ride, and I don’t think Obama would put himself in that position.
I wish it was over already, and I will vote for Hillary if she’s the nominee, But right now Obama has the votes any way you look at it, and she has to get 68% in the remaining 9 states to win it, something she’s not done in any state.
How does she do that without waging all-out war to destroy Obama? And if she does that, how does she woo Obama’s supporters back in November?