Me#1You#10
Site Admin
Joined: 06 May 2004
Posts: 6503
|
 Posted: Sat Jan 05, 2008 6:59 pm Post subject: "How the Media Hurt Mrs. Clinton" |
 |
|
A bit of Taranto snark at Kerry's expense. Enjoy...
| Quote: | How the Media Hurt Mrs. Clinton
We have long argued (most comprehensively in The American Spectator) that in the 2004 election, the liberal media helped George W. Bush by acting as an echo chamber for John Kerry*, particularly by uncritically repeating his claims to have been a war hero in Vietnam, which led him to become complacent, leaving him unprepared when men who served in Vietnam with him raised questions about his record.
It now looks as if Mrs. Clinton has fallen victim to the same sort of media-induced complacency. The notion that her nomination (if not her election) was inevitable was substantially a media creation, and one that must have given her great, though false, comfort. This Associated Press dispatch from last night shows a definite reluctance to concede how badly Mrs. Clinton lost:
Obama, 46 and a first-term senator from Illinois, scored his victory on a message of change in Washington. Nearly complete returns showed him gaining 37 percent support from Iowans. Former Sen. John Edwards of North Carolina appeared headed for second place, relegating Clinton, the former first lady, to a close third. . . .
[Mike] Huckabee's triumph was more robust than Obama's. He was winning 34 percent support, compared to 25 percent for Romney. Former Sen. Fred Thompson and Sen. John McCain battled for third place. . . .
The Democratic race was as close as the Republican contest was not.
That last sentence seems to be saying that the Democratic race was much closer than the Republican race. But was it? Here are the percentages, according to the Washington Post:
Democrats
Obama 38%
Edwards 30%
Clinton 29%
Richardson 2%
Biden 1%
Uncommitted 0%
Dodd 0%
Republicans
Huckabee 34%
Romney 25%
Thompson 13%
McCain 13%
Paul 10%
Hunter 0%
Tancredo 0% Obama finished eight points ahead of second-place Edwards; Huckabee, nine points ahead of second-place Romney: not a huge difference. The battle for second place was closer among the Democrats, but only because the battle for third place was closer among Republicans.
Obama beat Edwards almost as soundly as Huckabee beat Romney. Mrs. Clinton did worse than Romney--finishing third and nine points back. Does the AP's portrayal of Obama as a lesser winner than Huckabee reflect a reluctance to acknowledge that Mrs. Clinton was the night's biggest loser?
* Widely reported to have served in Vietnam.
Best of the Web Today |
However, I'd suggest that not only was Kerry "unprepared", he was "unpreparable". |
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
