the clintons are so over


Here’s what the newspaper of record is saying today.

MANCHESTER, N.H. — Bill and Hillary Rodham Clinton have been in career-threatening scrapes before, but never quite like the one they face in the New Hampshire primary on Tuesday, when nothing less than their would-be dynasty will be on the line.

Nothing less? Hillary could be over that quick? Wow. I guess if the New York Times, not to mention so many other newspapers and network pundits, say so, it must be true. And just like that, too. Snap! This controversial liberal candidate’s (and couple’s) bid for the White House will have been upended by a run through some heartland states who would be among the least likely places to have given her a first place finish now or ever.

When the process of choosing a US president begins with a staggered calender of election-like events in sparsely populated non-representative and conservative states, under mysterious arcane processes that are barely understood by people who report on them (let alone the average American) and these election like events can and, in this case, DO, actually change the course or alter the choices by shaking up the order or weeding out candidates entirely, then that is one very unacceptable and really outrageous part of the process that has so often put bad bad candidates on the ballots in November and put bad bad presidents in the White House. With disastrous results.

But that the media gleefully participates by VALIDATING the effects of these early primaries and caucuses? That’s yet another broken part of the process. The New York Times shouldn’t be asserting that New Hampshire could destroy Hillary Clinton’s chances at the White House. That’s not meeting its Fourth Estate responsibilities. A responsible press would be saying some thing like this.

Early States go to Underdogs, Frontrunners
Await Super Tuesday

That’s the way it used to look, the way it used to be not-spinned. Anyone other than me remember?

In results that give little hint as to how the rest of the rest of the nation’s primaries may go, Barack Obama and Mike Huckabee are the respective choices of Democratic and Republican participants in the arcane and little understood Iowa caucuses.

That’s how these early results should be characterized in a responsible national press. Mathematically in their place within the context of the bigger picture. It’s a MUCH bigger picture, people. The wacky Mike Huckabee won Iowa with less votes than most large county election losers get.

I think some of you are misunderstanding me and this thread. I’m not the one saying the nominating process ends for Hillary Clinton with losses in Iowa and New Hampshire. CNN takes a self serving oh-that-it-were-so wish of John Edwards and turns it into something else. And now the bloody New York Times IS saying that the White House bid of Hillary Clinton WILL likely be over with a loss in New Hampshire falling on the heels of Iowa.

This is “nothing less” than a media misrepresenting the significance of some early minor results in sparsely populated small states to contribute to, for what reason I can’t even fathom, an unwarranted shake up in the field and, seems to me if I’m still able to read English, the casting aside completely of the person who was the national frontrunner prior to these two states’ events. Pointing out that winning in Iowa has often been meaningless is just adding to my point. It STILL should be considered as meaningless.


No Responses Yet to “the clintons are so over”

  1. Leave a Comment

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: