Hillary wins the New Hampshire primary and this is what we get from Maureen Dowd one of the supposed liberal columnists at the New York Times. Really?!? Miss Dowd wonders whether Hill can cry her way into the White House. Classy. Wow, did you come up with that all by yourself or is this really just William “I am wrong about everything all the time” Kristol’s ghost writing? Aren’t you supposed to be on our side? I am no Hillary fan. In fact, I think the only way a Republican can win in 2008 is if the Dems are dumb enough to nominate her (which incidentally, we are…) because she and Bill are such polarizing figures. People who haven’t voted since the 50’s will be compelled to come out and vote. Not actually vote ‘for’ a candidate, but vote ‘against’ a Clinton. Talk about single issue voters! As for the victory in New Hampshire, isn’t it possible (and I’m not the first to pose this question) that perhaps some of Hillary’s votes came as a backlash against the exact treatment that Dowd gives her today? Maybe, Americans are sick of reading and hearing bullsh*t misogynistic, sexist rants or in the case of Obama, bullsh*t racist, ageist rants? Here is a simple suggestion to journalists and inside the beltway pundits everywhere: try actually reporting and opining on the substantive issues in this election aside from race and gender. Just a thought. Our country is in a historically precarious situation given both the domestic and international climate that we have created and all we get is the Entertainment Tonight version of the candidates. Seriously, when was the last time you read a column detailing John Edwards stance on poverty and the ideas he has to help alleviate the problem. Now compare that to the last time you heard a talking head make some snide reference to the $400 haircut. Case closed.
No comments:
Post a Comment