OPINION & EDITORIAL
Misguided attacks sure to sink Dems
Looking for a print version?
Simply choose ‘Print’ on your computer and a printer-friendly document will be generated.
Also by Ammar Al Marzouqi:
- Registration program slow, inadequate (April 2, 2008)
- Spitzer must be held accountable (March 12, 2008)
- Captive journalist exemplifies Gitmo's humanitarian woes (February 27, 2008)
- Teachers, unions need detention time (January 30, 2008)
- Americans doped-up on unnecessary perscriptions (December 11, 2007)
Related Stories:
- Primary responsibility (January 21, 2008)
- Dems' worst-case scenario beyond media comprehension (April 1, 2008)
- Media reactions irrational (September 13, 2001)
- A critical mass (January 27, 2004)
- As general election approaches, Obama faces uphill battle (February 28, 2008)
by Ammar Al Marzouqi
Wednesday, April 16, 2008
One week from the Pennsylvania Democratic primary, the Democratic nomination is far from sealed, and the competition just seems to be getting uglier. The attacks have shifted from policy issues to personal jibes and now even to trivial comments made during insignificant speeches. With every election cycle, the coverage moves slowly but surely from important policy-related issues to character attacks and insignificant revelations.
While we’re at it, let’s add one more pointless attack to the list.
Last week, Sen. Barack Obama was speaking at a fundraiser in San Francisco when he made the now-infamous “bitter” remarks, and as expected, Sen. Hillary Clinton’s campaign jumped on those comments. Ms. Clinton said she was “blown back” by the comments and considered them “elitist.” Yet with all the fuss that erupted because of the remarks, I can’t help but feel some disdain at the way the media handled the coverage of this issue and how Ms. Clinton chose to use these remarks to attack Mr. Obama.
First of all, this whole fiasco is a clear example of how the media has no problem with taking a candidate’s comments out of context in order to create a story out of nothing. Mr. Obama was talking about how working-class voters in the Midwest were growing tired of politicians who gave promise after promise, and once they get elected, forget all their promises and deliver nothing. He said this has led them to grow bitter and to hold on to religion, guns and anti-immigrant sentiment for consolation.
I really can’t find anything wrong with that rationale, since it only serves to expose a painful truth. I don’t think anyone can deny that voters are frustrated with the system and with politicians. Also, it is no secret that people tend to ignore the nuances of the reasons behind those failures, instead holding on to certain ideologies or looking for scapegoats like immigrants. Hence, I don’t understand how Ms. Clinton could disagree with this statement, since the core of her campaign is that she’s the one who can deliver results.
What really sickens me is how those in the media are so willing to completely omit the first part of the statement and take the second part out of context — just to stir controversy and get higher ratings. Save for a select few, most cable news and commentary shows only showed the latter half of the statement and used headlines that suggested what he said was meant as an insult.
It seems that since the media was accused of being too easy on Mr. Obama, they have been working extra hard to prove this accusation wrong. It is true that there should be a balance in both positive and negative coverage of all candidates, but the way the media has gone about proving they are fair is simply childish. From Michelle Obama’s remarks to the Rev. Jeremiah Wright’s remarks to the accusations of him being a closet-Muslim, it seems that since they can’t attack him on any of his stated positions, they want to expose the “real” Barack Obama for the American public.
This situation is reminiscent of the Swift Boat ads of the 2004 campaign, yet this time the propaganda doesn’t cost a dime. And the media are not the only ones guilty of taking Mr. Obama’s statements out of context; Ms. Clinton wasted no time responding to these comments and accusing Mr. Obama of being an “elitist” and “out of touch” with the American public.
It hardly seems rational that the man who was raised by a single mother and started off as a community organizer can be accused of being an “elitist” by a person who made more than $100 million with her ex-president husband since leaving the White House.
What is most disappointing about Ms. Clinton’s response is that she is contradicting herself. Or have we forgotten her outrage about the flyers the Obama campaign sent out noting that she supported NAFTA during its inception, and how she suggested Mr. Obama should be ashamed of himself for misrepresenting her position. But then she goes out and does the exact same thing less than a month later. Tisk, tisk.
Some might say that this type of competition serves to prepare a candidate for the general election, but they’d be intentionally ignoring that this type of bickering will give Republican Sen. John McCain more ammo for the general election. There is nothing wrong with the candidates debating the issues, as this gives them a chance to fine-tune their strategies and viewpoints. Yet when the debate turns into mutual character assassination, this serves only to weaken the appeal of the Democratic candidate and give more strength and credence to the other side.
Both Sens. Obama and Clinton should stop attacking each other’s tangential statements and start debating the issues so they can solidify their bases and attract more voters.
If the attacks continue at the same pace, the Dems just might “Swift Boat” themselves to a defeat.
Ammar Al Marzouqi (aalmarzouqi@wisc.edu) is a
freshman majoring in computer engineering.
Anonymous (April 16, 2008 @ 6:59am):
I think irony will be sure to make an appearance in November when lower middle class voters predictably pick McCain over Obama because, "Obama wants to take away guns and supports a woman's right to choose."
Someday, the "bitter small town" Americans will realize how poor they really are, and they'll realize that they're the ones who need the entitlement programs, public schools, and universal health care.
Anonymous (April 16, 2008 @ 12:49pm):
You do realize he stereotyped a whole community. According to you though that's not wrong and makes sense.
Anonymous (April 16, 2008 @ 12:52pm):
If he were to have said "people in the inner city are bitter because they cling to their gangs and drugs", would that be considered offensive? If it is, how is that any different?
Anonymous (April 16, 2008 @ 1:02pm):
Im not sure that you are correct
Anonymous (April 16, 2008 @ 5:48pm):
I think it's a well-established fact that religiosity and social conservatism are inversely proportional to standard of living. That pointing this out is grounds for criticism is a rather sad state of affairs.
Anonymous (April 16, 2008 @ 6:02pm):
According to Obama, anyone who believes in God that is from a town with under 50,000 people is just "clinging" to their belief. They don't actually believe in god, Dr. Obama knows better than they do why they believe...they've just been deceived by deterministic economic forces into believing. Thanks for being such an elitist prick Mr. Obama!
Anonymous (April 16, 2008 @ 6:03pm):
After CLINGATE Obama is looking like he's in trouble.
Anonymous (April 16, 2008 @ 8:09pm):
In the meanwhile, John McCain can't tell the difference between Iran and Iraq, or Sunnis and Shiites. And he doesn't know that eliminating the federal gas tax CAN'T save Americans 20% on gas because it actually makes up only about 7% of the total cost. And the media gives him a pass.
Anonymous (April 16, 2008 @ 11:26pm):
yea the media are in mccain's corner.
that's it.
Anonymous (April 18, 2008 @ 3:20pm):
In response to anonymous @5:48
"I think it's a well-established fact that religiosity and social conservatism are inversely proportional to standard of living."
What if a politician said that African American people are poor and commit crimes? That seems to have the same "well-established" correlation as this standard of living -> social conservatism/religiosity correlation. Clearly that would be an improper statement.
Statistical correlation is not reason enough to generalize groups of people. If it were, racial profiling would be acceptable.
In addition, it was not merely a mistatement either. It shows his disconnect with this population. There are no free passes in an election; even one sentence can ruin a candidate. Too bad for Obama.
Anonymous (April 18, 2008 @ 3:28pm):
From the article:
"It is true that there should be a balance in both positive and negative coverage of all candidates."
This statement is not true at all. The media should report all events/stories from the election. If one candidade has more negative events, then the news should report these negative events.
The media would be horribly dishonest if it never published a negative story about a candidate because the candidate already had too much bad press.
Add a comment
We welcome your thoughts, but please keep your feedback thoughtful, on-topic and respectful. Offensive language, personal attacks, or irrelevant comments may be deleted.
Login...
Not registered? Sign up now.
It's quick, free, and the email address you provide will not be sold or solicited.
