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 ([email protected]) is a
freshman majoring in computer engineering.