Election babble is bordering on the absurd
With the race for the Democratic nomination heating up between Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama, the rhetoric between the two sides is escalating as well.
It seems that every other day new dirt about one or the other is unveiled, leading to the usual media hoopla and back-and-forths between the candidates. While many can argue that the race has taken a decided shift towards the ugly side of politics, I find myself more disappointed in the supporters for these candidates than in the candidates themselves.
Every morning I make my usual rounds to all of my favorite news sites, and one of my preferred sites to visit is CNN’s , where I can keep up to date with all of the mudslinging going on between Clinton, Obama and McCain. The most interesting parts of these blogs, however, are the outrageous comments coming from all sides of the political spectrum. It seems that when each new revelation of a candidate’s past is put forth, all at once support and accusations fly between these anonymous Internet users, many of whom consider themselves politically savvy.
The first thing these people must learn is that just because you have a computer and access to the Internet does not make your opinions any more relevant–they must be backed with reason and knowledge.
The only impressions that these comments give me are those of uneducated, zealous supporters that embrace any bad news about their opposition and blindly accuse any negative information about their preferred candidate as “bias”.
To fully understand the folly of these people, all you have to do is skim through the various comments and consider the history of the current race for the Democratic Party’s presidential candidate.
When Obama’s spiritual advisor, Rev. Jeremiah Wright, Jr., said that the 9/11 attacks were America’s “chickens coming home to roost,” Obama experienced a significant backlash and later made a speech on racism and removed Wright from his position on his staff.
Clinton supporters went ballistic and self-proclaimed political gurus commented on the articles relating to the controversy.
“Get real. He has lost his lead. It’s down to a 45/45 or a 46/46 or a 46/45 split within the margin of error,” one commenter said. “By the end of next week he’ll be in the upper 30’s.”
Well sir, as much as we appreciate your predictions, it seems that two weeks later Obama’s ratings have not taken a serious hit from the scandal.
While it is easy to see why Wright’s comments would offend so many people, the discussions on the CNN forums produced little more than childish insults being thrown back and forth, rather than a political argument with the slightest shred of substance.
A week or so after the Wright uproar, Clinton found herself in hot water over her description of landing in Bosnia on a peace mission in 1996.
“I remember landing under sniper fire… We just ran with our heads down to get into the vehicles,” Clinton said at a recent campaign rally. The truth? She had merely been warned of snipers in the area, and a video surfaced showing Clinton and her daughter casually landing in Bosnia.
Many Clinton supporters blamed CNN for biased coverage of the campaign.
“Why all the negative stories about Hillary on CNN and all you see about Obama is him laying out at the beach.. a little bias?” said one post, conveniently ignoring the furor over Obama’s minister’s comments just weeks before.
If a presidential hopeful lies, or “misspeaks”, as Clinton put it, about something as serious as landing under sniper fire, it is newsworthy material. She didn’t forget what kind of sandwich she ate last weekend, she falsely claimed she landed under enemy fire-something I see as falsification of credentials, not “misspeak.”
What each and every one of these people needs to realize is this: we are all spectators in the game of politics. When a politician makes the decision to run for president, they must be ready to be put under the most scrutiny they have ever experienced. To claim a bias one way or the other is simply foolish, because the only bias the media has is to swarm around any controversial story regarding any candidate. If it were Clinton with the controversial minister, or Obama lying about a peace mission of his own, the exact same coverage would be given. The only difference between the comments on these pages would merely be the names, as all political discussion on the Internet has devolved into regurgitating their candidate’s rhetoric and complaining about any negative coverage.
Perhaps the solution is to simply ban people from commenting on blogs published by news corporations such as CNN. After all, to present yourselves as a professional media outlet and at the same time have grade school arguments on every one of your articles is somewhat of a contradiction.
Contact Campus Press Staff Writer Stephen Oskay at Stephen.Oskay@colorado.edu
