election non-surprise

[cellio]

I'm kind of sad that John Edwards dropped out of the Democratic race. He wasn't going to win (on first ballot at the convention), I don't think, but he has enough of a following that it seems like he could have influenced the front-runners had he stayed in. On the other hand, he was probably drawing more votes from Obama than from Hillary ("sleaze as usual"), so if it helps Obama win the nomination it won't be all bad. He hasn't made a formal endorsement, but this might count. Still, if the Dems don't slap Hillary down hard and soon, they risk blowing the election, either by nominating a slick divisive candidate or by doing too much dirty campaigning before rejecting her.

(I'm not for Obama, but I'm against Hillary. I really wish we didn't have institutionalized two-party rule in this country; it discourages innovation.)

Did anyone else catch the complaint from the NH chapter of NOW? (It was in the news yesterday or the day before.) They complained that Kennedy "betrayed women" by not endorsing Hillary. Earth to NOW: you are doing harm to your candidate if your entire platform is "she's a she". Not that I mind, but I'm just sayin'.

Comments

[zare-k.livejournal.com]

What annoys me is how (mainstream) media default to presenting third-party candidates as non-credible, spoilers, nuisances, etc. It's obvious that the Democrats and Republicans have a vested interest in continuing the two-party system, but why should the rest of us just hand it to them?

Re the NOW quote: the feminist movement will really have accomplished something when voters consider a female candidate entirely on the basis of her platform, record, and character, not on the basis of her gender. NOW's comment represents a step back, not a step forward.

[cellio]

Not only does the mainstream media dismiss third-party candidates, but they dismissed all the Dems except Hillary and Obama from the start. The Republicans took longer to produce front-runners, but even there my perception is that the media blew off several candidates. (They've certainly blown off Ron Paul.)

NOW: exactly right. It's why I am generally offended by "women's this" and "women's that", or voting by body parts like they advocate. People in previous generations worked hard to get women taken seriously, and now I'm supposed to favor something (a candidate, an event, a book, whatever) just because it's by or about women? That's every bit as sexist as the sexism they allegedly seek to defeat. And it's even worse when it's patronizing, which it often is.

I haven't really noticed the Obama camp playing the race card much, but you can't read a newspaper without seeing the Hillary camp playing the gender card. Yuck.

[zevabe.livejournal.com]

The media is into simple stories. One on one is a much simpler story than a 9 person free for all. And because the 9 candidates don't all have an equal chance of victory, attention is focused on those that have a higher chance of victory. And yes, it becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy.

Also, certain candidates who are running to affect only one issue are boring to interview, because they only talk about that one issue. My gf gets a magazine for medical students. It asked candidates their views on improving healthcare in the US. Tom Tancredo's answer was: kicking out illegal immigrants will free up health care money for Americans.

[siderea]

I haven't really noticed the Obama camp playing the race card much

1) Well, yes, he's a class act like that.
2) He wouldn't dare: he's biracial with his African parent (father) a recent immigrant, not a descendant of slaves. When he first came on the national scene, the first big controversy was among African-Americans as to whether he was really a brother -- whether he was Black enough -- to be embraced as one of their own. By playing the race card he only stands to lose by reopening that controversy.