Never before in the history of American presidential politics has the mainstream media played so influential a role in determining which candidate would get the nomination of one of the major parties. And barring an unforeseen event of earth-shattering proportions, the beneficiary of that influence, Sen. Barack Obama of Illinois, will be the Democratic nominee and quite likely the next president of the United States.
And that's fine. Like his opponent, Sen. Hillary Clinton of New York, Obama has called for universal health care coverage for all Americans. And like Sen. Clinton, he has vowed to immediately begin to draw down troop levels in Iraq, with a view toward ending American involvement there sooner rather than later.
The likely Republican nominee, Sen. John McCain, comes across as a confused old man on this latter issue, saying he believes the American people wouldn't mind combat continuing for another 100 years so long as victory is achieved. He has thus far failed to come up with a definition of "victory."
And on the topic of health care, the Republican line remains that it's every man for himself. Going into the race, the differences between Clinton and Obama on any important issue were so minute as to make it hard to tell them apart. Why then has the media, led by Buffalo's own Tim Russert, injected itself into the race in a way that has painted Obama as some sort of savior, while Clinton has been characterized as a miserable shrew?
Why have supposedly liberal media figures like Russert, Chris Matthews, Michael Moore and Keith Olbermann aligned themselves with Bill O'Reilly, Sean Hannity and other loathsome rightwing commentators they generally oppose?
The answer may be found in American history. Black men were granted the right to vote under the Fifteenth Amendment, passed in 1870, while women of every color had to wait more than 50 years until they were granted the right under the Nineteenth Amendment in 1920.
A man is a man, after all, regardless of race. But a woman is, well, not a man, and that came through loud and clear in the media's portrayal of the Clinton-Obama race.
Clinton's wardrobe -- those pantsuits -- came under withering fire from all corners. After she made an appearance dressed in a top that allowed a millimeter or so of cleavage to be seen, it was discussed on the news shows for two days straight. Her laugh was annoying, they said, until she stopped laughing, and then that was a source of concern. She was "pimping" her own daughter or blamed for the fact that her husband cheated on her. And when was the last time in American politics you heard a candidate being criticized for being "pushy"?
She was accused repeatedly of using dirty campaign tactics, accusations that will seem quaint once Karl Rove's Republican attack machine kicks into full gear during the runup to the general election.
Certainly, Obama can't be any worse than the idiot we've endured for the past eight years and the gang of thugs who surround him. It would have been nice, however, had Russert and his ilk allowed Democrats to make up their minds for themselves.
| Niagara Falls Reporter | www.niagarafallsreporter.com | Feb. 26 2008 |