Posts
I feel like this is the sort of superficial argument I would expect pundits to be making, so maybe they're making it, or maybe I'm more superficial than they are.
Does it seem like pure coincidence (or blatant revisionism) that Obama's campaign really took off when the issue of the day was Iraq? In the Clinton-Edwards-Obama competition, Obama had the best position on Iraq -- he was against it from the start. And lately, the issue of the day is the economy -- Iraq's still out there, but after the surge the press seems to cover it a lot less. Meanwhile, high oil price, high food prices, foreclosures and economic stimulus packages dominate the headlines. And Clinton's holding on.
I'm the best kind of pundit -- I haven't bothered to look at any polls, and I'm staunchly ignoring that electoral politics is probably all about local demographics. But still -- Clinton's got good name association with fixing the economy. I can see how she might appeal more to the voters that put that at the top of their priority list.
Maybe if Edwards were still in the race, he'd have the strongest rhetoric of the three on the economy and taking care of the little guy. But when he was running, Iraq was the big story, which he had neutralized as a deficit, but didn't have as an asset.
If the focus turns back to Iraq, I would expect Clinton's fortunes to wane faster.
I guess I'm saying this whole foreclosure/credit crisis/oil thing is a Vast Right-Wing Conspiracy plot to damage the Democrats by injecting some life into the Clinton campaign. Bush is political poison -- his support can't help McCain -- but the Democratic primary (and possibly, Democratic performance in the general election) is still affected by what the most talked about aspect of how awful Bush is.
Whether one should blame the media, or the neocons, or just random chance, is up to the viewer, although of course random chance is the most likely and therefore the least fun.
Does it seem like pure coincidence (or blatant revisionism) that Obama's campaign really took off when the issue of the day was Iraq? In the Clinton-Edwards-Obama competition, Obama had the best position on Iraq -- he was against it from the start. And lately, the issue of the day is the economy -- Iraq's still out there, but after the surge the press seems to cover it a lot less. Meanwhile, high oil price, high food prices, foreclosures and economic stimulus packages dominate the headlines. And Clinton's holding on.
I'm the best kind of pundit -- I haven't bothered to look at any polls, and I'm staunchly ignoring that electoral politics is probably all about local demographics. But still -- Clinton's got good name association with fixing the economy. I can see how she might appeal more to the voters that put that at the top of their priority list.
Maybe if Edwards were still in the race, he'd have the strongest rhetoric of the three on the economy and taking care of the little guy. But when he was running, Iraq was the big story, which he had neutralized as a deficit, but didn't have as an asset.
If the focus turns back to Iraq, I would expect Clinton's fortunes to wane faster.
I guess I'm saying this whole foreclosure/credit crisis/oil thing is a Vast Right-Wing Conspiracy plot to damage the Democrats by injecting some life into the Clinton campaign. Bush is political poison -- his support can't help McCain -- but the Democratic primary (and possibly, Democratic performance in the general election) is still affected by what the most talked about aspect of how awful Bush is.
Whether one should blame the media, or the neocons, or just random chance, is up to the viewer, although of course random chance is the most likely and therefore the least fun.
0 comments:
Post a Comment