SUPER SLEEP DEPRIVED WEDNESDAY

JUSTIFICATION OF TITLE:

Stayed up way too late listening to the self important wonks on CNN analyze the election returns in between scripted reminders that they are "The best political team on TV." They are certainly "The most annoyingly self important political team on TV" and "The best branded team on TV" but, man, is Wolf Blitzer a tedious little turd. As a corrective to the hype and self-iimportance of their coverage, I kept switching over to the coverage on Channel 13 (PBS/WNET). But at 1 a.m.. their most welcomed absence of hype started to serve as a most unwelcomed soporific and so I had to go back to "The Most Hyped Political Team on TV." to keep awake.

PREDICTION ASSESSMENT OF THE DAY:

I guess my prediction that Obama would have a slight edge on Super Tuesday but that it would not be decisive turned out to be partially true. Or at least defensible. He won more states than Hillary although I believe he ended up with a few fewer delegates. I guess both candidates can claim victory. From an "electability" perspective, it did strike me that Obama's ability to carry states all over the country (the south, the midwest, the rocky mountain region and, thanks to Connecticut, New England) makes him somewhat more attractive as a candidate. Indeed, the states where Hillary won are by and large states that the Democrats always win anyhow regardless of who they're running.

A further bit of support for the claim that Obama had the slight edge last night is that he was at 40% likely to be the Democratic nominee on intrade.com 24 hours ago and he's at 50% right now.

OBSERVATION OF THE DAY:

Here was a revealing (if intentionally comedic) exchange with a friend from yesterday:.

-Did u vote?
-Yes. i voted for Obama
-Misogynist!
-Did u vote?
-Yes. For Hillary.
-Racist!

Given this reductive racial and gender perspective on the Democratic race, it seems like the ballot might as well have simple read: Select One:

-Misogynist
-Racist

While there are many voters for whom race and gender are truly secondary to issues an inspiration, let us allow this not entirely dismissible perspective to govern our interpretation of the following exit poll finding:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080205/ap_on_el_pr/campaign_exit_poll_glance

Feb. 5 exit poll highlights
By The Associated Press

Highlights from preliminary results of exit polling in the Super Tuesday primary states for The Associated Press and television networks:

RACE AND GENDER

In the Democratic races, Barack Obama led among black voters and Hillary Rodham Clinton led among Hispanic voters. (TRANSLATION: Black people like the idea of vorting for a black person but Hispanic voters don’t like the idea of voting for a black person.) Obama led among white men, while Clinton led among white women. (TRANSLATION: White men don’t like women). Overall, Obama led among men and Clinton led among women, although her advantage among women appeared smaller than was seen in early primary states. (TRANSLATION: Hell with the sisterhood! That Obama guy is good looking and charismatic!) In the Republican races, John McCain led among men. He had only a small lead over Romney among women. (TRANSLATION: Romney may be a shameless bullshitter, but he’s one handsome and rich shameless bullshitter! Mmm. Look at that bone structure. And that hair!! ).

MORE SERIOUS ANALYSIS:

I suspect that at the end of the day, the Obama-Hillary contest revolves less around race and gender than it does around the question of class. Hillary seems to have remarkable support among traditional blue collar union Democrats where Obama seems to be gathering most of the white votes from the upper income demographic. To win, he'll have to make inroads into the traditional blue collar Democrat base. And he'll also have to convince at least a hand full of hispanics/latinos to vote for him.

Maybe he should dance with the stars with Jennifer Lopez. Or record a duet with her.

MEDIA CRITIQUE:

I notice that the NYT phrased the headline "Clinton duels Obama, Takes California..." instead of the more neutral and objective "Clinton-Obama in close Nation-wide Duel" or even "Obama-Clinton Duel to a near draw..." Their chosen phrasing defines her as the protagonist and aggressor instead of merely one of the two competitors and reflects the paper's bias in her favor.

I also notice how the times decided to revert to the tactic of demoting the sports section to the back of the Metro Section--as it had done in the weeks and months after 9/11. I suppose with the proximity of Superbowl Sunday and Super Tuesday and the ever greater proliferation of sports metaphors in the analysis of this political contest, this was an attempt to restore the rhetorically blurred boundary between the two realms and re-establish the priority of citizen over fan.

IRONY OF THE DAY:

Never has a political race made more appeals to "unifying the country" and "getting away from the politics of divisiveness" and never has the electorate been more clearly divided along racial, gender. ethnic and class lines.

LFAQ of the DAY:

The Patriots were looking to Trademark (or is it copyright?) the "phrase": 19-0. Will the Giants now look to Trademark 18-1?

INDIGNITY OF THE DAY:

Have to run off now to a long deferred appointment wit my opthomologist who will no doubt utter the execrable words "cataract" and "bifocal" in relation to my person.

Tags:   None

© All rights reserved.

Posted on 2/6/2008 ( Permanent Link )
Read 548 Times
 Send to Friend