Whose Campaign Is This Anyway?

FINDING A VOICE by Ann Davidow

 

Here we are in the midst of a presidential campaign and yet enormous chunks of cable news channel air time are being expended on Hillary Clinton and John Edwards - - two people who are no longer in the race.  At least Hillary still has an opportunity to screw things up for Barack Obama since many of her supporters seem to be trying to find a way to reinvigorate her candidacy at the convention in Colorado. Edwards has been out of contention for ages, and he meant it when he withdrew.

But his admission that he did in fact have an affair has news teams everywhere salivating and analyzing his psyche to a degree reminiscent of the extraordinary attention lavished on President Clinton over his sexual transgressions. No doubt we'll be treated to a rehash of the little-blue-dress syndrome as reporters scurry around collecting prurient tidbits to keep everyone ‘informed' about the sex lives of politicians. Amateur psychologists have already suggested comparisons between the two men, and much is being made about Edwards publicly denying that he had had an affair.

Several aspects of this "breaking news" are worth exploring. First, it shouldn't come as a major revelation that men lie about their sexual experiences. In some cases, they lie to appear more active than they really are, mostly to pals in bars and locker rooms. Often they lie to keep illicit trysts a secret from wives, lovers and the public at large. I'm sorry, but is this surprising? When was the last time a husband, politician or just your average Joe, bought air time or took out an ad in the personals column of his local newspaper to announce he'd been unfaithful to his wife and wanted the world to know?

The point is, if ever there were a subject more likely to be lied about than sex, it's hard to say what it might be - - disregarding, of course, those masters of deceit currently operating out of the White House. But you know what; it is quite possible that President Bush and Vice President Cheney have always been faithful to their wives with nary a hint of having fathered a love child beyond the blanket, as such things were once rather charmingly described. Their fidelity in that regard, however, doesn't necessarily make them good or honest men in other ways, as we have had the misfortune to discover.

In the first blush of news coverage about Edwards, there have been endless discussions about what his affair means - - for Democrats, for a cynical electorate, for the election itself. MSNBC's Mike Barnacle asked if the public might be so turned off they wouldn't trust any politician ever again. Goodness, gracious, is it possible voters believed everything candidates were saying before Edwards' cataclysmic revelation? Is it fair to suggest, as other pundits have, that he is a hypocrite and his positions on poverty and health care are no longer valid? Is that even correct usage of the word hypocrite? There are plenty of congressional examples of hypocrisy that have nothing to do with sex, but TV panelists often draw parallels where none exist.

With respect to the Clinton angle, anxious questions are posed about what Bill might say at the convention. Could Obama cut him off at the pass, as it were, by asking him to put his name into nomination? Will the former president ever be more enthusiastic when asked about his support for the presumptive nominee? Is he still steamed; is he still a loose cannon; will the Edwards thing create anxiety about his ability to stay out of trouble with ‘the ladies'?

And then there's Hillary, with a group of what sounded like chattering magpies. Forgive the misogynistic tilt, but, as a woman, I guess I can get away with it. Really, that nonsense about how the Greeks worked through their angst by means of a catharsis - - Saying that her people just want to be heard and release their pent-up emotions means she accepts their plan to demonstrate in the streets and nominate her from the floor of the convention. Imagine what people would be saying if she were the presumptive nominee and Obama supporters pulled stunts like that. Everyone got heard during the primaries. Isn't it time to forgo the ego trip, show a little class and support the candidate who won?

I plan to avoid all TV News Shows until the Edwards story has run its course. As for Hillary's fans, maybe instead of a catharsis, a good cathartic would be in order.

Please respond to Ann Davidow's commentary by leaving comments below and sharing them with the BuzzFlash community.

FINDING A VOICE by Ann Davidow

Technorati Tags:

"Good cathartic", Ann?

Just read your post .................

..........................looks like you've already had yours.

Lets Just Call the CORPORATE CONTROLED MEDIA.

Lets just call the CORPORATE CONTROLRRD MEDIA what it is, WHIFLE SNIFERs that is some one that likes to SMELL womens PANTIES to see if thay have had SEX, and now it is MENS SHORTS. So lets send them PANTIES and SHORTS so they can smell. I mean CNN was wall to wall with the PANTIE and SHORTS SMELLERS like WOLFE boy and all of the WOMENS SHORTS smellers, Glen Beck is a good SHORTS and PANTIE smeller which does he like best. And all of FOX NEWS were on a high smelling Shorts and Panties. Scharborough was on a high SMELLING, maby he still caries a pare of Panties from Lorie Klausutis.

Democratic Nominees/Democratic Convention

Facts are better than assumptions, so when partisanship clouds the mind, it is well to consult the history books. Even after the introduction of the McGovern Rules, multiple names have been placed in nomination at the quadrennial Democratic National Convention. Having Hillary's name entered this year would be in that tradition. 1. 1972: Names in nomination: Shirley Chisholm and George McGovern 2. 1975: Names in nomination: Jimmy Carter and Mo Udall (et.al.) 3. 1980: Names in nomination: Ted Kennedy and Jimmy Carter. 3. 1984: Names in nomination: Walter Mondale, Gary Hart, and Jesse Jackson (et. al.) 4. 1988: Names in nomination: Michael Dukakis and Jesse Jackson (et.al.) 5. 1992: Names in nomination: Bill Clinton and Jerry Brown (et.al.)

This just shows how special the Republicans really are

Bill Clinton has an affair - "NOT FIT FOR OFFICE!" John Edwards has an affair - "HIS POLITICAL CAREER IS OVER!"

Mark Foley chased after boys and the Republican leadership covered it up for years. David Vitter was caught up in dealing with prostitutes and received a standing ovation when he returned to the Senate. Larry Craig was caught with his pants down in a mens room and he's still a senator. Newt Gingrich served divorce papers on his hospitalized wife so that he could marry his secretary. They made him Speaker of the House. He then divorced her so he could marry a campaign aide. John McCain dumped his faithful wife after having an affair with Cindy Hensley and is now the Republican nominee for president. That's just a few of the recent sexual shenanigans of the "family values" party. I don't have enough space or time to go into the sins of their religious supporters.

The "liberal" media has really shown how liberal it is. If a Democrat is caught, they're unfit for office or public service. If a Republican is caught, we should forgive, forget and move on.

Sorry

Many CD bloggers have been saying Democrats = Republicans and vice versa. Obama = McCain and vice versa. Democrats and Republicans, except for a very small minority, all unfit for office. The presidential "election" is like a high school basketball game where the cheerleaders support their team no matter what, the mascots cleverly clowning and manipulating the crowd to a cheering frenzy: "Obama!". "Obama!" Or "McCain!" Sports writers casting their spin and building up egos. Time to dump the juvenile addiction to the two party system which is in fact, a one party system. As for candidates sexual lives. Who shives a git?!

Edwards story, opportunity for Dems re McCain's marital history

Will the Dems soon take the golden opportunity to talk about McCain's personal past -
how he abandoned wife #1, who waited for him for years while he was a POW, had the
misfortune to be seriously injured and disabled in a car accident while McCain was
away? The "war hero" started an affair with Cindy and then married her. Oh, did we also
mention that Cindy was VERY rich, as well as younger and not injured.

No reason to let those bygones be bygones.

Colleen Clark
Cambridge, MA

The Hillary Party

I was really surprised how vocal and angry the Hillary people are, based on comments they have written at Politico.com they seem bent on demoralizing Obama. They either think that Hillary still has a chance or they want Obama to lose the Election and Hillary could crank things back up in 2 years. One thing they do not take into consideration...with Hillary supporters alone she will never get elected, she could not even win another primary. The things that they are saying about Obama will never win over the minority vote or the college educated vote. The Hillaries are burning bridges every day. The Hillary Party thinks they can win on their own, they would rather self destruct the Democratic Party than to accept their defeat in the primaries and move on. Hillary's people are in a no win situation so now they want to bring down the house. They are history, they are not going to vote for Obama so why continue listening to their demands? I don't get... How can someone support Hillary and not give any consideration that We the People could end up with a Supreme Court with more John Roberts and Samuel Alito totally shameless.

The Democratic Party ...

"One thing they do not take into consideration...with Hillary supporters alone she will never get elected, she could not even win another primary."

What kind of of twisted logic is this? She got more votes than any other Dem primary candidate in history ....... arguably even more than Obama. If Obama loses the GE, you don't think she could win a primary in 2012? I'm not arguing in favor of Obama losing, but to say she "could not" win a primary is ridiculous.

"They are history"? Really? Odd ........... I wonder why Obama has offered them both prime speaking appearances at the convention if they are "history"? Maybe Obama (unlike some of his CDS supporters) knows that, being up only a few points in a year in which Mickey Mouse should be up by double digits over the Repubs, he needs all the help he can get.

Oh ..... and she couldn't get elected because she "will never win over the minority vote or college educated vote"? (BTW - She won a large portion of the "minority" vote and the college grad vote, just not the AA vote. FYI, "minority" voters are not synonymous with AA voters.) You're suggesting that college educated and "minority" voters would never vote for her if she was the Dem nominee in the future. And yet, at the same time, you complain that (a minority) of her voters would, by foolishly failing to vote for Obama, create a Supreme Court with more John Roberts and Samuel Alitos.

Do you understand the concept of irony?

Nader?

are you kidding me Mike5000? nader? wow. but comparing obama to a neocon? jeez. as far as i know the obama campaign has played by the rules. unlike nader's campaign, it's been able to WIN by them. what are these rules you speak of, do they prevent a campaign from running on a platform you dont agree with?

Yes, Nader. Or McKinney.

One of the presumptive nominees wants to to increase military spending beyond even Dubya's insane levels. He's so in the pocket of health-care CEOs that he wants to take our existing awful corporate health-care system and make it compulsory. He has promised to continue the Iraq War for at least four more years, and to ramp up the endless Afghan War. And he has voted to overturn the Constitution so that corporations cannot be held accountable for spying on Americans. This should come as no surprise, as he raises far more money from the CEO class than the other presumptive nominee.

And the other presumptive nominee is sadly senile.

Yes, Obama is a neocon. He's as bad as Nancy Pelosi - promising everything to progressives but delivering everything to war profiteers.

It's really hard to believe that anyone with the brains to read Buzzflash is going to vote for either wing of the corporate war party - the few differences between McSame and O'Same are designed solely to trap unwary voters into voting corporate.

It's Ralph or Cynthia, or maybe even Ron Paul. Either that, or four more years of war and death and job losses and crippling debt.

Good Column, Ann

Just thought somebody should say, rather than beating their own agenda's drums, is all.... :) Maybe someone should set up open blogs for trolls - so we can just ignore them and they'll stay away.

Spoiler

Interesting. If Democrats see Nader as a spoiler then why isn't Obama a spoiler to the Hillary Clinton effort to be the first woman USA president? None of them are a spoiler, of course. As for "Whose campaign is this anyway?", it is the campaign of the ruling Corporate Party with two heads. Run Ralph. Run!

Spoiler?

Obama can only be "a spoiler to the Hillary Clinton effort to be the first woman USA president" if one believes that's a legitimate reason for someone to become President. No thinking person does. But loads of Mrs. Clinton's supporters, inexplicably, do. Someday, we will have a President who happens to be a woman. Hopefully, we will never have a woman President.

In my mind

I think it is time for the first DOG President of the USA. She could also be a female. She would be loyal and faithful, and have nothing but the best intentions for our country. She would not care about making gazillions of dollars for her own selfish purposes. She could sniff out the terrorists. She would not piss on the flag, or shit on our constitution (if they were on the table). She'd rather walk than drive, so we wouldn't need the Middle East's oil. She would not kill or cause the deaths of innocent people. We could once again be a well respected nation throughout the world. McDog for President (next time).

Yes

Indeed. And perhaps some day we will have a president who happens to be democratic instead of a Democratic president.

Yes

We have in the past. But I don't know how many here were alive.

Why not play by the rules, Ann?

Everyone got heard during the primaries. Isn't it time to forgo the ego trip, show a little class and support the candidate who won?

Nobody has won - not Billary, not O'Same, and not McSame. A couple of them are presumptive nominees, that's all.

Flopama and McFlop are evil pro-war pro-corporate neocons who need to be stopped if the rules permit. And they do.

Instead of trying to decide the democratic nomination before it has happened, why don't you get out and explain to your neighbors the importance of voting for Ralph or Cynthia if they want to avoid four more years?

Ralph Nader loves John McCain

In 2004, Nader asked McCain to help his campaign -- and the senator rushed to his side. Is the consumer advocate now returning the favor? Sorry Nader people you were duped. McCain has Nader in his back pocket. http://www.salon.com/opinion/conason/2008/02/29/mccain_nader/index.html

Sure we are

Sure we are. We are all duped because you say so. If I were Nader I would ask anyone for aid and support. You see, Democrats want Nader to return contributions from Republicans, but not them. Has Obama or Hillary ever returned a contribution from a Republican? Would they ever? So please, spare us the criticism of Nader taking Republican money until your Obama does the same. Nader people are not duped, far from it. Voting for the same old same old is. And by the way, saying that Ralph Nader loves John McCain is swiftboating Nader. Nice. Proving once again that there is little difference between Republicans and Democrats.

Nader, McCains's hit man

I take it you didn't read the Salon article?

Your mis-take

I've read the Salon article. It's written by the guy best known for reporting Linda Trip's accusations. It's full of innuendo and irrelevances. In fact, it's the usual corporate party line - vote Dim (or Repug) or the Repugs (or Dims) will win and the sky will fall.

Surely no Buzzflash readers give any credence to such FUD.

Who says Hillary cna't put her name in nomination?

Partisanship makes for poor reporting. Since the introduction of the McGovern Rules, every single Demcoratic convention has seen the nomination of multiple candidates even when one candidate was far ahead in primary delegates. 1972: Names in nomination: Shirley Chisholm and George McGovern 1975: Names in nomination: Jimmy Carter and Mo Udall (et. al.) 1980: Names in nomination: Ted Kennedy and Jimmy Carter (et.al.) 1984: Names in nomination: Walter Mondale, Gary Hart, and Jesse Jackson )et.al.) 1988: Names in nomination: Michael Dukakis and Jesse Jackson (et.al) 1992: Names in nomination: Bill Clinton and Jerry Brown (et.al.)