Well, that was unexpected. But maybe it shouldn't have been.
It's remarkable how often the conventional wisdom turns out to be incorrect. The Common Man has noticed, more often than not in recent years, if everyone believes one thing, it is a safe bet to go the other way. This is especially true today, in the wake of the New Hampshire primary yesterday.
Pundits everywhere had predicted Barak Obama would win the state in a walk, given his recent surge in the polls and the momentum he generated from his Iowa victory. Just yesterday on Bill O'Reilly's Radio Factor, the aforementioned host and his guest, former Presidential candidate and constant xenophobe Pat Buchanan, were united in their prediction that (roughly quoting Buchanan here) "Independents will determine this primary, and two-thirds of them will vote for Obama." They speculated that this would spell trouble for John McCain, who was counting on the independent vote to carry the state for the second time in the last three presidential seasons. Most of what The Common Man had read and heard over the past few days had expressed a similar sentiment, that Obama was unstoppable and McCain was in trouble. Given how many people were writing Clinton off for dead (especially because she *gasp* showed emotion), and were worried about McCain, The Common Man should have absolutely expected their triumphs yesterday.
That said, it's not like Clinton's victory could be called in any way decisive. Clinton's rousing 39 percent of the vote garnered her 9 delegates. Obama's 37 percent netted him, wait for it, 9 delegates. Given that the conventional wisdom today is that Clinton "won", it's fitting that both candidates walk away essentially tied. At least McCain can claim 3 more delegates than Romney, his closest challenger in New Hampshire.
Anyway, the big to-dos in Iowa and New Hampshire are over now, and we can get on to the rest of the country. Next up is Michigan, a swing state in the general election, which could actually tell us something about the electability of the field. Romney, following two defeats, looks poised to win (on what is essentially home turf for him) and Edwards needs a strong finish if he's going to stick around until the primaries swing south toward the end of the month. Of course, this sounds too much to The Common Man like conventional wisdom, so who knows?
In other news, The Common Man's Common Knee is going to need reconstructive surgery. In a phone conversation this morning, The Common Man's doctor informed him that has a fully torn ACL, possible cartilage damage, and a partially torn LCL. Not fun.
Showing posts with label Hillary. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Hillary. Show all posts
Wednesday, January 9, 2008
Tuesday, March 13, 2007
A Place of Their Own
One of the most interesting and useful developments that the internet has brought The Common Man in recent years is wikipedia, the on-line, community authored and regulated encyclopedia that is, apparently, just as reliable (and far more topical) than the vaunted Encyclopedia Britannnica. Now, wikipedia has its faults and no one should consider using it for, say, a graduate level research paper. But to do quick, dirty, and informal research, it's hard to imagine a more convenient source. Want to know more about the wackiness of Scientology and L. Ron Hubbard? Wikipedia's got you covered. Want to explore Kevin Federline's exploits as a professional wrestler? It's got that too. Burning to read more about Edward Said, Orientalism, and the West's romanticized portrayals of Asia and the Middle East? You're in luck. I mention all of this because wikipedia has a new competitor.
Now, the Common Man makes no secret of his own liberal bias. He does not wish to go into the intricasies of his beliefs here, but he feels the need to get this fact out of the way before he begins. For, you see, there are those in this world who would claim to be unbiased, to present their views before you as the literal, God's honest truth. In the spirit of these people, The Common Man presents The Conservapedia.
Claiming that Wikipedia was "6 times more liberal than the American public" (note: They base this claim on the rather spurious reasoning that "Polls show that about twice as many Americans identify themselves as 'conservative' compared with 'liberal', and that ratio has been increasing for two decades. But on Wikipedia, about three times as many editors identify themselves as 'liberal' compared with 'conservative'." Apparently somebody took 3rd grade math but skipped logic classes), the founders of Conservapedia have written off the Wiki as a lost cause and started their own site. And good for them. After all, they have every right to start their own site. But let's not pretend that theirs is some great storehouse of truth that is denied by the crazy liberals at Wikipedia, particularly as it "gives full credit to Christianity and America" and "concise, clean answers free of 'political correctness.'"
These concise and clean answers involve its entry on Fox News, which sarcasically notes that "The network has come under attacks from all sides of the political spectrum since its inception, largely for its uncritical and blatantly partisan support for the Bush administration and for the fact that it has consistantly failed to hand over Bill o'Reily to the Hague like all the other Fascists." Also, the site defends Ann Coulter as "a bestselling author of books that present conservative views in a direct and forceful manner" and is popular for for what many believe is her patriotic stances against liberals, her outspokenness against all those who wish to hurt America, and her strong defense of family values against abortion and same-sex marriage." It backs her up when she claims that her now infamous John Edwards comment "isn't offensive to gays. It has nothing to do with gays. It's a schoolyard taunt, meaning wuss," saying, "This explanation is consistent with the use of the term in American and British schools in the 20th century, and is supported by its etymology as a term applying to someone who does duties for others more senior. Edwards, whose public service consists of merely one term in the U.S. Senate, fits that meaning." Finally, the site reduces the career of Hillary Clinton, one of the most important and polarizing women of our era into health care failures, travelgate, Vince Foster, and running for President as a mom. Her legislative career? "No major legislation has been credited to Hillary Clinton."
Will Conservapedia make it in the long term? The Common Man doesn't know. He hopes not, but acknowledges that it's important for everyone to have a place to vent. After all, The Common Man has his blog in which a rather poorly written entry can get published about something that annoys him but may ultimately be of no consequence.
Now, the Common Man makes no secret of his own liberal bias. He does not wish to go into the intricasies of his beliefs here, but he feels the need to get this fact out of the way before he begins. For, you see, there are those in this world who would claim to be unbiased, to present their views before you as the literal, God's honest truth. In the spirit of these people, The Common Man presents The Conservapedia.
Claiming that Wikipedia was "6 times more liberal than the American public" (note: They base this claim on the rather spurious reasoning that "Polls show that about twice as many Americans identify themselves as 'conservative' compared with 'liberal', and that ratio has been increasing for two decades. But on Wikipedia, about three times as many editors identify themselves as 'liberal' compared with 'conservative'." Apparently somebody took 3rd grade math but skipped logic classes), the founders of Conservapedia have written off the Wiki as a lost cause and started their own site. And good for them. After all, they have every right to start their own site. But let's not pretend that theirs is some great storehouse of truth that is denied by the crazy liberals at Wikipedia, particularly as it "gives full credit to Christianity and America" and "concise, clean answers free of 'political correctness.'"
These concise and clean answers involve its entry on Fox News, which sarcasically notes that "The network has come under attacks from all sides of the political spectrum since its inception, largely for its uncritical and blatantly partisan support for the Bush administration and for the fact that it has consistantly failed to hand over Bill o'Reily to the Hague like all the other Fascists." Also, the site defends Ann Coulter as "a bestselling author of books that present conservative views in a direct and forceful manner" and is popular for for what many believe is her patriotic stances against liberals, her outspokenness against all those who wish to hurt America, and her strong defense of family values against abortion and same-sex marriage." It backs her up when she claims that her now infamous John Edwards comment "isn't offensive to gays. It has nothing to do with gays. It's a schoolyard taunt, meaning wuss," saying, "This explanation is consistent with the use of the term in American and British schools in the 20th century, and is supported by its etymology as a term applying to someone who does duties for others more senior. Edwards, whose public service consists of merely one term in the U.S. Senate, fits that meaning." Finally, the site reduces the career of Hillary Clinton, one of the most important and polarizing women of our era into health care failures, travelgate, Vince Foster, and running for President as a mom. Her legislative career? "No major legislation has been credited to Hillary Clinton."
Will Conservapedia make it in the long term? The Common Man doesn't know. He hopes not, but acknowledges that it's important for everyone to have a place to vent. After all, The Common Man has his blog in which a rather poorly written entry can get published about something that annoys him but may ultimately be of no consequence.
Tuesday, February 27, 2007
Fox Out of the Henhouse
A short post today from The Common Man, who is under the gun to produce a massive amount of work in a short amount of time (largely because he forgot he had a movie he had to watch by this evening):
The Onion's A.V. Club provides a daily ranking of the most popular online videos on the net. Sometimes these are amusing. Sometimes they suck (never underestimate the stupidity of 13 year olds with DSL). And sometimes they are just interesting. For instance, take this video about Fox's coverage of Barak Obama. Fox has worked itself into a frenzy as it has picked apart Obama's parentage (mixed-race, his dad was Muslim), his middle name (Hussein), his schooling (four years at a Indonesian day school that has been gleefully misrepresented as a madrasa), and his apparent smoking habit. Meanwhile, I don't think they've talked much about whether they can vote for a man who admits to cheating on his wife and who publicly ridiculed a man with Parkinson's Disease (though, in all honesty, he couldn't have known that the man had Parkinson's unless he let him actuall get a sentence out) on live radio (Giuliani). Anyway, as a result of Fox's irresponsible and malicious "journalism", the Obama campaign has "frozen out Fox News", refusing to grant access and interviews.
All of this has gotten The Common Man thinking about why Fox spends so much time on its attack journalism, and why they focus on who they focus on (I never hear a bad word from them about Chris Dodd, Joe Biden, Dennis Kucinich (who Sean Hannity describes as "a nice guy."), or Tom Vilsack. However, Hilary and Obama get raked over the coals on a regular basis (to the point where, three times an hour, Hannity bills his radio program as the "Stop Hillary Express"). And I've decided that it comes down to this issue of access.
Over the past 6 years, Fox has gotten access to the President and his administration that no other network has gotten. Interviews, behind-the-scenes pieces, etc. This has helped allow Fox to become a leader in cable news, despite its snearing, pandering, and sycophantic approach to the news. Fox has created a niche for itself, and it is a profitable one. It is likely that, with another Republican win in 2008, this unfettered access and preferential treatment will continue. Without it, the station could be in danger of being (at least partially) frozen out. Indeed, even if a Democratic President refused to play favorites, Fox's lucrative access would slip.
As such, The Common Man expects Fox to go out of its way between now and November of '08 to tarnish the reps of both Hillary and Obama (as if you couldn't figure that out), who they think are the only Dems who have a chance to unseat a Republican nominee. And it will not so much about political ideology as it will be about economics and maintaining a tenuous position in a competitive market. After all, exclusive interviews with former Speaker of the House Dennis Hastert just don't have the same marketability as hour-long exclusive interviews of Chris Wallace blowing Vice-President Cheney.
3 notes on this entry:
1) The Common Man is not, in any way, endorsing either Barak Obama or Hillary Clinton.
2) This does not mean, however, that CNN and CNBC do not do their share of crappy journalism. Thank God for NPR.
3) The Obama video does suffer from selective editing. Fox obviously had some of these talking heads on with someone "defending" Obama, and those parts have been conveniently removed to tell a better story. That said, c'mon, is Obama's middle name and smoking habit really news? Has he ever sued a tobacco company? No? OK, shut up then.
The Onion's A.V. Club provides a daily ranking of the most popular online videos on the net. Sometimes these are amusing. Sometimes they suck (never underestimate the stupidity of 13 year olds with DSL). And sometimes they are just interesting. For instance, take this video about Fox's coverage of Barak Obama. Fox has worked itself into a frenzy as it has picked apart Obama's parentage (mixed-race, his dad was Muslim), his middle name (Hussein), his schooling (four years at a Indonesian day school that has been gleefully misrepresented as a madrasa), and his apparent smoking habit. Meanwhile, I don't think they've talked much about whether they can vote for a man who admits to cheating on his wife and who publicly ridiculed a man with Parkinson's Disease (though, in all honesty, he couldn't have known that the man had Parkinson's unless he let him actuall get a sentence out) on live radio (Giuliani). Anyway, as a result of Fox's irresponsible and malicious "journalism", the Obama campaign has "frozen out Fox News", refusing to grant access and interviews.
All of this has gotten The Common Man thinking about why Fox spends so much time on its attack journalism, and why they focus on who they focus on (I never hear a bad word from them about Chris Dodd, Joe Biden, Dennis Kucinich (who Sean Hannity describes as "a nice guy."), or Tom Vilsack. However, Hilary and Obama get raked over the coals on a regular basis (to the point where, three times an hour, Hannity bills his radio program as the "Stop Hillary Express"). And I've decided that it comes down to this issue of access.
Over the past 6 years, Fox has gotten access to the President and his administration that no other network has gotten. Interviews, behind-the-scenes pieces, etc. This has helped allow Fox to become a leader in cable news, despite its snearing, pandering, and sycophantic approach to the news. Fox has created a niche for itself, and it is a profitable one. It is likely that, with another Republican win in 2008, this unfettered access and preferential treatment will continue. Without it, the station could be in danger of being (at least partially) frozen out. Indeed, even if a Democratic President refused to play favorites, Fox's lucrative access would slip.
As such, The Common Man expects Fox to go out of its way between now and November of '08 to tarnish the reps of both Hillary and Obama (as if you couldn't figure that out), who they think are the only Dems who have a chance to unseat a Republican nominee. And it will not so much about political ideology as it will be about economics and maintaining a tenuous position in a competitive market. After all, exclusive interviews with former Speaker of the House Dennis Hastert just don't have the same marketability as hour-long exclusive interviews of Chris Wallace blowing Vice-President Cheney.
3 notes on this entry:
1) The Common Man is not, in any way, endorsing either Barak Obama or Hillary Clinton.
2) This does not mean, however, that CNN and CNBC do not do their share of crappy journalism. Thank God for NPR.
3) The Obama video does suffer from selective editing. Fox obviously had some of these talking heads on with someone "defending" Obama, and those parts have been conveniently removed to tell a better story. That said, c'mon, is Obama's middle name and smoking habit really news? Has he ever sued a tobacco company? No? OK, shut up then.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
