|
In the 2008 election, Obama was clearly the better candidate. Clearly. Any coverage of that campaign was going to be "biased" towards him. Just like any coverage of the Pittsburgh Steelers is going to look "biased" when compared to the Detroit Lions.
In the year 2000, we were in a lightweight period. The economy was coming off its best performance in decades, and we were at peace. So, the media convinced itself that the "election" of a lightweight candidate like George W. Bush would be okay. Turns out, Bush governed during a heavyweight time period. We had 9/11, two wars, Katrina, and an economy crashing to the brink of a second great depression. A lightweight like Bush was in over his head.
In the 2008 campaign, we had a choice between a brilliant, young, dynamic leader, and an old man who admitted he knew very little about the economy and enlisted the aid of Phil Gramm, one of the architects of our economic decline. Moreover, this old man chose a person who was more of a lightweight than George W. Bush as his VP. Any reasonable, intelligent person would conclude that Obama was the better candidate.
Now, in 2009, the media has to show it toughness on Obama and look "fair and balanced". So, they're going to beat him up a little on this Daschle thing. In the end, don't get upset. Let it go. Let them have their Daschle win. We still have the WH and the Congress.
|