Tag: change

———————–

(Alternate title: Ratings and Relevance – Why the Media Elite Need Hillary to Stay in the Race)

Like many of you, I am fascinated by our Elite Media’s collective reaction to the Obama surge. They appear to be tripping over themselves to minimize the importance of his victories this week. They are muddling the delegate count to make it appear like we have a neck-and-neck horse race, rather than an obvious clear leader today. Tim Russert has to stand on his head wearing those 3-D colored glasses in order not to sound like a complete idiot when he says ‘As I read the results, there is no clear picture in the race today, Chris’. Matthews, Andrea Mitchell, and the rest are all saying how uncertain things are, when in fact we have a darn good idea of what is happening.

So what’s going on here? Aren’t these the same people who couldn’t wait to trash Hillary Clinton from the moment she announced her candidacy? Weren’t these folks practically wetting themselves when it looked like she had a legitimate challenger in the Democratic primary? Yet now, you get the sense they are all cheering her on behind the scenes, although of course they can’t be so blatant as to say so on national TV.

What’s changed?

One of the key buzzwords of this Presidential race is change. The voices of change cumulated in a Democratic victory in 2006, and since then, the voices of change have only gotten louder and louder. Supposedly. And yet, when we look at the front-runners for the election, we see that the conventional candidates — Hillary Clinton and John McCain — are poised to take the nomination starting with Super Tuesday. A showing below 15% in South Carolina could doom John Edwards, while both Hillary and John McCain are leading by substantial margins in California. While the Republican primary is a lot messier than the Democratic primary, it seems that with his wins in South Carolina and Louisiana, Mike Huckabee’s home turf, it seems that McCain is an odds-on favorite to take over the Republican nomination.

This brings us to the question of change — do we really want change? The buzzword of this election has been change, yet we see the two establishment candidates, Hillary Clinton and John McCain, establishing themselves as frontrunners in the primary. It seems that people on both parties say that they want change, yet saying that they want change and actually having the courage to vote for change are two different things. It is a lot like a bad relationship — we say that we want to break up, yet when it comes time to actually do it, it is much more comfortable to stay in the relationship than it is to make a clean break and start over. We say that we don’t like where we are and want to move and make a fresh start; however, when it comes down to do it, we are more afraid of the unknown than we are of staying in a bad situation.  

Cross posted at KOS

How can we demand courage from our leader when we have so little?

How can we continue to support candidates who do not support us NOW?

How can we uphold the Constitution when we allow others to abrogate our most important responsibility, our vote?

How can we beg for change when we cannot face change?

How can we save the planet when we cannot save ourselves?

Follow me below the fold and I will give you my take on why who and what we are can be another recipe for a continuing disaster.