Okay, I was wrong about the primaries …
About a year ago, I predicted that none of the frontrunners in the race for president would get their parties’ nominations.
I’m now officially wrong, on both sides of the fence.
My rationale was that both John McCain and Barack Obama had flaws that couldn’t be overcome. For McCain, it was his support of the war in Iraq. For Obama, race and inexperience.
I still feel the same. I can’t imagine America electing as president a man who thinks the war in Iraq was the right thing to do, and who plans on continuing it.
And I can’t imagine America electing a black man with little national experience as president.
But it appears that one will happen.
It’s not that I don’t admire both men. I’ve enjoyed watching John McCain’s political career since he first hit the national stage. He’s independent-minded, and he’s willing to be thoughtful and to listen to others before shaping his views. And for the most part he seems to be honest and straightforward - something I value, as do most Americans.
I don’t know as much about Barack Obama because he has very little track record. I like what he says, however, about national unity and the need to change how we do business in Washington. He’s a very personable speaker who is easy to like. And I think he’s closer to the right approach in Iraq.
Even though I was wrong in my prediction, I still think I was on the right track. In my view, this campaign is going to be about those same issues.
Which issue will American voters - particularly those middle class, often blue collar suburban white folks in the center of the political spectrum who generally swing elections - be able to stomach more: the status quo in Iraq, or electing a black man who looks and talks very differently than them.
Don’t get me wrong. I don’t think race should play a role. I wish we were past the point where people even noticed.
But I’m realistic enough to know that many Americans still are struggling with race issues. They don’t see Mr. Obama as a promising young lawyer from Chicago who quickly rose through the state legislature to win election to the U.S. Senate and who has made a splash on the national scene with his fresh ideas and dramatic public speaking ability. They see him as a black man with a radical minister and hazy ties in his youth to Muslims.
I was wrong with my predictions a year ago, so you know about my track record. But my prediction now is that the war and race will be the real issues in November.
June 4th, 2008 at 9:58 am
Psst…it’s B-A-R-A-C-K.
SS
June 4th, 2008 at 10:04 am
Thanks. I’ll fix it. Embarassing, huh.
June 6th, 2008 at 3:58 pm
I would appreciate it if the Monroe Evening News would report on the class and geographic issues present in this race.
I grew up in Monroe and then graduated from the University of Michigan in Ann Arbor. Both cities are traditional Democratic cities, but you couldn’t get Democrats who are more different. Ann Arbor is urban and liberal. Monroe has a rural/small town heart and is filled with moderate, centrist Dems.
And I think that those differences are as important in this race as, well, race.
So, I’d ask you not to get myopic on this one. Race is an easy explanation for people’s actions. But it might be too easy.
June 6th, 2008 at 4:04 pm
Excellent point, Mike.
You’re right, this campaign will be more complicated than two issues. The economy will play a huge role, too.
June 8th, 2008 at 5:50 pm
Dan!
I have a question for you.
The media has been criticized for not raising enough red flags in the run up to the Iraq War.
Basically, the idea is that there was enough information at the start of the war to know that it was a boneheaded course of action.
Do you think that the traditional media held too tightly to its code of objectivity in the face of something that was obviously wrong?
The later issue of torture is an example. It seems pretty clear to anyone right now that we have been torturing terror suspects for years. And it is also pretty clear that this torture is against both international and U.S. law.
At what point does the media take off its “objectivity” hat and put on it’s “This is clearly wrong, let’s call it” hat?
Is the role of the media to be objective to the end? Or is it the media’s role to speak the truth, damn the consequences?
June 9th, 2008 at 7:55 am
Mike:
Great question. I had planned to blog over the weekend about the possiblity of the U.S. invading Iran. But a power outage kept me off the computer and busy with other things.
I have some personal feelings of regret, shame, etc., about the lead-up to the invasion of Iraq. I think the national media failed in their responsibility in 2002 and 2003.
And although I’m not a member of the national media and couldn’t have done much to change the situation if I wanted to, I was in charge of a newspaper at the time and wrote occasional columns and editorials.
I had a voice, and I didn’t use it. Only a few thousand people in my community would have heard it, but that doesn’t matter. I didn’t do my small part.
So, stay tuned for a blog post today or tomorrow on the topic.
In more direct answer to your question, I believe the media should always keep a clear divide between its “objective” and “opinion” hats. And of the two, the hard news reporting role is much more important.
For the most part, the American people don’t need to be told what to believe. But they need the facts, and that requires challenging the government to prove its assertions, not just accepting them as truth and reporting them.
The national media parrotted as Mr. Bush and Mr. Cheney and Mr. Rumsfeld said over and over again that we should be afraid of Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction. In much smaller voices, on inside pages, they reported the inspectors and others saying it may not be true.
Now Mr. Bush and Ms. Rice are at it again, shouting from the rooftops that Iran is dangerous and we may have to invade the country to stop their nuclear program.
I don’t think the solution is to abandon objectivity. The solution is to be more aggressive in searching for the real facts and not taking what the president says as “truth,” just because he’s president.
June 9th, 2008 at 8:54 am
Wow Dan! I think you should run for president. I would vote for you. : )