Looking At The Posts - Do Issues Matter?

[Median Democrat]

I watch the political coverage on the news, and I read this board with its numerous threads on scandal, and I wonder whether issues really matter? For example, Clinton and Obama supporters gleefully debate swings in polls that are tied to gaffes during the election that are not relevant to any national issues. Likewise, so much attention is drawn to the race and gender of each of the candiates.

The sad thing is that these side issues do appear to be driving the election. 3 a.m. phone calls. Charges of elitism. Obsession with the non-college educated white demographic. Have we as a nation regressed to the point where can no longer think for ourselves, and where our decisions regarding our President is based entirely on superficial factors?

Specifically, I remember a poll that was done during the 2004 election where various folks were asked whether they agree with a series of policy positions. Most people agreed with the positions taken by John Kerry, rather than Bush. However, these same people would often state that they were going to vote for Bush over Kerry despite the fact that their view on the issues mirrored those of Kerry.

Consider the ABC debate, which focused on Sniper fire and Wright, and Fox News, which has been the Reverand Wright marathon. My take is that the mainstream media has hijacked the ability of the American people to think. Even this board is dominated by posts that focus on "electability," rather than the issues facing most Americans.

Is it a conspiracy? Well, its not an accident. Even Hillary, who is accused by Obama supporters as being cynical and manipulative, is herself being used as a mouthpiece by Fox and the GOP to trash the Democratic frontrunner. Of course, if Hillary Clinton were to surge in the polls, then ABC and Fox would then focus on the issues surrounding her.

Personally, I am a free agent when it comes to this election. I want the candidate who is most likely to implement policies that I agree with. If its Hillary fine. If its Barrack fine. I am the constituent, which many of us seem to forget. They are public servants, and we are the public. Not the other way around.

So, with that in mind, will Hillary's GOP inspired strategy of making Obama unlikeable prevail? Will Obama's strategy of selling hope prove the winner? Will the American people ultimately reject the Democrat nominee, and vote for McCain because they fall for his war hero image, and ignore the fact that he simply offers a continuation of the failed policies of the past eight years?

In the end, we the American people will get the president we deserve, and we ultimately deserved the disaster that is George Bush, because we selected him in 2004 by wide margins even after his Iraq war was proven to be a fraud.

Perhaps in the end, the real power is not in the people or the candidates, but in Fox News and other networks, as well as the political pundits they employ.

[TheDudeAbides]

1. It's because the two candidates are pretty much identical on issues n/t

[OzarkDem]

2. Their health care reform plans are very different

and Obama doesn't like to discuss that fact, as Clinton's is superior.

[TheDudeAbides]

4. Yes, and it's been beaten to death

not much else to say about the differences between their healthcare plans.
We've heard it all many times.

[Median Democrat]

8. What About the Indiana and NC Voters?

Its been beaten death by the media, but the votes in NC and Indiana have yet to vote. It would be nice if they get to hear these proposals, so they can decide, rather than have to base their decision on the soundbite of the momemnt.

[Median Democrat]

7. Maybe - But Have You Heard The Plans Discussed At All?

I personally think that either plan would be a vast improvement over McSame's plan. Also, both plans fall short of the Canadian model, which would be political suicide to endorse, as Hillary found out.

One big issue that there is a big difference between Hillary and Obama on is Nuclear power. Hillary is against it. Obama says nuclear power should be discussed as an alternative. This seems like a pretty big difference on energy policy, since everyone is touting Energy Independence.

HOWEVER, have you heard squat about this on Fox News or MSNBC? The voters of NC and Indiana are going to the polls, and the networks are busy playing Kantor's "Indiana is s**t" remarks and outtakes from Wright sermons.

Part of the problem is that we now have pundits who provide the bulk of political news, who themselves report on and repeat what pundits have said. These pundits do not know squat about Hillary's health plan or Obama's nuclear energy plan. So, instead, they report on what they do know, soundbites and political attack ads.

My point is that the media is now doing a tremendous disservice to the American people with its tabloid style approach to political coverge. Instead of pundits, why not a panel of healthcare experts to discuss their views on healthcare, then identify which candidates appear to be closer to their views.

Let me give you an example. There is Paul Krugman the well-respected economist and Paul Krugman the pundit.

Paul Krugman the pundit has spoken highly of Hillary's health plan, but he does not have any expertise on healthcare. Review Krugman's writings, and aside from his columns, he has never done academic research on healthcare. Paul has all but endorsed Hillary.

In contrast, Paul Krugman the economist has ripped on the proposed gas tax holiday. His views on this issue parallel those of Obama. Krugman, as an economist, us well versed in tax policy and its impact on demand and supply of commodities.

So, it would be nice to see Krugman write more on his views of the candidates economic proposals. It would be nice if retired military types who are not on the Pentagon payroll could comment on the candidates military proposals. It would be nice if the media interviewed climatalogists to comment on the candidates proposals regarding global warming.

BUT the American people are not getting that. Instead, we are just getting soundbites, followed by spin, followed by commentary regarding the effectiveness of the spin. Look at the posts on this board, and you can see what I mean.

[TheCowsCameHome]

3. Out of the three, which two?

[TheDudeAbides]

6. it's a Democratic Party Primary forum

[faithfulcitizen]

5. This primary hasn't been about issues for a long time.

[Median Democrat]

10. Exactly - So Does McCain Win In The Image War?

If issues do not matter, do either Hillary or Obama stand a chance, when McCain has the full force of Fox News and ABC's Sinclair affiliates behind him? They don't even have to overtly endorse him. Rather, through benign neglect of the issues, McCain's weakness on the issues is rendered irrelevant.

This is my concern. There are issues that worth discussing, but they aren't. I don't blame Hillary, as Obama supporters would like to do, because she does actually cover issues in her stump speeches. However, as we know, the only segment that will be played is the portion where Hillary makes reference to Reverand Wright.

Someone mentioned that this is the primary board. Great! It would be nice if there was some discussion of the stance candidates have taken on various issues. I also threw out a significant one, Nuclear Power. Obama is for it. Hillary is against it. Now, I will tell you that it was a pain to find this issue on their respective websites, and the media has not mentioned it.

So, the role of the media and the press in this election has proven to be pivotal in its lack of coverage of issues relevant to most people. Thus, the only thing people can base their decisions on are soundbites and spin, and if this is the case, and issues don't matter, then McCain stands a very good chance of winning, because you know Fox News and ABC will given him a free pass in the soundbite wars.

[Bensthename]

9. Sure, Hillary/McCain tax pandering is ongoing right now..