News.Demo-erratic
The democratic race currently going on in America is pretty intense. There were three noticeable players in the race, hose being Hillary Clinton, Barrack Obama, and John Edwards. The latest runner to “drop” out of the race was John Edwards. This sparked some interesting news because Edwards is slated to become a powerful figure in determining who win the democratic race. To delve into this debacle I explored two sources of information; CNN.com, a popular mainstream news site and Democrats Now, a blog started in 2007 by a person named Andrew Levine who is following the democratic race.
CNN.com immediately went straight into the article asking the question, “Who will John Edwards endorse?” and gave both Clinton and Obama an equal chance of receiving his support. Article went immediate to support Obama after the quizzical questions of who will have Edwards support.
It’s quite funny actually check out some of the key phrases in these statements:
“Some political pundits predict Edwards' supporters are more likely to lean in Obama's direction.”
“Time magazine journalist Joe Klein said, ‘I don't think he endorses Hillary Clinton. The question is whether or not he endorses Barack Obama.’”
“Klein contends Clinton ‘represents a lot of the things that [Edwards] campaigned against, you know, the old Washington Democratic establishment that he believes got too close to the corporations in the '90s.’”
So it appears rather clear that CNN has their support invested in Obama and they’re trying to rally support from his previous followers in mind and democratic voter support overall. It was almost a little advertisement for them, especially looking at the content of the article, which was rather skimpy, compared to the Democrats Now take on the situation.
Democrats Now had a rather lengthy take on the situation and proposed a rather interesting theory that John Edwards may not actually be out of the race. This blog entry focuses on the fact that Edward stated he would “suspend” his campaign. The excerpt then switched focus to the fact that Edwards had lost a couple of caucuses and had major competition with Barrack Obama, and even worse going against a popular female candidate, Hillary Clinton. Levine describes his chances as horrible but actually presents a rather viable argument, as compared to CNN’s experts.
Check out the thorough explanation of how John Edwards most likely dropped out from:
“The reason why is clear: the candidate who posed the biggest problem for him was Barack Obama, not Hillary Clinton. White and Latino racism could still do in Obama’s chances to win in November. But Iowa showed that he could win handily in a nearly all white state, at least among persons willing to caucus under the aegis of the Democratic Party. That validated his candidacy. That’s why Obama was able to win nearly 80% of the black vote in South Carolina and why he could raise some $32 million in January. That’s why, even after she bounced back in New Hampshire, Hillary Clinton is still not the clear front-runner. Edwards could probably have won the nomination on the anti-Clinton vote alone, if Obama was out of the picture. But he didn’t have a chance against Obama one on one – not if the African American candidate is seen as viable – and, in a three-way race, running also against a woman, his prospects were even worse. No matter that his politics were better than Clinton’s or Obama’s, for women and African Americans along with nearly everyone else. For Democratic voters this year, the prospect of nominating the white guy, when there’s a black man and a woman in the running, was just not going to fly.”
Levine goes on to construct arguments for both Hillary and Obama on who will gain his support and in conclusion Levine states that Edwards will most likely support Obama based on the fact Hillary represents a restoration in “Clintonism” but otherwise thinks that Edwards might try to stall his running and come back full force later.
The arguments presented in the Democrats Now blog were pretty solid for the most part, and it actually felt like a plausible reason for Obama being the prime candidate for winning Edwards support. It felt rather informative and gives the democratic audience some thinking to do. What I do enjoy from this blog is that Levine readily supported Edwards and even offers a theory of him coming back into the race later and even throws support at other candidates with is ending sentence because he feels that Clinton and Obama represent corporate America. As compared to the CNNarticle advertisement this blog explained why Obama could win and why Edwards would throw support behind him, but equally levels Clinton and Obama in their running.
I think its funny to see how informative a person following the race could be compared to a giant news company who is clearly capable of describing every aspect of the situation properly doesn't. Of course the blogger could be paid, but there was no clear endorsement or siding located within the blog. Essentially it was neutral, and that’s the best type of news.
CNN.com immediately went straight into the article asking the question, “Who will John Edwards endorse?” and gave both Clinton and Obama an equal chance of receiving his support. Article went immediate to support Obama after the quizzical questions of who will have Edwards support.
It’s quite funny actually check out some of the key phrases in these statements:
“Some political pundits predict Edwards' supporters are more likely to lean in Obama's direction.”
“Time magazine journalist Joe Klein said, ‘I don't think he endorses Hillary Clinton. The question is whether or not he endorses Barack Obama.’”
“Klein contends Clinton ‘represents a lot of the things that [Edwards] campaigned against, you know, the old Washington Democratic establishment that he believes got too close to the corporations in the '90s.’”
So it appears rather clear that CNN has their support invested in Obama and they’re trying to rally support from his previous followers in mind and democratic voter support overall. It was almost a little advertisement for them, especially looking at the content of the article, which was rather skimpy, compared to the Democrats Now take on the situation.
Democrats Now had a rather lengthy take on the situation and proposed a rather interesting theory that John Edwards may not actually be out of the race. This blog entry focuses on the fact that Edward stated he would “suspend” his campaign. The excerpt then switched focus to the fact that Edwards had lost a couple of caucuses and had major competition with Barrack Obama, and even worse going against a popular female candidate, Hillary Clinton. Levine describes his chances as horrible but actually presents a rather viable argument, as compared to CNN’s experts.
Check out the thorough explanation of how John Edwards most likely dropped out from:
“The reason why is clear: the candidate who posed the biggest problem for him was Barack Obama, not Hillary Clinton. White and Latino racism could still do in Obama’s chances to win in November. But Iowa showed that he could win handily in a nearly all white state, at least among persons willing to caucus under the aegis of the Democratic Party. That validated his candidacy. That’s why Obama was able to win nearly 80% of the black vote in South Carolina and why he could raise some $32 million in January. That’s why, even after she bounced back in New Hampshire, Hillary Clinton is still not the clear front-runner. Edwards could probably have won the nomination on the anti-Clinton vote alone, if Obama was out of the picture. But he didn’t have a chance against Obama one on one – not if the African American candidate is seen as viable – and, in a three-way race, running also against a woman, his prospects were even worse. No matter that his politics were better than Clinton’s or Obama’s, for women and African Americans along with nearly everyone else. For Democratic voters this year, the prospect of nominating the white guy, when there’s a black man and a woman in the running, was just not going to fly.”
Levine goes on to construct arguments for both Hillary and Obama on who will gain his support and in conclusion Levine states that Edwards will most likely support Obama based on the fact Hillary represents a restoration in “Clintonism” but otherwise thinks that Edwards might try to stall his running and come back full force later.
The arguments presented in the Democrats Now blog were pretty solid for the most part, and it actually felt like a plausible reason for Obama being the prime candidate for winning Edwards support. It felt rather informative and gives the democratic audience some thinking to do. What I do enjoy from this blog is that Levine readily supported Edwards and even offers a theory of him coming back into the race later and even throws support at other candidates with is ending sentence because he feels that Clinton and Obama represent corporate America. As compared to the CNN
I think its funny to see how informative a person following the race could be compared to a giant news company who is clearly capable of describing every aspect of the situation properly doesn't. Of course the blogger could be paid, but there was no clear endorsement or siding located within the blog. Essentially it was neutral, and that’s the best type of news.
0 TrackBacks
Listed below are links to blogs that reference this entry: News.Demo-erratic.
TrackBack URL for this entry: https://blogs.psu.edu/mt4/mt-tb.cgi/3006
Leave a comment