The Media, Rezko, South Carolina And The NY Times
by Jeff Dinelli
For those of you who missed Jon Stewart last night, well, first of all, shame on you. Anyway, he had an absolutely priceless take on media hyperbole. Check it out.
For those of you who wanna know what the hell is really up with Barack Obama and this Tony Rezko guy, if you read this, you'll be as caught up as we are here in the Land of Lincoln, who have been reading about it for years. No, Obama actually has done nothing wrong legally, I totally agree, but you can't run on "hope" and "change" without at least explaining the relationship. Rezko basically kick-started Obama's career, and frankly we in Chicago's media audience are kinda shocked that Barack refuses to even mention the dude's name, let alone talk about him. That's the part of this story that I don't get. Barack, you did nothing wrong besides start off your career playing a little footsie with a crook. Everyone does that in Chicago. Make a statement, get it behind you, and move on, Man.
For those of you looking for an interesting benchmark, Hillaryis44.org comes up with this one:
Before the February 5 contests, South Carolina and Florida vote. South Carolina votes on Saturday. In 1988 Jesse Jackson, a real progressive, won 64% of the vote in South Carolina. Anything less for Obama and Obama will be humiliated.
What say you, dear readers? Valid or not? Does it need some spin, Obama fans? Or is it just a biased source comparing Jesse with Barack? How much should he win by? Double digits? Nobody would argue that he has to win tomorrow, but what's the Obama camp looking at as a goal, something that would give the campaign real optimism for Super-Duper-Mega-Tsunami Tuesday?
Finally, these nuggets from the NY Times endorsement of Hillary:
"The early primaries produced two powerful main contenders: Hillary Clinton, the brilliant if at times harsh-sounding senator from New York; and Barack Obama, the incandescent if still undefined senator from Illinois....."
"...By choosing Mrs. Clinton, we are not denying Mr. Obama’s appeal or his gifts. The idea of the first African-American nominee of a major party also is exhilarating, and so is the prospect of the first woman nominee. “Firstness” is not a reason to choose. "
"It is unfair, especially after seven years of Mr. Bush’s inept leadership, but any Democrat will face tougher questioning about his or her fitness to be commander in chief. Mrs. Clinton has more than cleared that bar, using her years in the Senate well to immerse herself in national security issues, and has won the respect of world leaders and many in the American military. She would be a strong commander in chief."
"...Domestically, Mrs. Clinton has tackled complex policy issues, sometimes failing. She has shown a willingness to learn and change. ...Mr. Obama may also be capable of tackling such issues, but we have not yet seen it. Voters have to judge candidates not just on the promise they hold, but also on the here and now..."
"....The sense of possibility, of a generational shift, rouses Mr. Obama’s audiences and not just through rhetorical flourishes. He shows voters that he understands how much they hunger for a break with the Bush years, for leadership and vision and true bipartisanship. We hunger for that, too. But we need more specifics to go with his amorphous promise of a new governing majority, a clearer sense of how he would govern....The potential upside of a great Obama presidency is enticing, but this country faces huge problems, and will no doubt be facing more that we can’t foresee. The next president needs to start immediately on challenges that will require concrete solutions, resolve, and the ability to make government work. Mrs. Clinton is more qualified, right now, to be president."