every time i try to get out, they pull me back in. i keep trying to give the primaries a rest. i'm still really tired of it, and yet it keeps coming up. there's really no avoiding it.
this article reminded me of an issue that's been on my mind a lot lately. what role should unfairness play in assessing who to vote for? i believe that hillary clinton's been treated pretty unfairly in the coverage of this race, the press really does not like her at all. unfair coverage is directed at her much more than obama, who the press seems to like. does it make sense to vote for someone because the media is being unfair to them? i mean, if i conclude that absent any unfair coverage, i would vote for obama over clinton would the lopsided coverage that we are in fact seeing going to change my vote? then there's the flip side, should obama's relatively positive coverage be held against him?
in any case, the answer for me is no. i favor obama because i think he displays much better judgment on foreign policy issues than clinton. but i think it's clear that not everyone thinks the way that i do.
the funny thing about the favorable coverage issue is that it potentially could cut both ways. the press likes obama and doesn't like clinton. while on the one hand that could push you to vote for clinton just to stick it to the anti-clinton press (who do deserve a good sticking to), you could also argue that the press' love affair with obama gives him a leg up on electability in the general election.
then again, 90% of the discussions about electability are nothing more than people talking out their asses.1 electability is only visible in retrospect. if a candidate is elected, s/he's electable! if not, not electable!
-------------------------------
1-the other ten percent are the times that i talk about electability.
