Opinion: The Turning Tides?

For a very long time now Barack Obama was the media’s darling. The momentum, inspiration and general feeling of an upcoming change in politics, fascinated voters and journalists alike and were news in their own right. But now there seems to be a turning of the tide ahead, if you look at what European newspapers are focusing on.

“The Times” is leading the pack with a headline that claims: “America starts to sober up from a heavy dose of Obamamania.” And maybe they’re right, but not America only. Germany’s “Der Spiegel” is bringing out Geraldine Ferraro, who strongly speaks for the superdelegates and about seating the Florida and Michigan delegates. In his exclusive weekly column “West Wing” Gabor Steingart is comparing the Barack Obama campaign to the economic hype of the dot.com era. But, as this is the same pundit who saw “The End of the Obama Revolution” in January, you will be excused for not being thoroughly convinced by his rationale. Undoubtedly, as “The Independent” sees it, the gloves are coming off and the campaign is taking a nasty turn. A view that is echoed by “The Telegraph” when they say:  “Hillary Clinton ready to attack Obama”.

Finally, if you have six and a half minutes to spare, watch this exchange between Daniel Finkelstein and Gerard Baker asking “How close is the Democratic race?”. It was published on February 15, but is in no way outdated.

It is very much ok, that the media are shining a more critical light on Senator Obama’s campaign. A cult is not what a democratic election should be about. However, the campaign of Senator Obama will easily pass that test, there is much more substance to it, than the media have reported on yet, and no media scrutiny on Barack Obama can mend the flaws in the campaigning of Hillary Clinton.

“Europeanview” wishes you all a good start into the week and take care!

About these ads

One thought on “Opinion: The Turning Tides?

  1. I think the exchange between Daniel Finkelstein and Gerard Baker is a bit weak on a few points. For example, they dismiss the reality of momentum in the primaries, but the fact is Obama has built huge momentum to wipe out what was a substantial initial hype and delegate lead favoring Clinton.

    They also feel that the race is still wide open, but it really is not. Clinton needs to win Texas and Ohio by a big margin. The latest polls indicate she is trending toward losing Texas, and that will make it nearly impossible for her to get the nomination without at least strongarming the superdelegates and shedding enough tears for the DNC to allow the Michigan and Florida delegates (which absolutely should not be allowed without at least a re-vote).

    I also question their contention that it’s not possible to elect a “liberal” in the US. I guess it depends on the definition of liberal, given that all the major US candidates tend to be to the right of the average European leadership. The more liberal candidate collected more votes in 3 of the past 4 Presidential elections than the less liberal candidate.

    If by “liberal” they mean someone more like Kucinich or Nader, I’d have to agree that the evidence indicates such a candidate can’t win. But then, both Clinton nor Obama are basically just a bit left of center, mainstream candidates.

Comments are closed.