Political Annoyances

- Cable News drives me nuts, but for whatever reason, I watch it. Fox is blatantly tilted to the right in its coverage, especially in its political commentary. It seems as if CNN stands for Clinton News Network. Reporter Jessica Yellin even said this weekend, when she wasn't aware that they were live, "Yeah, but she's an Obama supporter and that's the problem," when asked about an interview with the Washington Governor, Mrs. Gregoire. CNN is the only channel/news outlet which continually includes the superdelegates into the candidates' delegate count and the only news outlet that has Hillary Clinton still ahead of Barack Obama. Even including superdelegates, Obama leads Clinton in most of the numbers I've observed. Outside of Jeffrey Toobin, a lot of the commentors like to give Hillary the benefit of the doubt on almost everything. This past weekend, if Toobin hadn't chimed in and said something along the lines of, "The Clinton camp can say all they want to that they expected to lose these three states and that Caucuses favor Obama, but the fact is, Obama is winning. A win is a win." If Toobin hadn't chimed in with those obvious observations, I can only imagine what the other commentators would say, probably echoing the Clinton camp, saying things such as, "Well, it came as no surprise that Obama won these three states. Clinton is and will be mainly focused on March 4th with Ohio and Texas waiting in the wings." Then there's the group over at MSNBC, which sadly enough, I probably dislike the least of the three major cable news' channels. I like Keith Olbermann and Chris Matthews is hit and miss. There are times when he's personable on the air and yet other times when he talks so dang much that he ruins a good flow to any conversation that was. Rachel Maddow is right on target at times and way out of line at others. Pat Robertson has a tendency to drive me crazy. He seems to have a thing for Hillary Clinton, yet won't admit to that.

- British author Doris Lessing, who won the Nobel Laureate in 2007, came forward today about the prospect of the U.S. potentially electing a "black" president. She said Obama would get assassinated, no question about it and that the U.S. would be in better shape if Hillary were elected. Lessing, 88 and white, has been labeled as a feminist writer during her career. What an asinine thing to say! Are there still racists in the United States? Yes. If Obama were elected, being the fact he's an African-American, could that increase the chance that there's an assassination attempt? It's difficult for me to say, but if I were to hypothesize on the matter, I'd say yes. But, there will be substantially less threats in 2009-2012 than say in 1964-1968. He'd have great security and protection wherever he traveled. I have news for Ms. Lessing... Every president is in far greater danger on a daily basis than the average person, whether it be the president of France, Iran, or the United States. I'm sure President's George H.W. Bush, Bill Clinton, and George W. Bush received threats while they were in the White House. The same would probably be true for Barack Obama, but to insinuate that an assassination would be inevitable is ignorant and ridiculous. I sincerely hope she apologizes to Obama in the near future.

- I'm a big supporter of Barack Obama. I went to a rally of his last Thursday and attended the Nebraska Caucus in support of him on Saturday. But, I have to tell you, while I've been annoyed with supporters of every other candidate, I've become annoyed with a few Obama fans as well. First off, there are a select few that seem to thing the man is perfect and that they must resemble him in every way, being el perfecto. I check out his homepage once a day and may browse members' commentary to see if they have any pertinent news to share in regard to the campaign, if Obama received any quality endorsements, what the latest polls show, etc. If someone makes a wisecrack or criticizes another candidate in any way, then one person usually lectures them on how they need to always be positive, follow in Obama's footsteps, and basically be perfect. I truly hope Obama wins the presidency. I would rather not see our troops in Iraq for another 100 years (McCain), don't want two amendments added to our Constitution in regard to gay marriage and abortion rights (Huckabee), and honestly, want to end the 20 year run two families have in the White House (Bushes and Clintons, Hillary in this case). But, some people need to lighten up. Also, there's a petition going around, which basically states that the superdelegates shouldn't decide who the Democratic nominee should be, that the voters (pledged delegates) should decide the outcome. I signed the petition, as did a few others from the Obama homepage, but some complained about the petition, since it read something along the lines of, "We believe that the pledged delegates should decide the outcome and not the superdelegates, and we are prepared to support whomever the voters decide the nominee will be." Some Obama supporters complained, because they said they'd never support Hillary. Give me a break. That's not the point. The most important thing is that we have the voters decide the nominee. What, did they want the petition to read, "We will support the superdelegates only if it vaults Obama to victory, but if it aids Hillary to a win, we want the practice abolished. If the pledged delegates favor Obama once the Puerto Rico primary is complete, then we support this petition, since he'll be ahead, but if not, then we don't." The voters should be the ones deciding who receives the nomination. I want Barack Obama to win the nomination more than just about anything, BUT, just as I don't want to see Clinton win the nomination due to the superdelegates, I wouldn't want Obama to win in that manner either. Just as in the Republican Party, I'd want the winner in the Democratic Party to be the candidate with the most pledged delegates. What, does that make me anti-Obama now? I want the guy to win, but want him to win with some dignity. I want the Atlanta Braves to win, but I want them to win without guys cheating by using steroids and other muscle-enhancing drugs, which gives them an unfair advantage against their opponent. These supporters truly need to look in the mirror and ask what's most important, for their candidate to win, regardless of how the victory is attained or to place some dignity in the Democratic Party in how we/they select the nominee for the general election. Regardless if it's Obama or Clinton, if the "winner" is vaulted to that status via superdelegates, chaos will ensue and John McCain will win the presidency.