Tuesday, May 20, 2008

Where is Iraq in the Campaign Coverage?

Missing.

I'm constantly amazed how Iraq is whitewashed out of the campaign narrative. After all, at the Presidential level, there's no 'pattern' of participants 'finding women less plausible military commanders than men', since the number of serious female Presidential candidates in American history can be counted on one finger. A more plausible explanation is Democrats following the long-standing pattern of antiwar voters voting against politicians that support unpopular gratuitously unnecessary wars.

The evidence suggests this is what happened. While earlier states saw split demographic trends, as the campaign wore on it's pretty clear Obama locked up the most anti-Iraq war constituency groups - African-Americans and liberals - whereas Clinton locked up the most pro-Iraq war constituency groups - older white people.

I'm with Yglesias, there is simply no way anyone has oxygen against Clinton if she votes against the war in Iraq, or even speaks out against it relatively soon after voting for it. It was only her obstinate support for the war in Iraq, support which lasted until 2006 or so, that saw her open up space for a rival. It's refreshing to have Obama hitting back against McCain on his own terms and shuffling up the village idiots on foreign policy.
And unfortunately this is compounded by the mainstream media's seeming ignorance that there is even a war still going on.

It's going to be up to bloggers and independent media to push the war back into the forefront of every voter's mind.

1 comment:

  1. Very good point. Obama wouldn't be the front runner if not for the ongoing occupation of Iraq. Yet the media have decided the economy is issue #1.

    Are you implying Carol Moseley Braun wasn't a serious contender for the presidency? ;-)

    ReplyDelete