Wednesday, March 05, 2008

Proud Parents, Primaries, and Fox News

Fox News, stodgy bastion of conservatism, is trying to change its image. So they sent a group of young, hip reporters (you know it’s just a fa├žade; they’re all going to vote Republican in November) to a couple campuses in Ohio and Texas yesterday to chat with college students and find out how they voted in the big primaries. And they interviewed my youngest daughter Rachel, live and in person from the campus of Ohio University in Athens, Ohio.

I may be biased, but I thought Rachel spoke more articulately than the Fox News reporter. The reporter asked questions like, “Are you down with Obama?” Rachel actually responded in respectable English, and addressed specific political issues and why she favors the policies supported by Obama. She is more than “down with Obama.” I was proud of her, and it was fun to see her on the screen.

Alas, it didn’t matter. The Hillary machine rolled on inexorably in Cleveland, as I suspected it would. The old school Democrats control the northeast corner of the state, and always have, and Hillary is nothing if not an old school Democrat. Obama probably never really had much of a chance. And it made me realize, again, how limited our own personal perspectives are. Based on the people I know and hang around with, I would estimate that, oh, about 99.7% (Hi Bryan! It’s good to buck the popular trends!) of them are ardent Obama supporters. It’s apparently a skewed view of reality, which in Ohio roughly translated to 54% for Hillary and 44% for Obama. Still, I’m enjoying the political process in America. What an amazing thing. For the first time in my voting life, I’m actually excited about the prospect of voting for someone rather than simply trying to choose the lesser of two evils. Don’t tell anyone. It probably means the guy I’m down with doesn’t stand a chance.

6 comments:

scott said...

I enjoyed pulling the lever (I'm sorry, "tapping the screen") yesterday, for the first time, for a presidential candidate younger than me.
And looking ahead to November, I don't know if I'm excited, or disappointed, that for only the third presidential election in my life I will not be able to vote against anyone named Bush.

patrick said...

First, I bet Rachel knocked 'em dead, but being more articulate than a Fox reporter is sort of like being better looking than Garrison Keillor.

Second, I really thought Obama was going to pull it off, but that just shows how little I know of these things. I live in Georgia, where we go year after year to cast our meager votes into the red ocean. So when Obama did well here, I reckoned he could do anything.

Well, here's to being down with a fellow who's still ahead. Let's just hope the old guard doesn't pull a fast one on him in the end.

Anonymous said...

According to this CNN map, Cleveland went to Obama...am I reading your blog incorrectly? Still...very disappointing that Billary won Ohio and TX.

http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/primaries/results/state/#OH

NancyK

Andy Whitman said...

Nancy, you're right. Good catch. I wrote "Cleveland," but I should have written "northeast Ohio." That region (Cleveland, Akron, Canton, Youngstown) has historically been a bastion for the Democratic machine, and if Obama was going to win Ohio, that was the region he was going to have to carry. He didn't. You're right; he won Cuyahoga County (Cleveland), but he lost all the other counties in northeast Ohio. It's probably what cost him the overall primary.

jasdye said...

last night - particularly the spread in ohio against obama - saddened me.

not that hillary has much of a chance, but that she believes she does and will use every opportunity to discredit obama's run and waste valuable resources.

somewhere, rush limbaugh is laughing, laughing, laughing.

Julana said...

I think Bill Clinton made a difference for Hilary in Ohio, in those mid-sized factory towns.
What is Ted Strickland getting out of this?