| I found a bit of time tonight to look around the web for early reactions to the Michigan [Democratic] Primary. It took longer than expected. Not a single one of the "national" newspapers (the NY and LA times, the boston globe, the washington post...) found it necessary to print more than a paragraph or two about the [dem side of the] primary. Faux news and MSNBC followed suit. I guess the folks at CNN had some extra staff on their hands though. They managed to put out not one but two hit pieces on Sen. Clinton, one for losing the youth vote, and one for losing the African-American vote. Correct me if I'm wrong but it seems like people were more interested in the (more interesting) Democratic Debate in Nevada. To be honest, this lack of coverage is probably good no matter who your candidate was. The election did reveal some serious issues Clinton is having with some group but on the other hand, Obama and Edwards don't look too hot for pulling out of the race in the first place. I think that at the end of the day, we can all get together and say: Hell, our poor-ass state just spent 10-20 million dollars on an election that main result was to push the republican nominating race from the "sideshow" category to the "freakshow" category. Money well spent as far as I'm concerned. What this wasn't was a big win for either side. I'm sure all of the campaigns will be looking over these numbers and trying to figure out what went right/wrong, but at the end of the day, I'd say it's a wash. Did Michigan miss an oppurtunity as a state? Sure, but that seems to be our MO recently. I'd rather sweat more important things, like the ban on chickens in Ann Arbor that's recently come us as an issue (I'm pro-chicken). And feel free to post stories you dig up in the comments and make me look like an illiterate fool. |
