Join the Discussion

Reply
Report this post

There seems to be a pattern to Froma Harrop's columns during the presidential primary season and now the General Election campaign season. Ms. Harrop cleary felt that Obama had no business running for the presidency when this was supposed to be the year for Hillary Clinton to get the Democratic Nomination. A review of her columns consistently reflected on her preference for mandatory universal health care, Clinton's plan, versus affordable healthcare with mandatory health care for children, Obama's plan. This was a fair distinction to be considered by primary voters. A further review showed an emphasis on electability and how the candidate's stacked up against John McCain. Harropp seached far and wide to find inconsistencies in Obama's record, yet she ignored the many inconsistencies of the Hillary Clinton, even when they happened so obviously in the span of two minutes during the debates in Philadelphia last October, (The dreaded DL's for undocumented workers). Further, Harrop blames sexism for Clinton's failure to beat Obama. Sexism did play a part in media coverage, but white men supported Clinton thoughout the campaign season and it was not a significant reason for the results. Harrop failed to acknowlege Clinton's consistently high "negatives"that Christopher Dodd referenced in the Philadelphia debate last October ("half of the nation won't vote for her in the general election"). Carl Rove on Fox television was very excited about the prospect of Clinton winning the nomination with those "high negatives". Her nomination might have been a force that would have energized the right, which Rove used to elect Bush to 2 terms, unfortunately. Alot of the "negatives" have to with Clinton's willingness to say anything and do anything to win elections over the years including the practice of "polling" that her husband used to make decisions to run the country when he was in the Whitehouse. Obama has campaigned effectively against this opproach ("no more polling to determine policy" is what he said in Iowa) and it is part of the reason for his popularity. Yes, there was sexism involved in the coverage of this campaign, but it doesn't explain the ultimate results because Clinton did well in the male vote. The real reason she lost was that she didn't run a smart campaign and her negatives were just too high. She ran on experience and inevitability when the country wanted change. She tried to change her message and use her husband and the combination was just ineffective. Now I sadly have to question Froma Harrop's motives in her columns. She has consistently made the case for John McCain against Obama, claiming Hillary's support is going to go McCain's way. (Recent polling numbers do not show this trend). She has used tortured logic to claim that McCain is actually "pro choice" when he is clearly "pro life" during this campaign. Harrop is either hoping for a McCain victory so she can join the "I told you so" crowd, or she is secretly hoping that McCain can win so Senator Clinton will have another shot at the Whitehouse in four years.