From Newsweek's latest cover story on Obama and Clinton:
It's impossible to separate the abstract question of whether America is ready for a woman or a black from the concrete matter of whether we're ready for Hillary or Barack. Historically, the odds favor a woman over an African- American; psychologically and generationally, they may favor Obama over Clinton. Both are now expected to launch their campaigns early in the new year, which has created a level of political novelty and intrigue that goes beyond gender and race.
I know Newsweek wanted to dedicate several thousand words to unlocking the ever-so-difficult question of whether or not America could possibly elect Clinton and Obama. That is probably why they mentioned recent polling on whether or not Americans would be comfortable with a black or female President, but left out
their own poll from early December, which specifically answered their question on Clinton and Obama:
Newsweek Poll conducted by Princeton Survey Research Associates International. Dec. 6-7, 2006. N=864 registered voters nationwide. MoE ± 4
"Now I'm going to describe some different choices of candidates voters might have in the 2008 election for president. As I read each one, please tell me how you would vote if the election for president were being held today. Suppose you HAD TO CHOOSE between [see below], the Democrat, and [see below], the Republican. Who would you vote for?" If other/unsure: "As of TODAY, do you LEAN more toward [see below], the Democrat; or [see below], the Republican?"
Clinton 50%--43% McCain
Clinton 48%--47% Giuliani
McCain 45%--43% Obama
Giuliani 47%--44% Obama
As the article reads, "it's impossible to separate the abstract question of whether America is ready for a woman or a black from the concrete matter of whether we're ready for Hillary or Barack." Well, with Clinton ahead of both McCain and Giuliani, and with the lesser known Obama well within the margin of error, the question posed by the lengthy article,
Is America Ready?, could have been quickly and easily answered by Newsweek's own most recent poll. But strangely, there is no mention of this poll in the entire, seven-page article. We are treated to wonderful insights such as this one on the Clenis:
Hillary's big problem might be less her sex than her husband's
And here is an interesting insight on Obama's actual "problems:"
Obama's problem may be less that he's black than that he's green.
The Newsweek poll might have had an overly Democratic sample, just as the recent LA Times poll probably had too many Republicans (which would explain their oddly high approval rating for Bush).
Most polls show both Democrats slightly behind McCain and Giuliani, for whatever trial heats this far out are worth. However, it does disappoint me that an article asking whether or not America is ready to elect Clinton and Obama leaves out virtually any mention of actual data to support it's vague, speculative, conventional wisdom premises. The is made especially disappointing when the news organization running the article ran a poll less than two weeks ago that tested that very subject.
In light of
the post I made earlier this afternoon, I am forced to ask, "where is the accountability here?" Why does a trusted, established news organization that probably prides itself on adhering to various journalistic standards act as though it does not need to test its questions with actual data that is readily available? Surely, being a responsible journalist means more than just engaging in rhetorical questions, an endless stream of subjectivity, and giving equal time to spin from both sides. I, at least, like to believe that an institution trusted with presenting the public information actually values research and, well, actual information. We haven't sunk into an era where the way to be balanced is to give credence to any take on a political situation, no matter how absurd and in contradiction with actual evidence, have we? We do share a common reality, right? This isn't entirely post-modern relativism where both epistemology and ontology have no purpose, and everyone is equally correct, is it? And it wasn't actually conservatives, who so often decry our horrendous modern era of relativism, that actually brought this era into being through insistent demands that the conservative perspective on every story always be given at least equal time, and that all media should be as deregulated as possible? Surely, they would not be so hypocritical.
Anyone? Anyone? Bueller? Bueller?
