After watching Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton indulge in a nasty spat like two little kids in a school yard, I am completely turned off of both of them. The Clintons are playing "two against one", and I sympathized with Obama when he said to Hillary, "Sometimes I'm not sure who I'm running against." I wonder if others besides myself felt the unfairness of the situation, disgust with Hillary, and disappointment with Obama because he wasn't mature enough to avoid taking the bait. Once you do that, you lose control. Neither Obama nor Ms. Clinton came off looking anything but petty.
John Edwards, on the other hand, seemed like the only grown-up in the crowd. He made excellent points, even though he was overshadowed by the ridiculous barbs and accusations of Obama and Clinton, due to the moderator's lack of fairness . Why did Wolf Blitzer let them go on so long with their spat? Was that fair to Edwards? Or to the listeners who wanted to hear what all of them had to say? I am disgusted, because this sort of unfairness deprives us of the opportunity to hear enough from everyone to be able to choose the best person to be the democratic nominee, and thus (we hope) the president.
Just because the media is obsessed with the idea that the nominee will be either Obama or Clinton does not mean the voters agree. In fact, this obsession continues to make it more and more difficult for us to hear what Edwards has to say. Why is there not more fairness in handling the debates? Why should the media be telling us who we can listen to, and who we get to pick from in choosing our nominee or our president?
I'd like to be able to get the media to stop making up our minds for us, and to cover news about the candidates in an unbiased way. The media is supposed to be reporting what happens, not trying to make things happen.
If anyone has any answers to these questions, I'd love to hear them.