i’d pick either paul or obama before giuliani or clinton, but i’m still puzzled as to whether or not i believe the forementioned stands any chance of becoming the next president of the united states of america.
take ron paul. simply put, if digg is to be believed, ron paul is the most popular republican candidate. even so, he still has to become the most popular candidate amongst the republicans themselves in order to win primary. the debates are not always that clear to interpret, as the republican fox debate 5.9.07 shows: apparently it took 34 minutes into the debate before ron paul got to speak, and by then guiliani had spoken 3 times already. often when ron paul spoke in the debate, there was someone in the background giggling (guiliani?). and apparently the audience were quite divided – “dr paul” had his fair share of both applauses and boo:s. but then there are also the claims that fox is lying about the post debate poll.
now what am i to understand from this? the main point at digg was:
It is obvious that, after seeing the Fox News Debates on Sept. 5th, 2007, the mainstream media and GOP see Ron Paul as enough of a threat to stop ignoring him, and to start ridiculing him.
that being true, is it an indication of ghandi’s words “first they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win.” or, …then they kill you?
furthermore, has the old media realized the balance of power and thus logically ignoring ron paul & obama and believing in giuliani & clinton? some examples:
- a search at hbl.fi reveals that ron paul gets zero hits, whereas giuliani gets three.
- i remember reading their editorial about a month ago, where they explained that giuliani and hillary are the two most popular candidates and that the election most likely will be about those two. (on the other hand they do write a lot of different opinions in their editorials).
- googling ron paul at aftonbladet returns results mainly from the forum of aftonbladet, whereas hillary clinton and giuliani returns news articles. funnily enough, the first one entitled “guiliani’s daughter supports competitor” (obama, as revealed by her facebook entry.)
but if guiliani or clinton wins, is that to be understood as a confirmation of the wisdom of the conventional press, or that that they simply got it their way? i’m not accusing hbl or aftonbladet for supporting either candidate, i’m just curious as to the balance between these three:
- the conventional press being caught in a self-fulfilling prophecy
- they just don’t have a clue about what’s going on
- they actually do have a better understanding of the balance of power