Proud Member of The Moms Clean Air Force
Print This Post
Feb
16
Hillary Clinton was in NEOhio last night – Lyndhurst’s Brush High School to be exact. Crowd estimates are between 2500 and 3000 and Jeff Coryell e-mailed and told me that at 4:10pm, they had to shut the doors, with him on the wrong side, because of the packed room.
The Plain Dealer posted this video of the rally at its article, “Clinton rally overflows at Brush High School.”
It’s a nice video, really.
But one thing about the article bothered me. It’s the part that describes the crowd at Brush High School like this, without a single quote from a single attendee or any other individual, besides the reporters, being the ones who describe the event for the reader:
Clinton’s Lyndhurst rally drew diehard supporters along with a crowd star-struck at the chance to be near a celebrity and to be a part of the election process. So many people flocked to the school that traffic backed up on Mayfield Road, parking lots were gridlocked and people parked on side streets.
Lines grew so long two hours before the rally that they had to be shifted, frustrating those who lost their choice spots. After packing the gym, the crowd spilled over into the school’s performing-arts center and cafeteria, where they watched on closed-circuit television.
So, the crowd was composed of two types of people: “diehard supporters” and “a crowd star-struck at the chance to be near a celebrity and to be part of the election process”?
Sigh.
I guess that “be part of the election process” is a catch-all for anyone who might be there to get a peek at who Clinton is, listen to what she has to say or figure out which of the two Democratic nominees should get the nod?
But the implication seems to be that if we’re talking Hillary Clinton, we know you aren’t there because you like her because remember – nobody likes a smarty-pants and she won’t be offering you beer. Why else would you go to a high school auditorium on a Friday night in cold Cleveland?
Maybe I’m being too hard on the PD reporters, but check these other reviews of the event:
The Trail’s take on the visit (a blog from the Washington Post)
From the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette (which indeed quotes 1 – a high school student who sounds as though he was there to see Clinton, but feels more for Barack Obama, and 2 – someone who may in fact be a “diehard”)
Notice that in these pieces, attendees are “supporters,” period.
Any other characteristics about the attendees you learn about by reading what they have to say, not by reading the opinion of the, ahem, neutral journalist.
By Jill Miller Zimon at 4:37 pm February 16th, 2008 in Campaigning, Cleveland+, Elections, Hillary Clinton, Media, Ohio, Politics, Primary, WH2008, Writing
Comments
11 Responses to “PD: who else but diehards attend Clinton rally, since nobody likes a smarty-pants”
Voted into Top 25 Political Mom Blogs
Now on sale-WLST essay included!
Posts About Pepper Pike City Council2010 WE Magazine 101 Women Bloggers to Watch
Category Specific RSS
Pepper Pike Cleveland+ Politics Women Ohio Elections Law Jewish
I too found that bit of text in the Plain Dealer to be an odd choice of words and a strange either/or. My own “read” of the crowd was that there were people genuinely interested in hearing what Sen. Clinton had to say and perhaps undecided on their vote for the primary. I myself zigzagged back and forth from home twice in an effort to hear her–deterred the first time by the enormous line snaking from Welser gym across the tundra of the Brush grounds. The PD article did not indicate–unless I’m reading much too fast–about the second mini-speech that she gave for the overload crowd in an adjacent building. I was in the overload crowd; I found this to be one of the most flexible things I’ve ever seen a public official do. Re: the Democratic nomination and the Presidency: May the best person for the extraordinary job win.
Maria – thank you so much for that first-person information, especially about the added-on mini-speech. That is very cool.
It’s so easy to just report what one observes. Why they have to make it sound like it was a night for only the desperate, I just do not understand. I look forward to comparing how they write up Obama events. He hasn’t been to NEOhio in a while.
Thanks for reading and commenting and good luck voting!
Shalom Jill,
It’s like a baseball or football game, if you really want to see what’s going on, you watch it on television. If what you’re after is the experience, you go to the stadium.
Politics is no different. Anyone interested in hearing what a candidate has to say watches the video where you can hear the words and see the facial expressions.
B’shalom,
Jeff
[...] Who else but diehards attend Clinton rally, since nobody likes a smarty-pants digg_url=”http://havecoffeewillwrite.com/?p=6681″; digg_skin = [...]
You know I’m actually beginning to think the PD’s endorsement of Obama could hurt him in Ohio.
I think you’re spot on Jill – this is condescending editorializing. Maybe you should write a letter to Ted Diadiun so he can ridicule the notion in print.
Jeff – I agree – that is a completely apt description. And, sometimes, we like to try and get both experiences, true?
Laughing, Keith – well, I hope Ted still reads my blog.
I enjoy talking and sparring with Ted – I just find him pretty affable. But I long ago gave up the idea that he represents the readers to the paper. I wish that he did, but many of his columns don’t read to me like he is speaking for or on behalf of the reader. I’m sure he and I would spar over that too.
I had the same thought about the PD endorsement. It was pithy. Coffee Jeff is spot on with his analogy; I think beer is better left for evenings sitting around reading the PD…. and lastly, I hate super delegates so much now. If we don’t learn anything else from this experience I hope we can all become fanatics about getting this system changed.
Thanks for the comments, Carole.
Now – one thing I’ve been wondering about the superdelegates, which the Clinton campaign insists on calling “automatic” delegates, is this: what if those individuals we prohibited from saying who they were for? What if the candidates were prohibited from contacting them? What if those folks were required to cast name the nominee they supported anonymously and before any of the primaries?
This is to say – what if there was some way in which we protected them from being subject to attempts to sway them, but that in return, they had to commit by a certain time, and that that would be done in an effort to shield them from being impacted by tactics etc.?
In other words, if they really are the know it alls of the party, so to speak, and so they are to decide what’s best, to balance out the pledged delegates, which is why this other category of delegates was created in the first place, why don’t we do more to allow them to carry out that function? RAther than make it so obvious that campaigns want and/or need them?
Yes my blood started to boil over when the Clinton campaign started using automatic; as if changing the name in a stealth like manner would make me forget how much I dislike the concept. Grrrr.
Now to your idea. I like it alot. The only thing (and this is the cynic in me) is that so many of them are politicans. What politician do you know can 1) keep quiet about being a super delegate if he/she is one and 2) not try to yeild influence because they are one? I guess I see your idea changing super delegates to at large delegats…..that will take some thinking on my part, but if they can all be non pols (and I don’t know how we do that?) then it has potential I guess. And it’s probably easier to change to your system than eliminate them entirely.
I have no problem electing officials and expecting them to make decisions without consulting me; but they do NOT need to take away my voice in the voting process. I think I need a pill! LOL
Well – I understand your complaint/concern. But here’s what I think they were thinking – the Hunt Commission, when they instituted this thing. I think they thought that by making these people who were ALREADY elected by a state’s voters part of the delegate system, that they could build in some kind of a ego over the ID of the pledged delegates, which are distributed according to the primary election results.
The idea, supposedly, is that those already elected people who get to become delegates can take into account the system as a whole and apply the knowledge they have as already sitting politicians to the frightening and otherwise unwieldy world of politics.
Yes – I’m being a bit facetious in that description, and I’m not defending that the system was instituted – I’m not really sure how I feel about it – whether it helps, hurts or does neither. And whether any of that is an intentional effect.
But I do think that that was the original intent of making these additional delegates be already seated politicians – or at least a lot of them already seated politicians.