« Outsourcing Our Support For The Troops | Main | Driving Under The Influence Of Being Latino »
November 19, 2007
1968
Chris Matthews has been comparing this coming election year to 1968. Tonight he wrangled Brokaw into talking about it. Great, Matthews. The year in which both Martin Luther King and the presumptive Democratic nominee were assassinated. The same year in which the Democratic convention was an exercise in chaos; and the year in which Richard Nixon ultimately won the White House.
What an awful year to use as a comparison -- especially considering the Obama candidacy. Are we to gather from this comparison that the Democratic nominee will be killed and a demon on the level of Nixon will win for the GOP? Jesus H.
But the very smart traditional media thinks its fun and looks good on screen because both years have an 8 at the end, therefore the years MUST be similar. Awesome.
Posted By Bob Cesca | November 19, 2007 07:39 PM | DIGG ME!
Comments
This is an example why you and your blog are so important. Thanks again for updating this site for us faithful readers at this terminally fucked up time in journalism.
Posted by: lnbno13 ![[TypeKey Profile Page]](http://www.bobcesca.com/nav-commenters.gif)
at November 19, 2007 08:00 PM
Sure thing, lnbno13! Thanks for hanging out. Cheers.
Posted by: Bob_Cesca at November 19, 2007 08:28 PM
I've found the comparison to '72 much more apt, especially as it relates to the primary and nominating process, except the Republican process is analogous to the Democratic one in '72. Hell, you've even got a last name or two that's still relevant (Romney, at the very least, was a factor in both), and damn if Ron Paul isn't a photo-negative of pre-primary George McGovern (which might make Huckabee George Wallace?).
The comparison falls apart a bit when you consider the Democrats, but if the race turns out to be Hillary against Paul (which, if you placed your bets when Paul was a 50-1 shot as opposed to his current 4-1, you'll make a small fortune on) then it'll be relevant again, as a Paul presidency is utterly doomed and Clinton would hardly even have to campaign.
But that's really neither here nor there. At any rate, '68 is totally inappropriate for a comparison.
--d
Posted by: dansolomon at November 20, 2007 06:03 AM
Post a comment
Thanks for signing in, . Now you can comment. (sign out)
(If you haven't left a comment here before, you may need to be approved by the site owner before your comment will appear. Until then, it won't appear on the entry. Thanks for waiting.)
