A Campaign of Considered Opinion  

We were duped. We were all duped. Only in hindsight does it seem obvious.

A year ago, Democratic Sen. Hillary Clinton of New York and Republican Sen. John McCain of Arizona, were projected to lead their respective parties. After all, they were purported to be the only candidates with enough experience and support to do so.

Twelve months and many cups of media Kool-Aid later, we’ve been fooled into thinking this race offered more than just Clinton and McCain.

Within the last month, (This article was written in January. Ed.) Barack Obama, Illinois’ junior senator, became bigger than the Beatles back when the Beatles were bigger than Jesus. Former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee kicked up more dust than a triple-wide trailer on an Arkansas back road and former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani continued riding into the ground his role during Sept. 11, 2001.

With Clinton and McCain standing atop the campaign heap, certainly all signs indicate that all the hullabaloo (and Huckabaloo) was conjured by the media.

Americans did exactly what they were predicted to do.

But look closer. Voters are doing much more than they were predicted to do and perhaps it was not the voters who have been duped.

What has made the start of this primary season more misleading than past elections is the punditry’s inability to effectively make sense of it. You’d be waiting less time for Godot than for the media to plead campaign ignorance throughout these next 11 months.

How can Americans rely on pundits to wade through the shifting tides of campaign change when the politicians and the people paid to organize their campaigns are unsure where their campaigns will go?

"Any campaign that tells you they know what they’re doing next week is either lying to you or very shortsighted," Terry Sullivan, Gov. Mitt Romney’s South Carolina state director, said.

Days after the New Hampshire primary one of Clinton’s top advisers said, "We have absolutely no idea how her getting this emotional will play out with voters." The adviser’s quote was in reference to Clinton’s tearful roundtable discussion the day before the New Hampshire primary, an event that directly illustrated the surprising nature of the voters so far.

Campaigns thrive on small moments like this because it is the only thing that appears uncensored. These small moments illicit a reaction in people that the media co-opts, taints and turns ugly. If U.S. politics works by an ever-swinging pendulum, the media is the hypnotist dictating its rhythms.

The actions of the American people have clarified only one thing: they have no idea what they want; they only know what they don’t.

The media’s major folly thus far has been it’s demonstrable refusal to acknowledge the nation’s growing open-mindedness toward those representing acute changes from the current administration.

Obama hit a nerve when he spoke on the already outdated ideal of nationwide change. This was not new territory for Obama, who spoke of change at the 2004 Democratic National Convention, a speech that many cite as Obama’s first movement towards becoming president. He’s been speaking about change ever since, but so many more eyes were focused on him at the Iowa Caucus that it appeared fresher, or perhaps just bigger, than before.

While pundits tried to convince a post-Iowa America that it wanted to dine at Barack Obama’s dinner table, New Hampshire illustrated, to some degree, the nation’s desire to attend the wine tasting of actual campaign consideration.

A smattering of Iowa voters sampled the sweet nectar that Obama has been aging for four years. A week later voters cleared their pallets and swished around a glass of Hillary tears. Others preferred a vintage McCain or a frosty mug of Huckabrew. No one could have predicted the candidates would have tapped into an honest national desire without the use of polls or surveys.

Belaboring the need for change is as old as the parchment the Constitution was written on. This primary has repackaged change into something sexier and in so doing, has unleashed a desire born more from the voting public than from those in charge of telling that public what to think.

This change isn’t the kind so readily gumming up mouths of candidates speaking at town hall meetings and roundtable discussions. This change goes deeper than Iran or Iraq, building a Great Wall around U.S. border states, buying votes with corporate funds or buying pills from Canadians.

Newspaper headlines and broadcast blurbs crawling along the bottom of our television screens declare America as a nation bounding excitedly toward the future. That’s not accurate, this nation is angry and desperate to free itself from the grip of its past.
The American people are prioritizing, reflective and voting accordingly. It’s what pollsters call "considered opinion" and although it’s eluded poll takers, it’s registering at the ballots. In short, they’re doing exactly what the system was designed for, mercifully and at long last.

The consensus surrounding the last presidential election (and perhaps the last two) has got to be regret or else there would be much less of a backlash against the current administration. The American people want anything but to repeat the mistakes of the previous elections.

The U.S. is at a point at which a single tear weighs more than an entire Midwestern state, where candidates can be broke in June, favored in January and the media has little choice but to idly filibuster.

So Clinton got cheers for tears. Don’t be surprised if John Edwards throws a hissy fit, Ron Paul takes to stamping his feet like a child and Giuliani embarrasses himself in public.

The important thing to note if any of that happens is that it won’t be the media telling America what to think about it.