That’s me. I’m backing no candidate for the primaries, at least not yet and may not. So it’s time to say a word about covering the candidates, including
when I see them in Washington,
D.C. in a couple of weeks. Otherwise, people are going to get dizzy.
First, everyone needs to understand what seeing a candidate’s stump speech
is like. One person asked “was there any talk of policy or are we still
into form over substance?” There are never any deep policy issues
offered at the types of rallies the candidates are doing across the country.
That’s what web sites are for, as well as serious speeches given in certain
forums. A stump rally, for lack of a better term, is basically the candidate
giving his or her best thirty-five minutes to one hour, sometimes with questions,
if it’s a town hall. Obama did thirty-five minutes or so, with no questions,
because it was a rally. Clinton did an hour, with questions, because it was
a town hall. Both stayed afterwards to take pictures and shake hands.
Seeing Candidate Obama in action there was only one verdict to make: I get
what people are seeing. One person, however, said, “Taylor, glad to
see you’re on board now.” Another said, “Thank God you saw
Obama–and that you are excited about him –had given up on you and the Hillary
awe you had going.”
I’m not “on board,” nor am I “in awe”
of anyone. People need to review my archives by clicking on the tags for each
of the candidates at the top of this post. You’ll see that most have gotten
clear eyed assessments from me, praise and harsh reality. It’s hilarious for
anyone to think I’m “in awe” of Clinton. She earned praise
through her performance at the health care event, because she performed beyond
all the others, with Obama simply awful. Edwards I’ve not seen on the stump
yet, with the same for the others, though I saw them all in Carson City, as
regular readers know, which was quite different from the events this week. People need to understand that I’m calling it as I see
and hear it, which means there will likely not be consistency in my opinions,
because I’m judging each candidate per event. It will tell a story by the time
I’m through, which will open out to the best candidate that I will likely choose
before the primaries. Or maybe not, because I could remain undecided, though
I admit that is unlikely after seeing them in action for months, also in debates, as well as reading about their policies. But in the end all of us should remember something: voters often get a gut feeling by watching someone and vote for someone sometimes for a reason we can’t fathom. Some voters never take policy into consideration; they just like the way a candidate sounds or looks. I’m also not
covering everyone equally, obviously, because I just don’t have the time and
so I have to choose. That’s just reality.
But if you’re trying to tell who I’m supporting each time I write about a candidate,
good luck, because you’re going to need it.
Just because one person outperforms the others on a given day, or has extraordinary
talent, well, it’s a long primary season and it takes a lot to win the nomination.
You’re reading my job wrong if you think one time out seduces me to supporting
someone. It does not. Though it obviously can make me appreciate what I haven’t seen in the candidate before.
One thing, please keep giving me your impressions of the candidates when you see them, either in person or in a televised event. I’m very interested.
So if, and that’s a big if, I decide to back a candidate or
start leaning towards one I’ll tell you. Otherwise, color me neutral.
Comments are closed.