This is an article that I wrote for my highschool newspaper called "Fake Frontrunners" about early media coverage of the 2008 election. I had to be try to be as fair and balanced as possible so I talked about Mitt Romney and the Republicans also. I got very positive feedback from people who read it. Let me know what you think...
It's February, 2007, and the Presidential race is already in full swing. We hear big names like Hillary Clinton, John McCain, Barack Obama, and Rudy Giuliani constantly, but who are the nominees going to be? Have you heard about Mitt Romney? Chuck Hagel? Wesley Clark? Bill Richardson? Why have we not heard these names mentioned throughout the mainstream media? These candidates, both Democratic and Republican, I would argue, are better suited to handle the job of President than any of the so called "frontrunners".
Today, if you turn on CNN, MSNBC, or the Daily Show and the 2008 election is being discussed, there is a great chance the pundits will be analyzing the candidacies of Barack Obama or Hillary Clinton. This is wrong. The elections don't start for a year and I am already tired of hearing about those two! Democrats sometimes find themselves wondering if the "rockstar", Obama, has enough experience to lead the country. If it is experience they are looking for, all they have to do is nominate Retired General Wesley Clark. General Clark was the Supreme Allied Commander of NATO, graduated first in his class at West Point, was in the military for 35 years, and has personal relationships with many world leaders, not to mention an in depth understanding of global politics and economics. If Barack Obama had a resume like that, he would win the nomination in a complete landslide, yet, Clark is hardly mentioned.
On the Republican side, both McCain and Giuliani are widely viewed as the leaders, while the Mormon former Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney waits in the shadows, ranking 3 rd to 4th in the polls. Romney, a conservative, successfully led the most liberal state in the union, and can take credit for saving the Salt Lake City Olympics from possible disaster. His ads claim that he is a "business legend" and he also has the look and feel of a president. If he gets any media attention at all, it is because he is Mormon, not because he is a good candidate. Don't you think that a successful governor and businessman is more qualified to lead than Rudy Giuliani, whose paper-thin record will never stand the scrutiny of a national campaign? I do.
It frustrates me that in this age of mass media, where news outlets such as CNN, MSNBC, FOX, CBS, NBC, and ABC, and yes, Comedy Central, reach so many people, we cannot have fair coverage of elections. The most qualified candidates are often completely left out of the equation, and thus the American people are robbed of their best chance for a successful future. Polls are shoved down our throats that pronounce Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama to be leading the democrats, but why is that? Maybe it has something to do with the fact that those are the only two candidates covered by the media! Then, because polls say that those are the most important candidates, the media continues to cover them exclusively, and this great discussion becomes hardly a discussion at all. Rather, it becomes one big free political advertisement for the "fake frontrunners" whose support is manufactured by the media, and is not earned because of their own records, qualifications, or ability to lead.