[updates below] 

So I was happy to hear that Hillary won NH.  Not so much because she’s my favorite candidate (she’s not), but because I was so incredibly irritated by the media coverage of Obama’s win in Iowa.  Not so much with respect to Obama directly, but with respect to Edwards & Hillary.

First, in interviews they seemed to be suggesting that Edwards should just drop out and that, somehow, it was all over for Hillary, too.  This became the paradigm for coverage for the four days between IA and NH, and I’m sure played into the whole ‘Hillary’s getting emotional, blah, blah, blah.”

So, I was happily surprised that the media had not managed to create a self-fulfilling prophecy that would have had the whole nomination race over before it barely began.  I was, however, extremely amused to see that today’s spin of Hillary’s “comeback” had, in the words of an NPR reporter this morning, ‘proved wrong the obituaries for Hillary’s campaign.’  This statement, of course, was made without any acknowledgment of NPR’s own involvement in reporting such quasi-obits themselves, such as when they asked Edwards in an interview the other day whether he was willing to be VP.

Media people, please, only two tiny states have voted — a close race through at least several more weeks is not only in the interests of the people (in my opinion anyway) but in your ratings interest, so stop trying to declare it over.

And another thing, can we stop calling the speeches of the 2d and 3d place finishers “concession” speeches and having these comments about whether they were “concessionary enough”.   I have less of an issue with calling the first place candidate’s speech a “victory” speech, which may be inconsistent on my part, but a 2d or 3d place finish, in the first few (of 50, lets remember) primaries is not a “loss” and there is no need to “concede” (okay, apologies for all these scare quotes).  Holy frijoles people, give it a rest, let them make a speech to continue to rally their supporters, there is absolutely nothing to concede!

And another thing, I’ve noticed everyone doing, including myself – its Hillary, Obama, and Edwards.  Now, there are other Johns in the race (at least on the other side of the aisle) so it makes sense for identification in a way, but curious how the woman and the black guy get called by their first names, whereas pretty much everyone else (i.e., the white guys)  gets their last names most of the time.  I’ll have to check out the more political blogs to see if anyone has some analysis on this.

Oh, and finally, media, in the coverage of this, can we do smaller snippets of election coverage mixed in with, oh, the rest of the world and what’s happening with this country.  If you do a full 15 minutes-straight segment the day before NH primaries on nothing but the horserace and what various campaigns will need to do if the fail to do well, then that’s my news for the night, with a full-time office job and two kids, I don’t have the luxury of hour-long segments and I’m sure there is other news out there.

More peeves to come as the primary season moves forward . . .

Update: By the way, I haven’t covered my irritation with the blatant sexism voiced against Hillary in the last few days (and further back as well, and the racism that sneaks in here and there during this campaign) because the topic has been well covered elsewhere.  This is always my difficulty in discussing ‘big’ issues – by the time I figure out what I want to say, it seems as if its already been well-covered.  I definitely have to get over that.

Update 2: Oh, and on that asinine op-ed by Gloria Steinem comparing racism and sexism, see SharkFu’s take on it – a good take down of why the op-ed is asinine.