The gloom and doom naturally centered around Democrats with Hillary Clinton playing a role, but certainly not in a unifying stellar speech tradition on behalf of Barack Obama.
Fox's legal expert Greta Van Susteren, who launched her TV career at CNN in the nineties proclaiming the prosecution's failure to prove up a murder case against O.J. Simpson, had put on her political hat and was talking to the network's Democratic Party resident expert.
That expert would be Susan Estrich, currently a University of Southern California law professor and formerly a chairperson of the dismal presidential campaign of Michael Dukakis in 1988.
"These e-mails, all these e-mails," Van Susteren declared excitedly, "and they're from all these women who say that for the first time in their lives they might not be voting for a Democrat and might vote for John McCain."
Yes, there are all these women, and if current polling is correct the area of greatest current disaffection for Obama is in the $50,000 per year and lower category. These are the women who are struggling under the economic calamity visited upon them by the Bush-Cheney administration, which squandered a healthy surplus and brought us to the precipice of a soon to be $10 trillion debt, by far the largest in planetary history.
So these women and others like them, the kind that have allegedly displayed their concerns to Greta, figure to vote for the candidate who wants more tax cuts slanted to the nation's wealthiest citizens in the Bush-Cheney tradition, which helped break the economic backs of the middle class.
They are ready to back the candidate who voted against a bill designed to punish perpetrators who engaged in violent acts against women. They are prepared to back a candidate who displays no interest in protecting a woman's right to choose or to provide women with equal pay for equal work.
How about privatizing Social Security?
This is fine with McCain just as it has been for Bush and Cheney. Might this be another reason why these women are leaning toward McCain?
Suppose, on the other hand, that this thick stack of papers Van Susteren held aloft so dramatically were not frantic e-mails from prospective McCain voters disgruntled that Hillary Clinton is not the Democratic 2008 presidential nominee. Could such a ploy occur on "fair and balanced" Fox News?
Could that thick stack of papers that Greta tossed up and down to enhance dramatic effect be old transcripts from programs of her heroes Bill O'Reilly and Sean Hannity?
As for Greta Van Susteren's theatrics, could she have borrowed the paper aloft accompanied by her dramatic announcement from the former best friend of her father?
Wisconsinite Van Susteren's lawyer father had a best friend who became notorious in the fifties by holding official documents aloft in U.S. Senate speeches. This senator dramatically declared that he was holding up the names of Communist traitors then working in America's State Department.
The act became familiar even though the number of alleged Communists ever shifted.
On that score Greta Van Susteren learned from that mistake made by her father's best friend, Senator Joseph McCarthy.
Greta was shrewd enough not to place a number on the swarm of female e-mailers declaring they might vote for a Republican presidential candidate "for the first time in their lives" out of sadness and resentment that Hillary Clinton is not leading the Democratic ticket.
She might also remember that four years ago Sean Hannity made a similar announcement about African American defections to Bush and Cheney due to evangelical religious zeal for the Republican ticket.
The current comment will be invalidated in the same manner as its predecessor was four years ago.
KEYWORDS: Greta Van Susteren, Fox News, Joseph McCarthy, Fox Claims of Hillary Clinton defections to John McCain
Sign up for a Complimentary Member Account... Join the community! It's fast. And it'll allow you to take advantage of all this site's great features!
|< Campaign 2008: Define McCain as Bush's Siamese Twin | Scrambling for Control of Oil >|