Still a Fangirl

Earlier this politicking season, I came out. I declared myself a fangirl for Elizabeth Edwards (read why here). Given her rant in the New York Times yesterday, I'm glad I'm a fangirl.

Her basic argument is that this presidential campaign has been determined by a narrative outline tacitly accepted by the press. The candidates are their image, and anything that strays outside the image doesn't get reported. That's the reason, EE claims, that some candidacies (Biden, Brownback, Dodd, Richardson) never got any traction, while others (Giuliani, Romney, Thompson, and yes, Edwards) died on the vine because the message was about style over substance.

The press, she claims, is falling down on the job. And all I can say to that is "Amen, sister!" They're all over the sound bites, the bowling scores, the shots of Crown Royal, the temper tantrums, but when was the last time you heard any substantive, analytical reporting about any of the three remaining candidates from the press? I know all about the Internet, and I know I can do research there, but when your candidates for President of the United States are given the Paris/Britney/MaryKateandAshley/Amy Winehouse treatment, how in the hell are you supposed to determine what they'll do about something important, like health care or education?

Sometimes I wonder what would have happened if I'd followed my original career plans and gone into journalism. Would I have a different perspective on journalism and integrity, or would I be taking really, really long showers, hoping to Lady Macbeth myself out of the slime?

Something tells me I'd probably be a human prune. Guess it's a good thing I'm a teacher.