"The Weakest Link" Redux
Remember the British game show The Weakest Link hosted by Anne Robinson? Trivia game shows always piqued my interest being a trivia geek myself. The strategies employed by the game's contestants though irritated me enough to make me not watch it after I saw how they played the game. It's also part of the reason why I never watched Survivor; those contestants used the same tactics.
When either show has its full complement of players, the challenges and stronger contestants weed out the weaker ones through mutual attrition. When the numbers dwindled to three or four people, that's when things start to get weird. Clearly one person stands head and shoulders above the remaining participants. That person succeeds by observing all the rules and manages to excel despite the obstacles and challenges presented. The others, not being slouches themselves, recognize that while they still have talent and skill they do not possess what the perceived leader has. To increase their chances of survival, the lesser contestants combine their efforts to remove the largest obstacle before them: the leader.
Even though the leader demonstrates their skill and abilities (within the preset rules and guidelines), the lesser players work to remove the leading player from the game, usually with success and sometimes resorting to chicanery. Once they do, the show suffers as a consequence because the best contestant is no longer viable.
In recent memory, The Weakest Link analogy would not apply to national politics. It does this year though. The lesser contestants in this real-life scenario are Clinton, McCain, the Democratic Party superdelegates, the RNC, and the least of them all, the mainstream media. They are all doing their very best to get rid of the most viable contestant still in the game: Obama. This is not a game show nor is it a "reality" show. I implore the lesser contestants to cease their Machiavellian tactics and play the game as Obama plays it. Focus on the important issues so that the voters can make an informed choice, because we deserve it.
When either show has its full complement of players, the challenges and stronger contestants weed out the weaker ones through mutual attrition. When the numbers dwindled to three or four people, that's when things start to get weird. Clearly one person stands head and shoulders above the remaining participants. That person succeeds by observing all the rules and manages to excel despite the obstacles and challenges presented. The others, not being slouches themselves, recognize that while they still have talent and skill they do not possess what the perceived leader has. To increase their chances of survival, the lesser contestants combine their efforts to remove the largest obstacle before them: the leader.
Even though the leader demonstrates their skill and abilities (within the preset rules and guidelines), the lesser players work to remove the leading player from the game, usually with success and sometimes resorting to chicanery. Once they do, the show suffers as a consequence because the best contestant is no longer viable.
In recent memory, The Weakest Link analogy would not apply to national politics. It does this year though. The lesser contestants in this real-life scenario are Clinton, McCain, the Democratic Party superdelegates, the RNC, and the least of them all, the mainstream media. They are all doing their very best to get rid of the most viable contestant still in the game: Obama. This is not a game show nor is it a "reality" show. I implore the lesser contestants to cease their Machiavellian tactics and play the game as Obama plays it. Focus on the important issues so that the voters can make an informed choice, because we deserve it.
Comments