"What the heck makes the author write this article," indeed - and what made the Post publish it - has pretty much been my question all along.


I'd also like to point out that the whole thing of "swooning" is likely to be a journalistic invention. Did people faint? Yes, a few. Do we know for a fact that no one fainted at Clinton rallies? Do we know for a fact that those few who fainted, fainted because of infatuation with the candidate, instead of for health reasons, or the closeness of the crowd?

My guess is that the Obama crowds were larger than expected and the audience was closely packed, which contributed to, if it didn't create, the problem. I know that here in Omaha lines formed for hours before the doors opened; that's a long time waiting, especially if you don't bring food and water.

But I think someone thought "swooning" made a better story, and wrote it that way. And because of that, you get an article like this.

Last edited by Mellowicious; 03/08/08 01:40 PM.

Julia
A 45’s quicker than 409
Betty’s cleaning’ house for the very last time
Betty’s bein’ bad