Okay, this is just priceless:
Showing posts with label Politics. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Politics. Show all posts
Thursday, May 22, 2008
Wednesday, May 7, 2008
Getting Sick of the Clinton Spin Machine
Indiana, as you just might have heard, held its primary yesterday (along with North Carolina). No shock here, I cast my ballot for Obama (and gubernatorial candidate Jill Long Thompson). But after a 2% Clinton "victory," the Clinton camp is oh so excited that they won their "tie-breaker" state, managing to declare victory before there was a projected winner.You heard it here first, Indiana is a democrat tie-breaker state. I guess that's true if you factor out... well, reality, I guess.
I just don't get it. Bad media narrative aside, this thing has been all but over since early March. The good news is that, last night, the major media networks finally got hip to the fact that Clinton has absolutely zero chance of winning this thing. But that reality hasn't managed to leak down to Clinton's surrogates. I know they have a job to do and all, but I still can't quite wrap my head around the level to which these people will sink to not only make this race sound competitive, but to make it sound like Clinton is winning. That takes a special kind of delusion. Sure, if you just look at the delegate counts it might look close. They're only a couple hundred delegates apart out of about 3,000. But with only a handful of unpledged and supers left, Clinton has zero chance of having them all break her way (which is what she needs at this point).
I particularly like hearing the Clinton people talk about how, "Obama hasn't won a significant primary in two months," nevermind how disingenuous that sentiment is. Obama cleaned house in Frebruary. There were exactly three primary dates (totaling 6 states) in March. There was one in April. A total of seven states. Obama won three of those states outright (Vermont, Wyoming and Mississippi), so I'm sure those states will be relieved to know that the Clinton campaign still doesn't think they count. And that gives Clinton credit for "winning" Texas, even though by the only barometer that matters -delegates- she actually lost Texas (99-94). But they're right, North Carolina was Obama's first win since the Ice Age.
I get that this is easy for me, being an Obama supporter sitting over in the cheap seats. And I know this is a race for the White House and all, but there is such a thing as losing with a little class and dignity, something that said bye-bye to Miss Hillary a long time ago.
The thing is, I always had a favorable view of both Bill and Hillary Clinton. BJs from not very attractive White House interns aside, I always liked Bill Clinton. There's no doubt he earned the name, "Slick Willy," but I do think that he ultimately wants to do right by this country and I think he largely did that. As for Hillary, the fact of the matter is, my biggest grudge with her at the beginning was her last name. 20-30 years of Bush-Clinton-Clinton-Bush-Bush-Clinton-? is not what our founders had in mind. This is not an aristocracy. I started to lean towards Obama very early in the primary season -hell, I started to lean Obama after his 2004 convention speech- but it wasn't until this primary season really got going that I started to outright loath the Clintons, something I didn't think was possible.
I don't like people who are willing to do or say anything to win an election. Granted, most any politician fits that bill, but some will take it a little farther than others. It was one of many reasons I didn't like Bush when he ran in 2000. It's the primary reason I have absolutely no intention of voting for McCain, whom I liked back in 2000. (For those of you still clinging to the notion that McCain is a "centrist" and Repub party "maverick," I've got a bridge to sell you.) But back to Clinton...
In the Clinton-narrative, the only states that count are the ones that vote for them. The rest, I guess, can all go out drinking and fuck themselves once they get home. The only polls that count are the cherry-picked ones that show them in the lead. Which is sort of like determining the winner of the Super Bowl by going with the team to which Vegas offers better odds. Michigan and Florida are maligned innocents that the Obama campaign is stamping down, as if Obama controls how the DNC elects to handle this clusterf#@ of a situation. Obama can't win the big swing states like Ohio and Pennsylvania because, well, apparently these record democrat turnouts in the primaries will all just stay home or vote for Bush's third term, I guess. Nevermind that national polling has Obama competitive with McCain in a lot of states where Clinton is not and that the electoral math favors Obama. (There's a bunch of detailed electoral math posts at Daily Kos to this effect.) And all that is after Obama's 3-week Reverend Wright nightmare, gas tax pandering, and the other obligatory nonsense about lapel pins, elitism and bittergate. If Obama was going to sink under the weight of all this junk it would've shown up in the results last night. No such luck for Clinton.
What I really don't get, though is that two months of outright shameful campaigning has worked for her in a lot of ways. The more mud she slings, the more "reality" she invents, the better she seems to do with her core supporters, who don't seem to care that her campaign has tried to move the goal posts at every single opportunity as soon as their narrative of the day was no longer convenient for them. Nevermind the reality that the only thing Clinton really had going for going into yesterday was a media narrative that parroted her campaign's garbage for everything it was worth (and more).
Thankfully, that appears to have ended last night. I flipped back and forth a lot between CNN and MSNBC and the storylines were all the same. Without a huge win in Indiana and at least a close loss in North Carolina the door was going to shut on her chances of winning the nomination. She didn't get it and as hard as the Clinton surrogates tried last night to spin otherwise, the overarching narrative last night was that she's now fighting an impossible battle. The only question is just how far she'll go. My guess is, not much farther.
Clinton's only real hope up to this point was coup by superdelegate. And her "insurmountable" lead in that segment of a few months ago has all but disappeared. It seems like every day another superdelegate drops into Obama's column and after last night, I'm betting the superdelegate floodgates really start to open over the course of May. At the end of this month the DNC is going to meet to determine just how to handle the Michigan/Florida question. Once that is dispensed with I'm betting it's just a matter of days to the end game.
I don't know how they should handle that. You need to find a way to seat the delegates for the convention. But you can't count the primary votes in those states at face value. Even if the rules are idiotic, they're the rules everyone agreed to and Michigan and Florida broke them. (Hell, only Clinton's name was even on the Michigan ballot and 40% still voted uncommitted.) It's ludicrous to think that should change just because the clock's running down in the fourth quarter. Not that it matters. Even if you gave Clinton her 55% in Michigan and 50% in Florida it wouldn't put her back in the nomination race.
For reasons passing understanding, Clinton's going to get her big numbers in West Virginia and Kentucky over the next two weeks. That seems pretty clear at this point. But after that, the well runs dry. Though, I suppose Guam could break for her. (Woo!) But even then it won't be nearly enough without locking up nearly every uncommitted superdelegate left in the game and that's fantasy land. (Granted, the supers can change their mind at any time, but these people are not going to just hand Clinton the nomination when the pledged delegates significantly favor Obama.)
Clinton needs to use the next two weeks (and their primaries) to put on a good *clean* show for her supporters, one that focuses on McCain's shortcomings and not Obama's, and then she needs to rally her base behind Obama and bow out. It's the only thing she can still do to retain any shred of credibility in the eyes of this voter.
Tuesday, February 5, 2008
The Audacity of Hope
disclaimer: This is a long one.
Every year I make a New Year's resolution to read one book a month. The first time I think I made it through February (two whole books!), the year that it was March or April. Last year I lasted till June. This year, by the letter of the law, I blew it in the first month. But only by a couple days, as I finally wrapped up reading Barack Obama's The Audacity of Hope. Which is the first non-fiction work I think I've read since college. Well, not counting the tech books I edit every day, anyway. Anyway, what with it being Super Tuesday and all, it seems a good time to give some thoughts both on the book and the man.
I'm no more qualified to tell you if Audacity of Hope is a groundbreaking work than I am qualified to explain to you the theories behind quantum physics. And certainly, Obama's critics can rightly point out that the book doesn't offer a lot of specifics in regards to Obama's plans for this country. But that's really not what this book is about. It's about the man himself. It's a look at how his life experiences have molded him into the person he is today and a primer on how he thinks about issues confronting both the country and the world. So, if you're looking for him to explain a detailed tax plan or how exactly he'll get the money to support a universal health care system, steer clear. If you want to know why he supports the notion of universal programs, such as healthcare, or why he thinks some regulation of the free market is important, then this is the book to read.
Broken down into chapters ranging from his thoughts on political parties and the Constitution of the United States to his feelings about race, faith and "The World Beyond Our Borders," in Audacity of Hope Obama offers a direct and honest look into his mind. It was a refreshing read in a lot of ways that I wasn't expecting. Let me explain...
With this being an election year I'm reminded just how much of what we know about any candidate for office comes from television. Yes, the print media offers up its opinions on anything and everything, but what I'm talking about is what we learn from the candidates themselves. Their own words and actions. And it's hard to escape the notion that after watching numerous debates, interviews, etc. you really learn very little about these people. The nature of the questions they're asked, the degree of mandatory pandering to every interest group under the sun, etc. all obscure the person behind the persona. Contrasting that with having read The Audacity of Hope, it's impossible to escape the fact that I learned so much more about Obama himself from those 360 pages than I have from any TV debate, interview or campaign ad in which he's featured.
Sure, you can pander in a book just as well as you can in a debate. And there's an argument to be made that a book is less reliable because it can be so carefully crafted and molded to fit an image you want to project. But, being an editor (even if it's just tech books), I've found the opposite is more frequently true. I think it's much harder to hide who you are when writing 130,000 words than in a 60 second answer to an interview question. It's all in the words a person uses, like when Obama talks about why he prefers to fly commercial when traveling from DC to his home in Illinois, despite the many amenities of private flights.
If you're really looking at the words themselves you'll also know when they're coming from the author himself or from a ghost. (There's no way this was ghost written.) It's the little things we do in language to convey a thought or idea that will betray you as a genuine voice or a panderer. And I found Audacity of Hope to be a very genuine book.
I've also found in my time as an editor that there are two kinds of good writers. There are good writers who are, for lack of a better term, artsy. They know how to use words to convey a thought or idea or paint a picture in sometimes unbelievable ways. I'm no fan of Jane Austin novels, but you can't deny the eloquence of her writing. Aaron Sorkin (Sports Night, The West Wing and Studio 60 on the Sunset Strip, as well as numerous movies) can turn a phrase like no TV/movie writer I've ever seen. In the online world, when he's on his game, Sean Sands at Gamers With Jobs is one of those guys who just knows how to bend the English language to his will. Then there are writers who aren't especially gifted with the language, but they have this innate ability to dissect and analyze a topic and use language to convey a message or tell a story better than the rest of us. In print I think of guys like Raymond E. Feist (wrote The Riftwar saga). J.R.R. Tolkein he's not, but at the same time, he can spin a compelling yarn. Online I think of guys like Bill Harris at Dubious Quality. It's not the way Bill turns a phrase that makes his blog one of the best on the web, but rather the way he is able to use language to convey his thoughts and ideas. And this, back to the point, is what Obama does.
Obama, be it in this book, in a stump speech, or at the 2004 Democratic National Convention, isn't a gifted writer/speaker in the way, say, Martin Luther King Jr. was. He's gifted with the ability to communicate thoughts and ideas; with the ability to put into words what a lot of the rest of us are thinking, but can't quite articulate. His words bely the workings of a contemplative, complex and often brilliant mind. When he writes about people he's met as a state legislator at town halls across Illinois, or his work as a community organizer in downtown Chicago, and how those people have influenced his policy ideas on matters of health care or free trade, it reads genuine. When he talks about the negative impact his political life has had on his family and his insecurities as a father, he describes feelings that any father can recognize as the real thing. And when he talks about America's role on the international stage it's obvious there's a mind at works that sees the world in the necessary shades of gray that it really is.
So, if you want to get to know Obama the presidential candidate, my best advice to you is to turn the TV off and read this book. This is where you'll learn if Obama is the kind of person you want to occupy the Oval Office. I was leaning his way before reading it, but my reservations about him were numerous. Now, I have no questions, and should he fail to win the nomination I don't think "crushed" would be too strong a word to describe how I'd feel. (I'm not a Clinton hater, but as I've said before, the notion of Bush, Clinton/Clinton, Bush/Bush, Clinton/? is much too aristocratic for me. And no, there is no Republican on the ballot for which I'd cast my vote.)
Hopefully when all is said and done today, he'll have at least stayed close to Clinton in the delegate count. He doesn't need to win every big state today, just so long as it stays close. (The fact that delegates are split rather than winner take all is what's so great about the Democratic primary/caucus system this year.) If he can do that, I like his chances to get the nomination as we move into the spring.
Every year I make a New Year's resolution to read one book a month. The first time I think I made it through February (two whole books!), the year that it was March or April. Last year I lasted till June. This year, by the letter of the law, I blew it in the first month. But only by a couple days, as I finally wrapped up reading Barack Obama's The Audacity of Hope. Which is the first non-fiction work I think I've read since college. Well, not counting the tech books I edit every day, anyway. Anyway, what with it being Super Tuesday and all, it seems a good time to give some thoughts both on the book and the man.
I'm no more qualified to tell you if Audacity of Hope is a groundbreaking work than I am qualified to explain to you the theories behind quantum physics. And certainly, Obama's critics can rightly point out that the book doesn't offer a lot of specifics in regards to Obama's plans for this country. But that's really not what this book is about. It's about the man himself. It's a look at how his life experiences have molded him into the person he is today and a primer on how he thinks about issues confronting both the country and the world. So, if you're looking for him to explain a detailed tax plan or how exactly he'll get the money to support a universal health care system, steer clear. If you want to know why he supports the notion of universal programs, such as healthcare, or why he thinks some regulation of the free market is important, then this is the book to read.
Broken down into chapters ranging from his thoughts on political parties and the Constitution of the United States to his feelings about race, faith and "The World Beyond Our Borders," in Audacity of Hope Obama offers a direct and honest look into his mind. It was a refreshing read in a lot of ways that I wasn't expecting. Let me explain...
With this being an election year I'm reminded just how much of what we know about any candidate for office comes from television. Yes, the print media offers up its opinions on anything and everything, but what I'm talking about is what we learn from the candidates themselves. Their own words and actions. And it's hard to escape the notion that after watching numerous debates, interviews, etc. you really learn very little about these people. The nature of the questions they're asked, the degree of mandatory pandering to every interest group under the sun, etc. all obscure the person behind the persona. Contrasting that with having read The Audacity of Hope, it's impossible to escape the fact that I learned so much more about Obama himself from those 360 pages than I have from any TV debate, interview or campaign ad in which he's featured.
Sure, you can pander in a book just as well as you can in a debate. And there's an argument to be made that a book is less reliable because it can be so carefully crafted and molded to fit an image you want to project. But, being an editor (even if it's just tech books), I've found the opposite is more frequently true. I think it's much harder to hide who you are when writing 130,000 words than in a 60 second answer to an interview question. It's all in the words a person uses, like when Obama talks about why he prefers to fly commercial when traveling from DC to his home in Illinois, despite the many amenities of private flights.
If you're really looking at the words themselves you'll also know when they're coming from the author himself or from a ghost. (There's no way this was ghost written.) It's the little things we do in language to convey a thought or idea that will betray you as a genuine voice or a panderer. And I found Audacity of Hope to be a very genuine book.
I've also found in my time as an editor that there are two kinds of good writers. There are good writers who are, for lack of a better term, artsy. They know how to use words to convey a thought or idea or paint a picture in sometimes unbelievable ways. I'm no fan of Jane Austin novels, but you can't deny the eloquence of her writing. Aaron Sorkin (Sports Night, The West Wing and Studio 60 on the Sunset Strip, as well as numerous movies) can turn a phrase like no TV/movie writer I've ever seen. In the online world, when he's on his game, Sean Sands at Gamers With Jobs is one of those guys who just knows how to bend the English language to his will. Then there are writers who aren't especially gifted with the language, but they have this innate ability to dissect and analyze a topic and use language to convey a message or tell a story better than the rest of us. In print I think of guys like Raymond E. Feist (wrote The Riftwar saga). J.R.R. Tolkein he's not, but at the same time, he can spin a compelling yarn. Online I think of guys like Bill Harris at Dubious Quality. It's not the way Bill turns a phrase that makes his blog one of the best on the web, but rather the way he is able to use language to convey his thoughts and ideas. And this, back to the point, is what Obama does.
Obama, be it in this book, in a stump speech, or at the 2004 Democratic National Convention, isn't a gifted writer/speaker in the way, say, Martin Luther King Jr. was. He's gifted with the ability to communicate thoughts and ideas; with the ability to put into words what a lot of the rest of us are thinking, but can't quite articulate. His words bely the workings of a contemplative, complex and often brilliant mind. When he writes about people he's met as a state legislator at town halls across Illinois, or his work as a community organizer in downtown Chicago, and how those people have influenced his policy ideas on matters of health care or free trade, it reads genuine. When he talks about the negative impact his political life has had on his family and his insecurities as a father, he describes feelings that any father can recognize as the real thing. And when he talks about America's role on the international stage it's obvious there's a mind at works that sees the world in the necessary shades of gray that it really is.
So, if you want to get to know Obama the presidential candidate, my best advice to you is to turn the TV off and read this book. This is where you'll learn if Obama is the kind of person you want to occupy the Oval Office. I was leaning his way before reading it, but my reservations about him were numerous. Now, I have no questions, and should he fail to win the nomination I don't think "crushed" would be too strong a word to describe how I'd feel. (I'm not a Clinton hater, but as I've said before, the notion of Bush, Clinton/Clinton, Bush/Bush, Clinton/? is much too aristocratic for me. And no, there is no Republican on the ballot for which I'd cast my vote.)
Hopefully when all is said and done today, he'll have at least stayed close to Clinton in the delegate count. He doesn't need to win every big state today, just so long as it stays close. (The fact that delegates are split rather than winner take all is what's so great about the Democratic primary/caucus system this year.) If he can do that, I like his chances to get the nomination as we move into the spring.
Friday, January 11, 2008
Politics and Evil TV Media Follow-Up
Gotta love this Lou Dobbs/CNN graphic posted over at Crooks and Liars. (If you can't read the screenshot, just click it for a (slightly) larger version.)
Friday, January 4, 2008
Friday Airing of Grievances: TV and Presidential Elections
I don't think Bill or I intend to get into politics much on this blog, but it's a presidential election year and yesterday was a pretty big night. You've got the political machine in Hillary Clinton ultimately finishing behind both Obama and Edwards. And you've got a guy on the Republican side in Huckabee who was outspent roughly $432,324,125,456.64 to 1 and flat out creamed the competition.
Did I mention the guy also had to contend with the fact that his name is Huckabee?
Just to be aboveboard with this post, I'll point out that I'm leaning towards being an Obama guy. I actually like Edwards a lot, but I'm just not sure he's the guy. I also don't sport the blindly irrational Hillary hate many have but my other issues with her aside, the notion of Bush, Clinton, Clinton, Bush, Bush, Clinton just makes me cringe. It's a little (well, a lot) too aristocratic for my taste.
Conversely, there's really no one in the Republican field I could see myself voting for, though, credit where it's do, what Huckabee did in Iowa is impressive. He also gave a hell of a speech last night. And while there's not a chance in hell I'd vote for him, it's easy to see why he was so appealing to so many Iowan voters. Though, you have to question putting Chucky Norris right behind him during the speech. Is this guy supposed to be the conservative Oprah or something?
But I digress...
I ended up settling on MSNBC last night since it's the Keith Olberman network and he's the one TV "news" personality I cannot only stomach, but tend to like more often than not. They also had several segments done by Tom Brokaw, and it was good to see his mug on TV again. Of course, it also meant listening to Chris "Tweetie Bird" Matthews, Tim Russert and some other Cro-Magnon guy, whom I think was Stone Philips. (Also, who has the balls to call themselves "Stone?") Watching these guys do their usual shtick of not reporting on the story but willfully attempting to shape it is just a mind numbing exercise.
Matthews was particularly painful as he consistently tried to paint Clinton's third place finish as a rejection by 2/3 of Iowan voters, while calling Obama's victory the most significant moment in American politics since Sitting Bull became chief of the Dakota Sioux. Nevermind that technically Edwards was rejected by an equal number and Obama by more than 60%. And while Obama's win was historically significant, the biggest political story of our time it was not.
This, however, is what these pundits do now. They've got their "conclusions" all set ahead of time and once events play out they just pick the one they think makes them sound the most insightful. Edwards, whom most wealthy TV people cannot stand, is their angry inheritor of Dean's "I Have a Scream" legacy. (Anytime a politician sounds passionate about anything these chimps label them as too "angry.") Ron Paul is the batshit crazy lunatic who must not be named. Though, he may actually be crazy, Voldemort the guy is not. At least he understands the role of the Constitution of the United States. If Clinton wins its an as expected, because she's a pro, if she loses it's because women rejected her. Guys like Dodd, Biden and Richardson won't get the time of day, despite the fact that if voters really got to know anything real about them they'd find they were viable candidates.
They try to tell us what to think instead of giving us the information we need to actually think for ourselves. Sure, having partisan spinmeisters (ie - hacks) like Rachel Maddow (Air America) and Pat Buchanan can provide perspective, but guys like Russert and Matthews who are supposed to anchor these things just can't seem to help themselves. They're convinced that America needs to know what *they* think on every single issue, and they're going to hammer home their sacred insights every single chance they get like they're playing a scratched vinyl record.
Worse was watching one of the earlier Democratic debates on CNN. Surely, you know the one? It was hosted by Wolf Blitzer and ended with a Nevadan woman asking Clinton, "Diamonds or pearls?" Blitzer spent the entire night trying to get the candidates to answer a mere yes or no to highly complex questions like drivers licenses for illegal immigrants. Last I checked these events are called debates, Wolf. How much do you really learn about a candidate's position by having them answer serious questions with one word? Shouldn't we want to know why a candidate is for or against an issue? Isn't that the very definition of a debate?
Also, for the record, that diamonds or pearls woman had a legitimate question to ask, but CNN told her to ask that instead because it was a "cute" way to close out the debate. Funny, I didn't find it cute. I thought it was embarrassing to the questioner, the candidate and any American tuning in expecting to learn something of genuine importance about the candidates, not to mention to the network itself.
Somehow, the post debate coverage that night was actually worse. First you had the anchors and pundits going on and on about how well Hillary did. And yeah, she did do fine that night, but she hardly stood out from the other candidates in any meaningful way. But no, CNN brings former Clinton people like James "How Am I Still Relevant?" Carville on to tell us "objectively" how wonderful Hillary Clinton did. Yeah, that has the ring of authenticity to it.
Anyway, you'd think I'd have a point to all of this. Unfortunately, I really don't. Modern TV "journalism" pretty much sucks all around and I doubt that's news to anyone. But it's Friday, so I've gotta get worked up about something, right? With that said, I'll leave you with an interesting data point I found while ready Daily Kos this morning (it's actual source is the Group News Blog):
Did I mention the guy also had to contend with the fact that his name is Huckabee?
Just to be aboveboard with this post, I'll point out that I'm leaning towards being an Obama guy. I actually like Edwards a lot, but I'm just not sure he's the guy. I also don't sport the blindly irrational Hillary hate many have but my other issues with her aside, the notion of Bush, Clinton, Clinton, Bush, Bush, Clinton just makes me cringe. It's a little (well, a lot) too aristocratic for my taste.
Conversely, there's really no one in the Republican field I could see myself voting for, though, credit where it's do, what Huckabee did in Iowa is impressive. He also gave a hell of a speech last night. And while there's not a chance in hell I'd vote for him, it's easy to see why he was so appealing to so many Iowan voters. Though, you have to question putting Chucky Norris right behind him during the speech. Is this guy supposed to be the conservative Oprah or something?
But I digress...
I ended up settling on MSNBC last night since it's the Keith Olberman network and he's the one TV "news" personality I cannot only stomach, but tend to like more often than not. They also had several segments done by Tom Brokaw, and it was good to see his mug on TV again. Of course, it also meant listening to Chris "Tweetie Bird" Matthews, Tim Russert and some other Cro-Magnon guy, whom I think was Stone Philips. (Also, who has the balls to call themselves "Stone?") Watching these guys do their usual shtick of not reporting on the story but willfully attempting to shape it is just a mind numbing exercise.
Matthews was particularly painful as he consistently tried to paint Clinton's third place finish as a rejection by 2/3 of Iowan voters, while calling Obama's victory the most significant moment in American politics since Sitting Bull became chief of the Dakota Sioux. Nevermind that technically Edwards was rejected by an equal number and Obama by more than 60%. And while Obama's win was historically significant, the biggest political story of our time it was not.
This, however, is what these pundits do now. They've got their "conclusions" all set ahead of time and once events play out they just pick the one they think makes them sound the most insightful. Edwards, whom most wealthy TV people cannot stand, is their angry inheritor of Dean's "I Have a Scream" legacy. (Anytime a politician sounds passionate about anything these chimps label them as too "angry.") Ron Paul is the batshit crazy lunatic who must not be named. Though, he may actually be crazy, Voldemort the guy is not. At least he understands the role of the Constitution of the United States. If Clinton wins its an as expected, because she's a pro, if she loses it's because women rejected her. Guys like Dodd, Biden and Richardson won't get the time of day, despite the fact that if voters really got to know anything real about them they'd find they were viable candidates.
They try to tell us what to think instead of giving us the information we need to actually think for ourselves. Sure, having partisan spinmeisters (ie - hacks) like Rachel Maddow (Air America) and Pat Buchanan can provide perspective, but guys like Russert and Matthews who are supposed to anchor these things just can't seem to help themselves. They're convinced that America needs to know what *they* think on every single issue, and they're going to hammer home their sacred insights every single chance they get like they're playing a scratched vinyl record.
Worse was watching one of the earlier Democratic debates on CNN. Surely, you know the one? It was hosted by Wolf Blitzer and ended with a Nevadan woman asking Clinton, "Diamonds or pearls?" Blitzer spent the entire night trying to get the candidates to answer a mere yes or no to highly complex questions like drivers licenses for illegal immigrants. Last I checked these events are called debates, Wolf. How much do you really learn about a candidate's position by having them answer serious questions with one word? Shouldn't we want to know why a candidate is for or against an issue? Isn't that the very definition of a debate?
Also, for the record, that diamonds or pearls woman had a legitimate question to ask, but CNN told her to ask that instead because it was a "cute" way to close out the debate. Funny, I didn't find it cute. I thought it was embarrassing to the questioner, the candidate and any American tuning in expecting to learn something of genuine importance about the candidates, not to mention to the network itself.
Somehow, the post debate coverage that night was actually worse. First you had the anchors and pundits going on and on about how well Hillary did. And yeah, she did do fine that night, but she hardly stood out from the other candidates in any meaningful way. But no, CNN brings former Clinton people like James "How Am I Still Relevant?" Carville on to tell us "objectively" how wonderful Hillary Clinton did. Yeah, that has the ring of authenticity to it.
Anyway, you'd think I'd have a point to all of this. Unfortunately, I really don't. Modern TV "journalism" pretty much sucks all around and I doubt that's news to anyone. But it's Friday, so I've gotta get worked up about something, right? With that said, I'll leave you with an interesting data point I found while ready Daily Kos this morning (it's actual source is the Group News Blog):
Total Voter Turnout (approximate): 356,000If you're a die-hard Republican voter, this coming from Iowa has to be more than a little scary.
Percentage of total vote:
24.5% Obama
20.5% Edwards
19.8% Clinton
11.4% Huckabee
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)