Media Criticism

I have been away for the last week for several reasons including burnout from writing for several blogs at the same time. My major reason for taking a week away from Media Criticism was a desire to get perspective on the state of the 2008 presidential race. I know I am not the first person to say the following but I don’t think I have made comments as cynical as the ones in this post.

I was watching coverage on MSNBC, CNN and listening to coverage on NPR of Tuesday’s Pennsylvania Democratic primary over the last week. The daily posts that I submit for this blog and others do not allow me to see the forest for the trees in many cases especially with my hyperactive coverage of the presidential race since last summer. I have to say that it doesn’t matter if Barack Obama or Hillary Clinton wins any one of these primaries. It also doesn’t matter which candidate gets the most delegates by the end of the primary process. There will be unseemly machinations and underhanded deeds performed by handlers on both sides during the party’s August convention.

We are all aware of Hillary Clinton’s reputation as a lurker and a political figure who works in shadows and gray hues to achieve her goals. Barack Obama speaks a good game but the fact that his past is relatively unknown compared to Clinton and John McCain creates an aura of invincibility around the candidate. Every politician is a pig at the trough, pushing aside competitors in search of the biggest reserve of slop. The situation would be the same if John McCain was in a pitched battle with one of his Republican competitors. There is no difference in the process of nominating candidates from either party and marginal differences in the policies they would pursue when in office.

I am going to continue analyzing alternative newspapers and media of all types with tomorrow’s post beginning a series on independent radio stations. The political realm seems to dirty and unrewarding to waste time talking about on a daily basis. I think I have reached a point where I have gone from a political junkie to someone who realizes that political junkies are to promoting good policy as fantasy football players are to enjoying individual football games.

I love the idea that Rolling Stone feels it has the political clout to sway an election before the Democratic primaries are done. I complimented Matt Taibbi about his solid reporting on the political scene but I would hope that Mr. Taibbi told the editors of the magazine that most of the primaries are over. I don’t think Rolling Stone has become a Pennsylvania publication and it doesn’t seem likely that this endorsement will do well in places like Indiana, West Virginia and Kentucky. I am sure other readers of the magazine are pondering why a rock magazine is bothering with this endorsement during the primary process.

I know that Rolling Stone waited in the past to throw its hat into the ring for Democratic candidates (there are few doubts about their political affiliations). Al Gore and John Kerry got the magazine’s blessing well into the general election season. The primaries are protracted due to the impressive qualifications of Senators Obama and Clinton but I am sure there are plenty of other issues that the magazine could cover. Rolling Stone could just put Red Hot Chili Peppers, Bob Dylan and the Rolling Stones (the center of their musical universe) on the cover while waiting for the final field to emerge.

The larger issue with Rolling Stone’s recent endorsement is the decreasing impact of endorsements at large. The magazine has always been a supporter of liberal ideas while bucking the mainstream Democratic establishment in many articles. I have never run across a conservative music magazine that offers an endorsement of Republican candidates. There are many problems with endorsements including the lack of credibility by supportive politicians, business owners and activists. Rolling Stone just doesn’t have the political clout that it wants to have. The editors should continue to uncover problems in American politics sandwiched between flashy pictures of Amy Winehouse and the latest interview with the guy from Maroon 5. A music magazine with a few articles on politics will never gain credibility with activists in the same way that Roll Call will never be read by hipsters looking for CD reviews.

I have watched all 20 of the Democratic debates so you can understand my frustration with the course of events. I remember watching the first debate with everyone from Joe Biden to Mike Gravel competing for air time well before anyone would expect the campaign season to start. The entire Democratic field was invited to these events when few people were watching. As the campaign season began to crank up for voters in Iowa and New Hampshire, people began to drop off due to prior commitments and network rules about viability.

Tuesday’s MSNBC debate in Ohio was a fitting conclusion for the long grind of the Democratic primary season. I know that there are other primaries after next Tuesday with Pennsylvania a big fish in Democratic circles. This was my last debate until there are Democratic and Republican nominees because I have reached maximum capacity for rhetoric.

We have heard both candidates put through the grinder with MSNBC covering the presidential election 24 hours a day, 7 days a week (unless a celebrity does something). I don’t know if I can hear Chris Matthews tell another story or make a piss-poor joke. Joe Scaroborough is intolerable as a debate analyst and I won’t get too deep into my disdain for Tim Russert and Brian Williams as moderators. One of the reasons why I won’t be watching more primary debates is the spectacle made of the democratic process made by cable networks.

The main reason that I tire of these debates and hope that this was the last one is that they serve no purpose. Candidates aren’t going to answer questions that are omitted by moderators and the networks aren’t interested in getting down to issues. We fight the same fights constantly in these primary debates including the “who’s tougher” debates in the Republican primary and the “who can get out of Iraq quickly” debates in the Democratic primary. The writers are back so I can watch some terrible sitcoms and dramas instead of watching poorly-scripted debates.

We heard all about 527 groups like Swift Boat Veterans for Truth and America Coming Together in the 2004 presidential election. The term “swift boat” has been used since the despicable attack on Senator John Kerry on his war record. We will hear some more “swift boat” ads this cycle with Senator John McCain’s Vietnam War record on trial. The only difference is that we will hear these ads from non-profits as well as 527 groups.

Mother Jones had an article on its website today that highlights changes in campaign finance law that will make third-party ads more prominent in the election. The Supreme Court eased the McCain-Feingold campaign finance law in June 2007 but the FEC has recently rule that several 527 groups broke these laws. It seems that the federal government continues to be at odds, struggling between the inevitable and permanent pressure of money in politics and token efforts at reform.

We will see non-profit groups all over the political spectrum participate in the slash-and-burn techniques that we have become accustomed to in American politics. I think that Americans need to take on a greater share of responsibility for the effectiveness of these ads. American voters who knew that George W. Bush was an ineffective president were pushed around by Republican operatives using the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth as a legal shield for their dirty deeds. The unique nature of the 2008 election means that we will see ugly ads about Barack Obama as a Muslim extremist, Hillary Clinton as an extension of her lightning rod of a husband and John McCain as a hypocrite and a liar. It is up to every voter to bypass ads from groups outside of the campaigns by finding balance among the myriad sources of information. We have no one to blame but ourselves if we are convinced by any of the faulty arguments and half-truths espoused by non-profit groups.

I have been busting the chops of CNN anchors like Campbell Brown and Wolf Blitzer throughout the presidential primary season. Brown is vapid, Blitzer is a terrible debate moderator and the network brings on supporters of Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama and John McCain when thoughtful analysis is needed. CNN lucked into a good debate this evening from Austin, Texas due to the potential problem of a prolonged nominating process for the Democratic Party.

Any network who hosted this debate would have witnessed a heated contest between Senator Obama and Senator Clinton. Obama has momentum built upon since Super Tuesday while Clinton and her surrogates have made Texas the last line of defense. Anyone who thinks that a loss in Texas means that Senator Clinton will drop out does not understand her desire to reach the White House. I would like to take this sentence to say that I don’t think Clinton should drop out after Texas if she keeps it close in delegates after March 4th. My opinion is probably not the same as the opinions of Democratic operatives desperate to campaign against John McCain.

The words “silly season,” “plagiarism” and “experience” popped up frequently in the Austin debates. Hillary Clinton was flailing desperately at many points in the debate though she was strong early in the debate. Barack Obama seemed to build up steam throughout the debate as the line of questioning got more contentious. I liked Hillary’s promotion of green jobs as part of the stimulus package though her platitudes after the fact mean nothing in the end. The 90 minutes of debate got ugly in some parts and showed Democrats what they have to look forward to if the nominating process goes long.

I think that it is alright to air out these problems in public. The Democratic Party should swing through all 50 states and numerous territories to give every voter the chance to make up their mind. The successes of the Democrats in the 2006 midterm elections need to be confirmed by a presidential candidate that reflects the identity of rank-and-file voters. Democrats may not want a race that goes to the convention but it may be the best way to solidify the party’s strength for the next generation. A little clearing of detritus and old-style thinking caused by public scrutiny can make a party stronger than a party created by blind consensus.

I always enjoy reading a publication’s review of media coverage in the rabid horse race that is the 2008 presidential election. Magazine editors and TV show hosts seem to forget that they are part of the problems they highlight, consciously or subconsciously. The latest bit of analysis on the Barack Obama/Hillary Clinton chasm in the Democratic Party comes from The New Republic and demonstrates the problems in media outlets looking inward.

The New Republic blogger Isaac Chotiner quotes a New York Magazine article highlighting various reasons why Obama is crushing Clinton in terms of media coverage. This original premise by Chotiner is faulty because all I have heard is that Obama is “inexperienced” and Clinton creates vitriolic responses from every media outlet. The MSNBC flap regarding Chelsea as a political call girl and Hillary Clinton as a jilted wife is only one axis in the media’s coverage of the Democratic candidates.

The discussions of meta-narratives in the New York Magazine article as well as Chotiner’s discussion of Clinton’s tactics against Obama leave much to be desired. The idea that the main reason for Clinton’s sagging numbers is that she gives off an “anything for victory” tone in her campaign is too simplistic. I would imagine that the “change” versus “experience” argument would work well in a second-grade classroom and not a national election. Chotiner cites Clinton’s use of Barack Obama’s childhood presidential ambitions found in a kindergarten paper as a sign of faulty tactics. We are still talking about it and Barack Obama hasn’t won the nomination yet so it is too early to say that these tactics are faulty.

I have a theory on why Hillary Clinton won’t win the nomination that has nothing to do with tactics and “meta-narratives.” Voters are beginning to realize that all of Hillary Clinton’s experiences going back to college have taken place on a parallel path to Bill Clinton’s rise to power. Hillary’s work as First Lady of Arkansas and First Lady of the United States could not have taken place without being married to Bill Clinton. Her victory in 2000 during a Senate election where she faced token competition from Rick Lazio demonstrates that her path to the presidency is one of least resistance. Her resume looks impressive but she has not done it on her own. It is difficult to believe that Bill Clinton’s influence had nothing to do with Hillary getting elected in New York considering the state’s heavily Democratic leanings.

I want to leave a post script here that is designed to head off unfair criticisms of my critique that would make me out to be a Paleolithic sexist. Hillary Clinton is an intelligent, well-spoken and driven woman who would have been successful even if she hadn’t married Bill Clinton. Her knowledge of policy issues and the law are impressive enough to make me consider her victorious in most debates (I have a policy wonk buried deep inside of me). The fact is that we are stuck with the reality we live in which involves her marriage to Bill Clinton and the unshakeable problem of separating personal, professional and political lives.

I decided to head into downtown Milwaukee this morning to see Senator Barack Obama at a rally in the Midwest Center (a large conference hall that accommodates thousands). I have spoken in this blog about my uncertainty on the Democratic candidates for president since John Edwards dropped out. This rally was exciting but it did nothing to alleviate my uncertainty.

The atmosphere was electrifying compared to some of the hum-drum political rallies I have been to in the past. I would compare the environment in the Midwest Center starting at 8:00am to the youth-driven excitement of Howard Dean rallies in 2004. There were plenty of Marquette and UW-Milwaukee students in the hall along with a sizable number of business people playing hookie on a Friday morning. Occasional chants of “Obama” and “Yes, we can” arose from the audience of thousands. I won’t play the role of crowd estimator since first-person accounts at political rallies are often unreliable.

I found the surrogates and local supporters for Barack Obama to be more exciting than the senator. Representative Gwen Moore was a fan favorite with her discussion of the “showdown” in Tuesday’s primary between the Democratic establishment and Barack Obama. This dichotomy is not entirely accurate but it was good political rhetoric. She described the establishment as wearing the “helmet of fear” while Barack Obama was wearing the “breastplate of hope.” Mayor Tom Barrett was also excellent in realizing the potential enthusiasm of the crowd.

My problem with the event is my problem with most campaign events. I was surrounded by earnest Democratic supporters and newcomers to the political environment who were spouting a lot of the talking points put out by the Obama camp. I don’t mind if someone doesn’t have the time to read platforms and study up on things constantly; I do mind when ignorant people speak about “change” without backing it up with some tangible plan. I hope that the young high school and college students at the event can look past the rhetoric to make up their own minds.

I am holding off on endorsing anyone because I don’t feel I have a lot of choices. I am fairly certain I will vote for Barack Obama but I haven’t been convinced yet that he is the right choice. The only reason I can state my vote with any certainty is that the competition is weak. Hillary Clinton brings the rancor and battle wounds of the 1990s, John McCain is not moderate enough for me to consider and Mike Huckabee and Ron Paul are non-factors. In the proceeding days, I hope my research and consideration will make me feel comfortable with voting for Barack Obama.

The CNN Democratic debate at the Kodak Theatre last night demonstrated the switch that the major parties have made during the primary season. The tone of the Democrats only two weeks ago was vitriolic especially during the CNN debate at Myrtle Beach. While Wolf Blitzer tried to set a competitive tone by saying that the only rule was that “there are no rules” (he said it, I swear), Senators Obama and Clinton seem to be setting the tone for the post-primary season.

I think that the two candidates began to realize that they have similar platforms, something that pundits have been saying in recent days. It is true that Obama and Clinton have some differences on getting troops out of Iraq, the details of health care reform as well as the specifics of immigration reform. I think the bile of the South Carolina primary coupled with the exit of John Edwards brought both candidates together. The debate was peppered with expressions of camaraderie, good feeling and agreement in a way that seemed like a discussion at a national convention rather than a true political debate.

The friendliness of the Democratic debates was welcome though it leaves me with little to criticize beyond Wolf Blitzer’s poor moderation. I also disliked the choice of celebrities highlighted in the audience. I realize that Rob Reiner is a significant figure in California politics but I don’t need to see Stevie Wonder, Seth Green or Diane Keaton as I listen to the candidates. The imagery of celebrities and big wigs invited to the debate should be discouraged even if it represents the nature of national politics.

I would like to take a moment to state that I won’t be endorsing a candidate until later in the primary season. I am waiting to read platforms and other information on third party candidates as well as see how the major party primaries shake out. My prior endorsement of John Edwards does not connect me to any candidate the former senator supports so stay tuned.

I have to admire the enthusiasm of political activists in the Democratic Party as we approach the 2008 election. The appearance of choice in the Democratic primaries as well as an impending end to eight miserable years under George W. Bush has brought out activists from the wood work. I am undecided on my state’s primary (Wisconsin votes on February 19th) though I will likely throw my vote to John Edwards. The reason why I would go with Edwards even as his campaign is running third in every state is that I need to look at myself in the mirror after the 19th.

Barack Obama’s campaign is extraordinary not because he is an African-American; it is remarkable due to the excitement he has drawn in vague platitudes. I like Barack Obama as an interview subject because he seems to get that typical politicians look wooden in different environments. My problem is that I cannot possibly vote for someone who speaks about hope, change and a new day without much detail. I am going to head off angry emails from Obama supporters by stating that I have read his platform. I am still not convinced that hope can get the job done in changing the structure of power.

Hillary Clinton falls into the DLC-run section of the Democratic Party that I dislike immensely. The two-party system necessitates that each party represent a distinct portion of the political spectrum in its platform. I have a feeling that if Clinton and her Senate cohorts got a hold of a majority of delegate they would eliminate progressive reforms in favor of triangulated policies to appease both sides without pleasing anyone.

I won’t go too far into why I am voting for Edwards except to say that I would rather vote for a losing candidate with the right ideas instead of a winning candidate with faulty ideas and lofty language. A recent story in The Nation highlights the exceptional growth of the Democratic grassroots since Howard Dean became head of the DNC. I think that the Democratic Party needs to appeal to these grassroots which cross into the moderate and liberal portions of the political spectrum.

My greatest hope for this election is that we will see a brokered convention where John Edwards has a few hundred delegates to parlay into a more progressive platform. This hope turns into fear when I realize that all of this will be done in a backroom instead of the convention floor because no one has seen this type of convention in decades. Democratic delegates need to realize that once the first ballot fails to confirm a candidate they can float to other candidates as they please. It is time for the grassroots to use this unique opportunity to assert a return of progressivism to America.

The Republicans muddied their primary waters last weekend with a Vegas victory for Mitt Romney and a Southern rise for John McCain. The Democratic Party has an equally difficult process in choosing a candidate for the 2008 elections which seems to be a Democratic year. While the Republicans have the problem of multiple candidates who have regional difficulties, the Democrats are torn between the cold pragmatism of experience and the quick-burning light of change.

In recent days, Senators Clinton and Obama have alternated between barb trading and uneasy friendship in various public meetings. The tone of this evening’s debate in Myrtle Beach leaned more heavily to the former especially concerning the pasts of both candidates. Obama pointed out Clinton’s role as a “corporate lawyer” on the Wal-Mart board in Arkansas while Clinton spent an abundant amount of time pointing out Obama’s “Present” votes in the Illinois legislature. John Edwards seemed to be more relaxed than the other two which is a certainty achieved through a 4% showing in the Nevada caucuses.

I am not sure what the impact of an individual debate can have on a race considering the full-press coverage on stump speeches by CNN, MSNBC and C-SPAN. If the South Carolina debates told us anything about the Democratic field, it is that it will extend well beyond Super Tuesday. I can envision a John McCain-Mitt Romney fight after Super Tuesday in addition to the Barack Obama-Hillary Clinton battle that was raging on stage. In both parties, candidates like Mike Huckabee and John Edwards will stay in for awhile to assert their influence. Huckabee can deliver an interesting group of voters to McCain or Romney while Edwards can parlay his delegates for a role in the next administration.

CNN has not learned from past debates on the importance of decorum. The temptation to let politicians loose is strong since the public wants answers from these candidates. The problem is that Clinton, Obama and Edwards don’t know their own limits. A politician is like a door-to-door salesman; one foot in the door can lead to an hour of talking. Wolf Blitzer said at the beginning that some of the answers may be less than the time allotted which seemed to get a smirk from all three candidates. We all know that a no-holds barred debate is going to take place no matter what; CNN should at least pretend to practice limits so that the public can criticize the candidates instead of the media for run-on arguments.