Media Criticism

I was prepared to leave the post-mortem of the Iowa caucus to my last entry but I have to address one last issue that arose this morning. The New York Times had an entry in its Caucus blog that discussed a connection between caucus-goers for Bill Richardson and the Barack Obama campaign. The blogger spoke about a potential Richardson-Obama pack in individual caucuses to throw Richardson’s votes to Obama after the first ballot as if it were Watergate 2008. I know that these reporters and bloggers are exhausted from all the time they spend in Iowa but this entry seems to show a lack of knowledge about caucuses.

It is time for caucus school, boys and girls. In the Iowa Democratic caucuses, a candidate needs 15% of the vote in an individual caucus to remain viable. There were three candidates in 95% of the caucuses who had a reasonable shot at viability: Obama, Hillary Clinton and John Edwards. Individuals who were caucusing for Joe Biden, Bill Richardson or Mike Gravel were propositioned by voters of the top three candidates to join their cause. The end result was a lot of horse trading and conversations by non-viable voters who became important to the top three candidates in a close race early in the evening.

There was no conspiracy and an agreement between Richardson and Obama for something like a vice-presidential position would be ridiculous. Every second- and third-tier candidate had a contingency plan for non-viability in caucuses. I have read several places about the Kucinich campaign instructing organizers to promote switches to Barack Obama after the first ballot. The New York Times was making a mountain out of a mole hill regarding any sort of agreement because they failed to note the realities of the Iowa caucus. There are only so many candidates who will get a piece of the viability pie. Whatever one can say about the usefulness of the caucus system, the beauty of a caucus is the ability of voters to convince their colleagues on the fringe to join a singular cause. In the end, the Times was either guilty of not doing their homework or writing a poorly constructed blog entry about a non-issue.

The Columbia Journalism Review has devoted a few Internet articles on hypothetical questions to Senator Barack Obama and former governor Mike Huckabee. These questions are designed to show the weak spots in the primary debates and media coverage while addressing legitimate concerns about each candidate’s statements. I recently read through the questions by CJR for Barack Obama and felt that the questions were ones that needed to be asked to all candidates, not just the front runners.

The first question deals with Obama changing his mind on withdrawal from Iraq. The importance of Iraq cannot be overstated though most voters in Iowa and New Hampshire consider it a given, moving onto other issues. Every candidate except Dennis Kucinich has some inconsistency when it comes to the Iraq War. Why pinpoint Obama aside from the fact that he is surging at the right time? I think every debate should feature questions for candidates from the top tier to the fringe about questionable statements on Iraq, Iran and other foreign policy issues?

There are procedural questions in CJR’s hypothetical press conference with Barack Obama that have probably been asked in Iowa without getting much coverage. The third question deals with arms limitations and the problems of getting a two-thirds majority in the Senate to approve an international treaty. The seventh question deals with voter fraud which is a state issue outside of the purview of the President of the United States. These questions should not be directed at Obama, Huckabee or any of the candidates without being asked to ALL of the candidates. A procedural question on state voter IDs could really help us figure out who knows the Constitution and who assumes that federal power extends to all parts of American life.

I admire CJR for placing their venerable name on this line of questioning. The problem comes when reporters ask questions of this nature and get an answer without much juice. Reporters are concerned about getting material that can stand out to producers who have 24 hours to fill but need to make each piece of news bite-sized for a public unaccustomed to complex answers. If Americans are concerned about getting the full story on each candidate, a review of YouTube and other video websites for unedited film of campaign stops can help circumvent the echo chamber that is the American mainstream media.

Barack Obama and John Edwards have engaged in a debate through proxies, press releases and speeches in front of dozens at events in Iowa over 527 advertising. Edwards’ former campaign manager works for a 527 organization that supports union interests and plans on spending hundreds of thousands on advertising for Edwards in Iowa. Obama is claiming that Edwards’ weak attempt at stopping the advertising on his behalf seems to be a weakness in leadership. Edwards has countered that he does not officially support the messages of the 527 ads on his behalf.

I doubt that Barack Obama or any other presidential candidate is above reproach when it comes to 527 advertising. I also think that Edwards could have preempted these criticisms with a phone call to his former campaign manager as soon as the news got out. Neither side has a right to complain, however, as every candidate (save people like Dennis Kucinich and Ron Paul) seems to support the system that allows 527 ads to exist. No candidate who supports maintaining the status quo and keeping competitive ideas down through complex legislation should complain that 527 ads are fair to one candidate.

The frustrating part of the debate over 527 ads is that they work. I know voters will say that they are sick of politicians bickering but they are influenced by these ads in the same way that they are influenced by consumer advertising. 527 organizations are led by people connected to presidential and Congressional candidates in some substantial way which means that they are familiar with the lexicon of negativity needed to run a successful advertisement. While the Internet allows everyone to see an ad designed for Iowa and New Hampshire, there is an impermanence to these 527 ads that is perfect for candidates in the 21st century. The volume of advertisements on the Web means that a 527 ad criticizing Hillary Clinton will be supplanted within a day by a counterattack with an equal measure of vitriol.

I hate speaking about 527 ads because they are symbolic of fundamental problems with corporate influence, media and American politics in one fell swoop. A campaign advertising law that closed 527 rules permanently and forced candidates to apply their name to all TV, print, radio and Internet ads would ensure transparency in our political process. The 527 issue gets down to the fundamental question of money as free speech but candidates should preempt every 527 ad to meet the free speech standard and save their behinds.

CNN’s latest primary debate with the Democratic candidates minus Mike Gravel demonstrates the network’s inability to function in the real world of politics. The location of the debate may have been disorienting as Wolf Blitzer stated that this was the first presidential debate in the state of Nevada. I know the bright lights and glitz of Las Vegas probably caught the eye of Blitzer and his rag tag group of talking heads but CNN’s “best political team in news� needs to shore up a few major weaknesses.

Blitzer got blown up at several points by the candidates as he tried to play the role of harried debate moderator. Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton and John Edwards were penned into a melee by questions from the insufferable Campbell Scott and John Roberts, the hair-do of all hair-dos. Obama was able to push Blitzer aside while going after Clinton while Senator Biden and Dennis Kucinich tried to squeeze in some time in front of the CNN cameras. I am convinced that leaving aside the moderator for this debate would have been fine because the boos and cheers of the crowd would have done a better job than Wolf.

I think most media observers would agree that the combination of moderated questions and audience questions (which only look like they are spontaneous) needed to be tinkered. The final question to Hillary Clinton was sexist but it was also an indication of what is wrong with this election. Dennis Kucinich was asked a question about UFOs and Mike Gravel a question about a failed business deal unrelated to his political career in past debates. A woman that was clearly a Bill Richardson supporter got in a birthday wish and a softball question regarding contractors in Iraq. Much like the YouTube debate in the summer, CNN’s efforts at democratic involvement in the debate process needs significant tweaking.

As a side note, I would like to thank CNN for putting on the least objective post-debate show ever. Space alien James Carville joined Anderson Cooper to speak to the success of Hillary Clinton. I had the sound off but I could tell that Carville was singing the praises of Senator Clinton due to his relationship with the Clinton family. I say all of this having already made my decision on a candidate but I know that many Americans aren’t even close to making a decision. CNN is doing a poor service to undecided primary voters by offering up bad questions, disorganized responses and skewed spin room analysis.

I announced my endorsement of Senator John Edwards a few posts back but I want to speak today about Governor Bill Richardson. Richardson is the type of candidate that looks fantastic on paper, a shoo-in for the nomination: former energy secretary, governor of a “purple� state, experience in foreign policy and a platform that is purely Democratic. As Mother Jones reports today, the problem with Richardson’s campaign is that politics is not simply about ideas.

I admit that when I hear Richardson speak in debates, I cringe at the wonkiness of his language. I love his perspectives on the environment, education and college loans. I also like the idea of someone from the West giving a presidential bid a chance. The problem is that Governor Richardson is an ideas candidate not a candidate that evokes happiness, anger and bile at the opposition party in each of his speeches. Richardson is deeply ensconced in Democratic politics and his connections to Bill Clinton and other moderates do not help him in an election where Hillary Clinton, Christopher Dodd and Joe Biden are fighting for votes.

His campaign cannot define itself as an outsider campaign (Edwards, Kucinich), a reform campaign within reason (Obama) or a desire to use new ideas bandied about in Beltway meeting rooms (Biden, Dodd). Governor Richardson projects an idea instead of a charismatic template that voters can apply to other candidates. I would never instruct someone as experienced in politics as Bill Richardson to try to be more charismatic; Bob Dole tried to be more charismatic in 1996 and he got creamed. I would say that Richardson needs to be aggressive in using new media and highlighting the fact that voters can get a Hillary Clinton-plus platform without the baggage.

While the Democrats and Republicans focus their attention on Iowa and New Hampshire, both national parties are contending with issues of scheduling. The Democratic Party seems to be victimizing itself at every turn by adhering to the ridiculous legal mandates within Iowa and New Hampshire state law dictating their place in the primary process. DNC Chairman Howard Dean and others have indicated that Florida and other states will not have any delegates at the national convention next summer if they hold their primary ahead of the party’s schedule. Candidates are signing pledges not to campaign in Florida, Michigan and other states in order to provide legitimacy to their primary efforts.

Howard Dean may think that he is establishing discipline but the DNC and the RNC aren’t legal bodies. Political parties are organizational tools established at the will of the people to help define (or divide, depending on your perspective) political thought. If states want to pass laws that move their primaries to Christmas, the Democrats need to recognize the legal reality. I am not a fan of Iowa and New Hampshire acting as the initial political determinants for the presidential campaign but their legislatures are autonomous from the ideas of political parties.

The Democrats will suffer greatly if they persist with the policy of keeping delegates of violating states out of the convention. Democratic activists feel that 2008 is a slam dunk but the party has screwed up in the past (just look at the 2004 convention when they played patty cake with President Bush). An article in Salon today points out the frustration of activists in Florida which may lead them to sit out the presidential primaries or choose a Republican candidate in November 2008. Dean’s image as the grassroots hero, cultivated in 2004 and in his 50 state campaign of 2006, is greatly damaged by his bureaucratic overreaching.

We have too many problems in America to allow the national party committees to derail the political process. Future problems with Iran, Social Security, health care and dozens of other issues mean that the Democrats and Republicans need to allow the primary process to happen organically. If voters dislike the process, they can speak with their state legislators and vote out legislators that support an acceleration of state primaries in the next election. The DNC and RNC need to begin planning their conventions and laminating passes and allow politics to play out amongst the states.

An article in the fall 2007 edition of Dissent, a public affairs magazine, compared and contrasted several books by Democratic candidates to determine their usefulness in determining character. The article by David Greenberg looks at books by Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton, John Edwards and Bill Richardson to cut through the mixture of modesty and self aggrandizing to find the truth. The conclusion in Greenberg’s article seems to be that the problem of ghost writing and help from aides makes it difficult to make heads or tails of a candidate’s claims to political success.

The lone exception to the problem that Greenfield calls “committee writing� is Bill Richardson. His book Between Worlds along with some background research provide a picture of a candidate that is in love with name dropping, conventions and the pomp and circumstance of major party politics. This would seem to be objectionable to anyone that is tired of politics as usual but the author seems to have a grudging admiration for Richardson’s candor. I could understand this search for a silver lining by Greenberg after reading thousands of pages by people that have spent their lives winnowing speech down to its basic elements.

I have read a few biographies of prominent figures in the past including Colin Powell’s 1996 biography that prompted a draft movement for Powell within the Republican Party. In my experience, I have found few silver linings like David Greenberg has within the pages of Dissent. The one difference between my reading of Powell’s biography and my reading of current candidate books is that there are myriad online and print resources available to check on a politician’s claims.

As a writer for CensorSpace, I came out quickly to endorse former Senator John Edwards in his bid for the Democratic nomination in 2008. This endorsement means very little and I don’t think that the blogosphere, whether liberal or conservative, makes nearly the difference that it thinks it does on politics. I feel it necessary to disclose this fact as I have vacillated on the available candidates in both parties in previous posts on Media Critiques.

I am coming out today to endorse wholeheartedly the candidacy of John Edwards for the Democratic nomination. There are many reasons I have chosen Edwards over other candidates not the least of which is that Edwards is an underdog with a detailed populist program facing the two-headed monster of Hillary and Barack. John Edwards has been releasing specific policies since the beginning of his campaign including a national health care plan and plan to deal with poverty that include ways to pay for these programs. His most recent policy has put my support over the top for Edwards over my next choice, “someone else� followed by “third party.�

Mr. Edwards is now railing against drug advertisements that help drive up the price of pharmaceuticals in the United States. You know those commercials for penis medication and sleeping pills? They cost money in prime time and that money goes back to the public in the form of higher retail prices. One of the former senator’s first acts as president would be to promote a two year moratorium on consumer advertising for new drugs. He would also provide the FDA the power to stop advertisements that are misleading or based on questionable evidence. It is no wonder that Edwards has a devoted, if small, following in states like Iowa and South Carolina.

I have been advocating in various publications for the regulation of drug advertisements since my days as an ultra-liberal graduate student in Wisconsin. Drug companies complain about the high price of research but they don’t seem to mind putting money into lobbying, advertising and hectoring doctors to peddle their drugs. Mr. Edwards has come out for things that I believe in like investment in education, health insurance and a sound foreign policy in recent months. The smear machine within the Republican Party, the Democratic Leadership Conference and the media has focused on expensive haircuts. It is time to get past media obfuscation to find the truth.

This will be the last time I write about Mr. Edwards in this blog until the primaries unless there is an incredibly compelling reason to do so. I will not be a shill for Edwards (beyond this entry, at least) nor will I attack other candidates on his behalf. I simply want to say that corporate media can be reformed for the better with John Edwards in the Oval Office. If that is a sentiment that is incorrect, then I will no doubt look back upon this post in upcoming months to cringe at my narrow mindedness. For now, it is time for change in the way drug companies, lobbyists and major political parties do business.

For everyone waiting for Senator Barack Obama to lose some of the sheen he has gained as the new, sexy candidate and alternative to Hillary Clinton, the following story seems to do the trick. The Obama campaign has been experiencing public relations issues in planning a concert in South Carolina because he has a controversial singer named Donnie McClurkin in the program. McClurkin, according to the New York Times, has a mixed record when dealing with homosexuality. The Chicago Tribune states McClurkin’s account of being raped as a child and recovering from homosexuality in adulthood. Members of the Human Rights Campaign say that McClurkin is nothing but a gay baiting entertainer.

Obama attempted to ease concerns by bringing in an openly gay minister for pre-concert song and prayer. I think that the fundamental problem with this whole story is that there is any note of religiosity involved in a campaign concert. I understand that South Carolina is a key state, that Democrats need to act like they are religious and that gospel musicians are the perfect salve for stump speeches in the South. If Obama really wants to be the new hope for the Democratic Party and America, he needs to cancel the concert and plan a series of speeches on today’s issues.

I have never been totally convinced about Barack Obama as a presidential candidate. He lacks the specific plan of John Edwards, the experience of people like Joseph Biden and the political sophistication of Hillary Clinton. I think that Obama is like all the other Democratic candidates in his vacillation on issues of foreign and domestic policy. He sounds a note of optimism in a field of pessimistic candidates but does that make him competent?

As we approach the primary season and the quick run to the general election, I am becoming extremely frustrated with both the Democrats and the Republicans. Obama’s gaffe in South Carolina only proves that his new hope for America includes the same garbage as the hope brought by Bush, Clinton, Bush, Reagan, Carter…you get the idea. We are still grappling with the problem of religion and state as well as the fundamental freedoms of people to pursue happiness. Barack Obama only looks good when compared to other candidates like party hack John McCain, flip floppers Hillary Clinton and Mitt Romney and fringe candidates like Dennis Kucinich and Ron Paul.

Unless a new candidate like Al Gore or Michael Bloomberg emerges in the next month or so, I will be looking to third parties for potential candidates. I am tired of politics as usual in America and the self-serving charge by both major parties that a third party vote is a waste. If Barack Obama and others want to keep disillusioned voters like me in the fold, they need to address critical issues the same way throughout the country. Obama shouldn’t preach tolerance in Iowa and act like a hate monger in South Carolina.

The Des Moines Register published a poll on Sunday that showed Senator Hillary Clinton gaining a lead on previous Iowa favorite John Edwards and the “it� candidate, Senator Barack Obama. The Clinton campaign and the mainstream media have pushed this recent success by Clinton as a sign that she is emerging as the most viable candidate for the Democrats. My question about this poll and other polls is whether they are a product or a generator of media hype. In other words, does the Des Moines Register poll result from Clinton’s hype in the national press or will the poll generate greater press for Clinton and feed conspiracy theories among independents?

I look back to the Iowa Republican Party’s straw poll as an example of how starved for news the mainstream media is these days. The poll was bought by Mitt Romney and not attended by Giuliani, McCain and Fred Thompson. The hype around Romney’s success and the dark horse success of Governor Mike Huckabee were grasped onto by major newspapers and TV networks after months of exhausting rhetoric. The answer to my original question based on the Iowa straw poll and subsequent straw polls in other states is that the poll is reflective of media attention rather than grassroots support.

Clinton and Romney share a similar problem in a general election. Both candidates would try to point out flip-flopping and political opportunism while failing to address their own flip-flopping and opportunism in the past. The Iowa caucuses are still three months away and there are too many independents in states like Iowa and New Hampshire to claim that Senator Clinton has struck a blow against her opponents. I implore the national press and the voters of early primary states to consider their choices carefully and avoid these polls like the plague.