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.

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.