Media Criticism

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.

My disdain for Senator Harry Reid was confirmed once again when I heard that the Senate passed legislation to widen President Bush’s surveillance program. I am proud to say that one of my senators (Russ Feingold) spoke out vociferously against this legislation due to civil rights concerns. It is too bad that other Democrats were uncomfortable with opposing the president over something as fundamental as the privacy of our conversations.

I want to say that I have no problem with eavesdropping and surveillance when there is overwhelming evidence (i.e. a combination of a criminal history with activities that would suggest illegal activity in the future) that makes these activities necessary for public safety. I have a problem with blanket surveillance over foreign phone calls, emails and other communications. I also have a problem with a nameless, faceless intelligence court acting in the shadows to approve these activities after phone taps are used.

Harry Reid and his Republican friends in Democratic clothing can put lipstick on this pig as much as they want. They will never appeal to people like me who are skeptical about the Democrats as an agent of change after the big clunker put up following the 2006 election. I am pretty sure we are still in Iraq, I don’t think that Congress is working harder and it seems that earmarks and pork barrel spending are still keywords for access to power in Washington.

We are no closer to a progressive nation than we were before 2006 except that we have another group of leaders who failed to achieve what they promised. I am voting in primaries at the local, state and national level for progressive candidates of ANY party who have little connection with the hacks we currently have in power. I hope that the secret police don’t take offense at this post but I don’t recognize their authority. The only people who have legitimate power are those who expose their ideas (and their weaknesses) to the light of public scrutiny.

The nerdy reference in this post’s title exposes my childhood obsession with comic books as well as my current obsession with politics. The term “super delegate� is this year’s “swift-boating� and we will hear all about them in upcoming months. I am sure that the progenitors of the super delegate idea did not anticipate that these party members would have as much of a role as they will have this year.

There has been a lot made in recent days about the people who form the select class of super delegates. It is clear that governors, senators and representatives are members of this prestigious group. Former presidents, party leaders and high-level activists also get a hand in selecting the next candidate. There is also College Democrat chapter vice-presidents and private university students who became super delegates before they could vote.

If you are reading this blog, you probably saw the story about the 21-year old Marquette University student who has been getting pressure from Bill Clinton, John Kerry and Chelsea Clinton about supporting their candidates. Jason Rae became the youngest super delegate in the Democratic Party at the age of 17 which means his first presidential vote will come this year. The Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel also highlights University of Wisconsin-Madison student Awais Khaleel who is a fellow super delegate.

I hope readers can track down some information on how to become a super delegate outside of holding public office. I tried my best for a few minutes to plug in search terms on Google but couldn’t get clear answers (except for the enlightening responses on Yahoo! Answers). People like Jason Rae and Awais Khaleel are burgeoning party leaders but they should not be super delegates. There are few occasions where I want to leave young voters out of a political process but the super delegate system seems to be a reward for public service rather than a reflection of demographic diversity in a state. If the Democratic Party wants to tear itself apart with this façade of democracy, they should leave the kids behind.

I think the whole super delegate idea is a throwback to an older style of politics. The original idea for Democratic super delegates goes back to 1968 and it was implemented following the 1980 election. The purpose of the super delegates was to create responsiveness by party leaders to the votes of people in their states. It seems that this system is out of whack since super delegates in Obama states are still supporting Clinton and vice versa. The Democratic Party needs to eliminate this process and create a national-state coordination of delegate distribution that assures that every delegate is pledged to a candidate based on votes instead of the whims of party leaders.

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.

Before I provide my thoughts on tonight’s MSNBC Democratic debate, I need to point out the injustice of keeping Representative Kucinich out of the event. NBC invited Kucinich ahead of the New Hampshire primary only to rescind the invitation based on an arbitrary change in the network’s rules. I know Kucinich is a pipe dream for diehard liberals but his presence would not have hurt this debate.

The reason why Kucinich would not have harmed the discourse of the MSNBC event was that the three attendees were acting cordial. I know that most Americans yearn for civil discourse that is devoid of the rancor of two-party politics. The three candidates joked, called each other by their first names and seemed to adhere to the wishes of party operatives to save bile for the Republicans. I like the tone though it got in the way of the real purpose of the program which was to DEBATE THE ISSUES.

I have criticized every media outlet who has hosted a debate in this election cycle. NPR got a favorable review for the Democratic forum though failed to get a Republican forum going. MSNBC joins the ranks of Fox News, CNN and ABC in hosting a farce of public debate. The first portion of the debate proved why the mainstream media is incapable of acting as a lens to American society. Just as the candidates are getting past contentious comments about race, Brian Williams and Tim Russert reopen the wounds with questions about the race issue. Racial disparity in education, the military and other aspects of American life are important topics. A comment about who was responsible for civil rights legislation (both MLK and LBJ were responsible, by the way) has led to a firestorm that MSNBC felt the need to fan.

The three candidates did nothing to stand out from one another this evening. Clinton and Obama did a good job of playing the part of uncomfortable politicians trying to maintain a temporary alliance. Edwards stuck to his guns though seemed to be losing some steam as his candidacy seemed an afterthought to the debate moderators. I look forward to the Nevada caucuses for a number of reasons including the relative diversity of the state compared to snow-white Iowa and New Hampshire.

Voters who had not read articles, watched TV ads or heard anything about the candidates for president in 2008 may have thought that Thursday’s Democratic debate was a reunion of old friends. Analysts on CNN spoke about Hillary Clinton’s subtle dig at the hope of Obama and the demands for change by Edwards in a vain attempt at finding a moment of contention. The strict format set forth by the venerable Iowan newspaper seemed to take the bite out of the candidates in their last effort to convince caucus goers of their qualifications.

There were a few great moments in the debate. John Edwards and Hillary Clinton shared a laugh over a verbal gaffe by Edwards. Obama came to the defense of Joe Biden regarding Biden’s past gaffes dealing with racial issues. Bill Richardson made a joke about a New Year’s Resolution to lose weight while Christopher Dodd asked voters to caucus the right way on January 3rd. It is impossible to say that any of these moments elevated the discussion or helped any reasonable voter in Iowa make a final decision.

CNN said that their small group of undecided Democratic voters overwhelmingly chose John Edwards as the winner of the debate. I think the debate is illegitimate in the sense that Dennis Kucinich and Mike Gravel were not given an opportunity to speak while Alan Keyes was able to set up shop in Wednesday’s Republican debate. There were few knockout punches thrown and Democrats seemed to follow Republicans in trying to paint a positive picture while mail pieces and radio ads allow opponents to cut each other up. I am excited to see if the hype around Obama and Huckabee manifest in a victory on January 3rd. Here are three projections for the Iowa caucuses:

1. The nature of the caucuses, namely the viability clause, will ensure that Hillary Clinton won’t win in Iowa. Obama will get the nod from voters with Edwards getting second because few people have Clinton as their second choice.
2. I think that Romney will narrowly win in Iowa though look for a strong second place finish from Mike Huckabee. Huckabee will get some momentum heading into South Carolina (forget New Hampshire) where he will likely win.
3. Ron Paul’s fundraising success will have an effect in New Hampshire but not in Iowa because his small core of supporters in Iowa will be more willing to sit out the vote than team with another campaign to achieve viability in the caucuses.

I am clearly behind the ball in responding to Wednesday’s CNN/YouTube debate with the Republican presidential candidates. I spent Thursday and Friday taking care of other topics that arose and I felt that a few full viewings of the debates would clear my head. I watched the debate twice in its entirety and feel that this endeavor may have taken a few years off my life. I am just hoping those are the bad years at the end of my life.

CNN got hundreds of YouTube questions and could have chosen a diverse range of topics to cover. The good people at CNN chose to pick questions asking how many guns the candidates own and addressing specific questions to candidates (I am thinking of the Mike Huckabee question about the death penalty). The most egregious error by CNN was focusing almost a third of the time on questions of immigration. My problem is not over the debate on immigration as the issue of guest workers and border security are worthwhile questions. I object to the Tancredo effort on each of the candidates and the tone of the conversation.

My problem with the YouTube debates for both parties is that technology is thought to equal full democracy. In the end, however, a major media outlet like CNN was able to reign in full democracy with its usually cock-eyed filter. Anderson Cooper spoke at the top of the debate about which YouTube videos would NOT be featured in the debate. CNN is guilty of vetting questions in the same way that candidates are guilty of packing their public events with supporters. Accessible democracy through technology should not mean an effort at purposeful mediocrity.

The winners and losers in the CNN/YouTube debate are pretty clear. Media darling Mike Huckabee was thoughtful in his answers in the midst of chaos and CNN got the ratings it so clearly wanted from this debacle. The losers were the American public and supposed frontrunners Rudy Giuliani Mitt Romney. I cannot believe I spent this long thinking about this debate but it is part of my job as a media critic.

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.