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.

The Eighth Congressional District in Wisconsin was one of the targeted races during the 2006 midterm elections. The seat was opened when Representative Mark Green ran for governor in the same year and lost. Dr. Steve Kagen, a millionaire allergist from the Fox Valley, defeated Republican candidate and former State Assembly Speaker John Gard by a narrow margin. The narrow margin of victory for Kagen means that Republicans will push to regain the seat in the 2008 election.

John Gard is running once again for the seat which represents Green Bay and portions of the Fox Valley. This area has expanded rapidly over the last few years as the Fox Valley becomes an important business corridor in the state. I lived in Green Bay from birth through college graduation and know that the area is inherently conservative. Kagen and other Democrats who have run in the area lean toward the middle to gather up the votes of Democrats and disgruntled Republicans. This moderation is beneficial as part of a party sweep through local, state and federal bodies. The problem with being a moderate Republican or Democrat in a tight race is taking advantage of the top of the ticket.

Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton and DNC Chairman Howard Dean can speak about appealing to voters outside of the party all they want. Voters who chose Democrats in 2006 may vote for the party’s presidential candidate but turn against lower office holders. Gard has a number of factors on his side in 2008: money from a desperate party, maverick voters in every part of the Badger State and the virtue of not having a vote in Congress the last two years. Kagen has been less than impressive as a rookie representative and the Congressional Democrats may be overconfident in their assessment of the fall races. I think that the race will come down to a few hundred votes and Gard will emerge the victor.

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 read through an entry from last week on the Columbia Journalism Review website that highlights a point I made last week about the power of the presidency. The presidential candidates promise all manner of vague changes to the federal government but they bypass the problem of passing legislation through Congress. Columbia Journalism Review had an article about the generalizations made by the presidential candidates on local environmental issues during the course of their campaigning.

I suggest that every voter who thinks that candidates like Obama, Clinton and McCain can bring change should read this article. Curtis Brainard outlines local media efforts to draw out responses to environmental issues at a local level from national candidates. Each newspaper started out with good intentions but ended with “round-up�? stories and concessions that the candidates had no specific plans for ecological areas like Chesapeake Bay and the Everglades. While Brainard concludes that a mixture of factors contribute to candidate ambivalence about local environmental issues, I think that the main issue falls in the separation of responsibilities within our government.

The president is the leader of our military forces first and a cog in the checks-and-balances machine; everything else after that is gravy according to the Constitution. There is no need for presidential candidates to lay out individual strategies for each state because that would be a massive overreach for the executive office. The ultimate responsibility for environmental problems lies with governors, state legislatures and members of the U.S. Congress. It is ridiculous to ask presidential candidates to get specific on a local watershed when we should be asking for specifics on conservation and clean fuel programs with a national scope. Journalists and voters need to demand detailed policies from the right people. I wouldn’t be impressed if a candidate like John McCain had a specific plan for the Fox River Valley in Wisconsin; I would be annoyed that he wasn’t thinking about issues within his purview.

I wrote last week about my experience on the partisan side of politics so I thought it would be good to show that I am a non-partisan observer at heart. I spent my entire day immersed in the Wisconsin primary starting with my work at the polls in Franklin, Wisconsin and ending with some result collection in Pewaukee which is a suburb 25 minutes outside of downtown Milwaukee. These experiences offer an interesting view of the electoral process from the inside out.

Wisconsin has relaxed rules on balloting, registration and identification at the polls. I know that some electors in Franklin were surprised that they did not need to show an ID card to check-in at the polls. You can use any identifying document with your current address to register at the polls. These lax rules may give the impression that our polling place was messy, chaotic and unruly. The hard work of people like Sue, Bill, Kurt and Bob helped keep Ken Windl Park humming along efficiently. I left at 5:00pm and we had nearly a third of our electors through the polls with the busiest three hours ahead.

My work as a precinct reporter for Edison Media Research involved traveling out to Pewaukee to pick up optical scan results for both party primaries. This polling place was less-used than the Franklin station but the election inspectors were great at dealing with a late rush of traffic before 8:00pm closing. I had some interesting conversations with voters as the polls were closing about matters more sophisticated than who we voted for. My experience at the polls today was positive from start to finish and I am heartened that my fellow Wisconsinites are willing to take up the responsibilities of democracy just as readily as they accept its fruits.

I was nerding it up on Saturday night by working on a project while watching the coverage of the caucuses and primaries. I heard some of the most ridiculous analysis of caucuses in places like Washington and Kansas as well as the all-important primary in Louisiana. People like Campbell Brown and Wolf Blitzer were making Senator Obama’s victories in Washington, Louisiana and Nebraska sound like a general election sweep. These primaries aren’t important in the grand scheme of things because they involve such a small number of people yet the media is helping perpetuate the idea that these victories are important in the long run.

I know CNN, MSNBC, Fox News and others need to fill time with something during their 24 hours of programming. The problem comes when voices of reason like Roland Martin on CNN and Pat Buchanan on MSNBC are drowned out by professional political junkies who only care about the story instead of the result. Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton would make fine presidents but they wouldn’t make massive changes during the presidency. John McCain is an American hero but his first term would be marred by disagreements with a Democratic Congress upset with another Republican term in the Oval Office. These primaries reveal that our nation is caught up in a hype that will never be matched by results.

Every hour of primary coverage should begin with a disclaimer stating that any comments made about the presidency do not represent facts or common sense. President Obama or President McCain would need to get through the thicket of 435 House members and 100 Senators with their own aspirations. I think that the media needs to spend more time covering these races because they are more important in the long run than the presidential race. Democrats need to reach the 61-seat mark in the Senate to thwart efforts by Republicans to block legislation. A larger majority in the House would provide momentum for a more progressive agenda. Senator McCain would need a miracle to get anything done in his first term as president since it is unlikely that the House will turn Republican.

The presidential candidates can promise all they want but the reality is that they will need additional seats in the House and Senate to fulfill their campaign promises. We all need to cool down about the pageantry surrounding the presidency to deal with hard facts. We can listen to speeches about “change,�? “experience,�? and “straight talk�? all we want but Congress holds the keys to America’s future. I hope we all learn about our congressional races as well as our state legislative races to shape the face of governance in the 21st century.

I watched CNN all last night to watch the coverage of the Super Tuesday primaries even after California was called for Hillary Clinton and John McCain. It seemed that the hype around John McCain and the feeling among Democrats that Senator Clinton and Barack Obama would be suitable as the nominee seemed to prevail. Analysts like Gloria Borger, John King and Bill Bennett were satisfied with the analysis that John McCain was on his way to the nomination and the Democrats were girding for a long primary season.

In the hours of coverage that spanned early Tuesday morning through Wednesday evening, I did not hear one reference to the potential for third party candidates. Michael Bloomberg has been working under the radar to get a 50-state petition drive started. Ralph Nader begins yet another campaign for the presidency with an exploratory committee and a desire to raise $10 million. Ron Paul has shown strength among a dedicated but small group of Republicans, Democrats and independents who want a radical change at the top.

I reject wholeheartedly the prevailing wisdom that a McCain/Obama or McCain/Clinton showdown would preclude a candidacy by a strong independent candidate. John McCain is despised by conservatives, Barack Obama will need to reckon with the factors of experience and detailed plans during a regular campaign and Hillary Clinton has the negatives that Republican operatives dream about. If the Republicans choose McCain and the Democratic campaign continues through summer, I see Michael Bloomberg emerging as a viable option because he does not have the taint of a major party.

I also see votes siphoned from several other candidates though at a smaller scale than Bloomberg. A Ralph Nader candidacy can influence voting results in places like Minnesota, Oregon and other places where independents disdain the two-party system. Former Representative Cynthia McKinney is running for the Green Party candidacy and could take some votes from Obama or Clinton in liberal areas. Ron Paul may say that there is a 99% chance that he won’t run as an independent but I could see him bolt the party that he has lambasted throughout the primary season. All of these candidacies need to be accounted for in any analysis of the proceeding months of political talk.

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.

The tightening primary schedule may not seem to be the best approach to picking a candidate but it has created an interesting dynamic in the 2008 election. The five days between Iowa and New Hampshire forced candidates to skip town in Iowa as soon as possible. New Hampshire is getting months of stump speeches, surrogates and commercials in less than a week. Candidates are forced to sling mud in every direction in order to hit at least one target before the primary on Tuesday. I do not envy the good people of the Granite State the task of putting up with this deluge.

Two debates classified under the euphemism “forum�? were held over the weekend. The ABC/WMUR debate featured six Republicans and four Democrats offering their platforms on a national scale. As much as I would like to think that this first forum was for New Hampshire residents, the fact that it was broadcast on ABC speaks to the nationalization of the primary process. I thought that the focus on the axes of conflict including the Obama/Clinton and Huckabee/Romney parings was an interesting byproduct of the contracted primary schedule. The problem was that Charles Gibson was a poor moderator and the questions asked were less than probative.

The less important debate was held on Fox News on Sunday evening. The Fox News forum was held under a shadow of illegitimacy as the New Hampshire Republican Party pulled support due to the censorship of Ron Paul and Duncan Hunter who were not invited. Chris Wallace (I can’t believe I am saying this) was a better moderator than Charles Gibson in getting to the conflicts among the candidates. Mitt Romney mixed the desperation of Hillary Clinton with his attempt at creating a Romney brand name (apparently, he worked in the private sector AND the Olympics). Mike Huckabee bore his teeth more than usual to attack back at Romney while John McCain and Rudy Giuliani seemed content to answer questions without much pressure.

These debates were perfect for political junkies like me who had a tough time getting to sleep this weekend. I don’t think that New Hampshire voters saw a lot to change their minds on Tuesday. I think that the only surprises will at the second and third positions behind primary winners Barack Obama and John McCain. John Edwards and Hillary Clinton will finish closer than the latest polls indicate with Edwards pulling within three to five points in the third spot. Huckabee has recently leaped over Rudy Giuliani with 14% of support in the latest poll. I think that number will go up as Romney’s numbers go down on Tuesday.

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.