Media Criticism

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.

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.

I do not plan on spending my rebate check on shoes, jeans, groceries or any other consumable items that the government would like. I have to go back to the word “rebate�? and point out the fact that we will have to pay off this “rebate�? in successive years with interest. This cash advance on the national credit card won’t help the economy because there are millions of people like me who have at least $600 of debt to pay down.

As a freelance writer, I have a significant amount of self-employment tax to pay as my annual income increases. I will pay down this tax debt with my rebate check which means the government is giving me a gift card for the Internal Revenue Service. I am sure the representatives and senators I contacted about this ridiculous stimulus package won’t be happy to know that their check is coming back to pay off my tax liability.

I have considered making a large payment on my credit card or student loans with the rebate check. The winner in my personal rebate battle is investors who have put their money in the lender that allowed me to get an education. These investors and lenders would win anyway because they have such large financial resources that they will be able to deal with the brunt of a recession.

The third option I have for the rebate check that will come well into our looming recession is sending it back to the government. I can scroll a long diatribe against wasteful spending across the front and return to sender. I am sure quite a few people will think this act is a sign of insanity but I think it is a great idea if you want to send a personal message.

The whole point of this post is that the economic stimulus package is akin to throwing a rock at an oncoming tank. I know Congress is eager to spend our money without reconciling the books so I think we should see something tangible from this spending. We should see improved highways and infrastructure to decrease the consequences of natural disasters. An investment in science and math education that makes the next generation of students ready to deal with 21st century problems would help our country in the long run. A portion of this money could be spent on alternative fuel investment, business incubators and other programs to revolutionize our economy.

I think we need to commit to one of two paths: investment in the challenges of the next generation or responsible spending. This choice seems to get lost in the mainstream media which assumes that our government will always be out of control. I don’t even want to get into the international issues of America’s debt in this post, I have already gone on too long.

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.

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.

It is time to look at John McCain as the Republican nominee, no offense to Mike Huckabee and his valiant efforts on Super Tuesday. McCain was able to beat Mitt Romney and Huckabee in a diverse range of states from California to New Hampshire with the help of Republican voters. The fact that some independents voted for him is overblown considering the largesse of independents voting on the Democratic side of the ballot. Mitt Romney’s victories in places like Montana and Alaska along with Huckabee’s victories in Dixie don’t give the Republicans anything they don’t already have.

It is time for conservative pundits and commentators to realize that they have no value in helping the Republican Party. I will extend this beyond talking heads of the right to people on television who are dogmatic in their political beliefs. Ann Coulter saying that she would stump for Clinton instead of voting for McCain and Rush Limbaugh bloviating on about the destruction of the Republican Party show the ridiculous vacuum these “analysts�? live within.

Imagine Ann Coulter running for Senate in whatever state she was spawned. It is difficult, isn’t it? Coulter emerging from the conservative coterie to debate a living, breathing Democrat who is experienced in dealing logically with alternative view points is unlikely in this lifetime. I cannot imagine Ann Coulter trying to glad-hand people for donations. I won’t even get into Rush Limbaugh’s limited potential as a candidate given his inability to stay on ESPN after comments about Donovan McNabb. These well-fed commentators know nothing of the challenges of the real world. They only know challenges to their narrow and previously untouched viewpoints that are as ridiculous as the platform of Lyndon Larouche.

The purpose of parties (and their advocates) is to represent a viewpoint unrepresented in the current political dialogue. The purpose of political leaders is to bring together multiple parties when possible to fix problems in an ad hoc manner. The reality is that political leaders ride parties until the realities of national politics make kowtowing unnecessary. Americans say they are sick of the two-party system but they are really sick of dogmatic party leaders. I think that the nominee for the Democrats and John McCain need to demonstrate that they are political leaders and not party leaders to amass any semblance of a mandate after January 2009.

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.

My level of skepticism for the mainstream media as well as the assertion of “truth�? by any group with a clear agenda has grown since my college days. I started out with a skepticism of the larger American system (read: capitalism) and espoused the desire for an egalitarian society in various letters to the editor. I have since narrowed my focus significantly to specific aspects of American politics and culture including cable news networks, the two-party system and IRS. That last one is a bit more about the expenses of being a freelance writer rather than a hatred of taxes.

I have been reading a lot lately about the 9/11 Truth movement including an article in the libertarian magazine Reason as well as a well-written piece by Jennifer Abel in the Hartford Advocate. I have mixed feelings on the allegations that the federal government with the help of a corporate cabal aided in the destruction of the Twin Towers on 9/11. My skepticism toward the federal government based on historical analysis (Watergate and the results of the Nye Committee regarding WWI funding) is healthy but I find it difficult to believe that such an elaborate plot could be undertaken by the incompetent Bush Administration.

I will say that the scientific evidence against the third tower falling suddenly hours after the collision does ring true in my mind. I am not sure I can reconcile my belief in scientific evidence, my dislike of the Bush Administration’s handling of 9/11 and my hope that a betrayal of that magnitude with any certainty. While I am not an adherent to the various beliefs of the 9/11 Truth movement (including some disturbing anti-religious language) I think that further investigation is needed to help put 9/11 conspiracies to rest. I am confident that a more reasonable expectation lies in the rubble rather than the complex scheme cooked up by believes in the 9/11 Truth movement.

I know I have heard plenty of conservative commentators claim that there is little in the Muslim faith that is moderate. The same conservatives who pick apart the Bible to strike back against homosexuals pick through the Koran to find incidents of violence or militancy. These nay-sayers of religious moderation were part of a majority of press observers who did not notice the letter called “A Common Word Between Us and You�? written by 138 Muslim luminaries to people of the Christian faith.

This letter may have been a part of the growing pile of letters, decrees and other documents that do not get covered by the press if not for the efforts of Rita Ferrone. Ferrone wrote an article about the letter in Commonweal which touts itself as a “review of religion, politics and culture�? written by lay Catholics. It is interesting that Ferrone would bring “A Common Word�? out of obscurity in the recent issue of Commonweal given Pope Benedict XVI’s history of commentary on Islam. I applaud her efforts to highlight the efforts of the letter which include a connection between Christianity, Islam and Judaism as like-minded religions.

I think that a majority of people do not fall anywhere near the radicalism that is attributed to Islam or the Christian faithful. I have never thought as a Catholic that I should go anywhere near an abortion clinic much less attack vulnerable women making a difficult decision. I know there is a 27-year old Muslim writer elsewhere in the world who does not dream about sacrificing his body in a marketplace in a final act for his faith. We both want to write about and live in a better world where the few religious nuts that use eternity, faith and God or Allah as a bludgeon do not hold sway. How can a single letter addressed to Christians including the pope do anything but help out the world? We just need to push media outlets to cover moderation instead of the sizzle of extremism.