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.